YHVH Qadash
The God who Sanctifies you.
—Lev. 21
I was born with a disfigured face. During my gestation, I was sharing a very small apartment with a very clingy roommate. Seriously, the guy wouldn't ever leave me alone for a second: always touching me and wondering what I was doing... But hey, the rent was cheap. After a while though, the living conditions were no longer that great. I had been living with this roommate for 8 months in total now, and he had yet to take a shower or bathe or anything. He just sat there, day in & day out. Thank goodness for him that his rent was covered. Nonetheless, our tiny living space had become extremely cramped, so much so that the only way we could even fit in this place was to lie side by side in one big mess of limbs and torsos. It ended up with my roommate pressing his butt cheeks against the left side of my face, while I pushed him against the wall so that he could barely breathe. The authorities caught word of our living conditions & decided that our living quarters were no longer suitable for continued co-habitation. We got evicted.
Upset by this seemingly spontaneous turn of events, I went crying to my mother... And then so did my roommate seven minutes later. The long and short of the story is that during my cramped stay with this roommate, the intense pressure of his body against my face caused some of my facial nerves to become crushed, leaving the lower left quadrant of my mouth irreversibly paralysed.
I guess things could have been worse. I mean, if the doctors & my parents hadn't decided to evict my brother & I a month early from the womb, we would have continued to have grown & the pressure against our bodies would have increased, potentially having caused greater paralysis in my face & possibly killing my brother. As it stands now, though, both of us are living rather healthy lives with only my triangular mouth to point towards any dire predicaments surrounding our gestation.
As I mentioned in my last post, I'm reading through Leviticus. Having just passed through Lev. 21, I have—for the first time—discovered that, were I a Levite of Aaronic lineage, I would be refused entry into the
My first reaction to this was, "Well, that's gay. Just because of a physical condition placed upon me through no action of my own, I would be denied the opportunity to serve the Lord as a full-fledged priest. How fair is that?" Then, I finished the chapter and consented to the Law.
You see, the reason that I wouldn't be allowed to serve as a full priest, were I an Aaronic Levite, was because of God's holiness. The Levitical laws were drawn up in order to emphasise God's holiness and his purity, which in turn would emphasise our depravity and sinfulness. The importance of having a serving priesthood without blemish who stood before the Lord as the intercessor between the nation of
In order to commune with God, one must be pure, spotless and 100% holy—no exceptions: God doesn't compromise. He will not accept anything tainted or second rate. God demands the very best, and He deserves nothing less. To have a priest or a sacrifice that was in some way disfigured or misshapen would undercut the importance and the reality of God's utter holiness and perfection. The notion of "it's good enough" would quickly take root, having been given precedent from the presence of those things less than perfect being fit for holy ordinance, and following from humanity's natural tendency to be as lazy as we can possibly be. Soon "holiness" would no longer embody those things set apart by God for God's purposes. Soon, "holiness" would degrade to become equivalent with "mundane" and "menial." The conception of a holy & righteous God who is perfect above all things would no longer be meaningful, and reverence for the Creator of all things would fade just as the tendril-like whisps of smoke do into the vast expanse of surrounding air.
No. Holiness must be reflected by an un-yielding adherence to the highest standard: God's ordained standard (hooray for Jesus). If I were a Levitical Jew of the line of Aaron, I would not allow myself to complain about my exclusion from ministering before the Lord as my brothers would freely be able to do. Instead, I think that I would find myself worshipping God all the more, being constantly reminded of His holiness & perfection.
Crossing the Line
Now I warn you, my readership, what I am going to say next will be anything but popular amongst the beliefs of today's society, which may very well include your own. Nonetheless, I regard what I am about to say as truth, and I feel obligated to say it because I feel it is important for truth to be told.
