I always advice reading these pieces in a Desmond Tutu accent.
_____________________________________________________________________
 |
| Anna, the Prophetess, Luke 2:36-38 |
Some organisations only permit men to hold leadership positions. Sometimes these organisations claim a mystical religious basis for their discrimination. Churches in particular claim that their organisation represents the truth about the infinite relationship of God to the world. Then some of them claim that this truth insists such representation can only be under mens’ leadership.
I want to preach against this, particularly in regard to Christianity, because there’s a Christian blasphemy occurring here. It’s a declaration that the image of God in woman’s image is not fully there and fully active. That’s the very definition of blasphemy; the disregard and denial of something of God.
In addition there is an idolatry being committed. There is a declaration that men, as clergy and elders, are especially necessary to interpret the truth about God. When we and particularly women are in the shadow of the valleys of our ignorance, we are supposed to accept that men and only men can provide the mirror to bring the light of the infinite to us.
That’s not a pedestal Jesus put men on. It’s something men keep replacing for themselves but it’s a pedestal Jesus kicked over in his teachings:
While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, "Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.” – Luke 20:45-47
“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.”
- Mathew 23: 8-15
In case there was any uncertainty;
- (Luke 1:39-55) Mary and her sister Elizabeth are the first two human voices to herald Jesus and the new covenant with Israel. They lead our response to the incarnation.
- (Matt 15:21-28, Mark 7:24-30) A woman is the only person who beats Jesus in an argument. He listens to her and she changes his mind with her words. No man ever obtains this result despite several attempts by scholarly men to debate Jesus.
- (Matt 26: 6-13) It is a woman who first acknowledges when Jesus is due to die and accepts this. Although the male disciples criticized her, remembering her public worship is to be a mark of the gospel for all time.
- (Math 28: 5-7) Jesus’ resurrection is first revealed to two women. They lead our response to the promise of new life.
It is clear that, for Christianity at least, male only leadership is not the mirror that shines the light of God into dark places. Male only leadership is the mirror we have inserted between God and ourselves to see what we wish to see.
People opposed to women’s leadership in the church are sinning. Some are allowing the seductions of tradition, privilege, a desire for self-importance or fear of their own importance to affect their discernment of God’s gifts, and thus also their discernment of God. More of them are just fitting in to their churches and not rocking the boat. They are participating in blasphemy and idolatry so as not to cause a fuss. That’s normal human behaviour but hey, sin is still sin. It is normal to sin, even in church, maybe especially in church.
There is a feeling that we can’t be sinning when we are making religious rules for all to follow. There is a feeling that sin has to be loutish and born of laxity, rather than of strictness and self-discipline. This feeling says that imposing strictures and erring on the side of “no” to possibility, is only ever a defence against sin. If we make laws that are more than necessary then sin is merely better prevented than it needed to be, says this feeling.
This feeling is deeply incorrect. Some people’s demons are booze and porn but others people’s demons are the book of Deuteronomy and a pulpit. The false belief that severity and austerity equal greater moral safety is the deceit of those demons. It is perfectly possible to sin whilst paying close attention in church with scriptures and highlighter in hand. Jesus saw this when he appealed to the Pharisees to change their ways. You can hold tight to the words of scripture and find ways to sin grievously via those words.
Let us look closely at the parts of the bible that those opposed to women’s ordination cling tightly to. There are no words from Jesus. There are only two direct proof texts from the letters of Paul.
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. - 1 Timothy 2:11-15 New International Version (NIV)
Paul of Tarsus, how dare you teach that women hold a special responsibility for the fallen nature of the world and carry any greater burden for their redemption than men? How dare you on this matter contradict what you have elsewhere preached, that the grace and grace alone of Christ (Romans 3 :21-31), not childbearing, not gender roles, not acting with propriety is what women will be saved through?
I don’t know what purpose these lies achieved for you. We can’t know. We only know that today these lies serve both idolatry and blasphemy in the church. We thank God that we are required to treat you as human, not a god, in your authority as a preacher. This is bad theology on many levels and it’s childish. Men must stop blaming Eve.
Let’s remember it was a male disciple who betrayed Christ, a male disciple who denied him, and men in authority who crucified him. Do we really want to tally up historical wrongs against God by gender here?
Then there is this passage:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
-1 Corinthians 14:34-35 New International Version (NIV)
Paul, what could you have meant here by “disgraceful”? I can only feel sad for you that at this time it seems, you couldn’t hear a women publicly ask about God and delight in her desire to know. I wonder, what did women challenge for you? Did women take God too far for you?
