NT Wright on women preachers

[Burl]

44 minutes ago, thormas said:

I agree with the comments about Julia but do you think that things (for women) only fell apart with Constantine or did it begin earlier?

 

Judaism was exclusively male controlled, so we can see the Pre-Constantinian church as an elevation of the status of women.

The classic anti-woman proof text is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.  “It is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

It is a classic case of lack of context.  All of 1c14:26-40 is about orderly worship vs. disorderly worship.

1) Women are in the church with their husbands.  Very inclusive compared to Jewish worship.

2) Paul’s preaching that husbands should teach the women at home and that women should ask their husbands to explain ‘everything’.  Again, different and more inclusive than in Jewish households.
 

3) My interpretation of this women were disrupting the worship service by asking questions, etc.  Paul wanted the women taught at home.

4) Acts 2:17-18 declares women shall prophecy, so the arc of feminine inclusion is explicit.  Paul’s epistle was a commentary on the state of how he personally conducted worship at that time, and not a doctrinal truism.

[Elen1107]

13 hours ago, Burl said:

Gender equity was a distinguishing feature of the church.  Paul’s letter to the Romans was preached by Junia, not Paul.

 

From reading the New Testament it does seem that the earliest Christian groups and gatherings had equal representation, participation and everyone did indeed have an equal voice. Changes were then made, either by the writers or editors of different parts of the NT and probably by pressures brought on by other factors/factions as well.

13 hours ago, Burl said:

When Constantine politicized the church things started going off-track.

I find it as easy to believe that Constantine chose to support Christianity as much for political reasons than for any vision or dream he might have had before his conquest of Rome. For one thing, Christianity doesn't and didn't conquer, and use military force.

Christianity, at least true Christianity doesn't conquer, it converts, and that is always done by peaceful means. People were even willing to be martyred, but I see no example from the 1st 350-400 years of the use of violence or force in conversion, except for that of Constantine himself.

[Elen1107]

2 hours ago, Burl said:

The classic anti-woman proof text is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.  “It is shameful for a woman to speak in church.”

 

The same biblical book, 1st Corinthians, sates earlier in it's pages that a woman can preach and prophesize in church, the difference being that she should have a covering on her head. (I find this odd because it is well known that in the Jewish tradition it is the men that wear something on their heads and not the women). Scholars have said that they think that 1Cor 14:34-35 may well have been inserted by later editors.

2 hours ago, Burl said:

2) Paul’s preaching that husbands should teach the women at home and that women should ask their husbands to explain ‘everything’.  Again, different and more inclusive than in Jewish households.
 

3) My interpretation of this women were disrupting the worship service by asking questions, etc.  Paul wanted the women taught at home.

This assumes that every woman has a husband. Which is not so. Nor do all women have fathers that they live with or who are still alive. Single women are left out of this picture entirely. That's a big piece of the population whose needs go unheard and unmet. 

[Burl]

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

The same biblical book, 1st Corinthians, sates earlier in it's pages that a woman can preach and prophesize in church, the difference being that she should have a covering on her head. (I find this odd because it is well known that in the Jewish tradition it is the men that wear something on their heads and not the women). Scholars have said that they think that 1Cor 14:34-35 may well have been inserted by later editors.

Or it nay simply reinforce the idea of gender equity.  Good scholarship elevates peculiar or contrary scriptures.

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

This assumes that every woman has a husband. Which is not so. Nor do all women have fathers that they live with or who are still alive. Single women are left out of this picture entirely. That's a big piece of the population whose needs go unheard and unmet. 

No, it does not assume that all.  It’s just not in this pericope.  

Paul writes about how he does not recommend marriage at all except for the exceptionally horny, and about the need to care for widows so single women are not left out. 

Considering women were chattel, I find Paul to be ahead of his time in his consideration of single women.

 

[Elen1107]

56 minutes ago, Burl said:

Paul writes about how he does not recommend marriage at all except for the exceptionally horny, and about the need to care for widows so single women are not left out. 

