Featured So How Do we decide if principles apply just then, or also for today?

Of that I am not entirely certain. But none of their words on the subject dent any of these principles, and in fact they appear to be looking mainly TO scripture to get answers and the most compelling arguments they make come FROM an analysis of scripture. (I've read the entire article and others on the site.) Neither does the article argue that the principles are only applying to that culture, although it may appear that way in only glancing through the article. See, in order for that to be a valid analysis of the arguments presented we have to assume that male headship is a divine principle in the first place. The argument is that male headship does not mean what we have been taught to believe it means. And it shows this THROUGH an analysis of scripture.
Neither is the interpretation of male headship a fundamental.

See, if the article was denying scripture's authority it would say so and use that in it's arguments. There ARE those that argue that Paul's views are not necessarily divinely-inspired, but THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM. If it was I would have dismissed it months ago.
Even if the author doesn't hold scripture to be the final authority or inerrant (and so far as I'm aware nothing he has said has alluded to that), he makes arguments based on an analysis of scripture. Therefore his arguments are not incompatible with a fundamental view of scripture. (Unless your idea of a fundamental view of scripture includes a specific interpretation of male headship, but that would be a circular argument. Ie, "No conservative scholars support the idea of women pastors, but one of the definitions of a conservative scholar is one who accepts that only men can be ordained as pastors.")

As for the rest, since it is your claim that no conservative scholars support ordaining women or that no conservative scholars believe Junia should be in the feminine it is up to you to back that up.

 

Believe what the bible says and stop trying to make it cultural or time limited.

 

Non-sequitur. I don't know. But I already gave my reasoning. It matters not to me how many baptists or conservatives support it.

 

First of all, from what I've been able to find in searching around and reading up on this issue, that doesn't appear to be strictly true.

And to answer your question, if their arguments don't go against my conservative principles of scriptural authority, then not at all. Not at all.

 

Sorry to see yet another thread derailed into discussing the dogmatic views of those who do not support their views from scripture.

1) In a process called "distillation" once we derive what is being taught to the audience existing when written, we are to try to discern whether that lesson contains timeless principles that apply to us in the current age.

2) Just as some instructions address ameliorating existing cultural conditions, slavery for example, does not suggest that cultural condition is endorsed by God. Note that the Bible teaches it is better to be free than slave.

3) Consider the curse of Genesis 3, "and he will rule over you." Is that timeless?

 

Thank you for being willing to discuss this topic on honest grounds. Your post is like a breath of fresh air.

My point in bringing up slavery was that God allowed it because, if the Bibles' comments on other topics are any indication, was due to the hardness of people's hearts.

I do not contend that the article I shared (which appears to be what sparked this thread), comes at this from a cultural standpoint. Rather it relies on an analysis of scripture, and archeological evidence--especially concerning archeological evidence directly related to scripture. It does explain that there appear to be circumstances behind some of the passages in the NT testament letters that none of us are privy to, because after all we don't have the letters that were written TO Paul about how the churches were fairing.

There is the verse in Genesis, yes.
An article I read points out that that may not necessarily have been a God-ordained command--while pain in childbirth obviously is, the part about man ruling over women may have been more of an observation, a prediction of future events. Since it is associated with the curse that alone would suggest that it's not God's perfect will.
And in light of the analysis of NT scripture, and the evidence that women did serve in "high" leadership positions in the early church, this makes sense.

 

I have not read the rest of the responses, as in threads like this, I answer the first one to avoid derailing the thread. I think the question is a very good one to ask, and not simple to answer. First, I would think that it has to be determined if the rule applies in a cultural sense, or in a sense that is always to be obeyed. For example, thou shalt not kill is not cultural, but using ashes and sackcloth to express grief is.

One question that comes to mind, not exactly female leadership, is the question of what is meant by the "husband of one wife" in the qualifications for deacon and elder. Most of my life I always heard it interpreted in Baptist and Presbyterian Churches as meaning, I have never been divorced. As of late, due to the culture of the day, it has been suggested Scripture meant "one woman at a time." Some in our church years ago expanded the requirement to mean, the woman one marries also cannot have been divorced. I have also seen the requirement "husband of one wife" mean that the person must be married. You see how one simple phrase can just explode to many different meanings.

