Perhaps you've heard. The Church of England decided some time ago to ordain women as priests. Recently, however, they voted to refuse to allow women (priests) to be bishops. That, you see, would be going too far.
There are, of course, debates going on over this. Douglas Wilson over at Blog & Mablog has been writing about repeatedly. (Great line from Wilson's essay: "The pig, once swallowed by the python, has to move on down the line.") Theologian N.T. Wright stepped in to explain how stupid it was. Denny Burk has responded to N.T. Wright and Scott from Prodigal Thought has countered Wilson. Well, you get the idea.
The question is not merely "Should women be allowed to be bishops?", but "Is there a difference between men and women?" The question is about egalitarianism or complementarianism. Did God create us to be the same -- coequals in value and role -- or complementary -- equal in value but different in role?
Well, of course, it's quite clear, isn't it? "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). So what's the question? We are all one in Christ. National origin, birth lines, and gender have nothing to do with it when we are "in Christ Jesus" because in Christ Jesus we are all one.
This, of course, begs the question. If this is so, why did Paul say, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12)? And, while we're at it, Paul, what's up with the "I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God" (1 Cor 11:3)? And the questions don't stop there. Why are wives told to "respect" and "submit to" husbands but husbands are told to "love" wives? If there is no difference in role, why are the commands different? Why did Paul list "the husband of one wife" in the qualifications for elder/bishop/overseer if male was not an issue? And how in the world could he connect his 1 Tim 2:12 position to Genesis 1-3 if he knew it was changed? He, after all, wrote Galatians 3:28 as well as 1 Timothy 2:12-14. Was he, perhaps, forgetful ... or schizophrenic?
I think it's quite odd that women in the Church of England can be priests, but not bishops. The logic eludes me. If they can exercise authority over a man as a priest but not as a bishop, it's simply confusion ... at best. But the issue is not, again, that of priests and bishops. It is the ongoing and deepening question of whether or not God intended male and female to be equal in value (something all sides agree upon) but different in roles (the primary disagreement). Today's feminist-driven, egalitarian society would argue heartily from Galatians that clearly there are to be no gender differences. Oddly enough, they indicate that suggesting otherwise from those few verses I listed is poor exegesis. The good Bible student would see that the single verse on the subject proves the point that the multiples that disagree are not what they mean. That, you see, is good exegesis.
I'm not going to decide for you which is true. (Go on. Take a guess. Which do I favor?) The texts are there. And so are the adherents of both views. You can decide whether the historical position taken in the Church is exegesis or eisegesis1. You can decide whether the Church succumbed early on to male domination instead of biblical egalitarianism. Are the rare and sporadic references to female leadership in Church history a product of errors or a product of misguided male leadership? (Note that seriously asking the question of women in ministry didn't occur until the 1800's.) But however you decide, you should ask the questions. And however you answer them, it should not be on the basis of popular feminist perspective. That would be eisegesis.
________
1 Exegesis is the analysis of a text to interpret its meaning. Eisegesis is the reading into the text one's own meaning.
5 comments:
I read a book about Complementarianism and it gave many of the arguments egalitarians give, and they were all clearly eisegesis. This post did help me to realize that we need to get to the root of the argument, do men and women have different roles given by God? If the answer is yes, then the rest of the "problems" seem to fall to wayside.
I'm not going to decide for you which is true. (Go on. Take a guess. Which do I favor?)
I have no idea which you favor. You haven’t committed yourself to a position whether women can be a Priest or a Bishop even with good exegesis. The Church of England is not one that follows exegeses or perhaps you may ask do they? Personally I have rejected the teachings out the Church of England on many counts.
There is no separation of Church and State in England similar to Islam. To appoint women as priest is a political decision in light of female rights. A few years ago the Church of England appointed the first African Bishop. It is not likely they will appoint a female to Bishop for one has to be husband of one wife. Or perhaps they may. It happens in the U.S. where Bishops can be any gender or the same sex.
There is a distinct difference between a priest and a bishop. A priest hears from God and speaks; however a prophet hears and speaks to God and to us. To become a Bishop, I call them wanna-bees for that is a position that they desire. You can’t really appoint a priest just recognize the priesthood. They are like Eph 4:11 (Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, Pastor and Teacher).
No gender is specified, they don’t desire to be one, it is not an office in the Church, and they don’t have a job description like Bishop and Deacon. They are people Jesus left behind to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. As an Overseer and Deacons they have management tasks and are only apt to teach, not teachers.
David, I can't seem to warp/wrap together the very clear biblical texts that call on different tasks for men and women with the very rare text that might suggest there are no differences. I'm forced to take the complementarian view for multiple reasons.
Chaplain, I suppose that would answer the dilemma that I haven't committed myself to a position. :)
Interestingly, while some churches today (the Anglicans, some Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Church of England, etc.) recognize the category of "priest", there appears to be no such New Testament recognition except that for the universal priesthood of all believers and the High Priesthood of Christ. Now, bishop/elder/overseer is a New Testament recognized role in the Church. Go figure.
Plus I think the one verse that calls for equality between male and female isn't about role, but when it comes to salvation. It means Jesus doesn't prefer male or female, Jew or Gentile, etc. when He considers people for salvation. It is so clear even from the verse itself, and yet people try to make it say something it was never meant to say, and is contrary to many other passages that do speak to what they are trying to say.
Stan…
The church did not exist until the book of Acts chapter 2. It was a mystery revealed that Kings, prophets, pastors, priests desired to know. I believe it was hinted at in Daniel (70 weeks) but I have to look it up again.
We are under new covenant entirely ushered in at Jesus death like any will is. It has better promises (Hebrews) and the was a change in priesthood that you’ve said. Besides offices in the local Church some others went out 1 by 1, 2 by 2 under the old covenant sent by Jesus.
I have a public ministry 1 by 1. No telling who I will talk to and what I will say. The Bible college, Bay Cities Bible College in Oakland, CA said I have a public ministry like Jesus. No wonder He did not ask for tithes and offerings, I am having to much fun and I don’t even think about it.
Post a Comment