The natural extension of my thoughts from Leviticus 21, and the importance God places on the perfect state of his priests & sacrifices—which includes no broken bones, no scabs, cuts or bruises—brings my attention to a popular trend in Christian circles that started about 20 years ago. That trend is women serving in primary leadership roles within the Church. It unsettles me to think that what appears to be the larger portion of today's Church can so easily throw away direct instruction from the Bible regarding women's position within the sphere of Christian ministry and the Church. I am just as convinced that the passages in I Cor. 11 & I Tim. 2 are to be ignored because they are "cultural edicts" as I am convinced that Eve being created from Adam should be ignored because of its own paternalistic overtones. God is very clear concerning the office of females within the ministerial order, as the Bible is rife with both edicts and examples throughout the Old and New Testaments. To name a few: Adam was created first, and Eve as his helper; the Lord made covenants with Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, not Sarah, Rebekah, Leah or Rachel; the Mosaic covenant decreed that no female would ever serve as a priest—even if she were the only living descendent of Aaron; Miriam, the prophetess sister of Moses & Aaron, was given no office within the newly-freed nation of Israel & when she complained about Moses' special treatment, God struck her with leprosy; Deborah, the only female judge over Israel, held office after Ehud, sharing the position with both Shagmar & Barak; none of David's daughters (or other female descendants) were ever anointed as rulers over Israel; Jesus was a man; there were no females appointed among the Twelve disciples or apostles; the first seven deacons (or bishops, depending on how you want to entitle them) appointed by the Twelve were all male.
Does this mean that women are by no means allowed to serve within the church? Not at all! Are they able to be influential and effective ministers? By all means, though they must serve in separate, complimentary roles. Just as Eve was a helper to Adam, Sarah pivotal in God's promise to Abraham (as were Rebekah, Leah and Rachel), Deborah key to the team of judges after Ehud, Mary essential for Jesus' birth, Martha and the Marys supportive of and actively involved in Christ's ministry, so are women of today's Church essential in and beneficial to the Christian ministry. It just means that they should be serving in different roles.
Is it unfair that women should not be allowed to be serving as primary leaders & teachers within the Church today? Perhaps, depending on how you evaluate fairness. It is, though, equally unfair for the Levitical Jew of Aaron's descent to be forbidden from priestly service because of a defect upon his body. Both the woman and the Aaronic descendant may be highly educated and gifted in areas that would greatly benefit the ministry, yet nonetheless, they both would still be disqualified from serving in those leadership positions.
God is holy. It is God who sanctifies us. He proclaims that the Levite with a disfigurement is unfit for priestly service, even if the blemish was wholly out of the Levite's power. Why? Because God says so. God also says that He doesn't want women to be holding positions of primary leadership or teaching. Why? Because He says so. Should we complain about this so-called injustice? Should we try to rationalise the bending or breaking of Biblical decrees to fit our selfish ambitions or our perceptions of what we think is right, in light of our current cultural values? Should we profane God's holiness by stepping into the temple, knowing full well that He has disqualified us for the office we are trying to fill? Or, on the other hand, should we recognise that God's ways are holy, perfect & higher than any cultural philosophy? And, should we humbly accept the position that God has ordained for us, worshipping Him all the more through the constant reminder of our disqualification pointing to His utter, unwavering holiness?
As for me & my household, we will worship the Lord. He is YHWH Qadash—The Lord who Sanctifies—the One who makes things holy.
23 comments:
Hi jackinthebox;
I have no problem with Priscilla's ministry in Acts 18, for nowhere in the chapter (or the books of Acts) does it ever mention that Priscilla taught anyone alone. Rather, the chapter very clearly states that both Priscilla & Aquila "explained to him the way of God more accurately," denoting that it was a team initiative. Now, given the structure of the church (and is we want to throw cultural context into the ring, we could), it would be safe to conclude that Priscilla acted as a support to Aquila instead of taking the primary role of instruction.
Now, as for Junias, only conjecture supports the femininity of the name. Looking in the Greek, the name is conjugated as Ἰουνίαν, which is an accusative form of a singular noun. Unfortunately in this case, the name ends with an iota before the alpha, making the typical stem termination for feminine nouns (an eta) against Greek grammar rules. Thus, the name will necessarily end up as being inconclusive regarding gender. Had the Bible mentioned this person more than once, we might be able to shed some actual light into this region. Nonetheless, even if Junias was a female, (s)he is noted alongside Andronicus & the Greek grammar in the sentence verifies that there was at least one male in this grouping of two. Again, were there a female, it would be safe to conclude that she held a supportive—not a primary—role in the minstry. For more info about Junias, feel free to hop over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junias.
An excellent point, LE. Very interesting.
Regarding the ban on disfigured priests, I think this also illustrates the concept of original sin - that we are unholy by birth and through no fault of our own (although we are also unholy by practice) and in this sense the wrath of God is undeserved and unjust, by all conventional definitions of these words.