You have forgotten or perhaps you never knew what Jesus had to say to Mary and Martha. ("Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” Luke 10: 38- 42) But how have you forgotten something so central to your own gospel; It is better to be disgraced for God than concerned about the law? (Galatians 2:15) I hope God forgives you, Paul, and anyone else who makes your sin their own.
You have forgotten or perhaps you never knew what Jesus had to say to Mary and Martha. ("Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” Luke 10: 38- 42) But how have you forgotten something so central to your own gospel; It is better to be disgraced for God than concerned about the law? (Galatians 2:15) I hope God forgives you, Paul, and anyone else who makes your sin their own.
Let us pray for the forgiveness of those who argue for male only leadership in the church. Let us pray that God takes from them their appetite for sin, that we humbly recognize takes different forms in us all.
Dear God, help all to see the image of God in our daughters and nothing more than the image of God in our sons.
Wow, Tony, a very personal voice here. This is not Desmond Tutu, it's pure Tony Camilleri. Nice smackdown of Paul.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dave. I'm gonna hear that as pure compliment. Hope your new year is rocking too.
DeleteI actually don't know any church that "only permits men to hold leadership positions". I'm not actually sure which organisation you are referring to. In my church, as in all the churches I know of, women hold many leadership positions and take on many responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteYour biblical examples of Mary and Elizabeth and the women at the tomb are wonderful examples of the joy and responsibility all Christian women share with Christian men to evangelise and proclaim the gospel. I'm not sure what point you are really making by using those verses.
You're use of those two passages from Paul might have earned some respect from me if you had spent one sentence actually asking the question "What does Paul mean by these statements?" Instead you give no time to exegesis or any form of biblical study other than your own silly misinterpretations of the passages.
The reason why this is a sermon you would like to hear and not a sermon you would actually ever hear - in any church from the most conservative to the most liberal - is because ministers spend more time trying to understand the actual meaning of scripture rather than ranting about their own opinion.
You say many valid and good things here Tony, but the very fact that Dave thought your "smackdown" of Paul was impressive, rather than lazy and childish, has made whatever good you had to say irrelevant to me.
In the end, you simply misrepresent Christianity and you misrepresent Scripture. I really hope this was just a rushed blog and not really "pure Tony Camilleri" as I expect a little more thought from you than this. Desmond Tutu would be disappointed.
Sorry bro.
p.s. I am presently reading a very well thought through, biblically respectful and humbly wonderful little book by John Dickson called "Hearing Her Voice" which argues for the biblical support of women preaching in church. I'm finding it very interesting and stimulating. If you ever want to write a piece that will actually speak to the conservative audience you are critiquing and possibly even change their mind, I recommend you give it a read.
Simon, The very fact that the book you are reading needs to argue for women preaching in church describes the climate perfectly. What an insane concern to have to argue, yet there it is. Or what do you think Dicksons book is arguing against if not a culture that squirms with discomfort over women preachers?
ReplyDeleteIndeed here's a quote from The Gospel Coalition's site (which has Keller and Piper backing them - hardly small names in the evangelical biz) "Few issues are so hotly debated today in evangelicalism as the issue of women in leadership." ( http://thegospelcoalition.org/book-reviews/review/how_i_changed_my_mind_about_women_in_leadership/)
There are many more sources...http://www.christianpost.com/news/john-piper-explains-why-women-shouldnt-lead-men-59818/
Outside of evangelical churches then hows about the Catholic one we both grew up in? Does that qualify as one refusing women positions of leadership? It does to me.
I'm sorry that you weren't impressed with showing how Paul betrays his own gospel however I remain unsure sure what you're actual disagreement with my objections to Paul were. Perhaps you could explain how he doesn't mean what he very clearly seems to be saying.
Tony, I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your comment, but as you have asked me to, I will briefly respond.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote, "Paul of Tarsus, how dare you teach that women hold a special responsibility for the fallen nature of the world and carry any greater burden for their redemption than men? How dare you on this matter contradict what you have elsewhere preached, that the grace and grace alone of Christ (Romans 3 :21-31), not childbearing, not gender roles, not acting with propriety is what women will be saved through?"
My critique was that both those points are gross misrepresentations of Paul's theology and argument.
He does not argue that women hold a special responsibility for the fallen nature of the world. He also does not argue that women find salvation in childbearing.
On this second point, I can see how the text seems to clearly state this, but you simply need to do a little bit of study to see that Paul's theology is not one that includes "childbearing salvation". You note that this understanding of the text is a complete contradiction to everything else Paul has taught on the subject. The solution would be to either conclude that it must mean something else or that Paul didn't actually write it (if it can't mean something else).
