Kristen
Active 2010–2012
Tag Cloud
Sorry, the first source I meant to link didn’t get linked. Here it is:
The whole thing is interesting, but the arguments I summarized mostly appear after page 45.
Looking at this pro-slavery treatise, especially on and after page 45, you will see the following arguments (these are summaries, not direct quotes):
That the Church has traditionally, for 1800 years prior to the the current age, supported slavery.
That the plain sense of the Scriptures is pro-slavery.
That the problem is not the institution of slavery, but the abuse of it by some men.
That those who oppose slavery are bowing to the godlessness of their own modern culture.
That the African race is designed by God to be under the white race, as can be proved in the book of Genesis, and is happiest when it embraces that design.
Also look at this source. The main argument here is that slavery was normative in the Bible and therefore should be considered divinely sanctioned today.
Craig, since we last wrote to one another, I learned some things that relate directly to our Sola Panel discussions and the issue of slavery.
I recently found on CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality), a link to this 34-page essay by egalitarian leader Kevin Giles. It was written in response to a complementarian conference he attended in Melbourne, Australia in October 2010. As I read this over, it became increasingly clear to me that the attitudes of the Sola Panel contributors (that egalitarians were all “liberals” who had abandoned a high view of Scripture because we just didn’t want to obey the plain sense of the Bible with regards to women’s roles) were a direct result of that conference.
Kevin Giles addresses directly the attitude that complementarians have some sort of moral high ground with regards to reading the Bible, which egalitarians have supposedly abandoned. I found his words very heartening.
If the above link doesn’t enable you to read the document, please click on this link to the CBE artile and then on the words “response to the conference” on the fourth line down.
http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2011/01/unity-in-difference/
Of particular interest are his conclusions on pages 32-34. He says that it is human nature to cling to power and to justify the use of power, and that the Bible is the greatest source of justification there is; therefore, the opposition and vilification we receive as egalitarians is a direct result of our challenge to established male power in the church and home for evangelical Christians. He also noted something that I was unaware of: apparently Australian evangelicals are largely unaware of the track record of evangelicals in other countries using the Bible to cling to racial power. Mark’s apparent simplicity with regards to how slavery and male-female relations tie together, may be directly related to this unawareness that complementarians themselves are continuing in a grand tradition of Christian people in power clinging to power and using the Bible for justification. I’m going to post a couple of links to old pro-slavery writings that use the same arguments complementarians now use, to justify slave-holding as being the white man’s divine right.
Craig,
I think your arguments are terrific, I agree with all of them and I wouldn’t change a thing.
Hah. There have been plenty of people who have pushed my buttons good and proper, and I have responded by getting very upset. Do you remember the Evangelical Village blog we all visited last year? I didn’t make a very good showing there as a rational or patient person! When they treated me as if I didn’t exist, I responded by “screaming” loudly. (grin)
So don’t sell yourself short, TL. Mark and I came to some sort of understanding, for some reason, that he didn’t come to with you– so he treats me better than he treats you, and he doesn’t push my buttons. I’m not even sure why. But I’m not more patient than you– I just seem to be able to talk to Mark.
Craig,
Yes, you can send him my answer– but please soften this:
“I think Mark’s view, as he’s expressing it above, demonstrates a very simplistic understanding of the historical context”
To something more like, “I think Mark’s view of the historical context oversimplifies.”
I want to show that I respect him, and I wouldn’t want to imply any insult.
Thanks!
So, given the above– what is it about the parent-child relationship that makes it still necessary for minor children to obey their parents? The fact is that in this relationship, the necessity for obedience still exists, due to the nature of minor children. It is not inconsistent for egalitarians to acknowledge this as a fact, while also acknowledging that the partriarchal system in which adult children were still supposed to obey the pater familias, was unnecessary, has now passed away and there is no need to go back to it. Similarly, the need still exists in an economic relationship for the worker to obey the business owner– but the old structure that gave the owner absolute power over the life and personhood of the worker, was unnecessary, has now passed away, and there is no need to go back to it. In marriage, the power structure that gave the male the power over the female is unnecessary, has passed away– and yet the church still clings to it and tries in every way to restore it. That is what the egalitarian objects to– not legitimate use of authority in necessary ways acknowledged by society, but illegitimate use of ancient forms of power that are now viewed as unjust by society– the perpetuation of which ends up damaging the gospel of Christ, in Whom we are supposed to be set free.
(continued)
For the relationship of parent to minor child, Paul also exhorts obedience– in this case because the child is not ready for adult responsibilities. But the fathers are to lay down power in that relationship as well.
What Paul is NOT doing is saying that any and all authority in relationships is bad. But he IS saying that in authority relationships, those in power are to look on those under their power as of full, equal value and dignity. This would tend, over time, to subvert patriarchy– where power was concentrated in the hands of a male– in favor of more balanced-power relationships, such as our current employer-employee relationships, or modern parent-child relationships where the state views the children as having fundamental rights which the parents cannot violate with impunity.
Given this context, then, the egalitarian can easily agree with Mark that the Bible– including this Eph. 5 passage– treats marriage differently than the other two relationships. But “marriage” does not have to mean “marriage in which patriarchy remains intact” any more than “an economic relationship where one person works for another” has to mean “slavery.” Marriage is an intimate relationship between two people, in which (in Paul’s time) all the power was concentrated in the hands of the male. Take power out of the hands of the male and share half of it with the female– and you have not changed the fundamental nature of marriage itself; you have only changed its patriarchal structure. It is MARRIAGE, not PATRIARCHAL marriage, which the Bible treats as a special, God-given relationship from the beginning of the creation of humanity. It is not inconsistent for Paul to seek to remove the male-power structure from this relationship at the same time he seeks to remove the male-power structure from slavery and parenthood (which I think he does), while at the same time treating marriage as something unique among all other relationships.
(to be continued)
But let’s do an apples-to-apples comparison instead of an apples-to-oranges.
Paul is talking about three basic relationships: the relationship where two humans unite to produce children, the relationship where two or more humans unite to accomplish an economic goal, and the relationship where one or two adults and one or more children unite to accomplish the goal of bringing the child to adulthood. Patriarchy approached each of these relationships with the idea that all the power was to be concentrated in the hands of one central human male, with other human males (his adult sons) given some delegated power, and everyone else (women, slaves and minor children) having no power at all.
Given that idea, one can say without any inconsistency at all that Paul’s goal was to teach a new way of approaching ALL THREE of these relationships such that power was shared. The human males in whose hands the power was concentrated, were told to act like Christ in laying down their lives for their wives, treating their slaves with humility, and not exasperating their children. The ones without power were told to respond by yielding (for wives) and obeying (for slaves and children). By making this differentiation, Paul is acknowledging the economic nature of the slave relationship (that in an economic production unit, someone has to be in charge), and also the economic nature of the father-child relationship where the children are adult males working for the “company” (which was the household). But the nature of the wife relationship is not economic, but one of intimacy and oneness– and Paul seeks to restore the oneness God intended in marriage, partly through the use of that word “submit” (“yield”) instead of “obey.
(to be continued)
(To be continued)
(continuing from above)
Mark appears, then to be switching the real meaning of patriarchy with “relationships containing authority.” As you already pointed out, Craig, he starts with an apples-and-oranges comparison of “marriage” with “slavery,” where the true comparison would either be “marriage” with “economic relationships where one person works for another” OR “patriarchal rule in marriage” with “master-rule in slavery.” He then wants to say that the Bible’s approach to patriarchal marriage and patriarchal slavery was different– that there is evidence that slavery was not meant to be a permanent thing, while marriage (and therefore patriarchal marriage) was intended to be permanent. And the reason he appears to want to give for this is that parental authority over children is naturally a permanent thing. But he’s slipping in “marriage equals patriarchal marriage” as an unchallenged assumption.
(to be continued)
Ok, I’m going to try to throw out a few thoughts here, off the top of my head. I’m not sure how clear they will be.
I think Mark’s view, as he’s expressing it above, demonstrates a very simplistic understanding of the historical context. He says patriarchy is a “philosophy” (I assume he means a “system”) and patriarchal marriage, slavery and the parent-child relationship were all patriarchal in nature. Then he says that egalitarians believe Paul’s purpose was to subvert the practices of patriarchal marriage and slavery from within– but that in saying this, we ignore the parent-child relationship, which is also authority-based.
In order to say this, Mark appears to be defining “patriarchal” as meaning “based on the authority of one person over another.” But that’s not what “patriarchy” means– particularly as it was expressed in the 1st-century Roman Empire. “Patriarchy” in the Roman Empire meant a system of “households” which were different from our modern nuclear families. A “household” was an economic unit ruled by a patriarch– the “pater familias” who was the ruler of his wife, grown children, their children, and his slaves. It is a modern misconception to think that the only “children” who were being addressed in Ephesians 5 were minors.