One might argue that Christ changed all this. By his death the veil was torn and cripples, gentiles and women have access to the Holy Place. For this reason I don't see OT examples of special status for Jews, Levites or men as very significant. But if the NT does in fact say that women must not be leaders in the church (and this is a matter of much debate, which many claim to understand without having seriously examined both sides of the issue) then it is something we must submit to as Christians, or else admit that we do not hold the Bible as our highest authority.
I think you've make the issue very clear. Like a Levite with glasses, there is nothing inherent in a woman that makes her unsuited for spiritual or church leadership. Thus Paul's command (if it is to be taken at face value and applied trans-culturally) cannot be explained in practical terms, but only as a symbol. We are not required to understand why women should not lead (because practically speaking, there probably isn't a good reason) but only to obey.
However, if the exclusion of women from leadership is a symbol, those who practice it must own up to what it symbolizes: that God is still a god of inequality. That He does not wish for some people to use their (God-given) gifts. That women are to be helpers to men and never the other way around. And (by implication) that his choosing of one nation to receive special treatment was never just a concession to a barbaric ancient world. In short, they must admit that God is not the egalitarian we wish He was.
I respect those who can believe this about God and still worship Him, so long as they practice His commandments consistently (I'm not sure I know any who do) and lovingly. But I cannot believe it.
Excellent comment Jacob, though I think I have to correct a few points.
It would be impossible for a Christian-faith-oriented individual not to believe in a God who shows selectivity. Christianity inherently is a theology of a certain special treatment: God will only accept individuals who admit their insufficiency and grab hold of Christ's propitiation, in turn condemning all else to eternal damnation. Beyond that, the God who does not show favouritism will accept all into His kingdom. Nonetheless, this says nothing about their eventual job descriptions...
I am confident that God would want people to use their God-given gifts. However, this still must be done in an orderly way, and the most excellent way is outlined in Scripture (I refer to I. Cor. 13, if that wasn't caught). The relationship that Christ has with the church has been symbolised very clearly as a marriage relationship in the New Testament. By extension—since the Church is referred to as the Bride of Christ, and He the bridegroom—we must be able to appreciate that Christ is the head of the Church, just as the man is the head of the woman in Christian marriage (nb. Eph. 5:22-ff). Since God likes to reflect His ordanances in somewhat of a ripple- or echo-like pattern, we see that the pattern for marriage is a reflection of the relationship Christ has was the Church. What am I getting at? This: in both the relationship between Christ & Church and husband & wife, the Bible clearly states that the bride/wife is under the headship of the bridegroom/man. The Bible asks women to submit to men as to the Lord. It's that simple. Does that mean women cannot use their gifts? By no means. Does it mean that they are called to use their gifts under the headship of men, so as to reflect the actions of the Church under the headship of Christ? Absolutely.
Does that mean that God isn't the egalitarian that "we" wish he was? Yes. The NT makes no suggestion of gender-neutrality when verses aren't taken out of context. The co-dependence (note: not to be mistaken as interchangability) of men & women falls right in Paul's discourse on Church practises immediately before his discussion on proper observance of communion, the co-dependence of the spiritual gifts & the progression of Church activity necessarily motivated through love. To say that selective roles for gender is vague in I Cor. 11 is as justifiable as saying that selective roles for those with certain spiritual gifts (or certain organs/parts of a body) is vague in I Cor. 12. As a matter of fact, both chapters are very explicit in their instruction on Church practises.
And what ties it all together? Men lording authority over women? Nope. Women usurping authority over men? Nope. Men and women being functionally equivalent in the Christian Church? Not a chance. What necessarily ties it all together is the progression of the Church through the motivation of love. Just like a healthy marriage. Got no love, and you got problems, baby.
Just post about women in leadership and "bang" you've got comments, maybe I should try it...
Anyway, I'm more interested in the idea of an Egalitarian God. Egalitarianism seems to me to be a pretty modern sentiment ("All men are created equal...") more than Biblical. Most societies throughout time have taken it for granted that some people are worth "more".. think of the caste system, feudal system, etc.
God offers egalitarian salvation (unless you are a Calvinist) but even then, different people get different "chances"... the Apostle Paul gets a personal visit from God to get him to repent. Most of us do not.
I read an interesting book on God
s preferential treatment of Israel. It said that Isreal was basically a test case, which proved conclusively that, even with great incentive (protection, millitary victory, financial benefit, straightforward rules and really cool miracles) people are unable to obey God. Hence the "new plan" of salvation...
