Re: Women, etc. (long)

From: Bill Mounce (billm@teknia.com)
Date: Tue Dec 05 1995 - 11:20:31 EST


>I attest that in his case this is not empty rhetoric. Being both female and
>"unlettered", I nonetheless post my comments in this forum. Carl (like a few
>others here) assesses my work based entirely upon content, accepting or
>disputing each point on its own merit. For this I am most grateful.

I would submit that no one, neither Conrad or me or anyone, is able to
"assess work based entirely on content." No one is free from
presuppositional and theological conclusions and biases. No one.

>appointed 12 MEN (and no women) as apostles. But when he further commissioned
>the 70, there is no clear indication whether women were numbered among them.
>They could well have been. After all, a considerable number of women were
>included in his entourage, and in Acts 2, women were among those filled with
>the spirit and who the first proclaimed the gospel on the Day of Pentecost.

In fact, your assumption "they could well have been" is a good example of
biases in action. Whether they are true or not is not my issue, but rather
that biases are at work. As much as I dislike quoting Bultmann, his article
in the 40's has gone unquestioned and all people see through their own
colored presupositional glasses.

>(By the way, what exactly does authentew really mean? My meager resources tell
>me diddly about this one.)

You can compare Krogers work (I Suffer not a Woman) with Knights initial
essay. The new book from Baker on 1 Tim 2 has a hugh discussion of it.

>Most Bible chauvanists may dismiss all of the above examples as well Phoebe,
>Junia, Priscilla, the daugthers of Phillip, and the unnamed lady in II John,
>but what of Deborah the Judge? In my reckoning just one such example is
>sufficient to prove that in the matter of women being given an authorotative
>role, God (who in fact may do whatever he pleases) does.

I really don't think that using emotionally charged and incorrect language
like "chauvanist" is helpful or correct. The word means that decisions are
made solely on the basis of gender, and you don't know why I make my
decisions or why others make their decisions. I don't know why you make
your decisions. And in fact, it doesn't matter why I make my decisions. The
only thing we can deal with is the exegetical and theological decisions
themselves. This language condemns any traditional interpretation as being
due to gender bias and it avoids the actual discussion and argumentation
themselves. The literature is replete with solid, exegetical and
theological argumentation for why your examples do not apply to the
question at hand. You may not agree with them. Fine, but we all should at
least deal with them. I resent being called a chauvinist, and so does my
wife (who does know my motives). I know you didn't direct the language my
way, but when anybody uses emotinally-charged langauge that calls a
person's integrity into question, well, I am just tired of it.

Bil Mounce



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