Jay Guin is a prolific and thoughtful writer, unafraid to follow his study wherever it may lead him. He’s even willing to change positions, as he admits to in his book Buried Talents. This book is an important resource in the discussion of men and women in the churches of Christ. While I admit to not agreeing with his conclusions, I have high regard for the process that led him to those conclusions.
I’m not fond of beginning with conclusions, but I’ll make an exception in this case. On page 142, Guin states his position clearly:
The Bible says that in God’s eyes there is neither male nor female. It means what it says. Passages that apparently limit women’s role are written for a temporary cultural situation that no longer exists (much like the command of the Holy Kiss). Genesis 3 is a curse not a command. Genesis 1 and 2 define how men and women should relate in Christ, who came to undo the Fall of Man—they are both made in God’s image and husbands and wives should be one flesh, much as Jesus and God are one.
I know that statement leads to delight for some and dismay for others. Again, I encourage us to consider the process, how he gets there. Whether or not you agree with Guin’s conclusions, you owe it to yourself to see how he came upon them.
Briefly, let me state my points of divergence:
- I do think that Genesis 1-3 is crucial to this discussion. I also agree that the idea of man “lording over” women is part of the curse, not part of the original design. Anyone lording over anyone in the church is a direct violation of Jesus’ teachings. However, as I’ve discussed, I see much in the creation story that leads me to see a divine plan behind maleness and femaleness that goes beyond biological reproduction.
- I don’t think the concept of form and function is fully explored. Guin relies too heavily on the Holy Kiss argument (pages 22, 28, 135, 141, 142, 143, 177, and 178) as a means of saying that certain commands can be disregarded because of their cultural ties. He admits that the idea of greeting one another still carries weight, but doesn’t flesh out that correspondence to the commands about women. [I’ll insert that I think we COMPLETELY misunderstand the statements about greeting with a holy kiss… but I’ll save that for another time]
- I think that Guin and many others exaggerate how much the early church bowed to cultural pressure. It’s worth noting that Paul (and other writers) made note of when they were making such concessions (Acts 16:3; 1 Corinthians 7-10; Romans 14). No such statement exists regarding the differences between men and women.
These differences lead me to a different place than Guin. But, as I said, I still think he brings a lot of unique insights to this discussion. You’d do well to read his work.
[I would note that Jay’s site is frequently hard to access. Be patient.]
No such statement exists regarding slavery, either.
But we do have the book of Philemon, which lays out a different view toward slavery.
Plus there is discussion of women in the church, beyond mere discussion of the relationship between men and women in general.
Guin does include an appendix about the book Slaves, Women & Homosexuals.
I hope you will flesh this out more fully. It seems that you believe that there are certain functions for the church that can only be fulfilled by the form wherein males are the decisionmakers for the church. In other words, that there is something about the female created form that renders them ineligible or ill-equipped for decision-making for the church.
Am I reading your posts correctly? Would you frame things differently? What are the particular functions you see in the early church that are being fulfilled by male-only decisionmaking?
In Titus 2, Paul establishes a particular form for female teachers in the church.
Ira North got tarred as a liberal because he “allowed” his wife to teach ladies’ Bible classes, when Titus 2 clearly lays out the bounds of what areas women are authorized to teach, and teaching the Scriptures is among those fields.
The last line should read, “…teaching the Scriptures is not among those fields.”
Jay says: the commands about women were “written for a temporary cultural situation that no longer exists (much like the command of the Holy Kiss).” But he also discusses the function behind the Holy Kiss command and how that is fulfilled today. He doesn’t discuss how the function behind the different sayings about women is fulfilled today.
That’s my point about form and function.
That’s what I’m asking about — what functions do you perceive behind the forms that limit the number of roles that women are authorized to fill in the church?
I’m wanting to go through the passages one by one, in similar fashion to what Jay has done. Can I hold off until then to delve into specifics? For now, I’ll say that “something” needs to be there. It may be as little as showing respect replacing the veil. But merely saying “that was a temporary situation” doesn’t seem adequate to me.
What if they didn’t know that it was a temporary/cultural situation at the time? Remember that we have 2k years of hindsight that we’re operating with, and the epistles aren’t meant to reveal voluminous if-then statements of law, but rather to address particular congregations in their particular contexts.
The apostles didn’t know that this age would outlast the versions of (what we now call) gnosticism they had to address, or that Christianity would at some point be operating in cultures that don’t have female-dominated priesthoods.
And I would not argue that the veil was temporary, but rather that it was cultural — I would not recommend (for example) that female Christians ministering in the Middle East go veilless. Operating respectfully in the culture demands it.
To go back to one of your points in the OP…
I do too — but what I don’t see is a plan wherein women are not authorized to teach or participate in the decision-making process for local churches. In fact, it seems counter-intuitive for the differences between maleness and femaleness to necessitate that females submit by respectfully doing what they’re told while males submit by lovingly reading the map and giving directions. Why would only the male perspective be welcome at the decisionmaking table?
I would add at the beginning of the last paragraph that there’s solid scientific evidence that male human brains tend to have faster and clearer communication within the particular hemispheres of their brains, while female brains tend to have faster and clearer communication between the hemispheres.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202161935.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/27/1316909110.abstract
“I see much in the creation story that leads me to see a divine plan behind maleness and femaleness that goes beyond biological reproduction.” Tim and Nick, I would be interested in knowing what that “divine” plan might be?
The standard excuse for excising passages of Scripture today has become the “culture” card. Don’t like a passage? Don’t worry – it was written to a culture that no longer exists, therefore we can ignore it. We are SO advanced, SO intelligent, SO much more Christ-like than even the men and women who walked on this earth with Jesus.
The passages that limit women from exercising authority over men do not give “carte blanche” authority to men just because of anatomical peculiarities. Those passages also limit “authority” (and THAT topic needs to be fully understood!!) only to certain types of men – married, with children, experienced in the faith, well thought of in the community, with exceptionally high moral standards. Why is this so misunderstood, even to the point of being ignored? And, contrary to what so many are “discovering” in their examination of these texts, the basis of what enables certain men to be given the leadership roles in the church begins in the home, where they are explicitly given the roles of leadership and protection.
I disavow any thinking that our world in 2013 is any more ethically or morally advanced than Roman or Greek civilization in AD 30-100. Our culture is different, to be sure, but better? Morally advanced? If so how do we explain our abortion rates, the genocidal wars, Auschwitz or Hiroshima? Those who argue otherwise must account not only for theology that disproves their conclusions, but history as well.
Paul was writing on THIS side of the cross, not the other.
And he never, ever, not one single time, based his teaching on authority in the church (or home, for that matter) on cultural standards prevalent in his lifetime.
Paul, how does one determine that Paul “never, ever, not one single time, based his teaching on authority in the church (or home, for that matter) on cultural standards prevalent in his lifetime”? I’m curious how you come to this conclusion.
Paul:
Thank you for your comments. I was very interested in your culture card comment. Is this like an American Express Card? Is it like a department store card or bank card?
Pingback: What 1 Peter says about husbands and wives | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts