The CBE Scroll

Comment by Ashleigh

February 21, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

My Greek experience is minimal, but this is my understanding:

(1) The ου/ou and δε/de earlier in the sentence function together with the ουδε/oude you’re referring to as a neither/nor pair. (The sense of yet that the δε represents is more like a conjuction yet, similar to a but, rather than a not-presently-but-soon adverb yet.)

(2) The verb in question, αυθενειν/authentein, appears this one instance in the entire New Testament. With few instances to compare it to, scholars debate what it technically means. Many other sources seem to use it to mean something along the lines of “to snatch authority away in an illegitimate way.” Obviously, though, there is some debate, or else it would always be translated this way. All translators must engage in some basic level of interpretation of the texts they’re working with, guessing at what would be the best English (or other language) rendering of the Greek word/phrase in question. There’s no such thing as a bias-free translation.

(3) As I understand it, there is also some debate over how quiet this word for quiet means. Even when we use the word quite we can mean something along the range of not-shouting, library-voice, whisper, total-silence, etc. Context shapes the meaning of our word significantly, and obviously this Greek word also has some level of variation in its meaning, or again, translators wouldn’t disagree over how to put it.

My understanding is that the more literal interlineal translations of these words are more faithful to the original Greek, but I am not an expert.

Some translations do at least clarify these words in the footnotes, if not translating differently to begin with.

Comment by Cheryl at MM Outreach

February 21, 2008 @ 8:04 pm

1 Timothy 2:12 in its context must consider both chapters one and two. I have written a complete piece here that is very thought-provoking:

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/09/30/the-rest-of-the-story-1-timothy-211-15-and-matt-slick/

Comment by Metacrock

February 21, 2008 @ 8:55 pm

oude is neither/nor. that’s not it’s only function. There have a lof of major studies done on authentein in the last few years. the consensus seems to be that the bad aspect or the harsh form of authority weren’t really connotations of the word in Paul’s time. But that doesn’t really matter. In my view the fact that the “command” is present tense and not int he imprative mean that it is not a command, nor universal for all time. It just relates to a sitaution in that city at that time.

Comment by Suzanne

February 22, 2008 @ 7:39 am

1. The oude means “nor yet” in the archaic sense of “not even” so neither/nor is a good translation. There is no temporal sense to “not yet”.

2. After reading the Baldwin study carefully, I believe that the negative sense of “take over authority illegitimately” is firmly established. This study can be found in the appendix of Ev. Fem and Biblical truth which is available in pdf free on the internet somewhere. Since Grudem has concluded that “have authority” is the proper meaning, you really have to read every example, to draw one’s own conclusions.

It is worth noting that the Philodemus reference is not accurate, leaving only one use of the word authenteo contemporary with the NT, which is usually interpreted as “compel”.

3. Hesuchia is the word translated as quiet in 1 Tim. 2:2, a “quiet life”.

Comment by Suzanne

February 22, 2008 @ 7:47 am

PS The Vulgate translated authenteo as dominare, and then Beza, in the 16th century, translated authenteo into Latin as “usurpare autoritatem” which can technically be translated into English as either “exercize authority” or “usurp authority”. However, the KJ translators chose “usurp authority” which had a very negative sense in English, and was used for those who committed treason against the crown and held power illegitimately. Another early translations chose “exercise authority” but that was not used in a popular translation until the RSV in 1952.

Comment by fjs

February 22, 2008 @ 8:35 am

the online interlinear translates epitrepo (I am permitting) as present active 1st person singular…

and oude as an adverb (not yet).
I am permitting not yet women to be domineering of man.

But the translation is rendered “I do not permit women to teach or usurp authority over a man.”

the translation seems to be more that Paul is not permitting women to usurp authority at the present time. which leads to why… that she has not been taught or that she is immature in the faith, or that she is under the influance of false teachers present in the community? It does not read like a timeless principle or command but a limitation that would be lifted when the learning, maturity, has been accomplished.

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/1ti2.pdf

I don’t know why translators would translate it as if it were a command for all time. Maybe they are afraid of rocking the boat, seen as unorthodox or losing power.

Comment by fjs

February 22, 2008 @ 8:53 am

Another curious thing the above interliner translates…
parabasis (dative sg feminine) as “trasgression” and ginomai (2perf active 3 sg) as “has become”

the woman has become transgression.

He says (she shall be-being-saved) through the (offspring-parenting)

Paul also challenges the women to continue in faith/belief and charity/love and holiness (holying) with sobriety (sanity).

What if Paul were defending women? What if he were saying something like… she has been blamed by becoming the transgression. like it was ascribed personally to her being. What if he were challenging that shame by calling her to learn in quietness becoming educated, reasonable knowing the faith… so she would not become decieved as did Eve in the garden. What if Paul as some translators have said, that the woman is saved through the birth of Christ. she is no longer “the” transgression. but has been saved, is being saved, will be saved through that same birth.

raising questions…. because sometimes, we think inside the same old box and I am wondering if the box is inaccurate.