Anyway, I totally understand the philosophical/moral problems associated with believeing in an "unfair" God. I'm not quite sure what I think on the concept, except to say that, in this world at least, inequality is hardly limited to women's roles in the church.
LE: I might quibble about just who God accepts, but that's another topic. However, I think there's a big difference between acceptance on the basis of action or choice, and acceptance on the basis of some "accident" of birth. The former has the potential to be fair and just; the latter cannot be. (And I don't think anyone would argue that God ought to treat all people the same regardless of their actions. This too would be unjust.)
I'm certainly in favor of gifts being used in an orderly way, but the purpose of the order should be to see that gifts are used more effectively, not to restrict them. I'm not against the headship of men within spousal relationships, and I think this is a far more accurate symbol of Christ and the church than, say, keeping women silent in meetings, as well as being less restrictive and hurtful, when practiced well.
To apply this symbolic headship to men and women more generally and severely (as Paul seems to do) by forbidding women from speaking in church or holding leadership roles seems unnecessarily restrictive, less symbolically accurate, and excessive. (Note that wives are not forbidden to encourage or challenge their husbands, nor to have authority over other males in the family.) Forbidding women from using their gifts to their full potential will inevitably be detrimental to the church. It's a high cost for a symbol.
Regarding 1 Cor 11, I don't think anyone feels the command to wear head coverings is vague, but there is certainly a question of whether it is relevant in our culture. It's not surprising that a practice common in the first century has lost much of its cultural significance; the question is whether we are obligated to symbolize headship (whatever it really means) exactly as the early church did, or if there may be a better way.
I seem to be in the minority on this, but I see no reason to interpret the head covering command as applying to church services only, and I can't help but wonder if self-proclaimed literalists interpret the command in this way for the sake of convenience. More seriously, many who forbid women from church leadership are quite willing to send women as missionaries to teach and lead men. It seems that they are simply unwilling to accept the full cost of Paul's command - the idea of denying the "unreached" a chance of salvation (from their perspective) for the sake of a symbol is a hard pill to swallow.
Jens: you're right that egalitarianism is a very modern concept. Nonetheless it is one that many of us hold very dear. The problem for Christians is that we have a supposedly inspired text that for the most part comes across as very backwards in this respect.
Our choices, as I see them, are
1. To deny that God, as represented in the Bible, is unjust. (As we understand justice. Btw, I'd love to hear from anyone who feels they can make a case for this position)
2. To accept that God does not conform to our modern, egalitarian concept of justice.
3. To deny that the Bible accurately represents God.
You're right that the world is an unfair place, in which some have a better shot at becoming Christians than others. Thus we must conclude either that God condemns many to eternal torment unjustly, or than becoming a Christian is not the be-all and end-all with regard to salvation.
The idea of Israel as a "test case" won't sit well with most people, especially those who believe in an omniscient God and those who don't want to see Jesus' sacrifice as a back-up plan. But for those who can stomach it, I think the Bible would make a lot of sense as the story of God's guess-and-check struggle to perfect his creation.
It's very true that the problem of injustice and inequality in our world goes far beyond women in church. This is probably the biggest problem with theism, and the Bible certainly doesn't help matters.
It humours me, (but only slightly) that there hasn't been a female comment on this post.
I suppose I'll break the cycle with that...
And, it's nice to see you guys carry this topic out from a biblical prospective... interesting.
Hi Jacob!
We could really open all sorts of discussion topics right now that many in the Church would rather pretend didn't exist, especially surrounding the "just who God accepts" and why He accepts them notion(s). Furthermore, we would have to discuss whether or not your/our understanding of justice resonates with God's. That is in itself a whole nightmare of debate waiting to happen.
For the sake of brevity, I will have to say that I take exception to your understanding of justice. Furthermore, I can see no reason as to why a divinely-ordered system would restrict the application of individuals' gifts, unless one were to pervert that said system in service of selfish ambition.
Again Jacob, you miss my point in this whole blog posting: it isn't that women are forbidden from leadership roles, it is that they should not hold office as primary authorities. Never, I would propose, does the Bible say that women are forbidden to be leaders. I would dare even to call such talk rubbish. What I would adhere to, however, is that they shouldn't act as the ultimate head of any ministry wherein men participate. No one is (or rather, "should be") forbidding women from using their gifts at all. Such a response to my post is reactionary and it deserves some temperance.