(to be continued)
*bows* thank you, kind sir. 🙂
I never really wanted to be a lawyer, though. I prefer the supporting role– as long as I’m not told it’s God’s will that since I’m a woman, it’s the only role I’m allowed!
I didn’t go to law school, because what I really wanted was to have kids and work part-time– but that was my choice, not a role imposed on me by anyone else.
Yes– in effect, because her leadership is always accountable to his authority, she can get “in trouble” with him if she does something that has less than perfect results. The way this often works out in practice is that he may take responsibility publicly, but he also blames her privately for anything that goes wrong.
Craig,
Yes, that is the way Mark on Sola Panel seemed to be viewing authority. What he seemed to be saying is that women could lead, but not have authority– which logically translates to women’s leadership being a sort of beta-wolf leadership, under the alpha male wolf (if you don’t mind the analogy). In other words, the one responsible for the outcome must ultimately be the one in charge. Any leadership women would have would be delegated leadership. That is, they could be gifted to lead and could do any leadership that the one in authority permitted them to do– but ultimately, their leadership would have to be under his control. They could not be allowed to lead outside the scope he had granted– otherwise, how could he be responsible for the results? If an under-leader did step out from under her authority tp do something he wouldn’t want her to do, then she would be at fault– but he is the one ultimately calling the shots.
The way Mark appears to see it is kind of like the way things work with my boss at work. He gives me a lot of latitude to do my job– but he is the one who sets the perameters, and I must stay within the boundaries of his delegation. Because I’m a paralegal and he’s a lawyer, that means I can, in my own discretion, interview clients and collect data from them, draft legal documents using that data, and research and follow court procedures in the course of my work. Ultimately, though, I can’t do anything he hasn’t given me the power to do, and I can’t practice law– I can’t advise clients, send out a document I have drafted without his approval, and so on. He may consult me on office systems and policies, but he’s the one who has the final say on what systems get used and what policies get set.
So Mark’s view of women’s leadership, as far as I can see, still does contain that trump-card idea– it’s just that he doesn’t want us to notice.
Gengwall– oh yes, The Princess Bride. Vizzini is an excellent example of comp thinking– especially when he keeps saying “Inconceivable!” about things that are not only very conceivable, but have actually happened. . . I like to quote Inigo Montoya when comps start talking about women’s “equality” in terms of equal dignity but permanently subordinate roles. “Why do you keep using that word? I do not think it means what you think it means.” Or words to that effect.
Then there’s the classic, “Rodents of unusual size? I don’t believe they exist.” This parallels the comp statement, “Women called to the pastoral ministry? I don’t believe they exist.”
What I mean is that head coverings were time-and-place specific because they were cultural, but the not-teaching prohibition was time-and-place specific because it was related to the education level of a particular woman or women. Both are time-and-place specific, but for different reasons.
Craig said,
“This would make head covering on a par with women not teaching. Both are indirect and so it must be considered whether both could be cultural.”
I think there’s probably a better way of putting it, though– because there isn’t really any way teaching, or teaching from a position of authority, can be considered a cultural practice in the same way head coverings are. I think it’s not that both women not teaching and women’s head coverings could be cultural– it’s that they are both related to time-and-place specific situations and are thus not universal or unending.
According to the complementarian view Craig is describing, the comp position is that Eve’s sin was, at it’s heart, NOT about believing the serpent rather than God. It was about acting FIRST, without looking to Adam for guidance or permission. The problem is that nothing in the Genesis text says anything like this.
And, of course, they have not addressed 2 Cor 11:3 at all. The deception of Eve is not a grounding for anything there– it is simply an example of someone being deceived in a similar manner to the way Paul was afraid the Corinthian converts might be deceived. How they can get any sort of universality from that is beyond me.
Craig,
I would have to see more evidence of why they claim the head-covering part is indirect and the not-teaching part is direct. What you have quoted has no actual support for such a position. What is so much different between these two passages, that they can say head coverings proceed indirectly from the idea, and not teaching proceeds directly? Other than the fact that they make that assumption to start with?
Of course, there is also the fact that egalitarians don’t believe authority is in view in 1 Cor 11 at all– and in 1 Tim 2 it is only the misuse of authority that is in view.
BTW, yes– the verse that supports my position that OT references in the NT are for examples, not for grounding, is 1 Cor 10:6.
