I’ve said this before, but I think it warrants saying again.  At day’s end, the question still remains; was Paul legislating anew with his letters sent out to the various churches of his time or was he not?  I do not believe that he was.  Absolute cut and dried rules for head coverings cannot be laid down from the original texts any more than the doctrine of a pre-fall male hierarchy can be laid down.  For example, does the male infantryman in Iraq who doesn’t remove his kevlar helmet to pray during an urban firefight dishonor his head?  And if so, does it also mean that the Almighty will not listen to his appeal?  Conversely, is the female soldier who doesn’t remove her headgear cleared by the “rule of law” for a full hearing by God?  In all good conscience and common sense, I must conclude that the Almighty is more concerned with cutting away the covering on my heart than he is with what’s on my head or not on my head.

Cheryl,
As you and others have shown convincingly, a gender-based hierarchy cannot be conclusively established from Gen 1 & 2. Even with no knowledge of Greek (septuagint) or Hebrew (masoretic text), it is simply not there. So the question remains, why does Paul reach back into the Genesis account from his vantage point in 1 Tim. 2:9-15 ? There are two options here: 1) Paul is legislating anew, but instead of the Moses model to the children of Israel, it is to the church universal from the 1st cent. onward; with the epistles forming a new body of law for observance. 2) Paul is simply refuting a set of false teachings spread about by specific individuals at Ephesus.

Let’s look at option one: In order for it to hold true, the components of male headship have to be “choppered in” to the Genesis account and constructed on site. The problem with this approach is that it leads to other components having to be “ferried in” to other sites. It is a problem of systematic reconciliation and rationalization of Biblical texts which appear to be at odds with the concept of a pre-fall gender-based hierarchy. In the OT there is the problem of Deborah. Dr. Wayne Grudem in his book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth , makes the claim that God only used Deborah in a limited figurehead capacity, because there were no good men available at the time, and that she did not really exercise governing authority over Israel (p131-136). The Biblical text says no such thing. Either Deborah was a judge over Israel, or she was not.

The New Testament book of Acts poses a similar difficulty for a divinely mandated gender-based hierarchy. In chap. 15 we see that there are only four things enumerated in verses 19 & 20, and then repeated in verses 28 & 29; that the church is to observe. Not a hint of a gender-based hierarchy is to be found anywhere in the chapter.

Option two is a simpler solution. It requires no on-site construction and lets both texts (1 Tim. & Genesis) speak for themselves on the basis of historical and grammatical perspective. This option also allows 1 Tim. to be seen in its common sense form. When a Godly woman teaches the Bible in a corporate setting, where does the “authority” reside, in her, or in God’s word? And if the over-arching context in 1 Tim. is false teaching, how can orthodox Christian teaching to men be off limits to women?

With regard to the Vicar’s sermon:
Cheryl, you make a good point regarding women’s fashion habits and sexuality.  I find it salient that the Vicar’s pronouncement is almost Islamic.  When one reads the Qur’an and what it says about women and the Hijab (head-scarf), the parallels to patriarchal New Testament interpretation are striking.
Called and Wanting Healing:
Welcome to our community here at Cheryl’s.  It is our hope that healing can be found by all who come here!

Lin,
So very true, in many cases, all the opposition has to do is use the dreaded “L” word (liberal) and like you say, it’s an instant show stopper for many.  Funny how some people will completely shut off their critical faculties if what’s being laid out doesn’t line up with what their churches teach them (aside from essentials) to believe without question.

Good to hear Cheryl!
Many of us await the release of the DVD series on the Trinity.  Congrats on having them selected for viewing by a seminary!

I don’t know what Mr. Slick is so afraid of.  Why is he so averse to a written debate?  Luther and Erasmus duked it out on paper.  When you think about it, paper has the advantage of a being better vehicle of fairness, because then both sides are held to a stricter standard of accountability.  Why? Because the time element then becomes less of a factor and there is virtually no way one side or the other can rig the results.

Cheryl,
I’m struck with your comment #10 about strength and commitment to a cause you believe in.  Too many people equate strength with a macho fantasy like “Braveheart”, or some John Wayne epic of yesteryear.  Keep up the good fight in terms of attrition, freeing one woman or man at a time.  Remembering too, that it was a nation of farmers with water buffalo and rice paddies who sent the most powerful nation the world has ever known, home with its tail between its legs.

