| 
Articles
Contacts
Forum
Home
Join Us
Links
F.R.O.
Readings
|
The purpose of this forum is to facilitate communication and mutual
support and edification among those who strive toward gender justice in
Churches of Christ. If you would like to join the forum, send an e-mail
(including your first and last name) from your primary address to forum@gal328.org.
Julie,
As Tom said, "Welcome to the Association of Communion Tray Passers (tm)." Maybe we should add "and lid bangers" to that :>) We have all done that at one time or another. In a small church, the slightest noise from those silver plated lids (or whatever metal they are made from) just seems like a 130db metal cymbal crash when you are trying to be really quiet in setting them down! It's when they hit a vinyl floor that they sound like a great big gong at at least 200db!!!
To everyone:
We just came back from a really enjoyable camping trip to apx 25 miles north of Pagosa Springs, Co. The WX was pleasant in the mornings after the sun came up, wet and quite cool in the afternoons and most of the evenings and nights (mid 40's to mid 70's). Ocassionally the the winds hit 30 MPH and the tents and small campers would really whip. Then it would die away to the point that the stillness was engulfed in stillness. We could hear a voice at a normal talk volume almost a mile away. We listened to the wolves at sundown and sunup talk back and forth along with the summering geese. It didn't take much to be able to hear God's voice through the silence of the extreme stillness. And I missed the ongoing conversation here and wondered what was being discussed! No internet up there!!! In fact, no TV (except for DVD's on my wifes laptop), no cell phone and only one radio station could just barely break through the wall of mountains surrounding us!
The discussion here during that 8 days has been most interesting reading!
We came back to the start of the elder appointment/reaffirmation process at Granbury again after about three years. Our elders were wise enough to have Dr. Charles Sibert (ACU) in to speak during both worship sessions and the class time this morning. He is also an elder at Highland CoC in Abilene. He made an interesting comment regarding the selection of our all male search committee. Basically he wondered why we had not picked some females to be on the committee! Of course he qualified that statement with that it's OK to have all males but the important thing is that he was able to publically question the male only choices with all elders and about 1/2 of the members present. Maybe another seed is planted in the thought processes of the members and elders. We will soon be putting together a search comittee for a new pulpit minister. Maybe that comment will bear some fruit and we will have a more representative group. The chairman of the elders is reading "A Community without Barriers" (I printed it off and gave it to him for his library) and quite interested in what it is saying. His youngest daughter worked as a youth intern at the Colony CoC this summer and it has really made him do some thinking about female roles!We continue to take very carefull and almost silent tippy toe steps in the direction of opening discussion.
Grace to you and peace.
Wiley
:::posted by Wiley on 8/31/2003 11:02:24 PM
Hello to all from a usually silent woman in Bowie,
I sat in worship this morning listening to my friend Julie as she spoke at the communion table. She was magnificent as she brought us all to a place of memory around our family table. I could smell my grandmother's chicken an dumplings and hear my Aunt Rubye telling us how to behave. I could feel the blessing of family. Then she helped us to look around the room and see the people that God has given us to be our family. I love these people. We laugh and cry together. Sometimes we disagree and fight with one another, but we are family. We are God's children. As Julie spokeIcould feel Our Father smiling down at his chilren as we gathered around his table. The tinkling of dishes around the family table is a good noise.
In our assembly this morning I counted 9 different people who participated in a visable, public way. Three of them were women. Since public participation is a new thing for women, there are still many who are too shy or fearful to stand up and be seen. But there is a growing number. There were several visitors today. All had many good comments about the service. Seeing a woman up front and hearing her voice from the pupit has become normal. My grandaugters and my grandsons think it has always been that way. I am thankful for that blessing.
I love listening in on the conversation here. Keep on talking!
Peace
Sue
:::posted by Sue on 8/31/2003 09:16:56 PM
Julie,
Welcome to the Association of Communion Tray Passers (tm). Of course, banging the lids on the trays could lead to a discussion of instrumental music...
Seriously, I'm thrilled for you, and for the church at Bowie. May you have many more opportunities to share your gifting in the kingdom.
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 8/31/2003 03:41:37 PM
Hi friends, I wanted to share with you how the morning went. I did fumble a little with trays. Both the bread and the cup I hit the lid on the tray as I removed it but not too bad. I have always been kind of klutzy when I am nervous.
I have thought so differently about communion since reading William Willimon's book, Sunday Dinner, and have wanted to share some thoughts publicly...so I did. I asked everyone to close their eyes and think about having dinner in their favorite place...their grandmother's house for Sunday dinner, their best friends....think about how it smells and what do you hear? Who is there? How do those people make you feel?...I then asked them to open their eyes and look around. We are having Sunday dinner and this is your family. We know each other better than most people know us. We came together for dinner....What do we do when someone comes late? Do we embrace them? a visitor? Do we make space at the table? .....Judas sat with Jesus for the first communion service. Because of that, we are all able to come to the table. We are all sinners and the blood of Jesus binds us together and covers that sin. ...
Of course, this isn't word for word but the gist of what I said.
Thank you for your prayers and your words of encouragement. You are all friends...even though we haven't met in person. The moments when I have been able to meet some of you have been precious and it felt like we had known each other forever.
Have a great week!!!! grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 8/31/2003 03:11:01 PM
Patty,
I sympathize with your problem, though I hesitate to horn in, since I don't know the dynamics of your congregation. But, why not get yourself a copy of that book the men plan to study and read it too? Maybe read it with some of the women in the congregation. You don't have to make a big protest, but you can be prepared to discuss the book when it comes up in conversation.
It's good that you registered your need for the mid-week gathering, and I would encourage you to follow through on that by continuing to gather with like-minded women, not to gripe but to continue strengthening one another as before. The seriousness of your devotion may speak volumes.
Grace be with you,
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/30/2003 03:08:58 PM
Julie,
As a woman who has had the privilege of serving in this capacity a time or two I want to encourage you to not put too much pressure on yourself. Each time I have felt this great weight to say everything I ever wanted to say since I may never get the chance again. Thankfully God has helped me to see that saying what he leads me to (and only that) is far more important.
I will be thinking about you tomorrow morning and praying for you.
To everyone-
I am very frustrated right now. One step forward, two steps back. I guess I am just struggling with those who are just beginning to get gender justice and the ways that they are still stuck in patriarchy and don't know it. The elders have decided to suspend our mid week study for 2 months so that the men can study a book together (I can't remember the name but it was mentioned a few weeks ago on here). This is spear headed by the elder who is most in favor of gender justice. The women are encouraged to stay home and pray for the men (or gather together and pray for the men). Perhaps it is my extra hormones of late but this has made me very angry and frustrated and I let that be know at our last congregation meeting. I was told to get over it. I depend on that mid week gathering to get through my week. I get far more spiritual feeding that night than I do on Sunday morning. Thankfully my small group is willing to meet on a different night so I won't be left out completely. I just don't like the message that this sends, that the men are more important than the women and children.
Thank you all for being a safe place to share these feelings and issues.
Patty
:::posted by Patty on 8/30/2003 01:19:08 PM
Julie,
I'm excited for you, sister. Don't worry, I've learned that there are thousands of ways to "mess up," and most people will never notice that you did, and certainly they will not hold it against you if they do notice.
Let us know how it goes.
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 8/29/2003 06:37:32 PM
Julie,
Good luck! Our prayers are with you. And that's what I always like to do before serving. I always try to set aside time to pray that I don't mess up either in the physics of trays or by getting in God's way. I'm sure you'll do well.
Everyone else, fascinating discussion, I love the good ones.
Does anyone have any experience with the book "2nd Incarnation" by Rubel Shelley and Randall Harris? The elder that involved with our study has suggested that we use it for our class. From what he's said, it sounds good. While I don't think that hard-line conservatives will like it as well (despite coming from C of C authors), the more postmodernistic types probably will. It sounds like it really challenges about incorporating 1st century culture into our churches. Instead of being doctrinally focused, its theology and Christology focused. I'm reminded of an even more approachable version of Fee and Stuart with a restoration audience in mind.
It also spawned a really interesting discussion this morning on personal grace vs. corporate grace. It was pointed out that we tend to be more forgiving of people messing up than congregations. Which to me raises an interesting parallel: does the parable of the talents apply to congregations just as it does to individuals? If so, is the safest course not always the safest course?
In him,
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 8/29/2003 05:30:47 PM
Julie,
Ask any man who has been serving communion for years, and he'll tell you a story about a bobbled tray. But think about how many times you recall hearing or seeing a fumble, or bobbling a tray yourself in the pew? Not many, huh? Don't worry about it. It will seem natural, like passing the potatoes. And sometime when you do see a fumble, you'll have your own story to tell.
My own biggest goof was... well, I don't want to make you more nervous. You'll do fine. Next week we can swap stories.
Meanwhile, after it's over, maybe you'll share with us the communion meditation that's been on your heart for ten years.
Grace be with you,
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/29/2003 12:33:50 PM
Carmen,
Here's a suggestion on your interest in allegorical readings of the text. I would strongly recommend Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994).
Boyarin reads Paul as a writer similar to Philo of Alexandria, both first-century Jews in the Hellenistic diaspora (they lived in Greek cities outside Palestine). Philo is best known for his allegorical readings of Jewish Scriptures, and Boyarin argues that at the heart of Paul's theology is an allegorical reading of the Jewish Scriptures.
For our purposes, Boyarin is especially helpful, because he sees clearly the strong implications in Paul's letters for breaking down cultural conventions that discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, social class, and gender. In fact, the dust jacket bears a quotation of Galatians 3:28!
You can read this book online at the U. of California Press web site, but I liked it so much I bought a copy. Take a look and see whether you find it helpful.
Grace be with you,
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/29/2003 12:17:23 PM
Carmen,
I appreciate your doggedness in pursuing your question. Lance's grammar lesson was very helpful, I thought, but I can see that you are still struggling with the gap between Greek and English. I don't think we need to bring Latin into it here.
Let me try again on Lance's point. It is no good to look up "let" in your concordance, nor to ponder the various connotations of the English word "let," because no word "let" appears in the Greek text. In 1 Cor 14:34, "let them be silent" is an English phrase that attempts to translate a single Greek word. That is a third-person, imperative, plural verb form. Unfortunately, as Lance said, English has no third-person imperative verb forms. We have only second-person imperatives (Stop! Sit!).
So, to answer your question about why translators use "let." English does have a hortatory subjunctive form, which is a way of expressing an exhortation to do something without giving a direct command. ("Let's go to the beach.) In this case, "let" is an English helping verb used to express this idea.