Comment by fjs

February 22, 2008 @ 9:09 am

one final thought and i have to go… what if Paul was seeking to be redemptive…

what if her were telling the women how they came to be regarded as “the” transgression, easily deceived, needing to be ruled… by coming under the influance of false teaching.

What if he were telling them that they had been redeemed by the birth of Christ through the woman Mary.

Then what if Paul were calling the women to learn in silence and quietness so they could become thoughtful, intelligent women who were grounded in their faith. What if they were called to behave with love… in contrast with usurping.

just thinking. It seems that the gospel is always redemptive not repressive. I think the passage should be interpreted not in the light of repression but in the light of redemption.

How are women redeemed from the fall under the complimentarian teaching? They can only be redeemed to a more benevolent rule because they are still easily deceived and still the transgression. And giving birth to children is beautiful but cannot save one from sin. It is theologically incorrect. gotta go.

Comment by Suzanne

February 22, 2008 @ 10:18 am

“Not yet” has no temporal meaning. It is best to admit that disinterested scholars of classical Greek find this chapter obscure at best. There is no obvious interpretation of verse 15, for the most liberal or the most traditional. Obviously the church has never taught that a woman must bear children to go to heaven. Some claim this means that a woman must remain within the boundaries of domesticity. That would exclude Lydia, Phoebe, Joanna, Mary, the sister of Martha, etc. So now the best complementarian scholars say that women will be preserved from Satan’s wiles if they acknowledge that leadership of the male. This sounds a little too convenient if you ask me.

However, that is off topic for this post, but I cannot overemphasize the obscurity of this passage. We just don’t know what Paul was saying that women needed to do to be “saved” or if that is even what he meant.

Comment by jlp

February 22, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

Read this:

Author:
Title of Book:

Faith Martin
Call Me Blessed, pg. 95
How is hesuchia translated into English? When Paul applied the word to men, or to the church in general, the translators of the New International Version rendered it either “settle down” or “quiet”; in the King James version we find “quietness” and “peaceable”, In the Revised Standard version “quietness” and “peaceable. In 2 Thessalonians 3:12 Paul tells the troublemakers, presumably men, to “settle down and earn what they eat.” And in 1 Timothy 2:2 Paul tells the brethren to “live quiet and peaceful lives.” When Paul uses the same word for women, however, the same translators chose to render it “quietness or silent.” ……… In the verse immediately following (2:12), a phrase that the RSV renders “she is to keep silent” would more fairly read “she is to be peaceable.”

Comment by jlp

February 22, 2008 @ 4:39 pm

It seems to me that 1st Timothy 2:12 was translated in a manner to please the conservatives who wanted to keep women out of ministry.

Comment by Joyce

February 22, 2008 @ 10:30 pm

Thank you so much for addressing this from my Facebook request. The replies have been very helpful.

Peace & hope,
Joyce

Comment by jlp

February 23, 2008 @ 8:20 am

Joyce,

I’m not sure what you are talking about when you mention “my Facebook request”. I’ve never even been to Facebook.

jlp

Comment by Joyce

February 23, 2008 @ 10:02 am

That’s really odd then; I’d say it was a total “Holy Spirit” inspiration that prompted you to answer this VERY SPECIFIC question the day after I asked it!

Check this out:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204593138

(Scroll down to The Wall where questions are asked)

Comment by jlp

February 23, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

I tried to get into Facebook wasn’t able to get to because I’m not signed up for it, but I am absolutely thrilled to know that this answered your question exactly when you needed it answered. I’m glad you shared this with me. I feel very blessed.

Comment by jlp

February 23, 2008 @ 12:15 pm

Joyce,

For some quick answers on egalitarian issues go to:

http://www.geocities.com/about_biblical_equality/index.htm

There are quotes from biblical scholars on the “hard passages” on women in scripture. You may find this helpful. And also check out the free article section of CBE at:

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/free_articles.shtml

Comment by Beth

February 26, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

I was thinking the very same thing with the “Will be saved through childbirth” – that Paul was talking about the birth of Christ.

Also, in the last chapter of Romans, where Paul calls Phoebe a “servant.” When the word that is translated as “servant” for Phoebe is used elsewhere in the NT, it is translated as “deacon.” Yet, in that verse in Romans, it is translated as “servant”. Why is that?

Comment by Mary

February 26, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

Inconsistency, Beth. Quite possibly translator bias.

Comment by fjs

February 27, 2008 @ 8:38 am

Even translators make interpretative decisions when chosing words to convey the meaning of the original languages. When the average person opens the Bible he or she considers it to be a correct rendition of the original language. But there is diversity among translations and decision making around what words meant in their historical context and what words mean in ours.

Presuppositions and preassumptions play a role in the interpretive process.

So deacon could be translated as minister in reference to a man but servant in reference to a woman. In reality a servant is a servant–perhaps both should be translated servant or both should be translated minister. Which brings us to our cultural understanding of minister. We think of a minister as a pastor. I think in the 1st century world a minister was a servant.

Assumptions, presuppositions interfere with interpretation and with reading.

