Women are not called to leadership

[there buster]

The title of this thread does not represent my position, but rather a strong statement made by someone else.

It seemed confusing and counterproductive to leave it under the other title.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

because they accept the plain teachings of the Bible regarding headship. Really?

Ministry or Leadership?

• What does the Bible say?

• Women are called to minister

• Women are not called to leadership.

• My deepest anxiety in all this is that women will take it personally, dismissing it as another chauvinist put- down. I recognize that there are festering wounds among us among us and possibly unjust suppression in some homes. I can only say, it is not in my heart to add to those hurts. To do so unnecessarily would sit heavily on my conscience. So why raise the issue? First, I happen to believe in Bible truth. I base my convictions on the revealed mind of God rather than the concealed motives of man. Second, departure from truth carries serious danger in both belief and behavior. I confess that when I began this study in 1994, I did not realize how much was at stake.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This extraordinary statement leads to several questions.

1. What is the difference between ministry and leadership?

a. Is not leadership also a ministry?

2. Which periods Does this apply to? the patriarchal period, the time of the judges, the monarchy, the church?

3. What were Deborah, Phoebe, Priscilla, and Lydia called to?

[Gail]

How about Miriam, working alongside Moses and Aaron?

[Nicodema]

While I am not at the moment prepared to offer an erudite exposition thoroughly answering those questions myself (which is not to say I could not, but not to promise I will, either) let me just say that so often history has borne out that many elements in a way of processing a faith at some given time are as much or more the products of extant culture as anything else.

In Paul's day, slavery was the natural order of things. Paul frequently wrote that slaves should be obedient to their masters. Why? It was the order of the day; it was so axiomatically accepted as natural that it wasn't merely the case that few DARED to question it but rather that few sufficiently extended themselves beyond their own perceptual boxes TO do so. And I'd wager those who did were slaves themselves and accorded no real voice, for their masters too obviously benefitted from their bondage to think about questioning it morally. This is neither a matter of intellect nor of cultural/social evolution exclusively. The fact is that TODAY we have the same situation -- and the very reason I cannot tell you precisely WHAT comprises that situation in our day is because I, like the rest of you, am a product of it. (However at least I am aware that it exists and can be sought out -- there are some who are anosognosic in that department, willingly or no.)

This is why we have people who question the validity of scripture and point to Paul's exhortations to slaves. Why didn't Paul speak out against slavery as a vile practice in direct moral opposition to the teachings of Christ? Quite simply, because dear old Paul was incapable of perceiving things that way, insofar as he was a product of the social order of his day.

I think it is pretty safe to say the same dynamic is operative here when it comes to the issue of certain persons, usually those born with a penis, attempting to argue ad infinitum, ad nauseum that certain other persons, namely those born with a vagina, are innately disqualified for certain tasks, roles, or offices in life precisely because, and only because, they were born with a vagina-endowed biological form instead of a penile-endowed one. Such persons are the product of a bygone era -- a culture and social order as surely bygone now as the days in which people advocated slavery -- and point to statements inseparably immersed in said bygone era, during which these erroneous notions were even MORE deeply ingrained, as dubious "proof" of some imaginary everlasting immutable edict thereof.

I would say were that so, were such things written intended to be everlasting edicts and not mere representative reflections of the extant culture of the day, then let us deal thusly with the matter of slavery as well, and let Christendom not only rally about it as a commanded state of social order from God but actively pursue it, advocate it and argue for it in the streets while subversively seeking those among their own upon which to impose it. The problem with such a snarky yet eminently accurate retort, however, is that I have a sneaking suspicion some of those whom I would address would actually like this, and the sarcasm therefore would be lost upon them.

[there buster]

Nico, although I am sympathetic to most of the rest of your post, I must take issue with this statement:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Why didn't Paul speak out against slavery as a vile practice in direct moral opposition to the teachings of Christ? Quite simply, because dear old Paul was incapable of perceiving things that way, insofar as he was a product of the social order of his day.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Paul was not commissioned to change the social order of his day, per se, but to preach the gospel. And, as it happens, it is precisely the teachings of Paul which undermined the institution of slavery.

It is Paul who explicitly points out that in Christ there is neither slave nor free; it is Paul who reminds masters that they have a master in heaven; it is Paul who tells masters that their slaves are in fact their brothers in Christ.

IN no other philosophy or teaching can you find such radical thoughts about slavery. The Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Mayas, Olmecs, Aztecs, even the Jews, took it for granted. Islam institutionalized it within the religion.

Paul's writings make it clear that he understood the foul nature of slavery. God understood the nature of slavery in the Old Testament, but He knew societies can only change so fast.

What is remarkable about Christianity is not that it was ever misused to justify slavery, since slavery was the undisturbed norm of all societies well into the middle ages (remember the serfs belonged to the land, and the land to the nobleman--in Russia, the serfs weren't freed until late in the 19th century). No, the remarkable thing about Christianity and slavery is that Christianity supplied the only rationale for ending slavery, i.e., that we are all equal in Christ.

Paul could not have ended slavery if he wanted to. He could, however, give a powerful reason for treating them well, improving their lot immediately, and giving them hope for eternity.

[Nicodema]

Your points are well made and well taken, Ed. However, I am a little concerned about this one statement:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Ed Dickerson said:

Paul was not commissioned to change the social order of his day, per se, but to preach the gospel.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This concerns me deeply because I fear it could be used as an excuse to overlook the oppression of others.

On the other hand ... I might see it a different way. I might see it as an open sanction to continue to separate the two, so that "preaching the gospel" must continually be updated and refreshed to MEET the social order of the day.

After all, if we are not commissioned to change that order, then we can recognize that today's order, women have rightfully won universal acknowledgment of equality (in the Western world anyhow) as persons, perfectly suitable for whatever task their individual set of talents as a PERSON suits them for, and whatever role or office that might entail, and therefore, attempting to argue that "women are not called to leadership" constitutes an attempt to CHANGE the existing social order, and as such, is invalid and subject to this very statement: we are commissioned not to change the social order but to preach the gospel.

So yes, I will look at it that way instead. Thank you Ed! This makes my point for me far more concisely.

The established social order of our day is one based on male/female equality, so attempting to thwart that is attempting to change the social order rather than preach the gospel. Brilliant!!! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

I think more college graduates are female today. Perhaps, more than ever before, it is important for a man to place great value on the woman he chooses as a wife. Becuase the old adage is as true today as ever, behind every good man is a good woman.

[there buster]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

"preaching the gospel" must continually be updated and refreshed to MEET the social order of the day.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Exactly. No human culture is inherently righteous, including NA SDA culture. The gospel always represents a radical confrontation OF the culture.

Not only that, but we may be--probably are-- mistaken about HOW the culture needs to be changed, and in any event, our priorities are rarely the same as the Holy Spirit's priorities. Therefore, rather than trying social engineering, we confront the culture--including the church-- with the gospel.

A number of years ago, I taught a special SS teachers class on Friday evenenings. Several months into this, people began talking about how their family relationships had improved. And they had identified the class as a major factor.

Since none of the lessons we studied had anything directly to do with "family life," I asked why. After some discussion, we concluded that if you sharpen the sword of the Spirit through careful study, the Spirit uses that razor-edged scalpel to do the sort of surgery necessary in every case. We had simply focused on faithfulness to the text, and the Spirit had used it to do wonders, but different for each individual, each family.

The lesson I take from that is to attend to the gospel, and the Spirit will attend to the necessary changes.