Now, since English has no 3rd-person imperative, translators conventionally have fallen back on a subjunctive as the nearest approximation in language, but the trouble is that there is a tendency thereby to lose the sense of direct command. But think about the Pharaoh in DeMille's "Ten Commandmants," when he says "So let it be written; so let it be done." He's not making a suggestion. He's giving an order. It sounds polite in English subjunctive, but if he were saying it in Greek, it would be a command.
But another trouble is that most modern English speakers have forgotten how to use English subjunctive verbs. You can still see them in legalese ("The defendant shall remain within this jurisdiction until the hearing," where "shall" is an English subjunctive working to express a 3rd-person command). So the expression "let them keep silent" doesn't hit average readers any more the way it should. For that reason, I suppose you are right to see that the NRSV is clearer: "women should be silent in the churches," where translators throw in "should be" as a couple of English helping verbs to express the 3rd-person command idea. They could also have said "must be."
So now we need to keep wrestling with why Paul gives this command. Your idea about the value of listening is nice, but you say more about monastic contemplative traditions than about 1 Cor 14. Paul doesn't go in that direction. As you continue to wrestle with the logic of Paul's argument, consider how he associates silence with "not to speak" and "be subordinate." And consider the specific reasons he gives: (a) "as the law says" (what law? where?), and (b) "it is shameful for a woman..." (why?). In order to answer these questions, you'll need to dig into first-century Greco-Roman and Jewish culture to find out about their ideas on women, shame, public assemblies, prayer, ecstatic speech, prophecy, and so forth. Some resources listed and linked elsewhere on this web site can help with that.
I know that is a lot to ask, but if you have a lifetime and really want to understand the Bible, you need to understand it in its historical and literary context. My little book tries to help non-experts with that as far as 1 Cor is concerned, but there are whole libraries you'll want to pursue eventually. As you plug away, keep pushing this forum, and we'll all try to guide each other through.
Brotherly,
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/29/2003 11:42:44 AM
Carmen,
I appreciate your doggedness in pursuing your question. Lance's grammar lesson was very helpful, I thought, but I can see that you are still struggling with the gap between Greek and English. I don't think we need to bring Latin into it here.
Let me try again on Lance's point. It is no good to look up "let" in your concordance, nor to ponder the various connotations of the English word "let," because no word "let" appears in the Greek text. In 1 Cor 14:34, "let them be silent" is an English phrase that attempts to translate a single Greek word. That is a third-person, imperative, plural verb form. Unfortunately, as Lance said, English has no third-person imperative verb forms. We have only second-person imperatives (Stop! Sit!).
So, to answer your question about why translators use "let." English does have a hortatory subjunctive form, which is a way of expressing an exhortation to do something without giving a direct command. ("Let's go to the beach.) In this case, "let" is an English helping verb used to express this idea.
Now, since English has no 3rd-person imperative, translators conventionally have fallen back on a subjunctive as the nearest approximation in language, but the trouble is that there is a tendency thereby to lose the sense of direct command. But think about the Pharaoh in DeMille's "Ten Commandmants," when he says "So let it be written; so let it be done." He's not making a suggestion. He's giving an order. It sounds polite in English subjunctive, but if he were saying it in Greek, it would be a command.
But now I see a new trouble arising. That is, most modern English speakers have forgotten how to use English subjunctive verbs. You can still see it in legalese ("The defendant shall remain within this jurisdiction until the hearing," where "shall" is an English subjunctive working to express a 3rd-person command). So the expression "let them keep silent" doesn't even hit average readers any more the way it should. For that reason, I suppose you are right to see that the NRSV is clearer here: "women should be silent in the churches," where translators throw in "should be" as a couple of English helping verbs to express the 3rd-person command idea. They could also have said "must be."
So now we need to keep wrestling with why Paul gives this command. Your suggestion about the value of listening is nice, but it says more about monastic contemplative traditions than about 1 Cor 14. Paul doesn't go in that direction. As you continue to wrestle with the logic of Paul's argument, consider how he associates silence with "not to speak" and "be subordinate." And consider the specific reasons he gives: (a) "as the law says" (what law? where?), and (b) "it is shameful for a woman..." (why?). In order to answer these questions, you'll need to dig into first-century Greco-Roman and Jewish culture to find out about the ideas on women, shame, public assemblies, prayer, ecstatic speech, prophecy, and so forth. Some resources listed and linked elsewhere on this web site can help with that.
I know that is a lot to ask, but if you have a lifetime and really want to understand the Bible, you need to understand it in its historical and literary context. My little book tries to help non-experts with that as far as 1 Cor is concerned, but there are whole libraries you'll want to pursue eventually. As you plug away, keep pushing this forum, and we'll all try to guide each other through.
Brotherly,
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/29/2003 11:42:43 AM
I suppose one might render a third person imperative into English with "must," so that in English you would adequately express the imperative sense, which "let" softens. So..."the women must be silent" or something. I do remember thinking that translating the 3rd person imperative with "let them" was a really rotten way to do it when I was taught that in first year Greek. It seemed to me that the English connotation was too far from the imperative force of the Greek. The problem is just that we only do 2nd person imperatives in English and so every rendition of that grammatical structure in English is going to be approximate and probably awkward. (I'm no Greek scholar but I do have a very annoying enjoyment of English grammar which my family has tried desperately to train me out of flaunting...I dare say, unsuccessfully.)
Jen
:::posted by Jennifer on 8/29/2003 11:00:53 AM
Gosh, Lance. If you hate my theory just say so ;<)
And thanks for the grammar lesson. I've never studied English grammar. Someday I'll take a class. I so enjoy watching people go at it! It's really exciting ... A bit like tennis, with all of those "lets".
Let me just make this perfecty clear (Nixon) ... the use of let in 1 Cor. 14 is indeed an influence along with monastic history. In all seriousness, I'm not trying to make arguments out of nothing. This question has nagged me for a long time and I lack the training and education in ancient languages to address it in the way I think it deserves. "Let" is a very creative and historically ambiguous word (Let them eat cake - Marie Antoinette) in both English and Italian (the only languages I am familiar with) the modern primary imperative meaning of let is "to permit" or "to give leave" or "to leave alone" (Let It Be - the Beatles) and, I think, comes from the Latin ( ... something else I need to study). I can appreciate that the verb is imperative. But to what group is the imperative mood directed in 1 Cor. 14:31? and why?
With the first two verses (28 & 30) as a springboard into 31 the women can still have permission to be silent as Paul builds support for silence by explaining that there is more than one purpose to the discipline of keeping silence: to learn (by listening to others and to God) and to keep order. An alternate reading might be that the primary intent of this passage is to encourage learning the will of God not only through revelation received from a human mouth but also through silent meditation. In this view, orderliness -- traditionally thought to be the primary focus -- in this passage is secondary, the means to an end. The "permit" reading is also consistant with 28 & 30 in that specific groups of spiritually gifted people are being addressed.
As I go down the list of "lets" in my concordance, the context of "let" is almost always a postitive imperative intent, especially when it is in the context of silence: "Let all the earth keep silence" and just about everything else: 1Cor.7:18 "Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek circumcision" -- the point is "to give him leave". As in 14:31 Paul directs this toward the community rather than a specific individual. Paul sees that the community is capable of imposing ritual circumcision as some with the gift of tongues were imposing themselves and their gift on others, trying to secure precedence for themselves in the spiritual community, so he said, "do not impose circumcision on him" (my paraphrase)
I really, really want to know why the ambiguous verb "let" is used so often in English translations of v.31 when other, stronger verbs would serve to get the point across as clearly as the NRSV. If the NRSV is, in fact, the most correct translation of v31 then I'd prefer to deal with that. Still, I'd like to know what is the precedent or rule for translating the English "let" or Latin "lasciare" (that's the Italian) from the Greek? Is there controversy among the translators about the use of the verbs "let" and "keep" and "to be" in this passage? Maybe I'm all alone in the world with my question, but with help I'd like to explore it until I'm satisfied. I guess I'm wondering if translators have settled for an evolution of the antiquated English "let" with its primary negative meaning of "suffer" or "hinder" as in "Suffer the children ..." and/or if translators do not question the negative value and are unconsciously perpetuating the universal convention of "when in doubt, put the blame the women". All translations of this verse feel vulnerable to many problems. That appears to me to be a clue that there is something going on beneath the surface ... or right under our noses, and the translation process may be unintentionally recycling error. But after seeing how The San Diego Union cleaned up a recorded interview with Schwartzeneger today, I am having a #3 moment about conscious sabotage of v.31.
I'm hosting a shower and a dinner party this weekend, so I will not be able to respond for a few days, but I do appreciate you, Lance, for thinking this through with me.
By the way #5 RULES! unless the NRSV is correct. In that case, #4 RULES! But if Schwartzeneger wins the governorship, #3 RULES!
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 8/28/2003 08:45:00 PM
I am loving this discussion. So good to hear your voice again Lance. I have never really heard your voice but I could just hear you voicing that whole post...with the gestures and facial expressions to go along with it. I love that we don't always have to be serious here.
Sunday I will give my first communion oration. I am excited and nervous. I have known for probably ten years what I wanted to say...so that part is not hard. But I am very nervous about the trays. I am afraid of fumbling them and they are very noisy. I have never served communion because I sing with the praise team. Pray that the Spirit leads and not Julie.
grace, Julie
I forgot to ask...Is anyone out there going to the Zoe conference the first weekend of October in Nashville? I am going...just wondered if anyone else was.
:::posted by julie on 8/28/2003 01:29:59 PM
Carmen (of San Diego),
With respect to 1 Corinthians 14, where in the world are you? [smile]
Even in my most Post-Modern mode, I don’t find it possible to understand 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as permission-giving for women who have self-imposed silence as a spiritual discipline. This may sound pretty twentieth century of me, but the language itself simply doesn’t permit that reading. I suppose we can agree to play a language game in which imperative verbs give permission instead of stating imperatives, but what would the other rules of such a game be? Why not say that all plural nouns are actually code for Ronald Reagan? I really don’t think we want to go there!
Is it possible that you are being subtly influenced by the double meaning of the English phrase “let them”? In English, “let them” can be a way of giving permission, as in “let them have a turn on the trampoline.” They’ve been wanting to jump on the trampoline all morning, after all. Why not give them a chance?
However, that same phrase (“let them”) is also the way to render a third person, imperative verb, as in “if they want a driver’s license, let them spend nine frustrating hours in line at the DMV.” It’s not what you get to do, it’s what you must do. This is the sense in which the phrase is used in translations of v. 34 (“let them be silent”) and v. 35 (“let them ask”). It is imperative that they do these things.