48 Truthseeker,

And there ya have it from one whose expertise, and intellectual discipline is ancient Greek. (Suzanne McCarthy).
I’m gonna say this once and up front as a caveat and a disclaimer.  Aside from the essentials of the faith as contained in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, there is no hard and fast formula that can be used to determine an exact meaning of scripture.  What we can do however, is identify trends by using the whole of scripture as a body of data and seeing what direction it’s going in.  So far, the egalitarian position is better supported by this body of data than the complementarian one is.
Even in the hard sciences, what was once thought to be absolute clockwork (Newton’s universe) was shown to be nothing more than a darn good approximation by a German Jew who was a patent clerk at one time.

Cheryl,
There is an open letter to egalitarians out here written by Wayne Grudem (CBMW).  In it, there are 6 points he takes to task concerning egalitarian interpretation of scripture:
http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-3-No-1/An-Open-Letter-to-Egalitarians
In point 3, he belabors the Greek “or” construction as a means by which Paul affirms 1 Cor. 14:34-35 as valid and binding.  Basically, Dr. Grudem is saying that verse 36 is a “fence” of sorts that affirms the silence of women in corporate assembly.

The letter is a nice way of saying to all of us who hold egalitarian views of scripture to either “put-up” or “shut-up”.  You Cheryl, Paula, Suzanne McCarthy and others have done an admirable job of “putting-up” so to speak.
But just in case there’s a Godly woman reading this blog right now and who is struggling with gender issues, please reiterate that God has no such “law” silencing women.  She may be paralyzed with fear right now that it’s the serpent whispering in her ear…..”hath God said?”….

Truthseeker and Lin,
I too have a hard time deciding here in Southern Cal. which is the lesser of two evils;  the fundamentalist mega-biggies which tend to be as you say Lin, far-right Republican social clubs
, or the egal main-liners which are almost bereft of any serious Berean style study of scripture.

Hey ya’ll, a lot of what many comps. out there rely on, is Grudem’s book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth. On page 362 he says:  “The Bible has to say something only once for it to be true and God’s word for us.”  He goes on to cite examples that on the surface seem to be sound and that the conclusion necessarily follows that women are not permitted to teach or hold leadership positions in the church.
I’ve noticed a pattern with these guys, Grudem, Slick, MacArthur et al. , they rely on preaching to choirs of rubes, undecideds, and people afraid to think critically for themselves.  They win by intimidation.  If they had to face somebody like Cheryl, Paula, or Greg Koukle, they’d turn tail, bail and spout something to the effect of “may God have mercy on your soul”  Maybe they’d throw holy water too? like in the old Dracula flicks?

Truthseeker and kerryn,

Yes, I am still reading this thread cuz I get email notifications of new posts. And yes, I certainly know what you mean by wondering about new Christians and what they’re being taught about traditional gender roles.

I have heard a well known radio radio ministry pastor here in Southern. Cal. use 1 Peter 3:7 as a proof-text that women are by nature (from Eve) weak & easily deceived, and therefore restricted to specific roles in the church, which according to him, ties in perfectly with Paul’s 1st letter to Timothy.

I haven’t read Sumner’s book, but intend to. Wayne Grudem takes her to task in one of his books that I used for a research paper, but that’s to be expected.

As Cheryl has stated many times, these are secondary issues, and they should not divide the church universal; but unfortunately, they tend to do that.

Lin,

No, you are not one bit cynical, this is the way the world is. How is it cynical to see what really is and not what we’d like to pretend it is?

Remember what Hey-Soos did when his Father’s house was made a den of investors and currency speculators?

Michael,

Welcome to our blog/community! Sorry that my posts took on a pejorative tone regarding “fundamentalism”. The term originally started out as a manifesto of the non-negotiables, or fundamentals in Christendom, such as virgin birth, blood atonement, and the stuff historically affirmed in the Athanasian and Nicene creeds of the early church fathers.

Gradually, and over time however, Christian fundamentalism began to include other ideologies and belief systems, all based on “inerrancy” and what many call a “plain reading of God’s word”

I came out of one such mega-church here in Southern Cal. that is KJV or NKJV only, and whose leadership structure is strikingly similar to a large Mosque with an Imam as uncontested authority. Dissent is not tolerated, nor is study outside of approved parameters encouraged.

Here it’s different, it’s sorta like the Rhode Island Anne Hutchinson fled to after she got booted out of Massachusetts. No John Winthrop here, and best of all, no protestant inquisition. Be welcomed!, you will always be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of your belief system.

Paula #34,

Highly entertaining if nothing else (the fundamental preacher). I have no problem whatsoever with colorful Elizabethan idioms (KJV), in fact I use them quite often myself when i get ****** off; but I promise, scout’s honor, not on this blog! The problem I have with this type of preaching, is that it drives many from the cross instead of to it.

