Anyone willing to help me with this?

[Johan]

Good day everyone, long time since I have been on the Puritan Board.

I am again in involved in discussing the issue of the ordination of women in ecclesiastical offices with someone in our church. The basis of this person's position in favor of the ordination of women is an article with the title "Christian Attitude and the Human Dignity of Women". I attach the article.

I want to give a response to this article but there are some issues that I would like to first discuss with someone else. I already got a response on the article from someone else which is very useful but it does not address all the questions I have. For example, the author claims to use a deductive method from within a classical reformed perspective to "prove" that there is no prohibition on the ordination of women. I have learned over the years that it simply does not have any effect to give some kind of blunt response. In this case, since the author claims to use a deductive method, I would like to point out that his logic is incorrect and that his conclusion is therefore wrong.

My request here is for someone who is willing to help me "analyzing" the article and especially to see if the the author's argument really is correct or to point out the flaws. Hope there is someone who is willing to help.

Regards

Johan

 

[Tim]

Hi Johan, remember our meeting in Cape Town? Hope you are doing well.

I'm not the appropriate person to help with your response, but I do wish you the strengthening of the Lord as you labour for His glory.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Johan,

I don't have a lot of time but I did read the intro and the "socio-religious problem". This author is quick to deny the scriptural structure of family and the roles of men and women.

Here is a quote:

What does this have to do with Christianity? Banda explains:
In Africa there has been an explosion of newer Christian churches
whose membership comprises mainly women. It is sad but true to
say that the translation and interpretation of religious texts have
often resulted in women being told that it is their duty to submit
themselves to their husbands or partners.x

Many fundamentalist traditions enable husbands to take advantage of the
beliefs that women are inherently inferior and that they should be subordinate
to men in all spheres of life. They know very well that their wives will
persevere and will be hesitant to leave them and that women will not attempt
to break out of the situation because of its religious sanctity. Many historical
factors shaped the contemporary culture of gender insensitivity that still
prevails in modern societies, such as the remnants of patriarchal cultures, old
fashioned economic systems, ideologies of male superiority, ethnic customs
and abusive political policies. But it is evident that religions have also
contributed to women’s predicament. Christianity did not change patriarchal
structures; if anything, it rather entrenched them.xi Christianity can therefore
also be blamed – at least as far as certain traditions within Christianity are
concerned.

Granted that in certain countries women are treated horribly. However, Christianity as a whole is taught that women who are believers are co-heirs with us. There are clear women-ly (made up word?) roles within scripture. Proverbs 31; 1 Cor. 7; Eph. 5; 1 Tim. 2 to name a few. The argument seems to be more sentimental then scriptural. Starting with how women are treated to making a case for women ordination is quite the emotional argument, without facts for a scriptural basis.

Also, I'm not sure how anyone can get around the clear passage in 1 Timothy 2 when Paul says, "11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control."

If this person is NOT ignorant of this passage, or other passages within scripture, or not ignorant of what the church from ages past to now has taught, then there is a clear agenda within this person. However, it would be profitable for both you and this person or people to read through and discuss these passages as well as church history, and go through the confessions. You are in South Africa so I'm assuming you are of the Dutch Reformed flavor. IF so, I'm also assuming you hold to the Three Forms. I'd also go through them and look at the offices and their meaning.

Sorry I couldn't be more of a help to you.

 

[timmopussycat]

One Scripture that will almost certainly come up is 1 Tim. 2:11,12 and you need to be prepared to confront the common modern reading of the verse which argues that the prohibition here, since it doesn't match what Scriptures are alleged to say elsewhere, was a local temporary prohibition of women in teaching roles due the specific problems arising at the time in Ephesus. The most sophisticated version of the argument will point out that Paul uses the imperative in v. to command the women to learn in silence, but moves to the indicative in v. 12 thus implying the reading "I am not permitting a woman to teach or have authority over a man. . . "

The counter to this argument is to point out that, in Greek, moves to the indicative do not always nullify the previously established sense of command. Even more important however is the fact that Paul grounds the prohibition against authority in the historical fact of Adam's earlier existence and his prohibition of the teaching role in the fact that Eve, unlike Adam, was deceived.

The necessary consequence of this is that the arguments given in support of the prohibition seem to support applying the prohibition to more than Timothy's immediate Ephesian context. Since it is certain that the other arguments used to established the supposed contradiction between the wider application of the prohibition and Paul's usual practice either fall short (that Phoebe was a deacon Rom 16:1 proves nothing for the deacons in the NT churches seem not have had teaching or authority responsibilities as neither teaching nor ruling ability is listed as a qualification in 1Tim. 2, and Junia v.7 may have been "well known to" the Apostles), not an Apostle herself, or are irrelevant (Priscilla teaching Apollos in Acts 18:26 cannot be cited as a violation of the prohibition, because she was not solely engaged in the teaching, her husband was equally involved), the conclusion is that it is impossible to prove by good and necessary consequence that Paul intended his prohibition to be as limited as the usual modern reading will take it. Which means we can't, in the final analysis, have faith that the modern view is correct.

And since Paul, in Rom. 14:23, lays down the general principle that "Whatever is not of faith is sin" (see Whatever Is Not from Faith Is Sin to understand why Paul's statement should be read as a general principle) holding that Scripture approves the notion that women may occupy unrestricted teaching ministries in the church seems by good and necessary consequence to be nothing more or less than sin.

 

[Johan]

Hi Tim,

Yes, I remember very very well!! Good to hear from you!

 

[Free Christian]

Hello Johan. The Bible states clearly how those in the Church are to be from the Minister, Pastor or what ever title they are given as well as Elders and so on to be the "Husband of one wife". Nowhere does it state also to be the "wife of one husband".

 

[Johan]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I will come back with more specific questions about the article next week as I am currently not at home which makes it a bit difficult to sit down and properly formulate some of my other problems with the paper.

 

[lynnie]

If you see women wearing head coverings as part of the "social customs of that time" I think you'll have a hard time disputing his overall conclusion. If one does not see that command as binding on us today, his conclusions have some merit- maybe not much- but he is trying to have believers keep a visible distinction from pagan society, and honor husbands, while allowing them to "prophesy".

Once people deny headcoverings, I see this sort of exegesis as logical in trying to live as caring Christians looking at the fallen culture, instead of looking at biblical commands NO MATTER WHAT the culture is. I appreciate his concern about women being treated as inferior beings in so many cultures, and not wanting to treat them as inferior, but once Paul's letter in 1 Cor is just for the culture back then, you can start looking at all of Paul as related to the culture back then.

There are other problems as well, but that one jumped out at me.

This is a bit of a digression, but I know a Calvinist church that almost "ordained" the women's minister strictly to just give her tax breaks. What she actually did was only women and children and not from a pulpit. The elders finally shot it down after much debate ( nobody in that church had a great salary) to be faithful to scripture as they read it, much as they would have liked to see the IRS get less of her income. But this was a case where they almost accomodated the culture ( ordained pastors get better tax breaks) out of care and kindness. You can't allow culture to be a higher motivator than the bible.