In verse 34, sigatosan is the verb. It is third person, imperative. If it were second person it would be translated: “you women be silent.” Since it is third person, one way to render it in English as an imperative (i.e. something you must do) is: “let the women be silent.” The clearest rendering I’ve seen--and one that prevents all this confusion--is the NRSV’s terse but clear: “women should be silent.” The problem with this is that it comes off sounding a bit like a proverb, and a really disagreeable one at that.
As for context, it doesn’t offer support for the “permission to practice a spiritual discipline” theory. Those tongue-speakers that have been piping up in church without anyone to make sense of their ecstatic babbling: “Let them be silent” (v. 28). In other words, they want to keep doing that, but it is imperative that they stop. Those prophets that have been talking on top of each other: “let them be silent” (v. 30). In other words, the first prophet wants to keep talking until finished, but if a new revelation comes to someone sitting nearby, it is imperative that the first person stop talking. The last case must be parallel. The women want to keep talking in the way they have been, but for some reason (presumably some reason similar to the two previous, parallel cases) it is imperative that they stop. All of this is done in the name of orderliness (v. 40).
Carmen, if I’m wrong about your reading being influenced by the ambiguity of the English “let them,” please excuse the grammar lesson. In fact, even if I'm not wrong about that, please excuse the grammar lesson. It came off a good deal more strident than I had intended. Chris, if I’m wrong about the grammar lesson, it’s your fault!
Now that I’ve so thoroughly adopted the persona of the narrow-minded, unflappable, cut-and-dried modernist, I will go ahead and reveal that the correct answer is, in fact, Chris’ option #5. Hope this clears things up for everybody! [big smile]
:::posted by Lance on 8/28/2003 12:09:21 PM
Chris,
Thanks so much for the mini-course! As a point of reference, I can tell you that #5 is to me (so far) the most plausible.
I like Schussler-Fiorenza but I have never found the New Testament to be distasteful -- just difficult. Difficult to figure out the agenda of the writers against the background of the time they wrote. S-F and John Phillips made me see the importance of reading the bible allegorically since so much cannot be understood historically. If "historical" means that an event occurred in the time and place in which it is set in Torah, then nothing in Torah is historical. And, since the NT parallels "historical events" in Torah (1Cor.10:11) I think it makes sense to read the Bible allegorically. By reading this way I am looking for a second order of meaning which is more consciously constructed rather than merely the surface work of memorising events that may or may not have happened in the way they are recorded. It opens me up to the witness of the Spirit rather than putting my faith in the actual events. Like Pierre Tielhard-Chardin says, "I believe in the divinity of Jesus despite the miracles." But, I part with S-F with you in regard to the status of experience over scripture. Nothing in scripture is accidental, accessory or dispensible.
I am open to #4, but the possiblities of applying this interpretive theory to other problem scriptures seems too easy and messy -- like the blitz. Still, I'd like to read more about it.
Now about #5 ... I need to read your book. As I explained in my post, I see three parallels, but where are they going? Maybe it is as simple as, "Listening will discipline you to respect others more than yourself." In the first two, it is easy to understand that silence is passive, but it is also constructive to learning in community; silence is in the context of listening; and preparing to speak something that may have been revealed in silence; it is a temporary state; it is self-disciplined; and the discipline of silence was attached to those with unique spiritual gifts of the tongue. If those positive attributes of the discipline of spiritual silence are carried over to v31 it is a striking contrast to the negative tradition of enforced "silence" I see in church. I see "the women" (whoever they are?) keeping silence (forever and ever? where does it say that?) someplace (Why do they have to wait until they get home to ask a question? Why can't they ask on the way home? Do they keep silence in public as well?) by choice (where does it even suggest that silence is under the oversight and control of a male leadership? or anyone other than "the women" who were keeping it? if silence of "the women" is a law, is it possible that the silence is a law that "the women" keep by choice? like Nazarite laws? or celibacy: "let those who have wives live as though they have none" 1Cor. 7:29 ... to me, has the same ring to it as "let the women keep silence.") You see, there are still questions, but the questions are different, to say the least! ;<)
Ok. I sort of lied. I do find the disruptive woman theory distateful even if it's true ... but I find it improbable as well. It just doesn't align with the few cultural studies I have read.
:::posted by Carmen on 8/28/2003 12:10:22 AM
Tim,
Thanks for your post and your thoughtful questions on hermeneutics. I agree that we can't simplify this, and I like your suggestion that any method may become an idol for us.
But it strikes me that your question, "How does God exercise authority through the text? " is perhaps backward. I find myself increasingly wanting to turn it around: "How do the biblical writers help us understand God?"
The idea that God exercises authority through the text seems to imply that God wrote the text and seems to deny the human authors. I tend more and more to emphasize the human authors as fellow questers after God along with me. So I want to get into conversation with them and understand how they understood God.
I certainly agree with your hesitation about many preachers who tend to speak for God, as if they assume that (a) Paul understood God perfectly, which Paul denies, and (b) the preacher has understood Paul perfectly, which I deny. But these unstated assumptions have the effect of maximizing not the authority of Scripture so much as the authority of the preacher.
So I prefer to ask basic hermeneutical questions: In this text, what did this writer understand God to be doing and why? How did this writer's words to this specific community fit with his discernment of the divine?
BTW, as for your class, when I teach this stuff, I like to have my seminary students read Karl Barth's ideas on the three-fold nature of the Word of God in Church Dogmatics I/1. They struggle, and then I walk them through it. I find Barth helpful with these questions in that he takes the Bible sooooo seriously while upholding the proposition that God's primary revelation is not in any written text but in the cross of Christ. The texts simply bear witness to that revelation and help us comprehend it. I don't mean to ignore the OT here, and Barth doesn't, but I'm trying to be succinct.
I hope you'll continue to share your insights on this as you work through it with your class this fall.
Grace be with you,
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/27/2003 09:27:56 PM
Carmen,
I regret that we don't yet have a detailed discussion of 1 Cor 14 on the web site for you, but we'll get there eventually. I don't follow your suggestion that the silence of women in 1 Cor 14:34-35 was self-imposed, if you mean imposed by the women. If you mean imposed by the Corinthian (men?), then you might be close to position #4, below. I tend to think this admonition is imposed by Paul. Here are some ideas to think about. First, some solutions that don't seem satisfactory to me:
1. Paul lays down a hard rule that women should be silent in all churches in all times and places. This is the traditional position, but it ignores the degree to which Paul recognizes the ministries of women (see my articel "Laborers in the Lord" on this web site), and it ignores that in this same letter Paul has no problem with women praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:5). Besides, it contradicts the experience of so many women and men about the giftedness of women.
2. Paul did not write 1 Cor 14:34-35. These verses were interpolated (added in) later by a scribe with patriarchal tendencies. You can find this argued in Gordon Fee's commentary on 1 Cor in the New International Commentary on the NT, published by Eerdmans. But the trouble is that there is no positive evidence that any ancient manuscript of 1 Cor omitted these verses, so one must argue from negative evidence and speculation. This strikes me as a scissors-and-paste approach to verses that we find disagreeable. So I am skeptical of this argument.
3. Paul wrote what he wrote, but Paul was trapped in a patriarchal culture. In our more enlightened culture, we should place more weight on our own experience of the giftedness of women and we should take our cues from other texts (e.g., Gal 3:28) and traditions. The most radical feminists tend to downplay the whole NT text as hopelessly misogynistic and value experience over text and tradition (e.g., Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza and others.) I have trouble with this because I am not comfortable subordinating Scripture to experience. I prefer to read the Bible self-critically and subordinate my insights to the witness of Scripture. This radical approach casts away all theological moorings. I prefer to keep Scripture as a fixed benchmark towhich I must constantly return and recalibrate my understanding. This all gets into the hermeneutic questions that Tim is raising.
So much for readings that don't work so well, in my opinion.
I see two possibilities worth considering. In either case, I want to take seriously the logic of Paul's exhortation and to read it in a way that in makes sense in its own literary and historical context and remains instructive for me today. Here are the two possibilites I would suggest for your consideration:
4. It is possible that Paul is not expressing his own ideas in 14:34-35, but is quoting a Corinthian rule back to the Corinthians. There are several places in 1 Cor where Paul seems clearly to be quoting the Corinthians back to themselves, most notably several times in 6:12-20 and in 10:23. Perhaps he is doing the same in 14:34-35. In that case, one could read 14:36 as Paul's rebuttal to a Corinthian position that is too restrictive toward women. This position is adopted by Don Haymes in his article "9.5 Theses," elsewhere on this web site.
5. My own preferred solution is to read all three admonitions to silence in 14:28, 30, 34 as parallel. Some translations like the NIV completely obscure the fact that Paul uses exactly the same admonition "let them keep silent" for three groups--prophets, tongue speakers, and women. No one would suggest that Paul means to establish an absolute end to prophecy or tongue speaking in Corinth, much less anywhere else, as he makes clear in 14:1-25. Nor is he making a hard rule about women, as should be clear from 11:5. I suppose, then that Paul is limiting the disruptive and "disorderly" behavior of these three groups. It may be that a group of women prophets were the chief source of the disruptions in Corinthians assemblies, though that is speculation. In any case, Paul's admonitions are directed to a specific situation in a specific community. If and when the activities in our assemblies resemble the activities Paul describes in Corinth, then we need to take his advice.
This 5th is the position I take in my book 1 Corinthians: A Community Not of This Age (Abilene: Hillcrest, 2003). This is an adult study guide suitable for Bible study groups and Sunday Schools in the Streams of Mercy series. If anyone out there is looking for help steering a group through 1 Corinthians in a way that is sensitive to issues about women, please consider it.
I hope these remarks get to your question, Carmen. Thanks for all your participation in our struggles to comprehend ourselves in relation to God.
Grace be with you,
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/27/2003 09:06:15 PM
Carmen, I can definitely relate to where you're at on your journey. Although I was very active in the Church of Christ throughout high school, once I began studying the history of the Restoration Movement, I became curious enough to visit some local Disciples congregations. While at Northwestern University, I found there were no RM churches close to campus, so I embarked on what became an "independent study" visiting a slough of different churches-American Baptist, Congregational, Presbyterian, Quaker, United Methodist, and others. Just about every church I visited in Evanston, Illinois, had women in active leadership. I agree that the real question is not, "Where should I place my membership?" but instead, "What is the mission to which God is calling me, and how can I fulfill it most effectively?"