As for head coverings, I do not think that cultural relevancy has any validity on this topic. A premise such as "cultural relevancy" being used as a motivator to (or not to) adhere to a Biblical decree is absurd. The implications of allowing culture dictate how we respond to the Bible instead of allowing the Bible dictate how we respond to itself are huge. It would necessarily follow, then, that acts of "sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like" would be as acceptable in God's eyes as "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control." No. Cultural relativism I cannot accept. Under no terms will I accept is as a reason why one would (or should) overlook a Biblical decree.
My resolution on head coverings? The same as the Bible's: "long hair is given to her as a covering ... If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head." She has hair, and hair is a head covering. If (and yes, the Bible actually says this) it's disgraceful for a woman to have a shaved head where she is living, then she should have a head covering (and yes, that could just be hair). If it isn't disgraceful, then whatever. It's no big deal, really.
In summary, I would ask the question: "Who are we to say that, just because the Bible makes an unpopular decree for our lives, the Word of God should be ignored?"
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? ... The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
—Jn 6:53-54, 60-61, 63b, 66
Interesting. I believe I agree with you. But I'm not sure what you mean about ignoring the fact that Eve came out of Adam. I think that seems like a pretty important part. Even though it can become problematic if people want to be paternalistic about it...
anyhow, good post.
What you mean is we'd have to discuss whether my understanding of justice resonates with the Bible's, but yes, that would be quite a debate.
I understand that you're not suggesting women be banned from any leadership whatsoever, but only from "teaching or having authority" over men. And whether this means they are allowed to be a leader (elder? deacon? Sunday school coordinator?) over men so long as they're not the "ultimate head" is of course debatable. But wherever the line is drawn, I find it difficult to accept that the most important teaching or leadership roles in the church must go to men even when there are far more qualified or gifted women available. Of course such women may be permitted to serve in some lesser capacity, but the body will suffer when important roles are not filled by the most capable members.
Even more damaging, I think, is the command that women not preach or even speak in church. Not only does this seem unfair, however we try to justify it, but it robs us of half the thought and insight available to us. But perhaps you interpret this command differently.
If you think I'm advocating cultural relativism, you've missed my point. I am not proposing we ignore anything in the Bible that offends our current cultural norms, but that we recognize that the books of the Bible were written by and to people living in a very different culture, about the issues they encountered in that culture. Paul et al. are writing to specific churches and individuals in response to specific problems, not laying down a code of conduct for all the church, for all time. (Otherwise, one letter would suffice.) This certainly doesn't make the letters irrelevant, but it means that we can't simply drag-and-drop church practices from NT times to today. Unchanging Biblical principles will be applied in different ways from culture to culture. Modesty will always be important, but braided hair is no longer immodest. Brotherly love should always be shown, but maybe not with brotherly kisses. Headship still holds, but long haired men are no longer disgraceful. Biblical principles are eternal, however unpopular they may be, but the applications of these principles are not.
Your understanding of 1 Cor 11 surprises me. To "if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut" you add "where she is living" (if I understand you). I really don't think this fits. The question seems to be rhetorical, and Paul goes on to say that "the very nature of things" tells us women should have long hair, that a head covering is "a sign of authority" (headship), that she should wear it "because of the angels" (whatever that means), and that the churches of God have no other practice. I don't see how we can get around head coverings, except by saying that Paul's way of applying the principle of headship is no longer suited to our culture.
Hi Jacob;
I think, for the most part, that we're going to have to agree to disagree. My understanding of the Bible compels me to believe that we can drag-and-drop church practises right from the NT due to my beliefs that God's inspirational Spirit authored it to do just that—regardless of its initial specificity. And as for the head covering issue, I do think that simply an unshaved head acts as a head-covering for women in the church, due to my understanding of I Cor. 11. I think that such a reading does fit & that it fits very well, especially seeing that the discourse Paul dictates further on in the passage says just that ("hair is given to her as a covering," I Cor. 11:15).
Anyways, this comment thread has gone a bit off topic: cultural relativism or cultural specificity or however such discounting principles be dubbed, is a discussion for another blog post.... or a good coffee conversation ;)
Hi Michigan;
What I was saying in my post about ignoring the fact that Eve came from Adam as a helper was that it should in fact not be ignored. I was trying to say that passages like I Cor. 11 & I Tim. 2, which are unsettling in light of our present culture, shouldn't be ignored as the Word of God just because they don't jive very nicely with what the world around us thinks.
I hope that that helps!