Welcome Sandy,

I too spent many years in a rigid fundamental regime. The parallels between rigid fundamentalism and Islam (social structures) are striking. I am so glad to be unshackled from all of that. About 3 yrs. ago I began reading the writings of Katharine Bushnell on legitimate Biblical textual criticism. About a year ago, I chanced across Cheryl’s site here, gave her dvd’s a fair hearing, and had an epiphany: What I had been taught about gender roles and hierarchy won’t stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of scripture as its own lens. I’m not here to convince you, convert you, or analyze you. I’m only suggesting that you do your own homework and decide for yourself what God’s word says, and not what someone says it says.

Lin,

Well said and good thinking! I too have long believed that it’s God’s word that carries the authority, and not the teacher. When we elevate the gift of teaching to an “office”, we might as well return to the Levitical ordinances and rely once again on the blood of heifers and goats along with a priestly caste to represent us to God.

Just for a little levity’s sake, I still crack up at Rabbi Tuchman’s circumcision gadget in Mel Brooks’ “Robin Hood, Men in Tights”…

Ms. Carlaw,

I can understand it, if you had called me on the carpet to account for less than Christian treatment of Kamilla, after all it was I who satirized her as the Red Queen. But Cheryl has done no wrong in that regard whatsoever. She has been gracious and accommodating and does not deserve to be branded as a gossip.

I still don’t see what’s so hard to understand about the trinity. Just look at the simplicity of water in its three states: It moves from solid to liquid, to steam, and back the other way with no linear hierarchy whatsoever; if anything, a circular unity is demonstrated.

If Dr. Grudem and the CBMW are intent upon imposing a linear hierarchy in the trinity, let them, it is their right to do so in the free-market place of ideas.

They have only overstepped their bounds when they try to say that those of us who reject the doctrine of eternal subordination are not Christians.

Lin #122, Go to the school admin. officials and DEMAND! (in a diplomatic fashion of course) accountability! If there was any race based bashing, it would of course, have been all over the 5:00 pm news nationwide, as well it should be. Explain to them that gender-based bashing is equally unacceptable, and that you are within your rights as consumer, and a parent, to demand its end.

Here’s some grist for the mill:

I must take issue with the thesis that women are by nature weaker than men. Scholar Hagit Lavsky, points this out in her book “New Beginnings” with the fact that the overwhelming majority of holocaust survivors were women (Lavsky 57).

By way of analogy, it is well known that the strongest of steel alloys, although initially stronger than titanium, will not last as long as titanium will, in harsh and corrosive environments.

So what’s my point in this bit of info and citation?

Actually, it’s more of a question.

What exactly is the Apostle expounding when he assures us that women are the weaker vessels (1 Peter 3:7).

thatmom,

Lemme guess, if they’re gonna deport Blacks, Hispanics, and er ah, Jooze, what on earth will they do with the remaining American Indians? Maybe they can be shipped east to a place where work will set them free???

Cheryl,

Count me in as a prayer ally for your ministry.

Dang! We got a lively kettle-o’-crawdads in here today!
And that’s a good thang y’all !

Cheryl, #’s 64 & 70,

Just because someone can regurgitate stored facts, figures, and their various stage settings, it is still no guarantor of how “smart” they are. This belief is one of the greatest fictions ever foisted upon western civilization.

All of us here have seen you think rings around many doctoral fellows; with nothing more than the straight edge of simplicity and the compass of elegance.

Paula #66,

You will most certainly make the Dean’s list this quarter,
and the current bustle in the hedgerow has it that the department
chair will recognize your work in one of the quarterly journals!

Suzanne,

Sometimes laughter is a viable route; Lutwidge thought so anyway, and I’ll be first to caricature myself too!

Essay question for extra points this quarter:

It appears that the Red Queen (Kamilla) is desperate to chop off the Cheshire Cat’s head but doesn’t quite know how to go about it.
Why do you suppose this is?

Is it because she would no longer be under the authority of a man and thus violate the dictates of the “Pax Baylyana”?

What would Aurelius do in a similar situation?

Jennifer,
Good idea to examine things critically. Although God’s word is the final arbiter of our faith and practice as Christians, I agree there are many cases in which our gut feelings of what’s right and what’s wrong; are right.

Had I not listened to my gut feelings of what’s right and wrong, I’d still be in a complementarian mega-fellowship that teaches the doctrine of a linear hierarchy in the trinity; and by extension, the subordination of women by men throughout the church age.