In 1984 finally transferred to the Disciples because their theological understanding of gender justice made sense to me, and at the same time, their sacramental practices were familiar given my CoC upbringing. At the time of my transfer, I had a heart-to-heart conversation with my CoC minister, who was very gracious and understanding of my reasons.
I have a couple ironies to share. I recently spoke with my former minister, and he told me that after he and his wife moved out of state, they did not find a CoC to their liking, so they worshipped with the Disciples. He told me that the presence of female elders and deacons was not a problem for him--praise God! Now the second irony involves my former Disciples minister in the church where I transferred. When he and his wife left here to retire out West, they found the local Disciples congregation there atypically conservative, e.g., it did not allow women elders. So he and his wife worshipped with the Presbyterians! I suppose even ministers do a little church-shopping now and then.
Switching churches should be a matter of last resort, and I honor those of you who are leading the process of discernment and change from within the CoC. It is so encouraging to read about people like Katie, who will be in tomorrow's RM history books. Now that there is a community gathered here in cyberspace, we need to spread the word and invite more into the circle. Opening live discussions in a congregational setting is a real undertaking, but if you can see the hope of making a difference, it is so well worth it.
I hope you and your family find encouragement on your new journey, and that you will learn how you can minister with your old church.
Your fellow traveler,
Kirk
:::posted by R. Kirk on 8/25/2003 10:11:46 PM
Kirk! What great news!
This is a good opportunity to announce that our family will be visiting the Christian Church DOC next Sunday. Our plan is to go there at least twice a month, and to our old COC church at least once a month, as well as have church and bible study at home. We have decided that the "membership" thing is a burden at this point in our lives. We are looking forward to enlarging our spiritual community!
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 8/25/2003 05:11:00 PM
Kirk, Thank you for sharing your cause for celebration with us. Exciting news!!! God continues to work through his people. grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 8/25/2003 08:51:45 AM
In the midst of some interesting discussions, I'd like to share a celebration. On Sunday morning, after a one-and-a-half year search, my congregation finally filled its full-time ministerial opening. (I had served on the Study Committee and helped draft the report used by the Search Committee.) Our congregation has called its first female senior minister in its 151-year history. A number of us eagerly awaiting her have dubbed her "The Preacher Lady!"
The candidate visited with the congregation Saturday evening at a potluck and delivered the sermon Sunday morning. Her message was scriptural and Spirit-filled, and despite any anxiety she might have felt, her voice projected well up to the balcony where I was seated.
After the service, she left the sanctuary for the congregational meeting that followed. When the moderator asked for a motion, I rose to go on record as nominating her. (This was a moment of pride for me as someone who grew up in the Church of Christ and could never have nominated a female servant-leader in my home congregation.) After a few minutes' discussion, the candidate was brought back into the sanctuary where the result of the vote was announced (97% in favor), and she joyfully accepted the call.
Since our church has occasionally had women in the pulpit as guest preachers and as interim ministers, gender was not an issue for most. However, one of the questions raised this morning was whether our candidate could serve effectively given that she has children. I hardly imagine that would be asked about a man!
I did learn something bittersweet about our new preacher. In my 39 years, every minister I've ever had was always older than me. Today I was dismayed to learn that is no longer the case, as I'm now stuck with a "younger sister." Hopefully that won't affect my hearing of the Word!
Kirk
:::posted by R. Kirk on 8/25/2003 04:56:08 AM
Vic - Thanks for your reply. I do not have access to the article. Do you mind giving me a little synopis? I have read several theories that address the passages in 1Cor. but have not met one that excites me. Sorry, about that ... I decided to delete my post until I have more time to craft my question. The following is the original post (It will have to do for now):
I'm still flailing around out here in left field and I could use some help with 1 Cor. 14.
In v.28 silence appears to be a contemplative mode between an individual and God.
In v.30 silence appears to be a method to further communication between individuals.
In both, silence is the context of listening and/or speech. It is a place to wait. It is a temporary, self-disciplined, productive, spiritual state.
I know this is unconventional, but given that biblical writings almost always represent silence as a beneficial aspect of the spiritual life, and that the earliest known spiritual communities observed silence, specifically at mealtimes ... Essenes, Carmelites ... and that the meal in the early church was a primary aspect, does anyone think it deserves to be explored that the silence of "the women" in v34 was self-imposed?
The interpretation of the women's silence being a spiritual restriction, to me, feels out of context with the rest of this letter and with the attitude about silence in the Bible.
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 8/24/2003 12:01:00 PM
Carmen,
Please say that you posted, starting with something about flailing in left field, or i will have to look for a shrink. I posted a reply, and when I checked to see that it posted, your post was gone - vanished. Am I nuts? (Maybe it was a program glitch, from an archive?)
:::posted by Vicki on 8/23/2003 11:16:18 AM
Carmen,
I found an article in the latest issue of Priscilla Papers (Summer 2003) by David Joel Hamilton, titled SHOULD WOMEN KEEP SILENT?, to be extremely insightful. Can you get your hands on a copy?
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 8/23/2003 11:13:57 AM
Vic--
Good stuff here. My comments arose from the ideas of Paul on being slaves to sin (or to righteousness). This is assuming, of course, that it is totally a choice, like cheating or lying or the like. I suppose that is part of the issue for a lot of people. Surely Paul -- being inspired -- would not talk about something as a "sin" if in fact it was just a different chemical make-up. Someone mentioned parallels with alcoholism, which is viewed today as more than just a choice. So...
As for women as leaders in the secular world, I think again we run into the problem of how ancient cultures would have read the Bible vs. how we do. Did the ancients see the "rules" about silence in worship as a part of a bigger topic of what women "should" do in a public setting? Or was this a special religious restriction? Many in our churches assume it is the latter, I think. Is that the sense others get?
Chad--
You're right on target about the rationalist approach not yielding unity. In fact, I would say it had the opposite effect. Which might be why a non-rationalist approach has some appeal. Can we agree to disagree and still all be Christian?
Tim
:::posted by Tim on 8/21/2003 10:56:28 PM
On Gender Justice and Homosexuality:
Kirk notes in an earlier post that the linguistic code we use to filter our understanding of homosexuality is a modern one--the very notion of sexual orientation is a 19th century construction, and treating homosexuality as a "sickness" to be cured through therapy is likewise a modern innovation that likely would have left Paul scratching his head. While I am in fundamental agreement with Tim that differences exist as to how to define "oppression" vis-a-vis homosexuality, I would add that the the "oppressiveness" of homosexuality is itself a modern idea (i.e. you need a therapeutic culture that can pose answers to the oppression for the language to make sense).
Thinking through the whole issue of gender justice, I am struck by how modern is the logic used to exclude women from ordained ministry. It is ironic that while most of us are perfectly comfortable with women serving in leadership capacities in corporate America, in government, and in public life that we have one sphere--the religious--where women are to be excluded. Why is this? One would think that for consistency's sake that we would be asserting that women should be excluded from leadership in any sphere outside the home; and yet most in our churches would be strongly resistant to any voice insisting that women belong only in the home, not at the office or the senate chamber.
In modernity our lives are made up of diverse spheres with different sets of gender rules. Women can lead in the secular world, but not in church. This separation of spheres is modern. Thus, one way of confronting this problem in the church is to expose this modern assumption for what it is. One could pose the question, "So if you think women should not play any leadership role in the church, then why would you acknowledge their authority in the world? If you truly believe that gender subordination is rooted in God's intent for creation, then why does it only apply for you in the church? What about those women in our church who are leading outside the church? Are they violating the order of creation?"
My sense is that in the minds of most church members the legitimacy of women in the secular workforce is well established. One way of pushing the conversation forward is to help members recognize the artificiality of how our social lives have been constructed.
Vic McCracken
vmccrac@emory.edu
:::posted by Victor on 8/20/2003 02:57:03 PM
Tim,
Very thoughtful reflections. You write, "It [i.e. a more postmodern hermeneutic] seems to allow for fragmentation among believers, when most of us seem to want unity." Were we ever actually unified under the rubric of modernist hermeneutics? And is it really unity we want, or certainty that we possess the truth?
Will write more when I get a chance...
Chad
:::posted by Chad on 8/20/2003 10:59:16 AM
Vic,
I haven't done much in the evangelical vrs CoC comparrisons in general. I sat through one of the forums at Lectureship last Feb (while the ice was building!) and found it interesting (probably have a little of the evangelical nature in me :>) ). I read a new book by a female evangelical minister/theological professor on the egalitarian vrs her evangelical based view of the gender issues (which IMO were not a whole lot different than the complimentary-egalitarian position which I identify with). Some of her ideas were quite interesiting. I guess I'll have to sit back and watch what else is posted here on that subject like I did the post-modern discussion. BTW, you might try putting that out on the GCM (http://www.gcmagazine.net) discussion board under theology . We have some members that might really enjoy a discussion of that nature (Bobby Valentine, Bob Hendren, Lee Freeman, and others). I'm one of the moderators over there.
BTW, told my daughter (Shannon Rains) yesterday that you had checked into GAL328. Lord willing, changes will be taking place in her situation in the near future!
Think I'll go try to take a nap (it's only 4am). Woke up at 2 am after 4 hours sleep! I take two weeks vacation and can't sleep! Maybe Colorado will take care of that problem! Pagossa Springs--here I come!!!
Grace to you and peace. Wiley
:::posted by Wiley on 8/20/2003 05:12:45 AM
Wow Tim, how did you manage to say so much of what our whole movement is saying and questioning in one post? I heard so many people's voices in your thoughts from both sides of this discussion. But overall I heard my husband's voice. He also has so many of the same questions and is very compassionate to both sides of the discussion but when discussing with me he has learned to sound as if he feels the same as I do. I only get to hear the other feelings when we are in conversation with others. I must be a little touchy when he disagrees with me....huh? grace, Julie
:::posted by julie on 8/19/2003 09:25:54 PM
Thanks to Jason, Chad, Tom and others for the helpful recent discussions. I found especially insightful the comments about mutual submission rather than parallel demands for rights (I think this is something we American Christians particularly need to confront), as well as the recognition that the Spirit does not endow genders with exclusive, gender-specific gifts. I’m really struggling yet again with the whole hermeneutic question, finding merit and fault with every approach. All have the potential to become idols, and all have the potential for providing helpful insights.