Perhaps we've got a bit of track, but a debate about women's roles in the church is almost inevitably a debate about Biblical interpretation.
We shall probably have to agree to disagree. I don't have a problem with your interpretation itself - in fact, I admire the uncommon honesty of your position - but the way you presented it made it sound as if you think all opposing interpretations are dishonest. You said things like, "Should we try to rationalise the bending or breaking of Biblical decrees to fit our selfish ambitions or our perceptions of what we think is right, in light of our current cultural values? Should we profane God's holiness by stepping into the temple, knowing full well that He has disqualified us for the office we are trying to fill?" about those who disagree with you, and you seemed to mistake my position for cultural relativism, of the sort that must also permit "sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery", etc.
I'm sure there are some women-led Christians who are merely trying to avoid an uncomfortable restriction (and I'm sure there are some "Biblical" Christians who are just trying to justify their comfortable old patriarchy) but I hope you realize that yours is not the only position that can be held with honestly and respect for the Bible. If we can agree on that, I'm happy to disagree about the rest.
Jacob,
I do realise that my understanding may not "be the only position that can be held with honestly and respect for the Bible." However, that may not suffice. One individual's conecption of "respect" for the Bible may simply be "do not burn the Bible, and you show respect." That said individual may believe nothing within the book's covers, but may still claim to respect it. Furthermore, if one believes that God is punishing (or abusing) people for gender differences, then one is not showing reverence or respect to God, essentially saying that one knows better than God. There is a good scriptural verse for all of this. It goes something like this: "do not go beyond what is written" (I Cor. 6:4). For me, personally, respect for the Bible is insufficient: holy reverence is what is due to the Word of God. Not picking & choosing what to follow, while still respecting what we choose to respect, and ignoring what we choose to ignore.
PS. What is wrong with patriarchy? Biblically ordered patriarchy is what the Bible endorses. Patriarchy executed under selfish-ambition is abhorrent. Patriarchy in itself is just as evil and destructive as water or oxygen.
To re-respond to Jacob's post, I guess...
I feel I need to accept that God does not always correspond to my egalitarian sense of justice. Am I comfortable with that? Not really, but that's what my experiences tell me.
I also am starting to believe that to become a Christian (as generally defined) is not the be-all and end all of salvation. I DO belive that God accepts all with faith in Christ, but I am not so sure that a youthful "converstion experience' follwed by a life of Godlessness leads to salvation, or that someone who is not a believer in the conventional sense is necessarily dammned.
I don't remember exactly, but I think the author of the book I read said Isreal was more of a "test" to prove to MANKIND that we could not do it than to Himself. Salvation was the plan all along.
As to L.E's post on patriarchy, the fact that it is almost a universal human conditon leads me to belive that either:
a) men, being stronger and more agressive, take power by force
b) Patriarchy "evolved" as the most sucessful human condition
c) Patriarchy was instituted by God.
All of these may be true to some extend. If a) is the case, we might consider patriarchy immoral, but then how do we "overthrow it"? With education? To we enforce the new system with enough weaponry to make physical strength obselete? Is this a good idea...
(BTW I know I'm just rambling now)
LE: Yes, I meant "respect" in a narrower sense - something like what you call "holy reverence". There are a wide range of possible positions on the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible (as well as what those words mean). Within this spectrum, many reasonable and reverent positions may be held. A literal interpretation is not ipso facto the most reverent, and a culturally conscious interpretation does not necessarily have anything to do with picking, choosing, or ignoring. If you don't believe it is even possible for opposing views to be honest and/or reverent, we disagree about much more than I thought.
Again, many who disagree with you don't believe God punishes or abuses women, only that the Bible, by your reading, suggests that He does.
It seems to me that Paul's point in 1 Cor 4:6 seems to be that he ought not to be respected more than other men, nor made an authority on the level of the OT. Intriguingly, he quotes an extra-biblical proverb to express his view of scripture.
By the way, it seems to me that many NT writers' interpretations of OT texts were anything but straight-forward and literal. I really think if Matthew used some of his prooftexts in discussion with knowledgeable, "Biblical" modern Christians, he'd be laughed out of the room. I'm not saying Matthew is wrong or doesn't revere scripture; I'm saying points like this are worth considering when we choose our exegetical methods.
I didn't say anything against patriarchy, only "patriarchy executed under selfish-ambition". My point was that many who hold your position do so out of impure motives, just as many (but not all) who disagree are merely looking for an excuse to pick, choose, and ignore. Neither view can be discredited on the grounds that some abuse it.