 

Widows are not the same as single women. We agree that there were many of them and that Paul was ok with this and not everyone had to get and be married. He still doesn't give them a voice or a way of being heard. Either you have a husband to talk to or you can't talk about spiritual matters. This is extremely limiting. How would you feel if the only way that you could express yourself spiritually or religiously was through your spouse? & how would you feel about that if you didn't have one?

56 minutes ago, Burl said:

Considering women were chattel, I find Paul to be ahead of his time in his consideration of single women.

 

Today his words are being used to keep half the world's population and half the members of everyone's own family as chattel. Luckily it's not succeeding in all groups and all populations. 

[Burl]

12 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Widows are not the same as single women. We agree that there were many of them and that Paul was ok with this and not everyone had to get and be married. He still doesn't give them a voice or a way of being heard. Either you have a husband to talk to or you can't talk about spiritual matters. This is extremely limiting. How would you feel if the only way that you could express yourself spiritually or religiously was through your spouse? & how would you feel about that if you didn't have one?

Today his words are being used to keep half the world's population and half the members of everyone's own family as chattel. Luckily it's not succeeding in all groups and all populations. 

This was a small part of a letter written to one particular church, not a sermon.

You seem to have issues with Paul.  Perhaps you could back up and unpack some of those?

[thormas]

22 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Today his words are being used to keep half the world's population and half the members of everyone's own family as chattel. Luckily it's not succeeding in all groups and all populations.

Paul's words or pseudo-Paul? Scholars do not accept that all letters attributed to Paul were Paul's. Which specific letters are 'being used' in such a way?

[Elen1107]

18 hours ago, Burl said:

This was a small part of a letter written to one particular church, not a sermon.

 

Yes, I agree, at the time of it's reading and writing it was a small part of one letter written to one particular group of people.

Today however that is not the case. It's part of a collection of books and letters that enormous numbers of people consider to be "the word of God". It's a few verses in the most published book on earth. It has effected half of the world's population and half of the family members of everyone everywhere for 1,600 years and more in a negative and phytologically and spiritually harmful way. That's a lot of lives that it has hurt, undermined and swept under the bridge.

18 hours ago, Burl said:

You seem to have issues with Paul.  Perhaps you could back up and unpack some of those?

Half the Christian world has "issues with Paul". Almost all Progressive Christians have "issues with Paul". Most Christian scholars, writers and speakers particularly inside Progressive Christianity have "issues with Paul". Are you trying to imply that there is something wrong with having "issues" with some of the things that Paul is reported to have written? One could say, and many people have, that there much more likely something wrong with someone who doesn't have problems or "issues" with some of the things Paul is ascribed to have written.

What does backup and unpack mean in the context you are using it?

[Elen1107]

18 hours ago, thormas said:

Paul's words or pseudo-Paul? Scholars do not accept that all letters attributed to Paul were Paul's. Which specific letters are 'being used' in such a way?

Well, we are talking here particularly about women speaking and teaching and preaching in church. 1st Corinthians  and 1st Timothy.

It's my understanding that 1st Timothy is considered to be pseudo-Paul. I've also seen that some scholars attest that the verses in 1st Corinthians were copied and edited into the letter by later "editors", perhaps even being borrowed from 1st Timothy. 

[thormas]

32 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

It's my understanding that 1st Timothy is considered to be pseudo-Paul. I've also seen that some scholars attest that the verses in 1st Corinthians were copied and edited into the letter by later "editors", perhaps even being borrowed from 1st Timothy. 

If this is correct then "today his words are NOT being used to keep half the world's population and half the members of everyone's own family as chattel."

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by thormas

[thormas]

53 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Half the Christian world has "issues with Paul". Almost all Progressive Christians have "issues with Paul". Most Christian scholars, writers and speakers particularly inside Progressive Christianity have "issues with Paul". Are you trying to imply that there is something wrong with having "issues" with some of the things that Paul is reported to have written? One could say, and many people have, that there much more likely something wrong with someone who doesn't have problems or "issues" with some of the things Paul is ascribed to have written.