Craig, I’ll look up that 1 Cor 10:6 reference tomorrow– it’s pretty late here. But the question I would ask anyone who asserts that 1 Tim 2:11-15 is about universal principals for all churches for all times, is that if that were the case, why did Paul speak of it just once, in a private letter to his “deputy,” rather than in a letter to the whole church? And why didn’t he say anything about it to the church at Rome, where women had a much greater chance of being educated and ready to preach? Why did he spend so much time at the end of Romans praising what women were doing rather than telling them what they weren’t supposed to be doing?
It doesn’t make sense.
Craig asked,
“Does an appeal to Adam and Eve ensure that something is normative for today?”
2 Cor. 11:3 shows Paul appealing to the deceit of Eve in conjunction with a problem specific to the Corinthian church at that time.
1 Cor 11 invokes the creation (man is the head – source- of woman) in order to support the time-and-culture-specific impact of what a person wore or didn’t wear on his head, on his or her source.
So no– invoking the creation account (or any other OT text) does not automatically make the NT teaching universal and timeless. In fact, Paul specifically says that the OT stories are for examples to us– not for grounding of truths– but I don’t have that reference at my fingertips.
BTW, I agree that authority in the Kingdom is based on the authority of Christ and His teachings, and on the inspired teachings of the apostles which later became the New Testament. “Authentein” is a word that is related to the word “authority,” and I think it does have something to do with authority. But I’m NOT saying (and I’m not sure Payne is saying) that “seizing authority” is the same as “assuming authority for themselves without a properly delegated authority from men.” Who properly delegates authority? God. In whose authority do teachers teach? In Christ’s. Men do not “delegate” authority. A congregation and its elders may acknowledge or recognize the giftedness of a person to teach, and that person may then be a “teacher” to teach God’s authoritative teachings. I think “teach-and-authentein” has something to do with overriding the acknowledged, recognized teaching gift of another and teaching as if you yourself had that acknowledged, recognized gift to be a “teacher.”
I hope that clarifies my position. 🙂
And here is the follow-up I made to that comment:
***
Here is a quote from Payne’s essay that encapsulates what I’m saying:
“Unless 1 Tim 2.12 is the one exception, none of Paul’s oujdev constructions selectively transfers only a qualifier from the second element to the first. Whenever Paul does use text following oujdev to qualify the element before oujdev, the entire construction
expresses this by combining the two elements to express one idea.”
With regards to the word “usurp” — based on your definition, that does seem to be the wrong word to use. Payne says the most likely sense is “assume a stance of independent authority” or “seize or assume authority for oneself.” This would relate specifically to men because it was towards the male teachers that this was being done.
Finally, I have looked up 1 Tim 1:6-7 in the interlinear: did you know that the word Paul uses there is not “men,” but the word “tisine” (plural, “tines”) that is most often translated “some”? So we cannot read 1 Tim 1:6-7 as if it were about “men” in contrast to 1 Tim 2:11-15 being about “women” (or “a woman”). Some of these false teachers in 1 Tim 1 could have been the woman or women of 1 Tim 2, in which case, both passages would apply to them (or her). Or it could be that there were no male false teachers at all; that the word “some” in 1 Tim 1:6-7 refers to EXACTLY the same group as in 1 Tim 2. That these are not the same group as in 1 Tim 1:19-20 is clear, in that the “some” there have gone beyond confidently teaching when they don’t know what they’re talking about, but have actually “rejected faith and a good conscience.” In any case, the issue is not that the “some” in 1 Tim 1:6-7 can go ahead and “assume authority for themselves” while the women in 1 Tim 2:11-15 can’t– if they are the same group of people.
Here is what I posted in the last thread, including a link to the essay by Payne about the nature of the word “oude,” which is what engendered this discussion:
***
Cheryl, I’m sure you will agree that our English grammar construction and ancient Koine Greek grammar construction may not always be the same. I am relying on the scholarship of Phillip Payne, author of “Man and Woman, One in Christ,” for the statement that the Greek conjunction “oude” ties together the verbs “teach” and “authentein” as one, and that the placement of the object “man” after “authentein” prevents it from being an object of “teach” as well.
Here is an essay by Payne that explains his position:
http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-admin/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf
As for the nature of my statements about Eve, they assume that Paul is saying something theologically similar to what he says about Adam in Romans 5:12, that just as all humans sin in Adam, so all women partake of the sin of Eve, and that to say Eve is “saved” is a metaphor saying that womankind is saved through the belief of women in Christ, just as humankind are saved from the sin of Adam through belief in Christ. To refer to Eve in a form of present tense would be metaphorical; Eve as a symbol of all women.