Jens: Whether God, as you understand Him, conforms to your egalitarian sense of justice will depend largely on where you get your beliefs about God. I'd be interested hear what experiences have led you to this conclusion (but perhaps LE would prefer we refrain from further cluttering his comments). I think it's quite possible that we're mistaken to be so egalitarian, and God really does do things that would make us uncomfortable, or even disgust or horrify us. Some of us will be more troubled by this thought than others.
I agree with you about salvation, and I think this view is far more compatible with the Bible than some would have us believe.
I have several problems with the Israel-as-proof-of-human-inadequacy theory. For example:
a) 2000+ years of human suffering is a lot to prove a point.
b) One could argue that Israel had a lot going against them, and that under other (perhaps more modern) circumstances, they might have done much better
a) It seems that Adam and Eve are a far better proof.
d) It makes God sound pretty cynical, as if he's just waiting for them to screw up so he can say "I told you so" and then step in and save the day.
e) If the whole thing was doomed from the start, why all the divine anger and wrath? Why not cut the poor guys some slack?
Good point about patriarchy. I think a) and b) are certainly true, and maybe c) in some respect. As to overthrowing patriarchy, it seems like this has already happened to some extent. How much more we can or should change, or how it should be done, I'm not sure.
Jacob;
Thank you for your explanation. This makes me rest much easier. As for opposing views existing while both being perceived as honest & reverent, I do agree that this can happen.
I would hope that those who disagree with me wouldn't read into the punishment or abuse by God in my reading of the Bible: I cannot fathom God doing such things, and it strikes me as odd that others could, approaching the Biblical texts the same way I do. Perhaps a deeper read would improve the perspective? Especially considering the greater context of the Book itself.
I think that we can safely agree to disagree on this subject, though I wish we wouldn't have to.
I talked to LE and he told me to go ahead and reply to your post.
I believe that God is not egalitarian because of
a)The Bible. All throughout the Bible I find God choosing some (ie Paul) and not choosing, or even choosing against, others. Doctrines of Original Sin, Corporate Responsibility, Atonement, destruction of all people in sinful nations, etc are hardly egalitarian.
b)It seems God chooses to interact differenty with different people. Some people's prayers are regularly answered, some are not. I know some people with several VERY coincendental (or miraculous) answers to prayer, and others who are consistently disappointed. My Grandpa knew a guy known for his "healing prayers"... he was so effective he had to be very careful what he prayed for. I'm sure people's personalities and beliefs play into this, but I don't think it accounts for all discrepancies.
c) This world is not egalitarian. People are not created with equal abilities and opportunities. I know it's a fallen world but it does not seem to me God wants to bring equality. Good will for all, but equality? The Bible seems to say that even in the afterlive some will be given more than others.
As regards salvation, I would be interested in hearing from Jacob (or anyone else) why "my" view of salvation (see me other comment) is Biblical. I would like it to be...
Finally, I think I can accept a God who does not always correspond to my moral standards. IO judge other people's morals as wrong all the time, so why can't mine be?
LE: I'm glad we cleared that up. And perhaps a deeper reading of the Bible would alleviate my concerns. I would be glad if it did.
Jens: I agree that the Bible portrays God doing some very un-egalitarian (I would say unjust) things, particularly punishing individuals for the sins of their king or countrymen, and children for the sins of their fathers. For this reason (among others) I believe the Bible is not wholly accurate in its portrayal of God. But others are more willing to accept this understanding of God, or less willing to reject the infallibility of the Bible.
I accept that the world is not a fair or just place, and that God deals very differently with some people (sometimes on the basis of their merit; sometimes not). I do not have a good answer for why this is the case. For whatever reason, we seem to live in an imperfect (or "fallen") world. I cannot believe that these inequalities were God's original intention, and I hope that when all things are made new, such injustices will come to an end.
I also do not have a problem with God disagreeing with me on some moral issues - I don't agree with myself on some things from day to day. I'm happy to admit that I may be wrong about many particulars, but I have difficulty believing that my most fundamental feelings about what justice means are mistaken. (I don't mean that I'm not mistaken, just that I can't imagine being mistaken.) But some will disagree with my intuitions or my understanding of the Biblical God.