You instead chose to rebuke Paul rather than do this work.
I'm sorry I called your rebuke lazy and childish. Maybe your fault was simply in lack of hermeneutical training. If you are interested, I can commend a few books to your reading.
I guess one of my main frustrations was seeing how your argument impressed Dave and so consequently how you were modelling bad bible study to others.
ReplyDeleteI was also frustrated by what seems to me to be your hypocrisy (I hope that's not too harsh a word). You express offence at the idea that Paul is teaching misogyny rather than the gospel of salvation through the grace of Christ, when that gospel also teaches offences that you pretend you don't have. Salvation and the need for grace, along with the concept of the "Christ" speaks of the realities of hell, sin and the supreme divine authority of Jesus - all of which you have expressed you find offensive and reject as false.
To put on Desmond Tutu's voice and preach something you believe to be a lie, just because your misinterpretation of Paul speaks of something else you disagree with, just smells.
I encourage you to be yourself, learn how to read and study the scriptures and argue your case from a position of thoughtful discussion rather than foregone conclusion.
I am sorry my words were harsh. In fact I would go so far as to say my response was lazy and childish. I will aim to do better next time.
Dear Simon,
ReplyDeleteThankyou for your reply. In doing so you have helped illuminate what I see as the problem with how you do bible study and why my conclusions seem so wrong to you.
You write:
"You note that this understanding of the text is a complete contradiction to everything else Paul has taught on the subject. The solution would be to either conclude that it must mean something else or that Paul didn't actually write it (if it can't mean something else)."
You have not outlined "the solution" but a solution. I think it’s the wrong solution. I think it is a solution which assumes that Paul cannot contradict himself. That makes Paul potentially the only human being I can think of who would achieve such an amazing feat. It is a bold assumption.
I prefer to just read the text as faithfully as possible to determine its meaning. Then if it contradicts other passages I accept that a contradiction has occurred which is what I have done.
So let us look at the text in question.
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. " 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Now I believe that Paul is trying to establish the inappropriateness of a woman’s authority over a man in this passage. It could be argued Paul is only making a case for one historical instance but I and many readers don't think so as his language suggests a universal argument. Many evangelicals use this as the basis for women not teaching adult men today in very different circumstances for this reason.
It is obvious from the text that Paul’s next lines are given as reasons for his position. He begins with the word "For." And what are those reasons? Firstly that Eve was created after Adam. Secondly that Eve was deceived and not Adam "and became a sinner". It is this second comment which leads to me to feel that Paul is attributing a special blame to Eve for the fall. This special blame is one of his two reasons why women shouldn't teach men.
After all it makes more sense to me that both Adam and Eve are both deceived and sin. Why has Paul made a comment only about Eve in this regard and in the context of justifying why women can't teach men?
I would be very, very interested in your answer to this. You imply some access to some hermeneutical training (or at least books) but you have yet to apply any of it to the actual text in question and give it its rightful meaning.
Now my second claim that Paul argues that women have a special route to salvation through childbearing is virtually his statement : "But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety."
If I have a word mistranslated please tell me. If there is a context around it that would change what is meant by "saved" in this sentence then tell me. Both of those are possibilities but if all you can do is say Paul says something different elsewhere so this sentence can't mean what it obviously means then you are not doing much study of this scripture at all.
Simon, what I am saying is not that challenging at all. I am saying that Christians ought to reject the following statement as blasphemous and idolatrous in their own theology : Women should be silent for Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. That's hardly radical and dare I say it, pretty much your own position. Now given that this forms the core of Paul’s reasons why women shouldn't be in authority over men then I say they ought to reject that too. The two are evidently connected in this passage and I don’t think separating them is true to the text at all.
Now as for your accusations of hypocrisy... I do not think that word means what you think it means. I always endeavour to be transparent about what I believe and hopefully I don't misrepresent it. I have written many things and while no doubt I contradict myself A LOT that is also perfectly human and transparent of me. I am open about declining your forced choice to accept every word of scripture as Gods holy writ or reject it all and remain so. I don't think it's something you actually do yourself anyway.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone interested in some of my latest responses to the gospels, to my own life and indeed to God they can read
http://humblewonderful.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/my-gospel.html
http://humblewonderful.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/explaining-my-gospel.html
and
http://humblewonderful.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-preferential-option-for-poor.html
Also this particular post is part of a special series "Sermons I would like to hear" Reread the first paragraph for an explanation.