I’m not saying anything against your reading; in fact, I’m inclined to support it. But you do know that people say something similar to what you just said about the Greek grammar having to mean that “teach” and “authentein” are to be read separately: that to use “a woman” with NO contextual indications that he is talking about one specific woman and not “a woman” as a general singular, is too hard to believe. When Paul said, “I know a man who was caught up to the third heaven,” the word “who,” followed by the specific story of what happened, makes it contextually clear that he’s talking about one man. But the “a woman” in 1 Tim 2 has no such contextual indications. Therefore, it’s hard for people to grasp– and when I present my argument that “she” may mean Eve, a lot of them are more willing to accept that, based on Paul’s similar treatment of Adam in Romans 5.
To me, the point is not that we have to get comps to accept one particular egal reading, no matter how hard it is for them to do so. I’m happy if comps will seriously consider ANY possible egal reading. If from there, they move to the “one woman” reading you favor, that’s all well and good. Baby steps, baby steps. New wine only pours into old wineskin in drops, but sometimes Christians need a period of time of receiving drops in their old wineskins before they become willing to replace them with new wineskins to hold ALL the new wine.
Here is a quote from Payne’s essay that encapsulates what I’m saying:
“Unless 1 Tim 2.12 is the one exception, none of Paul’s oujdev constructions selectively transfers only a qualifier from the second element to the first. Whenever Paul does use text following oujdev to qualify the element before oujdev, the entire construction
expresses this by combining the two elements to express one idea.”
With regards to the word “usurp” — based on your definition, that does seem to be the wrong word to use. Payne says the most likely sense is “assume a stance of independent authority” or “seize or assume authority for oneself.” This would relate specifically to men because it was towards the male teachers that this was being done.
Finally, I have looked up 1 Tim 1:6-7 in the interlinear: did you know that the word Paul uses there is not “men,” but the word “tisine” (plural, “tines”) that is most often translated “some”? So we cannot read 1 Tim 1:6-7 as if it were about “men” in contrast to 1 Tim 2:11-15 being about “women” (or “a woman”). Some of these false teachers in 1 Tim 1 could have been the woman or women of 1 Tim 2, in which case, both passages would apply to them (or her). Or it could be that there were no male false teachers at all; that the word “some” in 1 Tim 1:6-7 refers to EXACTLY the same group as in 1 Tim 2. That these are not the same group as in 1 Tim 1:19-20 is clear, in that the “some” there have gone beyond confidently teaching when they don’t know what they’re talking about, but have actually “rejected faith and a good conscience.” In any case, the issue is not that the “some” in 1 Tim 1:6-7 can go ahead and “assume authority for themselves” while the women in 1 Tim 2:11-15 can’t– if they are the same group of people.
BTW, Cheryl, I note that your blog software is starting to have trouble again with having so many comments in one thread. You might want to start a new one. 🙂
Cheryl, I’m sure you will agree that our English grammar construction and ancient Koine Greek grammar construction may not always be the same. I am relying on the scholarship of Phillip Payne, author of “Man and Woman, One in Christ,” for the statement that the Greek conjunction “oude” ties together the verbs “teach” and “authentein” as one, and that the placement of the object “man” after “authentein” prevents it from being an object of “teach” as well.
Here is an essay by Payne that explains his position:
http://www.pbpayne.com/wp-admin/Payne2008NTS-oude1Tim2_12.pdf
As for the nature of my statements about Eve, they assume that Paul is saying something theologically similar to what he says about Adam in Romans 5:12, that just as all humans sin in Adam, so all women partake of the sin of Eve, and that to say Eve is “saved” is a metaphor saying that womankind is saved through the belief of women in Christ, just as humankind are saved from the sin of Adam through belief in Christ. To refer to Eve in a form of present tense would be metaphorical; Eve as a symbol of all women.
I’m not saying anything against your reading; in fact, I’m inclined to support it. But you do know that people say something similar to what you just said about the Greek grammar having to mean that “teach” and “authentein” are to be read separately: that to use “a woman” with NO contextual indications that he is talking about one specific woman and not “a woman” as a general singular, is too hard to believe. When Paul said, “I know a man who was caught up to the third heaven,” the word “who,” followed by the specific story of what happened, makes it contextually clear that he’s talking about one man. But the “a woman” in 1 Tim 2 has no such contextual indications. Therefore, it’s hard for people to grasp– and when I present my argument that “she” may mean Eve, a lot of them are more willing to accept that, based on Paul’s similar treatment of Adam in Romans 5.
