Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: David.Anderson@cs.cmu.edu Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Immediate Applicability of Scripture Message-ID: Date: 11 Mar 91 07:41:09 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 45 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Lynn, here, briefly, re: what Paul says about ordaining women (slightly jumbled, but I'm in a tearing hurry): Apart from the epistles to Timothy falling into the "deutero-" or "pseudo-Pauline" category (that is, Paul may not be the actual author of those epistles), there is also the consideration of how Paul referred to and treated his co-workers in the missionary effort, several of whom were women. He does not seem to have a problem with the idea that women were tacitly (if not explicitly) in charge of the congregations which met in their homes, nor with the fact that Phoebe was a deacon (*not* "deaconess," a mistranslation), and so on. As with the counsel given to the Corinthians, there may well have been *local conditions* which may have given rise to this counsel. It is clear from other passages (most notably in Corinthians, where the counsel to "let the women keep silent" first appears) that Paul was likely responding to *questions*, not making statements of policy re: gender roles in the church. He is clear that one is not to squelch the spirit of prophecy (in both men and women)--pretty hard to do if the woman is to keep silent. If necessary, I will post all sorts of lovely references and documentation to flesh out this argument as time permits (which lately it hasn't). It is pretty hard to reconcile the notion of "there is no male or female in Christ Jesus" with blatant sexual discrimination. Secondly, re: Eve: The deception argument is a product more of Jewish thought prevalant among the Pharisees in Paul's day. Some readings of Genesis make it clear that both A& E were involved *from the very first*. While I personally do not believe Eve was deceived, but made a conscious choice (which resulted in humankind "moving forward" out of innocence, among other things), it seems unreasonable to me that Christ's work would not have atoned for her "sin" as well as Adam's. Obviously women are still suffering the *effects* of Eve's curse, just as all humankind is suffering from the effects of the fall itself, but the "legality" of the continuance of Eve's curse is totally unjustified, IMHO. (More on this as time permits as well.) Finally, God calls us to his work and will judge us on the basis of who we are as individuals, not with any gender-based prejudices attached. To deny women the opportunity to answer *his* call to become ordained servants (in any religious tradition) is to deny the reality and validity of women's interaction with God. Those men who persist in placing stumbling-blocks in front of others (insisting on following sexist traditional interpretations of scripture) will surely be held accountable by that God who is indeed "no respecter of persons." Lynn