This gets interesting: do some PCs have issues with letters wrongly attributed to Paul or with Paul himself and his theology? Not sure it it is 'almost all' PCs - given pseudo Paul.

If the former then not only is it not Paul but their 'issue' is with the selection of the canon not Paul's insights.

[Burl]

33 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Well, we are talking here particularly about women speaking and teaching and preaching in church. 1st Corinthians  and 1st Timothy.

It's my understanding that 1st Timothy is considered to be pseudo-Paul. I've also seen that some scholars attest that the verses in 1st Corinthians were copied and edited into the letter by later "editors", perhaps even being borrowed from 1st Timothy. 

The authorship does not seem relevant.  

Revelation is progressive, and one of the amazing things about the Bible is how the interpretation improves with time as truth is revealed.  

Now that we can read Paul with greater accuracy past misinterpretations are of historical interest.

[thormas]

27 minutes ago, Burl said:

Now that we can read Paul with greater accuracy past misinterpretations are of historical interest.

......and religious interests if one want to understand the rightful role of women in the thinking of perhaps the greatest theologian of Christianity (Paul).

[thormas]

The late Larry Hurtado (leading critical biblical scholar) wrote in his blog:

"Women, many women, were among Jesus’ followers, made substantial contributions (both in effort and finances) to his ministry, and continued to exercise important and leading roles in earliest Christian circles".

 

[Elen1107]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

If this is correct then "today his words are NOT being used to keep half the world's population and half the members of everyone's own family as chattel."

 

Yea, but a good half of Christianity doesn't know that these letters are pseudo-Paul. Of those who know about the issues and the debate, about the half of them don't believe it.

55 minutes ago, thormas said:

This gets interesting: do some PCs have issues with letters wrongly attributed to Paul or with Paul himself and his theology? Not sure it it is 'almost all' PCs - given pseudo Paul.

 

I've listened to many lectures and read many things by and to John Shelby Spong, the issue comes up a lot in this/these circles.

There are also articles and books put out by other Progressive Christians. The issue comes up a lot. 

55 minutes ago, thormas said:

If the former then not only is it not Paul but their 'issue' is with the selection of the canon not Paul's insights.

What seems to come up and be stated is that some of Paul's ideas were good, some of Paul's ideas were not so good, and some of Paul's ideas are just plain awful. This is true whether they are pseudo-Pauline ideas or Pauline ideas. Whether the ideas are about humanity, women, slavery, the divine right of kings and government, or how God is described and depicted and what ideas God approves of and condones. People have these issues with Paul and with the bible itself

[Elen1107]

54 minutes ago, thormas said:

......and religious interests if one want to understand the rightful role of women in the thinking of perhaps the greatest theologian of Christianity (Paul).

How would you guys feel if a bunch of people and or women were sitting around discussing the rightful role of men in the church? Would you be thinking, what right and where do they get off, thinking they can decide or question the matter and subject in the first place? Just asking

1 hour ago, Burl said:

The authorship does not seem relevant.  

Revelation is progressive, and one of the amazing things about the Bible is how the interpretation improves with time as truth is revealed.  

Now that we can read Paul with greater accuracy past misinterpretations are of historical interest.

Thing is, billions of people think this is the absolute word of God. I talk to people who deal with it every day, and who are shut up and silenced because of these words.

There's a whole fundamentalist front out there trying to block any progressive understanding of Christianity or the bible. They have even gone so far as making death threats. These old, archaic and awful ideas may be passing into history, but they are not really quite there yet.

30 minutes ago, thormas said:

The late Larry Hurtado (leading critical biblical scholar) wrote in his blog:

"Women, many women, were among Jesus’ followers, made substantial contributions (both in effort and finances) to his ministry, and continued to exercise important and leading roles in earliest Christian circles".

 

John Shelby Spong has gone so far to say that the 12 apostles were not just the 12. That there was a greater group of both women and men who were his closest followers and apostles. The 12 (& they are not the same in all the gospels),were singled out to replace the 12 tribes of Israel in Jewish spiritual ideology and religious thinking. I believe he says this in his book, 'Jesus for the Non-Religious', probably in chapter 4, entitled 'The Historicity of the Twelve Disciples'.