What I would like to hear is some discussion of something that I think lies just under the surface of all this: authority. How does God exercise authority through the text? With each interpretive approach there comes a whole constellation of assumptions and preferences related to that. For the rationalists (not just CINE folks), there is the assumption that God thinks and communicates according to (human) logic, and so the Bible is read constitutionally, with divine ordinances that need to be adopted and adhered to. Going hand in hand with this is the (in)formal designation of certain people (like yours truly) as teacher-preacher, who unconsciously fall into the trap of thinking they are supposed to speak for God, when they should be listening, like everyone else. This is why I sometimes find the assumptions of post-modernism appealing. Here you take note of the narrative (or meta-narrative) of each text and each person. This approach helps to remind us of the equality we all share before God. On the other hand, it seems to allow for fragmentation among believers, when most of us seem to want unity. (Otherwise, why would we be bothering to discuss these things?)
OK, that’s just a start. This all gets really complicated when we start applying it to specific issues, as the discussion of homosexuality points out. Kirk raises the principle of liberating the oppressed, which both rationalists and post-moderns would agree is a biblical principle. But it goes deeper. What is it that oppresses homosexuals? Is it homophobes, or is it homosexuality itself? If you think homosexuality is a sin, then you would go with the latter. If you think it is natural, you would go with the former. The same sort of uncertainty about assumptions goes along with the issue of the public role of women in worship. Is there oppression in the traditional restrictions, or is it in some “sinful pride” that afflicts certain women? Trying to figure that out brings us back to hermeneutics, and thus my own unending struggle. And I’m supposed to teach a class this fall on biblical interpretation. Aaaaagggghh!!
Peace,
Tim
:::posted by Tim on 8/19/2003 07:29:38 PM
Thanks, Chris. Both of your replies will be beneficial. Ditto what Chad said!
:::posted by Vicki on 8/19/2003 03:06:51 PM
Chris, woe is me! I am doomed now that I checked out that book site. So many books, so little time. :)
Vic, Richard Hughes has a chapter in his latest book _Reclaiming a Heritage_ on the relationship between the Restoration movement and evangelicalism. Part of his interest in this has come from collaboration with leading evangelical scholars like George Marsden and Nathan Hatch. I tend to think there are points of contact between these movements, but it also varies depending upon how much one is or is not committed to some notion of restoration. You might also check the backlogs of the Stone-Campbell discussion list; I would imagine this question has come up there.
Peace,
Chad
:::posted by Chad on 8/19/2003 01:45:44 PM
Wiley,
Thanks for the note. I too hope to become more involved with Gal328.org. Frankly, it is quite encouraging to see a site like this for our tradition. I'm glad to contribute anything helpful.
Have you all had any discussion about the relationship between evangelicalism and the Churches of Christ? I'm doing a lot of work right now on American evangelicalism (I'm studying ethics and sociology of religion; evangelicalism is a major area of study with a growing corpus of theoretical literature). At times it's hard for me to decide whether or not to describe our tradition as an evangelical one, to say nothing of myself!
I'd be interested in your thoughts.
vmccrac@emory.edu
:::posted by Victor on 8/19/2003 01:28:47 PM
Vicki,
Check out the Advanced Book Exchange at www.abe.com. There are several copies of MacMullen's _Christianizing the Roman Empire_ available, starting about $15.00. But I warn you, once you see this site, you're liable to buy more books.
Happy reading.
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/19/2003 01:23:54 PM
Vicki,
You might consider the Simpson Street Church of Christ on the near west side of Atlanta at 810 Simpson Street (www.simpsonstreetchurchofchrist.org). The minister, Andrew Hairston, is a judge in the city court. He also holds a DMin from Emory and preaches to a congregation of professionals who don't mind asking questions. I have taught and preached for them a couple of times and had a great time. The worship service presents a traditional patriarchal face, but it's very warm and lively. In my experience, the people there welcome not only newcomers but also discussions that push beyond traditional, pat answers.
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/19/2003 01:06:12 PM
Hi Vic.
My friend had been at Northlake, but the drive from the south side of Atlanta was too much for them to be involved the way she wanted to be. She's been visiting one closer to her home, but it left a pretty bad taste in her mouth.
Thanks for info. I'll attempt to retain it for future use.
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 8/19/2003 09:45:50 AM
Wow! A voice out of the almost distant past! Hello Vic!!! It's been a while since I've seen you post anywhere. Glad you came to join in here (Figured I'd see something like "PhD student" or just "PhD" by your name along the way when we crossed paths again!). Hope you will become a regular here.
Grace to you and peace.
Wiley Clarkson
wclarkson@clarksons.org
http://www.clarksons.org
:::posted by Wiley on 8/18/2003 07:08:47 PM
Vicki,
I'm currently at the Northlake Church of CHrist in Atlanta, a smaller congregation than North Atlanta, but one that has a lot of diversity, theological and racially. I found out about Gal328.org from an elder and his wife at our church. As for open-minded churches, I've heard good things about North Atlanta and Campus. Northlake is also good; there are a number of people connected to Emory University who attend Northlake (Carl Holladay, a NT prof at Candler, is here as is Pat Graham, head of Pitts Theological Library). My wife and I have found Northlake to be an interesting congregation with lots of potential. We've just started a minister search, our former minister having left for Bammel Road in Houston.
Feel free to email me if you have any questions.
Vic McCracken
PhD Student
Graduate Division of Religion
Emory University
vmccrac@emory.edu
:::posted by Victor on 8/18/2003 02:36:08 PM
USED BOOK NEEDED
My husband is looking for:
MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianizing the Roman Empire (A.D. 100-400). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984.
Not for fun. For a course.
Let me know if we can do business. : )
:::posted by Vicki on 8/18/2003 11:17:34 AM
Hi everyone. Thanks for following up on my postmodern-analysis question. Brent and I have been on the road in our hefty UHaul, dragging our worldly possessions behind us. So I've had a lot of catching up to do... The questions of rationality & religion fascinate me (in fact, this is the motivation behind choosing science & religion as my focus at PTS). Becoming aware that my narrative was not absolute and binding on everyone else has been a really long process...maybe a little scary. It certainly changed how I viewed myself as a Christian missionary in China.
I'd like to applaud Kirk's statement: "as we struggle together as the community of faith, until we are totally confident of our conclusions, I would rather we count folks in than count them out."
Looking forward to settling in in Princeton, and getting to hang out with Rick, too.
Jen
:::posted by Jennifer on 8/17/2003 06:09:29 PM
Chad – I do agree that metanarratives, like chameleons, are not equally expressed in every place and time, but there is a source and lineage to every thought of every individual.
Here's my metanarrative for this bright postmodern morning: Metanarratives just taste better when you catch 'em yourself!
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 8/17/2003 11:27:00 AM
Thanks, sweet, dangling, hanging, pregnant Chad. I knew about North, but not Campus. I'll pass it along.
:::posted by Vicki on 8/17/2003 10:30:51 AM
Vicki,
I've known good folks from Campus and North Atlanta in the metro area there. Both tend to be more on the "progressive" end of things (for lack of a better term).
Carmen, here's my metanarrative of the day: Not all metanarratives are equal. :-)
Grace,
Chad
:::posted by Chad on 8/17/2003 08:51:03 AM
Help?
Does anyone on this forum know much about the Atlanta metro area CoC's? I have someone seeking a new church home, and they prefer CoC but are open to others - not too terribly far out of their comfort zone - but so far all they find is legalism and slander.
Thanks!
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 8/16/2003 06:16:46 PM
Lance – Loved the Story of Postmodernism! It reminded me of this from Annie Dillard, “The world’s spiritual geniuses seem to discover universally that the mind’s muddy river, this ceaseless flow of trivia and trash, cannot be dammed, and that trying to dam it is a waste of effort that might lead to madness.”
Jason – Although Webb is not my cup of tea, if he can manage to dislodge patriarchy from the fundamentalist platform, I’ll drink to that!
Chad – Ok. Let’s get this communication problem cleared up once and for all. You show me your meta-narrative and I’ll show you mine ;-D !
Carmen
:::posted by Carmen on 8/16/2003 03:34:00 PM
Vicki, I would never argue that the church should promote sin of any kind. At the same time I feel that the church can do a better job of inviting outsiders.
I should probably clarify up-front that I do not view as sinful same-sex relationships which are established on principles of love and justice. Since this is admittedly a non-traditional interpretation of scripture, I should have stated this in my earlier post.
When my congregation studied this issue back in the mid-90's, we were visited by a biblical scholar from the University of Chicago who took us verse by verse through each scriptural passage dealing with same-gender relations. She analyzed the text in its original language and openly addressed some of the challenges in translating the meaning to contemporary English, and shared knowledge of the cultural context in which the passages were written. Most importantly, she grappled with our latter-day interpretation based on what we know and what we do not know. Ultimately the Church is left with the question of how we understand these messages and what relevance they have for the community today. As a result of this study, my congregation was left with some specific decisions to be made.
While I can't locate those study documents right now, I would commend to you a book I read last week (while on jury duty), "The Good Book: Reading the Bible With Heart and Mind," by Peter J. Gomes. Gomes is Plummer Professor Christian Morals at Harvard Divinity School, minister in Harvard's Memorial Church, and ordained in the American Baptist Church. For the relevance of this forum, Gomes has chapters specifically addressing the Bible's treatment of women and also gay/lesbian persons. He considers each of the primary scriptures used to justify the subjugation of these groups, and wrestles with those challenges of interpretation. At the end of the day Gomes envisions a community that embraces women and homosexuals with a Gospel message that is liberating for both--not one group at the expense of another. I recommend "The Good Book" not as an exhaustive scholarly analysis, but as a highly readable and understandable perspective which is rooted in excellent scholarship.
Have a good weekend, folks. I'm off to the Chicago Air and Water Show!
Kirk
:::posted by R. Kirk on 8/16/2003 10:04:47 AM
Just a quick question: Where can I find out more about the vector approach? I'm sorry if it's self-evident in the posts; I'll look through them more carefully, but if anyone can suggest a few books, articles, etc, that'd be great.
Q.
:::posted by Q on 8/15/2003 08:05:21 PM
Kirk, thanks for your post. You touch on something that I noticed in the Christianity Today review of Webb's book. The phenomenon that we unfortunately label "homosexuality" - where this is understood as a category of identity - is of recent historical origin, a category invented by nineteenth century psychiatry to describe what, at the time, they perceived to be a mental illness in some urbanized, industrial men (Oscar Wilde being the most famous case). But the reviewer cites Webb as noting that Galatians 3:28, while including categories of race and gender, doesn't mention those of gay or straight. Well duh. Those social categories simply didn't exist in Paul's day, and this winds up involving Webb in a rather embarrassing anachronism.
Peace,
A "Chad" by any other name is just as sweet, dangling, hanging, and pregnant :)
:::posted by Chad on 8/15/2003 11:40:39 AM
Kirk (and anyone else who wants to reply),
Does your view of acceptance include all sexual sins (sinners)?
