Next time we'll begin a discussion of Phyllis Tickle's The Great Emergence. Check out this link for a free download of part of the book, a free discussion guide and some video clips of Phyllis discussing the major points of her book.
You don't need to run out and get the book before Thursday in order to participate in our conversation. You can download and read the excerpt (it is on "The Book" tab at the bottom of the page) and/or listen to the videos. See you Thursday!
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Paul and Women
I took part in a Bible study on Paul and women last week and the discussion took an interesting shape. We began by locating points in those letters that are undisputed as to their being authentically written by Paul. We asked what these women's roles were in the church.
We noticed that these women were identified with their household and discussed how some think that is because the household was seen as the woman's domain. We weren't totally convinced because men were often identified with their households as their head, specifically in Acts where they speak of baptizing households.
So then we discussed the possibility that Paul was addressing women as the heads of their households. That would be truly revolutionary. It was clear these women had active roles in these churches and were identified as leaders of at least portions of the churches in their cities.
The other interesting thing is these women are mentioned with no reference to a husband almost all of the time. Were they unmarried? Were they married but to non-believers who had no role in the church? Were they married but addressed singularly because the kingdom of God was a different kind of place where women were valuable in and of themselves and not due to the men they served? Were they addressed singularly because of Paul's seeming belief in the imminent return of Christ resulting in his deemphasis of marriage because of all the kingdom work that needed to be done?
Now, it doesn't seem the letters let us know what the reason is but if it is Paul's intentional kingdom effort to give linguistic and symbolic dignity to women who had been otherwise subjected, then that flies in the face of the submission language in Paul's disputed letters. You could say that Paul's language regarding there being no male or female in Christ makes this case clear but that borders on the proof texting we hope to avoid in hopes of wholistic biblical interpretation.
Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
We noticed that these women were identified with their household and discussed how some think that is because the household was seen as the woman's domain. We weren't totally convinced because men were often identified with their households as their head, specifically in Acts where they speak of baptizing households.
So then we discussed the possibility that Paul was addressing women as the heads of their households. That would be truly revolutionary. It was clear these women had active roles in these churches and were identified as leaders of at least portions of the churches in their cities.
The other interesting thing is these women are mentioned with no reference to a husband almost all of the time. Were they unmarried? Were they married but to non-believers who had no role in the church? Were they married but addressed singularly because the kingdom of God was a different kind of place where women were valuable in and of themselves and not due to the men they served? Were they addressed singularly because of Paul's seeming belief in the imminent return of Christ resulting in his deemphasis of marriage because of all the kingdom work that needed to be done?
Now, it doesn't seem the letters let us know what the reason is but if it is Paul's intentional kingdom effort to give linguistic and symbolic dignity to women who had been otherwise subjected, then that flies in the face of the submission language in Paul's disputed letters. You could say that Paul's language regarding there being no male or female in Christ makes this case clear but that borders on the proof texting we hope to avoid in hopes of wholistic biblical interpretation.
Anyway, I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)