Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: smithjh@argus.CS.ORST.EDU (Jeremy Smith) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: St Paul and Women Message-ID: Date: 22 May 91 04:34:54 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Oregon State University -- Math Department Lines: 139 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I pray that my response here is in harmony with I Corinthians 13 and Jude 3. In article tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes: > >I of course agree with you that bickering gets us nowhere. It is most >important that we get on with the work of the kingdom. I believe that >acceptance is central to Paul's teaching, and to Christ's. Acceptance of what? Acceptance of whom? Certainly not darkness: "...and do not have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11 Not those who rebel from scripture: "If anyone does not follow our word(message) through the epistle, mark this man and do not associate with him so that he may be put to shame." 2Thessalonians 3:14 >The body of >Christ has been divided, and it fights itself. How I long for unity in >the church. > >I do not believe that in striving for unity of purpose, or unity of >faith we need to have uniformity of faith, or of practice. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. But it should be consistent with I John 1:6,7 "If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we are lying and not doing the truth; but if we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus is cleansing us from all sin." >I am willing >to accept that you believe in following God's will. And I can >understand how in faithfully reading your Bible you may conclude that >women are not ordained by God. > Mainly, I am curious how Christians arrive at a different interpretation than my own of I Corinthians 14:34: "Let women be silent in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak, but let them be subject, as the law also says." (I am not being sarcastic here, or anywhere else in this posting) >In Acts 11, some of the apostles lay into Peter for staying with >uncircumcised Gentiles. But, Peter witnesses on behalf of the Gentiles, >that they were given the same gift of the spirit that they were. They >rejoice, and change their minds. Certainly their original stand was >biblicaly based, but when faced with Peter's testimony, they decided >that God felt differently. > 1) Circumcision has never been a basis for salvation or righteousness. There has never been righteousness in the law, therefore the folly of the apostles was not biblically based. God is too smart to contrdict himself. Abraham is an example of a pre-New Testament uncircumcised Godly man. 2) A primary function of the apostles was to spread the gospel to the corners of the earth and to record it. Although the Apostles were vulnerable to some misunderstanding in this case, they alone were given charge to record the "...once delivered faith"-- Jude 3. Speculation on the limitations of the apostles is not sufficient motivation to dismiss or alter their account. Only Jesus Christ spoke with more authority(being God incarnate). Arguments that the apostles writings were specifically relevant to the culture of their day do not have basis in any scripture that I am aware of. When are the oracles of God culture dependant? >I will gladly testify that I know women who have been ordained by God, >and that the gifts he has given to them are no less than the gifts he >has given to men. Indeed in some cases the women I know seem to be more >gifted than many men. > Certainly scripture, to my knowledge, does not prohibit women to share the gospel(outside of church) or encourage or do many other things which are priceless in God's eyes (and in mine). And although I have no direct scriptural reference, in my opinion women are capable of performing spiritual duties that cannot be done by men. However, it is clear from scripture that women are not to exercise authority over men in spiritual matters. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence" I Timothy 2:12 >I don't believe you'll afford me the same faith the early Christians >afforded Peter, but I'm certain that many people will give similar >testimony. How are we to find unity with a problem like this? > The scripture is "God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof(testing), for instruction in righteousness." Unless the Holy Spirit somehow teaches us that the time has come for both men and women to lead each other, we(Christians) know that the scripture is profitable for use as a test for truth in these matters. Let us also realize that ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, men and women have had different spiritual roles (though having same spiritual goals). Unity in the church will happen as God desires. We are unable to tell the wheat from the tare before they reach maturity though, and unity with tares is not God's will. >I believe it is quite simple. I accept that your belief is different >from my own. I believe that both of us work to serve the same Lord. >You are my brother, and I am yours. Let us rejoice in our communion. >Perhaps, as we work together, your beliefs may change, perhaps mine >will, but I don't believe that this difference should prevent us from >working for and worshipping our Lord together. > > > Tom Blake > SUNY-Binghamton We must concur in our will to the authority of Jesus Christ to make the rules. This is our hope. Peace and Grace, Jeremy [As to how people arrive at a different understanding of I Cor 14:34, consider that I Cor 11 talks about what a women should wear when she speaks in church. This suggests that I Cor 14:34 can't be taken entirely as wholly prohibiting women from speaking in church. (or that Paul is being inconsistent). The most common reconciliation seems to be to assume that In I Cor 14, Paul had in mind some specific sort of disturbance. 14:35 implies that what he has in mind is asking questions rather than praying or teaching, so one theory is that women were asking their husbands questions and being disruptive in doing so. This is the problem in reading only one side of correspondence... There's also some textual evidence suggesting that 14:34-35 is a later interpolation into the text. I don't find the evidence terribly strong, though I don't claim to be an expert on textual analysis --clh]