Re: Women elders and apostles

From: Richard Lindeman (richlind@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Tue Dec 05 1995 - 16:55:57 EST


>>I believe that Paul has stated
>>the nature of redeemed humanity in fully egaliarian terms in full
>>accordance, so far as I can see, with the teaching and practice of Jesus,
>>in Galatians 3: OUK ENI IOUDAIOS OUDE hELLHN, OUK ENI DOULOS OUDE
>>ELEUQEROS, OUK ENI ARSEN KAI QHLU: PANTES GAR hUMEIS hEIS ESTE EN XRISTWi
>>IHSOU. I would hold this to be the canon of the canon when it comes to
>>questions of authority or competence to perform a function in the church.
 
>Unlike Carl, I do not see basic tension between the Timothy passage and the
>actions of Jesus. While I would agree that Jesus was nicer to women than
>his contemporary society might have allowed, I have not seen evidence of
>Jesus either establishing or condoning women in positions of authority. In
>fact, I have found no statements of Jesus on women in authority, and no
>action of Jesus which directly touches the subject.

Ah, but but I believe that Jesus does indeed say things that
directly relate to the subject of laws that are derived from
"orders of creation". Consider those NT passages in which Jesus
directly condemns the Scribes and Pharisees! "Woe to you scribes,
pharisees, and hypocrites..." Jesus condemns them because they are
elevating the Sabbath laws (which are based on the order of creation).
They are elevating these "orders of creation" laws over the moral
laws.

I believe that this then becomes the real issue that must be
addressed. What kind of law is it that says that a woman may
not serve in a position of leadership? Is it a moral law or a
ceremonial law or a civil law? Or are we creating another
category and calling it an "order of creation law"? And if
that is the case, then it is quite clear from many examples
in the gospels what Jesus' opinion is on this matter. The
moral law then absolutely transcends it! And if we don't
first ask the question of what is morally and ethically right
in this matter, then we run into the clear danger of falling
into the the same condemnation which Jesus spoke to the scribes
and pharisees.

Sorry, just had to add my 2 cents worth to this interesting
debate.

BTW. I saw an excellent example on the news the other day that
I wanted to share concerning the objective and subjective genitive:

The football coach had a very bad day. His team played terribly and
they lost the game. When the news announcer asked him, "So,
what do you think of the execution of your team today?" he
quiped back, "I'm all for it!"

It seems to me that objective and subjective are not so much
case uses as they are merely a reflection of the ambiguity of
language.

Rich Lindeman

-- 
=======================================================================
           International Society of Online Christians
            "Meeting the future boldly with Christ!"
RichardLindeman@xc.org 2155 Northdale Blvd NW - Coon Rapids, MN 55433
=======================================================================


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:33 EDT