(I'm sure there is a better way of wording that, but I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet, and it's already mid-morning.)
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 8/15/2003 11:35:52 AM
Personal opinion Kirk, but while I agree that we treat homosexuality disproportionality worse than other topics listed in the same lists, I don't know that the answer is complete acceptance. I agree that we cannot continue with the current level of revile, I do believe that the activity (but not the urges) should be treated as contrary to scripture. The verdict is still out on the full context of the original writers, but at least certain types are lumped in with deceit, robbery, swearing, other forms of sexual immorality, etc. But again, we are called to love the sinner, not the sin. Are we inconsistant? Yes. Does that signal that we should completely drop it? Not in my opinion. But we currently erect such barriers that we will never be able to work with those to find their relationship with God.
As to the biological inate tendancy arguments, I see it much as alcholism. They have for some reason been given a harder road to follow, but that does not obliviate their responsibilies to at least try and live as we've been called.
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 8/15/2003 10:24:45 AM
I am uncomfortable with the whole notion that in order to advance biblical interpretations which are liberating for women, we need to apply a set of standards which are not liberating for gay and lesbian folk. It is disheartening that gender issues and sexual orientation issues are being juxtaposed, one at the expense of the other.
I have a great respect for the Bible as the repository of holy writings that portrays the history, the quest, and the ultimate trajectory of God's people. To grasp the messages of the writings, we need to struggle with linguistic, literary, historical, and cultural settings. And we need to confess that our interpretations are never perfect. The best we can hope to do is catch a glimmer of God's light, struggling as best we can. As we struggle together as the community of faith, until we are totally confident of our conclusions, I would rather we count folks in rather than count them out.
That being said, I find it quite a phenomenon that the contemporary evangelical Christian community is so consumed with the concept of homosexual sin. To my knowledge, none of the scripture writers reflect today's understanding of the concept of sexual orientation. There are in fact a very small number of biblical passages that refer to homosexual acts and indeed nothing on the lips of Jesus. If we were to take Jesus' own teachings about the Hebrew Law vs. the law of love, why can't we free ourselves from the Levitical Code? This is not to say that we are free to do just whatever we want, but we are living by a new standard that is rooted in higher principles.
I am much more comfortable with interpretations that begin with love and justice being practiced in community, which sometimes means accepting persons whose experience and orientation are very different from our own. From there, together, we explore the messages of scripture. There is nothing to be gained by setting up white picket fences and making hermeneutical standards that work well for ourselves. We advance as people of faith when we dialogue with those other voices.
Kirk
:::posted by R. Kirk on 8/15/2003 09:28:51 AM
Chad,
He takes what I can only describe as a mixed approach. He maintains some parts of scripture are culturally confined and some are transcultural. His 18 criteria are there to help you figure out which are which. Applying it real quick in my head, I would say that his method would suggest that "Have no other gods before me" is a transcultural idea whereas "Greet each other with a holy kiss" is cultural confined. Once a text is decided to probably be culturally confined, you are encouraged to try and find the transculture premise behind it that can be reapplied in your culture (i.e. Christian fellowship).
The only thing that stops him from being a deconstructionist (as I understand the term) is that he does consider some texts wholely transcultural. However, his method is open to reanalysis of which texts are which.
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 8/15/2003 08:04:36 AM
Jason, et al -
Post:modernity is not what you think.
Or, did I shave my legs for this?
I will ask you one question: Answer me, and I will tell you by what strategy I am saying these things. Webb's concept of rationality - is it cultural, or transcultural?
Here I will now graft, with arbitrary glosses of my own (assuming there is an "I"), the words of my apparent teacher, and apparent author, Randall J. Harris, whose intentions may no doubt take issue with such shameless plundering:
"The legacy of postmodern theology is seen in these twin pillars: iconoclasm, linguisticality. Iconoclasm prevents postmodernity from becoming an ideology because it always turns on itself [read: the meaning of repentance - turning around]. This is the negative moment [read: The Cross] when the insufficiency of every human construct is displayed. The sin postmodernity constantly attacks is idolatry [read: Thou shalt have no other gods - golden calfs, secular states, concepts of rationality, gender hierarchies, economic systems that crush the poor, privilege given to certain races, etc]. Whatever is said is not God, and is not ultimate truth.
"But its linguistic turn is more positive [read: the hope of Resurrection]. Language is not pure lie for not being pure Being. In the resourcefulness of language God appears not as pure Deity, but as something other than himself. So language is always pregnant with the possibility of revelation. The word still speaks.
"...Shall I [further] attempt to explicate post-modern theology for voyeurs and Philistines? I think not. For those modernists who want their post-modernity chewed, digested, and regurgitated in straight-forward enlightenment rationality, the puke that makes up [my previous posts] is all you get. This is simply not the way of my people.
"...The playfulness of language may be frustrating [read: this is a wearisome conversation], but it is the portal to Be-ing."
And now the time has come, my friends, to talk of other things...of shoes, and socks...
An apparent man with a wooden leg named Smith
:::posted by Chad on 8/14/2003 08:23:53 PM
Okay, so to get back to our original question Chad, how do you see the rationality as espoused by Webb as damaging? His book encourages continuing questioning of both yourself and others' analysis. It acknowledges that it is fallable and cannot gaurantee outcome. The examples you expressed were systems with poorly designed models, but more importantly, they were all designed to be self-reinforcing. Webb is purposefully self reflecting, an entirely different use of your methaphorical hammer.
Rationality can produce advancement and in many realms, the models tend to progress over time. If it is informed by postmodernism, it can be more readily corrected and is more aware of its limitations but it tends to either progress or radically reinvent itself as time goes on. I wouldn't say that we're asymtopically (sorry can't spell it) approaching perfection, but many areas, esp. in the harder sciences to build from generation to generation. Look at physics and cosmology. They're undergoing some really interesting theories. Are they correct? Probably not entirely, but just as Newton was good enough for a long time until Einstien improved his model for some edge cases, many flawed models have value. Even chaos theory does not debunk modeling, it just warns us that some models may become so complex with so many inputs that it is impractical to apply them in the real world. In fact, I would say that that is the biggest benefit of postmodernism to rationals: it continually sits on our shoulders and whispers "Yes, but you're still probably missing some inputs..."
The social and soft sciences haven't done as well as they have data that is much harder to quantify (a key dependancy of the rational thought process). And while God is by nature unquantifiable, his expression in the Bible is somewhat prone to analysis. This is what Webb tries to do.
The problem with postmodernism is that while it allows people to question the truths given them, it doesn't of itself reveal truths. Analysis can do so albiet imperfectly in most cases.
"Now we see but dimly..."
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 8/14/2003 04:15:44 PM
Okay, so to get back to our original question Chad, how do you see the rationality as espoused by Webb as damaging? His book encourages continuing questioning of both yourself and others' analysis. It acknowledges that it is fallable and cannot gaurantee outcome. The examples you expressed were systems with poorly designed models, but more importantly, they were all designed to be self-reinforcing. Webb is purposefully self reflecting, an entirely different use of your methaphorical hammer.
Rationality can produce advancement and in many realms, the models tend to progress over time. If it is informed by postmodernism, it can be more readily corrected and is more aware of its limitations but it tends to either progress or radically reinvent itself as time goes on. I wouldn't say that we're asymtopically (sorry can't spell it) approaching perfection, but many areas, esp. in the harder sciences to build from generation to generation. Look at physics and cosmology. They're undergoing some really interesting theories. Are they correct? Probably not entirely, but just as Newton was good enough for a long time until Einstien improved his model for some edge cases, many flawed models have value. Even chaos theory does not debunk modeling, it just warns us that some models may become so complex with so many inputs that it is impractical to apply them in the real world. In fact, I would say that that is the biggest benefit of postmodernism to rationals: it continually sits on our shoulders and whispers "Yes, but you're still probably missing some inputs..."
The social and soft sciences haven't done as well as they have data that is much harder to quantify (a key dependancy of the rational thought process). And while God is by nature unquantifiable, his expression in the Bible is somewhat prone to analysis. This is what Webb tries to do.
The problem with postmodernism is that while it allows people to question the truths given them, it doesn't of itself reveal truths. Analysis can do so albiet imperfectly in most cases.
"Now we see but dimly..."
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 8/14/2003 04:15:17 PM
Lance,
Wonderful. The only thing I would add to the story is all those unheard-of tales where people did not just blindly accept what the authorities told them. We still have many stories that need to be retold.
Peace,
Chad
:::posted by Chad on 8/14/2003 12:18:29 PM
The Story of Modernism
Once upon a time, people decided they didn’t want to just blindly accept what they were told by the authorities anymore. They were beginning to suspect that some of the received “truth” being handed down was “just a bunch of stories.” They felt that such superstitious stories were holding them back, keeping them from being and knowing all that they could be and know. They wanted to come of age.
They didn’t want to have anything to do with subjective, imprecise, passion-mongering story-tellers anymore. Instead, they wanted to be objective, careful, and rational. They developed a method for their analysis. And sure enough, they began to be and know all kinds of new things. They invented umbrellas and vaccines. They proposed elegant and profoundly useful explanations for why birds have hollow bones, or why monkeys look so much like people. They even found that their method provided a new way to analyze and explain the old stories, which now all seemed rather quaint.
They built a grand civilization. They conquered the world.
But then, after a long time, a funny thing happened. First some of their poets (they still kept the poets around just for kicks), and then some of their sociologists, and yes, finally, even some of their physicists got a very disturbing idea. What if this method that allowed them to transcend the tyranny of stories was just another story after all? What if it was such a big, and compelling, and immersive, and ambitious story that it was completely invisible—like water to a fish?
The new thinkers had a hunch: a truly tyrannical story would not be recognizable as a story at all, would it? It would call other stories, “mere stories,” but it would not allow itself to be called a story. It would declare itself the interpreter of stories and pretend that it was something else entirely: “the way things are,” or “the nature of reality,” or some other irrefutable given. It would weave a tale in which “objective, careful, and rational” would appear not as characters within one story, but as the great guardians of Truth that stand like giants above the small world of stories.
A world that lived according to a story like that might be technically proficient, but ultimately it would not be objective, careful, or rational. Such things are part of the story, but not necessarily the world it creates. For example, a world that lived according to such a story would be technically proficient enough to alter brain chemistry with substances like Paxil and Prozac. But would such a world stop to ponder the great demand it has created for substances like Paxil and Prozac? Would it ever begin to suspect that it is a world that lives according to a story after all, a story that is at once both profoundly beautiful, and deeply flawed?
The wondering about all this is called Post-Modernism.
:::posted by Lance on 8/14/2003 12:00:22 PM
Jason and Jen,
Analysis is not "anti-post-modern." Postmoderns are constantly analyzing, albeit in different forms or with different strategies from their modern parents - though self-reflexively using the tools they inherited. Or to use a figure we've tossed around before...the same hammer that builds a house can be the same hammer used to tear it down.
Rationality is one of those tools. Is it trustworthy? Meditate for a moment on the rational state experiments of the 20th century - fascism, communism, and liberal democracy all have in common a certain kind of rationality, the heart of which is control. This control may be overt (all property controlled by a centralized bureaucracy) or covert (the disciplining of the body through manners). But it is control nonetheless, and control is always about the exercise of power. And biblically speaking, one might say that the will-to-control (or will-to-power, if you prefer) is getting at what we mean by "original sin." The rationality so prized and exalted by certain forms of modernity (of which CoCs are one) cannot lead us to a place of unambigous utopia - as has been claimed in the past. It did not, and that raises the question of if it can. It means we need to rethink the place of a concept of rationality within our thought.
I've gotten a lot of good feedback from students and colleagues for the following way to think about postmodernity. Postmodernity is the bastard child of the Enlightenment project - unwanted, undesirable, unlooked-for, unloved, the product of the irresponsibility of its parents, and it cannot be wished away no matter how much we wish this hadn't happened. It is more of an idiom than an -ism, a condition of our time rather than the next system.
To spin this theologically, the Gospel story is the ultimate story of deconstruction (dismantling). All deconstructive gestures, whether those of the Hebrew prophets (see Jeremiah - "to pluck up and tear down, to build and to plant"), the Apostles, the reform movements of church history, the campaigns for equality in the 20th-century - perform a double movement. The first movement is an inversion, "turning the world upside down," where all the priveleged sites of power are overturned, i.e. black over white, female over male, writing over speech, community over individual, etc. The point, however, is not to enshrine a new heirarchy of arbitrary power but to destabilize the old one. Where some "postmodernists" go awry is that they stop there without performing the second gesture, which is this: sweeping away the logic of binary opposition that is the condition for the possibility of injustice. I would argue that the Cross is God's first gesture, the Resurrection the second and final move. There are no greater world-shattering, world-creating events than those narrated by the Gospel.
The implications for our discussion on gender justice is that it is certain strands of postmodern thinking that, historically, have opened up the creative space in which to *think* the possibility of human relations being *other* than what they have been, even reflecting the will and purposes of the One revealed through the prophets, apostles, Son, and Spirit. It's not simply a matter of figuring out particular answers to questions we bring to the biblical text. It's about reframing our questions, which is exactly what Jesus always does when people come to him looking for answers. "Teacher, what must I do to have eternal life? And, tell me who is my neighbor?" "Let me tell you a story about a guy going down the road..."
Jen, you and Brent take good care of Rick while he's in New Jersey. :)
Chad
:::posted by Chad on 8/14/2003 11:22:15 AM
Jen - Are you back in the States?
:::posted by Vicki on 8/14/2003 10:10:13 AM
question: is analysis anti-post-modern?
jen, who is about to move to New Jersey
:::posted by Jennifer on 8/14/2003 12:19:30 AM
Mark -
A "who": William J. Webb is the author of SLAVES, WOMEN & HOMOSEXUALS. the book Jason has reviewed for me that past few days.
:::posted by Vicki on 8/13/2003 09:11:53 PM
I should know this...but would someone refresh my memory as to who/what "Webb" is?
Thanks!
:::posted by Mark on 8/13/2003 07:39:02 PM
Chad,
I have trouble seeing modernity as idolitry. In my particular case, I was referring more to my inability to see how many postmodern modes of thought can minimize their chance of error than in any form of idolitry. I may accept the charge of arrogance but I see that as a separate issue than idolitry. I guess you could say that I'm unable to be objective about subjectivity. Ironic, no? Or are you saying that I'm unconsciously worshiping "great" thinkers and their works (i.e. modern science)? Its not that I lift rationality above God, it is that rationality is the only tool I trust to study God (this is not to say that I am not able to commune with God without it, only that I do not consider such modes of thought as viable for determining his will or nature). Please clarify.
I agree that different conceptual models are better for expressing concepts for some people than others. But I firmly believe that the best way we have to actually study most topics is via analysis. After the analysis is as complete as possible, the meme may be expressed in a variety of modes for the variety of people consuming it. So while I can accept postmodern forms of expression, I rely on modern study. Without rationality, how do we prevent people from overlaying any old preconception onto a given issue? While we cannot altogether stop that with systematic thought processes, we can at least guard against it.
And this does not mean that every text must be hyperanalyzed. I believe that Fee and Stuart are bumping up the right idea in that different types of texts must be treated differently. Its very damaging to stories and certain other texts to take a hyperanalytical approach and examine details in a context outside of the story. But this does not mean that analysis is futile.
But my biggest complaint of postmodernism is the implicate presumption that because perfect analysis is impossible, analysis is of no value. I will admit that overanalysis is detremental. People often read too much into a text. However, underanalysis is at least as problematic. The radical-reader approach (as I understand it) allows the reader to bring too much baggage with them.
As in most things in life, I suspect that there is no simple answer and that the truth lies somewhere amixed the extremes taken by all sides. And, postmodernism is still a rather murky concept for me. I have yet to see a decent, all-encompasing analysis?/definition?/whatever of it.
Sorry about the vast ramblings. Thanks for all the feedback. As an introvert, its always good to get some external feedback into the loop.
--Jason trapped in the wrong century.
:::posted by Jason on 8/13/2003 05:00:54 PM
Jason, you might be surprised to know that your thinking is almost postmodern (in the best sense of that complicated term), in spite of yourself. You actually are a product of a kind of postmodern thinking - whatever works for me! :) The anxieties you express, however, are very modern. You say you are scared of subjectivity, and yet you acknowledge that different models work for different people - one size does not fit all. I think your instincts are better than your logic. :)
Setting aside my playful, virtual blogger-self for a moment, I would note that many Christian thinkers (myself included) are coming to view the assumptions of secular modernity - assumptions which most modern theology in both Catholic and Protestant guises (and I would put Webb in here) uncritically embraces - as a very subtle and insidious form of idolatry. I'm not intentionally trying to pick on Jason here, but one might ask after a statement such as "I am and will always be a rational modern" - can one be a faithful disciple of Christ in a postmodern world, one where the old foundations have crumbled, and still be a rational modern? Again, just raising questions.
Back in character - let me blow everyone's brain open a little more - all rational, modern analysts, like their postmodern language-game players are storytellers. Models always tell stories. Science tells stories. The Gospel is a story. To be human is to be a story-telling creature. We are always within, never outside, of some story. The question is which one we live by.
:::posted by Chad on 8/13/2003 04:15:59 PM
Chad,
Interesting and probably very valid observation. However, I am and will always be, a rational modern. As I said before, Webb is very good for rationals. I think Paul was onto something when he said (paraphrased) "I strive to be all things to all people." Hence Webb is good for people like me whereas others need other approaches. For instance, those who connect with narratives are able to embrace their subjectivity and not attempt to minimize it to the degree possible. But from my perspective, I can only strive acknowlege my subjectivity while striving to study it so that it cannot completely control me. Despite my age, I am not really a product of postmodern thinking. I guess growing up in the boonies really is 20 years behind the times. That being said, I am not alone and approaches that work for me can be used to help others.
Postmodern thinking scares me, plain and simple. How can narritive be used to prove things? I can come up with a tale for any purpose. I'm speaking tongue-in-cheek here, but at a very visceral level, that is how I feel. Hmm, I need a "Tale of the Over-Analytical" to awaken postmodern thinkers to my plight. ;-)
I'm an analyst by trade. The most I can do is work out the best model that I can and be cognizant that it must be continually refined and even then will never reach perfection. I approach the Bible the same way that I approach the rest of life. The cool thing is that one day I can ask God what the ultimate model is. Why I will grant that we cannot know ultimate truth, I do believe that it exists. That's as far as my nod to existentialism will extend. I view God, and for that matter, everything else as something like an incredibly complex cut diamond. While I can never fully measure, understand or appreciate every nuance and detail, and can get a mental picture of the overall whole. Additionally, I can study a particular facet and gain additional appreciation of it even though I will never know it in full. I see theology and scriptural study in a similar vein.
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 8/13/2003 02:57:32 PM
Just for kicks, I thought I'd throw a couple of postmodern sense in here on this recent thread. So consider this another thought-experiment. :) I think Katie said ages ago something about the hermeneutic question being THE question. (Katie, if you didn't say that, my apologies - perhaps it was the anti-Katie?) Regardless of who said it, I'd agree.
I certainly don't want to diminish anyone's enthusiasm for a method that opens them up to a more Christ-like practice of human relationships. But I do want to register a tiny dissent against Webb (by which I mean the Webb of the text, not the human being - the latter no doubt means very well). Jason notes that "a lot of our assumptions are a wee bit on the inconsistant side." Or as a prof of mine at Lipscomb would say, "Consistency is not one of humanity's greatest virtues." We are slow to recognize the implications of our own assumptions.
Tom's question about proving gender justice using CENI gets to the heart of the issue. CENI is a strategy of reading completely inscribed within the assumptions of rational modernity. In a different way, Webb is within that same overall framework. Certainty is at best only relative, and 18 limiting methods/vectors are still fundamentally a means to control interpretation of the text.
The heirarchical opposition of the transcultural over the cultural is, for Webb, actually a reflection of an enlightened, rational, managerial culture - one which Webb believes he stands outside. But, as Derrida says of the text, "there is no outside to culture." So here we have another instance of the transcultural caught in the flux and exchange of culture. What we need here is a better concept of culture that sees that "the conditions of the written text are also...the conditions of cultural existence in general" (John Milbank).
If we haven't understood this yet, our thinking about gender involves the very same hermeneutical issues that arise in questions of sexuality, economics, politics, and identity. Only modernists attempt to prove their readings. Postmodernists, on other hand, know that all you can do is out-narrate. The story told by the witness of the scriptures and the confession of the Church could still carry the day - even if there were no such text as the Bible.
Chad, resident post-whatever blogger :)
ps-Carmen, I did notice your lack of problematic terms, but I still don't know what you're saying. :) What do you mean by "meta-narrative of Man and Woman"? When I read that word, I'm thinking of Lyotard, i.e. "The postmodern condition is one of incredulity toward metanarratives" - and I begin to feel a little incredulous. So, my response to you is that of Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride - "You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means." ;)
:::posted by Chad on 8/13/2003 02:49:36 PM
FYI: here's a link to my review of the hermeneutical method in HTML format in case anyone didn't want to deal with the .DOC version. As I mentioned before, I tried to avoid the egalitarian discussions in his book to start people thinking about the approach dispassionately.