[thormas]

31 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Yea, but a good half of Christianity doesn't know that these letters are pseudo-Paul. Of those who know about the issues and the debate, about the half of them don't believe it.

 

Agreed, thus the need for education and not just preaching. However, the point remains that they are wrong. 

33 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I've listened to many lectures and read many things by and to John Shelby Spong, the issue comes up a lot in this/these circles.

There are also articles and books put out by other Progressive Christians. The issue comes up a lot. 

 

I get that but 'many' PCs are familiar with Spong, accept/agree with much he has said and some have read scholars on Paul and know a great deal about the real Paul.

43 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

What seems to come up and be stated is that some of Paul's ideas were good, some of Paul's ideas were not so good, and some of Paul's ideas are just plain awful. This is true whether they are pseudo-Pauline ideas or Pauline ideas. Whether the ideas are about humanity, women, slavery, the divine right of kings and government, or how God is described and depicted and what ideas God approves of and condones. People have these issues with Paul and with the bible itself

This is a longer discussion but I suggest that many/most of the real Paul is very good albeit influenced by his time and religion as he interprets Jesus through a particular lens.

Pseudo Paul is not Paul and shouldn't be ascribe to Paul by those who know the difference.

[thormas]

10 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

How would you guys feel if a bunch of people and or women were sitting around discussing the rightful role of men in the church? Would you be thinking, what right and where do they get off, thinking they can decide or question the matter and subject in the first place? Just asking

 

Actually I think a great deal of that is going on in PC circles (see Spong's old site) and not just the role of men but the issues of being white. And I'm fine with it and have no problem voicing my disagreement if appropriate.

13 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

John Shelby Spong has gone so far to say that the 12 apostles were not just the 12. That there was a greater group of both women and men who were his closest followers and apostles. The 12 (& they are not the same in all the gospels),were singled out to replace the 12 tribes of Israel in Jewish spiritual ideology and religious thinking.

Agreed.

[Elen1107]

24 minutes ago, thormas said:

Agreed, thus the need for education and not just preaching. However, the point remains that they are wrong. 

 

I agree with you here on both points. Yay! we've agreed on 3 points! It's not that that important and it's better to be honest then to just agree,... but still it's nice when we find it.

24 minutes ago, thormas said:

I get that but 'many' PCs are familiar with Spong, accept/agree with much he has said and some have read scholars on Paul and know a great deal about the real Paul.

 

 

44 minutes ago, thormas said:

This is a longer discussion but I suggest that many/most of the real Paul is very good albeit influenced by his time and religion as he interprets Jesus through a particular lens.

Pseudo Paul is not Paul and shouldn't be ascribe to Paul by those who know the difference.

It's not just Paul. It's the whole bible in it's entirety, starting with Genesis chapter one. How can the sky be a "dome" of water? How can plants exist on this earth without the sun being first in the sky? The thing is that the bible has some good ideas and insights and some bad ideas and un-insights, and everything in between. People have to look at the quality of the individual ideas, and not just by into the writing or the book as a whole.

Spong has talked about guilt trips, particularly religious guilt trips, and how the church(s) have used this to control people False guilt is worse. If a person is truly guilty of something they can do something about it. They can make amends, apologize, and try to make things better. If it's false guilt and one is just labeled with it, there's nothing one can do, they just have to live with it and feel awful and broken every moment of their lives.

40 minutes ago, thormas said:

Actually I think a great deal of that is going on in PC circles (see Spong's old site) and not just the role of men but the issues of being white. And I'm fine with it and have no problem voicing my disagreement if appropriate.

Yeah, but no one is sitting around discussing whether white people or black people can speak in church or spiritual gatherings or whether they can have a spiritual or philosophical voice or not. God gave us all voice boxes, vocal cords, and tounges. If it's not to use them, and particularly and most especially in spiritual matters, then what are they there for? It's an insult to humanity to say that someone or some group of humanity cannot speak in church or anywhere else.