Salvation... I think there's far more Biblical evidence against the say-the-prayer-or-go-to-hell theory of salvation than there is in favor of the everything-turns-out-ok theory. I'd like to study this further before I go on record about what I think the Bible really says about salvation, but it does seem a lot less unified and straightforward than we'd like it to be. I intend to look into this and post on it in the near future.
Alright, so this is a very old post and I am a little late on the argument but I could not help but comment on some of what has been said.
First I must admit two things: I am a female, and I do not have the theological background as all you very smart men :)
So I have two main comments and I am then going to ignore the rest of your very heavy philosophical debate (not that it is not important, I just do not have the background to even go there).
1)I understand God made a covenant with man in the Old Testament. A covenant which decrees the position of woman in the church. However was that covenant not broken in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus?
2)Also pertaining to the new covenant made...I understand God in the Old Testament wanted perfect clean Holy people to be priests and so on but did that not change in the New Testament? All I remember in the NT is Jesus worshiping and eating with the poor and sick. At no time did he reject those that were not what priests in those times would call "holy and pure". In fact those were the people that were closest to him. After all the desciples had run away and rejected him at the cross, it was the prostitute left weeping at his feet. Therefore how can such different acts of God not give you pause to re-examine the doctrine.
I understand that woman and men are not the same. I also understand that we are given different gifts to work with. But I fear that upholding the assumption that women are not as "holy" as men only helps to re-inforce the harmful treatment of women. It seems a convenient way for those who already hold prejudices against women to justify their actions. (A side note: the rate of domestic violence is much much higher in christian circles then in the secular world).
I don't believe women who want equal rights in society are going against God. It is possible to be treated equally and yet differently. What most women are concerned about are the men who abuse these biblical teachings and assume that they then are superior to women.
Hi Kathryn;
I hope that I understand correctly how you're reading this discussion, for what I'm reading in your comment is that my post and the ensuing discussion has been centred around creating a holiness distinction between males and females solely based on sex. I hope that I have not inadvertently implied that this is the case.
Not as for point 1.) that you raise, it is true that the old Law is "done away with," due to the instatement of a covenant. However, the old Law is still something we are told to look at (n.b. Paul's discussion about this in the first half dozen chapters in Romans), for although this old covenant does not hold any power over us, it still points towards the necessary holiness of God and those things that can separate us from Him. That being said, the new covenant under which we as Christians do find ourselves clearly makes no distinction between gender, race, ethnicity, creed, etc. inasmuch as the freedom to come to Christ is available to all. This, I believe, does not end at the official "conversion" or whatever one may call it (perhaps, "coming to Christ"?); such a freedom to worship and approach the Lord of Lords extends throughout our Christian relationships. However, the distinction being made in my post was that--although all are equally loved and treated by God--there are still specific offices and ranges of ministry for individuals, based upon individuality.
Those given the Spiritual gift of prophecy should not assume that they will be as equally effective at speaking different languages as one gifted in tongues. Conversely, one who speaks in tongues must not necessarily assume that they can "fathom all mysteries and all knowledge." Eyes are excellent vessels for seeing, and it was for this purpose that they were created. Does this make the eye any less important than the ear, hand, tongue or elbow because it is limited in hearing, grasping, tasting or bending? Of course not. Just as the human body has many specialised parts that operate best when used according to their design, so the Body of Christ (ie, the Church) operates best when its members operate according to the Body's design.
You yourself seem to advocate this position of differential equality in your comment's last paragraph and it seems that the issue you raise there is that women are uncomfortable with being abused by the improper application of Christian order. I wholeheartedly agree. Furthermore, I would extend that statement to include all individuals on the planet. I'm just as sure that black people do not want to be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin by people who distort the scripture, applying the notion of the darkness of to being represented in human pigmentation. I also am pretty confident that the Lord doesn't want us to destroy all fat people because Ehud, the Hebrew judge, killed Eglon, king of Moab, in whom Ehud's sword disappeared among the fat. Nor do I think it's proper for women to be stored in baskets, which if you misapply the scriptural text in Zechariah 5, you might very well do.
So, before this comment turns into an essay... I agree with you that there are unscrupulous people in the world (and even in Christianity) who desire to distort truth and goodness in service of their own selfish ambitions and desires. Does this, though, mean God's design is what's at fault. I would like to think not. Are women less holy than men? By no means! Are men and women created differently, and therefore more suited to operate within different offices, to the glory of God? This I wholeheartedly believe.
I hope that this helps clear things up!
Post a Comment