To me, the point is not that we have to get comps to accept one particular egal reading, no matter how hard it is for them to do so. I’m happy if comps will seriously consider ANY possible egal reading. If from there, they move to the “one woman” reading you favor, that’s all well and good. Baby steps, baby steps. New wine only pours into old wineskin in drops, but sometimes Christians need a period of time of receiving drops in their old wineskins before they become willing to replace them with new wineskins to hold ALL the new wine.
Craig, my understanding is that the way the verse is set up, the way the structure works in the Greek, is that it could either be read “I do not permit a woman to teach and I do not permit a woman to authentein a man” OR it could be read “I do not permit a woman to teach-authentein a man.” “Teach-authentein” would, in that case, mean something along the lines of “teach in such a way as to authentein a man.”
The one thing that the Greek syntax does NOT support is “I do not permit a woman to teach a man or to authentein a man.” Either both verbs take the object, or only “authentein” does.
So it is not that the women (or woman; I do think that is a very viable reading) are being told not to teach men (or “a man”). They are either being told not to teach in such a way as to authentein a man, or they are being told not to teach at all. I don’t think it makes sense to say that even an uneducated woman cannot teach at all– 1 Cor 14 says that ANYONE can have “a teaching.” If Paul had meant “they cannot teach at all as long as they’re teaching false doctrine,” I think he would have said that. Therefore, I think the reading is the second ,”I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to authentein a man.”
As for the “they” and “she” pronouns, I believe it is possible to read the passage in terms of “she” being Eve (as representative of all womankind, and therefore able to be referred to in a form of present tense) and “they” being the offspring of her childbearing; ie, her Christian daughters in the church whom Paul is talking about. That is, the sin of Eve is reversed (“she” is “saved”) for women if “they” (Eve’s daughters) continue in faith, etc.
I am not saying this is a better reading than Cheryl’s. I have found, though, that presenting Cheryl’s reading in certain circles often results in frank incredulity and even mockery. This alternate reading at least presents another possibility for those who refuse to accept that “a woman” could mean one individual, and who therefore cling to their complementarian interpretation.
Cheryl said,
“If teaching in an “authoritative” way was wrong if you aren’t an expert on something, then why were these “women” only restricted from teaching men this way? Why not also stop them from teaching women authoritatively?”
I didn’t say that Paul was talking only about “teaching in an authoritative way.” I said he was talking about “teaching in an authoritative way that contradicts the authoritative teaching that is currently being given by the leaders of the church.” It isn’t “authoritative teaching” I’m talking about. It’s false teaching that purports to be authoritative and thus usurps the true authoritative teaching.
Cheryl said:
“I don’t see any evidence that there was an “authority” given to “accepted teachers” let alone an authority that could be “usurped”. Since the leaders were to be servants and not lording over the flock, is it their authority to act as a servant that is being’usurped’?”
I never said there was “authority” given to “accepted teachers.” I said the teaching of the “accepted teachers” was considered “authoritative” on the subjects they were teaching about. This has nothing to do with exercising authority over the congregation, any more than the scholar whose book I read to learn what an “authority” on his subject thinks, is exercising authority over my life.
It’s fine if you disagree with me, but it’s better if what you’re disagreeing with is what I actually said! lol
Craig, I see being “authorized” or “recognized” as conveying a level of trust placed in them by the hearers. We have all heard it said that Prof. So-and-So is “an authority” on such-and-such a subject. This means that when the Prof. speaks, people trust what he’s teaching– they consider what he’s saying to have more weight than if I myself just stood up and started pontificating on the subject. They are more likely to believe the Prof. than they would me.
I picture what might have been going on in Ephesus as this: because of the lack of education of the women in the church at the time Paul was writing to Timothy, there were no women recognized as being “authoritative” (as the Prof in the example above is “authoritative”) on the subject of Christian doctrine. But a certain woman or women were setting themselves up as “authoritative” anyway, and were holding meetings in which they contradicted what the established, trusted teachers (who happened to be all male in Ephesus) were teaching. Paul wanted this to be stopped. He wanted the woman or women to sit down and listen and be teachable. Only then could they ever attain what they were seeking, which was to be considered “authorities” on the subjects they wanted to teach about.