As far as women being pastors and deacons, I can see a case for that being cultural. Today, there are so many men who have abandoned their families and church, women have stepped in the leadership positions to keep things going. That is a sad commentary. Many, many women are more spiritually mature than their husbands ever dreamt of being. Also, in Judges, many women lead Israel to victory under the Lord's leadership. I think that is an issue each local church will have to decide.

When Paul is talking about the relationship of a marriage between a man and a woman, he does refer to the husband as being the spiritual head of the house. However, that means he treats his wife like Christ treated the church, which means giving your spouse your very life if necessary. When the wife submits, she should expect she is submitting to a loving, Christ-like spouse.

 

Since the culture was paternalistic during the time of Moses, and was still paternalistic during the time of Christ, can we draw the conclusion that paternalistic leadership in the home and church is derived from timeless principles? Why or why not? Why not let the more godly lead the way?

 

Good question.

I'd say the answer lies in whether scripture supports this view or not. IMO it does not (as I have shown), although there are some cases wherein it seems to allow for this view (parts of the OT law). (In the same way it allowed slavery and divorce under the law of Moses to exist, as well as marrying at very young ages, one might argue.)

Keep in mind that back then, too, women in general did not have jobs or work in the same way men did, but were pretty much all stay-at-home wives. Does scripture then contend that that's what women should be doing and that it's a timeless principle?

I haven't read it yet, but one of the sites I've been using has an article on women in the OT law: http://christianthinktank.com/fem02b.html
Here's the page listing all of it's articles on women in the Bible: http://christianthinktank.com/femalex.html

I have to leave for church in about 15 minutes. I'll see what I can find on this aspect of the paternalistic culture when I get back. (Although my brother will probably be hogging the computer again when I'm back, but he probably won't be on more than a couple hours.) Good topic, I should have looked into that before.

 

Since it as a minimum reflects the culture of the times, you can find plenty of passages designating women to subservient roles within the family and the church. To conclude that all this is simply a cultural accommodation, one would need to make an affirmative case from scripture, rather offsetting the evidence by making an argument from silence.

 

But my arguments are NOT from silence, nor dismissing it only on the basis that it was the culture--as I've been trying to explain this entire thread. But nobody seems to care to listen.
I HAVE been bringing up scripture and archeological evidence, and what's more I've been citing my sources so that those who are interested can read further for themselves. All you have to do is read the previous pages of the thread, and/or take a look at the sources I'm quoting.


Look, I didn't even want to be a part of this debate. I was dragged into it simply for trying to benignly expressing my opinion in another thread and I tried to avoid debating--but you can't win either way. If I avoided debate I would be accused of having no evidence and if I did debate then everyone jumps all over me being prepared to reject what I say before I ever say it. This is why I don't debate with most people over the Internet anymore. (Used to do it on a regular basis, but eventual figured out that most people who will engage you are not interested in an honest debate--they just want to rage at you about how much they hate your opinion.)
Not saying that literally everyone here has been that way in this case--some were very fair and brought up good and challenging arguments.

 

Obviously we are not going to come to an agreement. I didn't expect to anyway, but I do want to apologize if at any time during this debate I was rude in any way. I try my best to address the arguments rather than the person and I try my best to debate as honestly as I can. I see debates as learning opportunities, although as I have stated I usually avoid debating because I find that most people don't seem to share my sentiments about it being a learning opportunity and end up using it in an intellectually dishonest manner. I appreciate those who have taken the time to respond to my posts honestly.

I'm not saying that I'm necessarily done posting in this thread (that depends), but since most who were talking to me seem to have stopped now I just wanted to say this. I don't like finishing debates on bad terms with people if I can help it.

 

Lets consider Deborah, Judges 4:4 and following. Did God use her to lead, issue rulings concerning disputes, among men and tribes? Yes
Did God use her as a voice of truth (prophet) including foretelling what God would do? Yes

What would be wrong with citing Deborah as an example of a women exercising spiritual leadership, not necessarily in her family, but in her community? How do those who dogmatically say woman cannot fulfill leadership roles within the church address the biblical model of Deborah?