:::posted by Jason on 8/13/2003 02:05:39 PM
Tom,
I think that is a valid concern and one I held myself from my background in CENI. The benefit of Webb is that he lays out 18 methods designed to limit you from reading vectors into the text that aren't there or taking them farther than scripture seems to intend. While some of his criteria are stonger than others, and not all are appliciable to every situation, they go a long ways towards keeping us intellectually honest. Granted, nothing is 100% certain as he readily admits, but you can at least form decisions of reasonable certainty. This is especially important as people start to realize that a lot of our assumptions are a wee bit on the inconsistant side. If we can give people a framework that is more consistant, that will be attractive. If, at the same time, we can introduce doubt that they are following the "safest" course, then minds will begin to open. If God really intended us to lead culture forward in selected areas (as defined in the text, not by our desires), then refusing that intention becomes the shaky ground instead of the current thought that change is risky.
I'll let you guys know how our class turns out. The initial study with 4 of us really changed us. Hopefully, the larger study will change the rest of the congregation. Luckily, we're something like 70% 1st generation Church of Christers, so we're a bit more flexible than other groups.
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 8/13/2003 01:37:48 PM
The vector idea is very interesting, and I think you can make a strong argument that God calls us to continually move toward the ideal. Discipleship is not static.
I guess the problem I see is that those who are thoroughly grounded in CENI ("Command, Example, Necessary Inference") are likely to accuse you of changing the rules just to prove what you want. It will probably get tagged as part of "the New Hermeneutic" (a phrase as ambiguous as "Post-Modernism"), and dismissed as just twisting the scriptures to suit one's desires. Even though CENI, at least as applied, tends to rely heavily on scripture-twisting.
So, which is likely to be harder? Proving gender justice using CENI, or convincing the CENI adherent of the vector approach?
-Tom
:::posted by TWD on 8/13/2003 01:12:44 PM
Jason,
It was not until my sis and bro-in-law (Katie and Lance) introduced me to the vector approach or argument years ago that I fully grasped the theological implications of egalitarianism. The old exegetical arguments and hermeneutics weren't cutting it and were in fact, the strongest tool of the traditionalists. The vector approach helped me look at the Word more clearly and gave me a better understanding of where we ought to go with passages such as Galatians 3:28!
Webb sounds pretty interesting. Thanks Jason for your input and welcome Jeff P.!
:::posted by jch on 8/13/2003 12:03:52 PM
Thanks, Jason. i think I'm ready to dive into it now.
:::posted by Vicki on 8/13/2003 11:32:06 AM
Vicki,
Correct. You'd have to read the book to get the full theory of the redemptive movement stuff and why he thinks God choose that (and he has some great thoughts on the wisdom of God that are quite convincing IMO), but let me whet you appetite briefly with a couple of his more salient points:
1) You can determine initial movement by looking at a text and charting its movement comparitive to the surrounding cultures and over time within the target culture (i.e. changes from OT to NT). This shows the initial ethical vector that God's undertaking. You next have to determine whether this movement is initial or absolute. Initial movement expects further change whereas absolute movement reaches God's ultimate ethic in the original text. I.e., is the text culturally bound or transcultural? His 18 criteria are attempting to help do this systematically.
2) I.e., criteria #2 looks for "seed thoughts" which are passages such as Gal 3:28 that hint at what a fully fleshed out ethic for women and slaves might be but which doesn't really challenge the original audience to do anything yet.
3) Criteria 3 is Breakouts. These are passages where God is allowing exceptions to otherwise stated expectations. For example, we have Huldah in the OT.
Anyway, I think we can help a lot of our more conservative brothers and sisters if we can help them see that egalitarianism is not the work of humans but of God. And I've been really encourged to see the Bible as an even more continually vibrant work than I'd already expected.
--Jason
:::posted by Jason on 8/13/2003 06:13:57 AM
Hello all!
I am new to the site, but I have been following the archived discussions. Thanks for letting me join. I have a question that I hope won't interfere with the current line of thought. Has anyone read an article that appeared in Restoration Quarterly v. 43 no. 3, 3rd Quarter 2001 titled "Man and Woman in Christ: Theological Ethics after the Egalitarian Revolution"? I believe the article was written by Ron Highfield of Pepperdine University. If you guys have already discussed this please refer me to the thread, if not I would like to know if any one has an opinion on it.
Thanks,
Jeff
:::posted by Jeff on 8/13/2003 02:25:03 AM
Jason -
So, if I understand correctly, the redemptive movement is intentional? I had not thought of it exactly that way before. I think I'll have to let that spin around in my head for a day or two before I can grasp the full extent of such a movement.
Thanks! And yes, we have been stagnant too long.
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 8/13/2003 12:27:25 AM
Tim,
I haven't been monitoring the forum closely, so this is a few days late, but I'd like to respond to your query:
>That being said, I would like (re-)clarification on the idea of
>complementarity, if people would not mind replowing that
>ground for just a moment. I see the possibility of some
>justification for finding such a notion in the Bible, but not
>in the sense of spiritual leader v. spiritual follower or public
>v. private roles.
I like the way you framed the question (and, btw, I've appreciated your participation on the forum in general). I, too, would like to find a way to recognize that there are differences between women and men without thereby creating a theological cage that locks all men and women into prescribed roles. For me, the language of the Holy Spirit seems most useful at this point. I'd like to recognize that "the Spirit moves where it will," to use Johannine language, and not simply where I expect it to move. God alots gifts as God sees fit, and we should not suppose that there are some gifts that God alots to ALL women and ONLY to women, while others are alotted to ALL men and ONLY to men. I would prefer to recogninze gifts given to individuals.
And I would say that this might apply also within marriage. We need to allow for personality differences, and differences in aptitudes and interests and experience. Each couple needs to work out between themselves who contributes what. Sure, men and women are different, but they're also individuals.
I've tried to get at this in my recent article "Martha's Choice: A Pastorally Sensitive Reading of Luke 10:38-42," which appears in Restoration Quarterly 45.3 (2003), 139-150. I'd be interested in your thoughts on whether this article helps you with your question.
Brotherly,
Chris
:::posted by Christopher on 8/12/2003 08:08:41 PM
Vicki,
Previous to reading Webb, I'd decided that the egalitarians had some good points that the traditionalists couldn't fully address. Likewise, the traditionalists made some good points so with no clear winner in my mind on pure scriptural argument, I fell back on what I saw as the nature of God and decided based on that that an egalitarian viewpoint was justifiable. However, I didn't feel that it was neccessary for a given group to switch if it wasn't a stumbling block to any particular members. Sure, they'd be wasting some resources, but that as long as it wasn't driving anyone away, then "no harm, no foul" so to speak. Instead, glacial, generational movement would eventually move groups.
After getting into Webb's Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic, I feel quite strongly that they church is to have a social improvement mission. I still believe that it is secondary to our salvation mission, but I do believe that we have an obligation from God to try and lead society. I suspect that part of the "decline" of the church from the "golden 50s" comes at least as much from the Church's fail to drive improvements and lead as it does from societies's straying.
As an example from the family: the Christian lifestyle has a lot to offer even short of heaven if we properly followed it. The Church offers a submissive wife while the world offers standing up for each persons rights. I believe if the Church was following its best course, it would lead the world to mutual submission. Relationships based on mutual loving submission are (in general) much stronger than those where each person is striving to maximize their own interests and protect their rights. Likewise, they are much closer to general Biblical principles. God's principles are truly powerful when followed in a Christ-like manner and with wisdom.
The Body of Christ MUST serve as Christ's representative on Earth today. That is our very purpose of existance. We have been stagnant for too long.
:::posted by Jason on 8/12/2003 05:02:55 PM
Jason -
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the book. I am most interested in what brought you from women "could" to women "must".
-Vicki
:::posted by Vicki on 8/12/2003 04:55:40 PM
Vicki,
Webb wrote this book after being challenged by some secular ethicists that they could write a better ethic than that found in the scripture. This caused him to undergo a bunch of soul-searching and study. In his study, he decided that their arguments are anachronistic. Looking from our culture back to the Bible, it appears regressive. But if you look at the Bible in the context of its original readers, it was charting a whole new ethical course far beyond anything present in its contemporaries. On both the issues of slavery and the treatment of women, it broke new ground. For instance, to the original readers, Paul's instructions to husbands and wives were far more remarkable on what they called husbands to than on what they called wives to.
Based on this research, Webb came up with what he terms a "Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic." To try and boil it down, he believes that God only took the original audiences as far as they could go at the time but that if you look at the scripture and apply several criteria to it, you can usually see where God was going on a given issue even if he didn't flesh out the ultimate ethic. Think of finding ethical vectors or trajectories in the text and you'll get an idea of where hes going. He then fleshes out 18 criteria that can be used for two purposes: 1) to discern cultural texts (i.e. Holy Kiss) from transcultural (i.e. salvation through Christ) and 2) to figure out where God's movement appears to be heading for those texts with cultural components. You can read a more detailed summary of the approach in a document I posted on my website.
Anyway, after my study of his book, I believe that God had planned on the church leading culture in certain moral and ethical realms including the treatment of women and in areas of work relations. Somehow, we lost this and have gone from pushing the envelope to dragging along behind. This is a travesty and must be corrected.
Within the restoration movement in particular, I believe we need to tweak our defining principles. We started out trying to make sure that we raised no creed or writings of man above the Bible and that was a good thing. But someone came up with the soundbite "Chruch of the 1st Century" and that has clouded our minds. Because of that, we have a handicap in admitting parts of the text are culturally confined to the 1st century. We aren't as bad off as the Amish in making culture binding, but we are limited. And when we slap the cultural label on something, its usually only because 1) our spritual predecessors have or 2) it helps us dismiss that text that we find inconvienent for our preconceptions. I was particularlly leary about not lettting myself overuse culture in some of the problematic women's texts when I was making my transistion to egalitarianism, but thanks to Webbs dispassionate, systematic criteria, I'm now much more comfortable in making cultural determiniations without fear that I'm just reading into the text what I want to read.
When I presented this book to my small group at church several people really connected to the feeling that we are very inconsistant in applying the cultural label to text. The biggest complaint that non-analytically minded people have is that its not a short, simple process, but it does have value nonetheless.
In fact, I and a couple of other guys have been tasked to create a Sunday morning class on this issue |