40 minutes ago, thormas said:

Agreed.

Great, we agree again. Like I said it's not always necessary or important,... but it is nice when we find it. 

[thormas]

14 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

Is not just Paul. It's the whole bible in it's entirety, starting with Genesis chapter one. How can the sky be a "dome" of water? How can plants exist on this earth without the sun being first in the sky? The thing is that the bible has some good ideas and insights and some bad ideas and un-insights, and everything in between. People have to look at the quality of the individual ideas, and not just by into the writing or the book as a whole.

Spong has talked about guilt trips, particularly religious guilt trips, and how the church(s) have used this to control people False guilt is worse. If a person is truly guilty of something they can do something about it. They can make amends, apologize, and try to make things better. If it's false guilt and one is just labeled with it, there's nothing one can do, they just have to live with it and feel awful and broken every moment of their lives.

However, many (most I would think) PCs don't accept the Bible as fundamentalists or traditionalist do: we do not take it all literally, we refer to biblical scholars to provide their expertise to help us get a better read and we take it as the words of men speaking about their 'experience' of God. Some (many/ most?) of the issues you raise about Genesis are no longer a concern for many moderns.

Sure there were guilt trips but many giving us guilt experienced it themselves. I long ago learned not to be that upset with nuns, priests (I was raised Catholic), religious teachers, etc. as they did the best they could at that time in the history of man. Even with some guilt I never felt separated from God: I guess there was enough that enabled us to relate to God.

 

 

Edited July 25, 2020 by thormas

[Elen1107]

10 minutes ago, thormas said:

Sure there were guilt trips but many giving us guilt experienced it themselves. I long ago learned not to be that upset with nuns, priests (I was raised Catholic), religious teachers, etc. as they did the best they could at that time in the history of man. Even with some guilt I never felt separated from God: I guess there was enough that enabled us to relate to God.

 

I'm thinking that you didn't get as much "guilt" or false guilt as many people have and did. 

[thormas]

1 hour ago, Elen1107 said:

I'm thinking that you didn't get as much "guilt" or false guilt as many people have and did. 

or a capacity to understand human limits and forgive they who know not what they do..........

[Elen1107]

23 hours ago, thormas said:

or a capacity to understand human limits and forgive they who know not what they do..........

I don't think that you know what it's like to be hurt so badly, so constantly and continuously that one is rendered simply incapable and unable to forgive.

Or to have forgiveness used as a way of getting away with crimes and then re-perpetrating  them, and then blaming the victimized for forgiving them and letting them get away with it, and making out like their perpetrations are then the victims fault because they forgave them and let them get away with it when in fact there was nothing they could do.

I hope you never experience anything like this. But it is important to know that these things do happen and they need to be looked at and addressed. 

Edited July 26, 2020 by Elen1107

[thormas]

14 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I don't think that you know what it's like to be hurt so badly, so constantly and continuously that one is rendered simply incapable and unable to forgive.

Or to have forgiveness used as a way of getting away with crimes and then re-perpetrating  them, and then blaming the victimized for forgiving them and letting them get away with it, and making out like their perpetrations are then the victims fault because they forgave them and let them get away with it.

I hope you never experience anything like this. But it is important to know that these things do happen and they need to be looked at and addressed. 

Neither of us knows the other.............and no one is saying anything should not be examined and addressed.

[JosephM]

17 minutes ago, Elen1107 said:

I don't think that you know what it's like to be hurt so badly, so constantly and continuously that one is rendered simply incapable and unable to forgive.

On forgiveness......

The lack of forgiveness to me is like driving down a bumpy road that gets worse with fewer turn-offs. When it gets bad enough for an individual it seems to me from experience they will surrender the inability to forgive no matter what was previously making it incapable for them to do so. In extreme cases, it may take them to their dying breath. I have found there is no forgiveness for self until one forgives the 'other'  because in my view of  reality there is no 'other'. In our innermost being we are all One.