Nicely Done My Friend! So this has been a discussion in our home for the past couple of weeks. Not in the direction that you just dealt with it, but in regards to the SBC and egalitarian VS complementarian.
The scripture us very clear on God's intent, and it is not to "keep a woman in her place." A male pastor heads the assembly much as the husband heads the family, in total submission to The Lord. Thank you for this clearly written commentary.
You are exactly right. I am a highly educated, well-scriptured woman with a strong personality. With that. I love Christ and His Word. I am blessed. In my 64 years as a strong woman in the Church I have never felt diminished, unheard, lesser-than. Rather, my opinion mattered, I was honored, encouraged in my ministry of teaching women and children and my favorite: hospitality. I'm not second-class in ANY way. But i probably owe that to my father. A southern baptist deacon that always treated me as an intellectual equal. Men never dominated over me (my father, my brothers, my husband) but rather, supported me in the ministries God prepared for me. But here's the deal. Like in a corporation, government, hierarchical structure, family or Church...
GOD sets an order. Not only is that functional, it provides order. I'm a speech pathologist. My director or principal sets the order. I love that. I don't always agree. But it sets an order. And safety. Left to our own devices....there is chaos. Then pragmatically, I've watched denomination after denomination allow women to have authority over men...and eventually they wane and die. God is good. His ways are higher than ours. Women, rest in that. And receive it.
I know you have theological conviction about this and I want people to have freedom of theological conviction.
I am not interested in debating what bigotry means.
I would like to reframe slightly. I think this boundary is about whether god created hierarchy or whether hierarchy is a result of sin.
I know you find it offensive to have the comparison, but the history is that the arguments are often similar. Not everyone who makes arguments about created order is making a hierarchical argument, but many are.
Hey Adam, yes, I understand what you're saying. First, I do think God created hierarchy. This seems clear from the ordering of creation, and even Paul makes this argument: "I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:12-13). I think we can separate hierarchy from ontological value, which, of course, is part of the argument of complementarianism. Second, I understand that the arguments are similar, but this stems, I think, from wrongly conflating race/ethnicity with sex/gender. They are not symmetrical in terms of their relation to the nature of humanity.
I think just being clear matters. If hierarchy is part of the created order then an argument has to be made to separate different types of hierarchy. I know you are not Doug Wilson, but Wilson also argues that hierarchy is part of the created order. And he makes the argument differently from how you do. Those that are unacquainted with the differences will have wrong perceptions of your own argument.
I am not trying to persuade here just illustrate. But there are scholars that discuss how those passages you cite are understood as hierarchy in modern western culture but where not intended that way.
So again, because of the history of hierarchy within our context, the default assumptions will be that because racial hierarchy has largely lost scriptural support, that gender hierarchy is included because of passages like Gal 3:28 which those different boundaries are included together. So there is scriptural support for ethnicity and gender as well as economic, class and social boundaries being included together in scriptural arguments.
I think said another way, the first question that needs to be asked is whether differences are the result of created (biological) or social (culture or tradition) differences. And if not then the next question is whether if there are no created or social differences, is this a scriptural requirement from God.
I believe you are arguing that the requirement is from God but not that there are created or social differences.
I think there is a history of race, gender and other issues having a mix of arguments. And that mix has more or less weight depending on the subject and audience. It is hard to separate these because we can all point to the different examples of the arguments.
Awesome explaination of how one has nothing to do with the other
To many want to lump identity and racism into position that the bible clearly shows
Amen. Blessings in your time of writing
Nicely Done My Friend! So this has been a discussion in our home for the past couple of weeks. Not in the direction that you just dealt with it, but in regards to the SBC and egalitarian VS complementarian.
The scripture us very clear on God's intent, and it is not to "keep a woman in her place." A male pastor heads the assembly much as the husband heads the family, in total submission to The Lord. Thank you for this clearly written commentary.
You are exactly right. I am a highly educated, well-scriptured woman with a strong personality. With that. I love Christ and His Word. I am blessed. In my 64 years as a strong woman in the Church I have never felt diminished, unheard, lesser-than. Rather, my opinion mattered, I was honored, encouraged in my ministry of teaching women and children and my favorite: hospitality. I'm not second-class in ANY way. But i probably owe that to my father. A southern baptist deacon that always treated me as an intellectual equal. Men never dominated over me (my father, my brothers, my husband) but rather, supported me in the ministries God prepared for me. But here's the deal. Like in a corporation, government, hierarchical structure, family or Church...
GOD sets an order. Not only is that functional, it provides order. I'm a speech pathologist. My director or principal sets the order. I love that. I don't always agree. But it sets an order. And safety. Left to our own devices....there is chaos. Then pragmatically, I've watched denomination after denomination allow women to have authority over men...and eventually they wane and die. God is good. His ways are higher than ours. Women, rest in that. And receive it.
I know you have theological conviction about this and I want people to have freedom of theological conviction.
I am not interested in debating what bigotry means.
I would like to reframe slightly. I think this boundary is about whether god created hierarchy or whether hierarchy is a result of sin.
I know you find it offensive to have the comparison, but the history is that the arguments are often similar. Not everyone who makes arguments about created order is making a hierarchical argument, but many are.
Hey Adam, yes, I understand what you're saying. First, I do think God created hierarchy. This seems clear from the ordering of creation, and even Paul makes this argument: "I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve" (1 Timothy 2:12-13). I think we can separate hierarchy from ontological value, which, of course, is part of the argument of complementarianism. Second, I understand that the arguments are similar, but this stems, I think, from wrongly conflating race/ethnicity with sex/gender. They are not symmetrical in terms of their relation to the nature of humanity.
I think just being clear matters. If hierarchy is part of the created order then an argument has to be made to separate different types of hierarchy. I know you are not Doug Wilson, but Wilson also argues that hierarchy is part of the created order. And he makes the argument differently from how you do. Those that are unacquainted with the differences will have wrong perceptions of your own argument.
I am not trying to persuade here just illustrate. But there are scholars that discuss how those passages you cite are understood as hierarchy in modern western culture but where not intended that way.
So again, because of the history of hierarchy within our context, the default assumptions will be that because racial hierarchy has largely lost scriptural support, that gender hierarchy is included because of passages like Gal 3:28 which those different boundaries are included together. So there is scriptural support for ethnicity and gender as well as economic, class and social boundaries being included together in scriptural arguments.
I think said another way, the first question that needs to be asked is whether differences are the result of created (biological) or social (culture or tradition) differences. And if not then the next question is whether if there are no created or social differences, is this a scriptural requirement from God.
I believe you are arguing that the requirement is from God but not that there are created or social differences.
I think there is a history of race, gender and other issues having a mix of arguments. And that mix has more or less weight depending on the subject and audience. It is hard to separate these because we can all point to the different examples of the arguments.