Comment by jlp

February 27, 2008 @ 5:02 pm

I think translator bias was quite evident in the translation of 1st Timothy 2:12.

Comment by Mary

February 27, 2008 @ 11:10 pm

FJS, I think the confustion of “minister” and “pastor” and “servant” is part of the problem in our time, in many Christian circles. “Pastor” has become synonymous with one who rules over a church. “Minister” is synonymous with “pastor,” with that misinterpretation. “Servant” has become an ugly word that applies only to some and not to all, and certainly not to “pastors” and “ministers.”

Yet “minister” and “servant” are the real synonyms, with “pastor” meaning “shepherd” (one who guides and tends a flock–a kind of “servant of sheep”).

We’ve essentially lost the essence of some very important words and the concepts behind them. (That is, in many religious circles.)

Comment by Mary

February 27, 2008 @ 11:16 pm

I agree, JLP. Rather than translate the word consistently, they look at whether it’s said of a man, a woman, or if it’s used as a generic for a group of people. If it’s the man or the group, it’s “deacon.” If it’s a woman, it’s “servant.” Yet “deacon” MEANS “servant.” If it’s an office, then it’s an office. (That’s a valid possibility.) If it’s just “servant,” then go with that. But the word isn’t divided into pink and blue, no matter how much certain denominations go to battle over the issue. The interpretation, in this case, obviously drove the translation. Bad bombin’ (with apologies to non-Star Wars fans).

Comment by fjs

February 28, 2008 @ 8:37 am

I think there is either translator bias or the interferance with unexamined presuppositions.

That’s the part about the complimentarian discussion that I find arrogant. They will not admit they have a preferential bias toward a particular view of men and women. They assert that they draw meaning from the text directly but they do not–they do look through a particular social lens that they deem is appropriate. Complimentarians have assumptions and presuppositions just like everyone else.

I sure wish they would admit them.

Comment by Trevor

February 28, 2008 @ 9:24 pm

In response to your last comment FJS, (81251).

You rightly say, “Complementarians have assumptions and presuppositions just like everyone else. I sure wish they would admit them.”

That’s the unfortunate side to this whole debate. You, I and countless others know that to be true, but to a complementarian it’s not a matter of bias, it’s the plain teaching of Scripture. For them it doesn’t bear examination or question. For them, there is nothing to have to admit to. For them the old adage rings true, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it!”

What we are looking for here is again, people like you and I maybe once were, who are of complementarian pursuasion but are questioning, wondering. We are looking for those who do have an element of doubt and are willing to own that such interpretaions and translations are indeed culturally biassed.

What we are looking for is people who, in discovering the wonder of God revealed throughout Scripture, are prepared to consider alternative textual renderings for the overwhelmingly evident gender bias in Bible translations. It is heartening to know that eventually slavery was recognised for what it was and abolished. We live in hope and work towards the same happening for gender inequality as more people see that we are all new creatures in Christ.

Comment by fjs

February 28, 2008 @ 11:43 pm

I am anxiously awaiting this day.

I take comfort in Isaiah 42… I will not stop working until justice prevails in all the Earth.

Comment by Brenda

February 29, 2008 @ 12:06 am

Most Bible translations are made by a committee, usually with members from a variety of church traditions and denominations.

I was blessed to take classes from Gordon Fee, a New Testament scholar who teaches at Regent College (Vancouver, BC) and sits on the NIV translation committee. Once he described how a decision was made about a difficult passage (Romans 16:7 whether it should read “Greet Andronicus and Junia” (female name) or “Junias” (male name). The point is important because Paul goes on to say they are “outstanding among the apostles.” This leads many scholars to believe there was at least one woman apostle. This has major implications for the question of women in ministry, etc.

Dr. Fee described how the committee was split about whether to put the feminine Junia in the text and indicate the possibility of the name being male in a footnote or do it the other way around. It was a tied vote. Although they agreed there was a preponderance of evidence that the name was feminine, some of the members couldn’t break with their traditions.

The committee chair (I think, could be wrong on who it was) broke the tie in favor of leaving the text the way it was (masculine). Dr. Fee says at the next meeting of the committee, this man returned and said he had to change his vote because he had a dream where God asked him where his loyalties lay — with his denomination or with God’s truth. That’s why the newest versions of the NIV use the name Junia (feminine) in the text and put Junias (masculine) in the footnote.

All that to say: Most Bible translations are written by committees who end up voting on the “difficult passages”. That’s why it’s important to read more than one translation on a regular basis. Compare where they differ and ask yourself why.

By the way, Dr. Gordon Fee is a supporter of CBE and often contributes articles to Priscilla’s Papers. He’s an amazing scholar, truly a man of God, and one of the kindest people I’ve met in the academic world.

Comment by Liz

February 29, 2008 @ 6:57 am

What a wonderful experience Brenda to have Gordon Fee as a lecturer and to have heard him explain about the committee. If only more people could know some of this ‘inside’ information. Maybe there are lots more people than you know who will read this and be encouraged to look further.

Comment by Sue

February 29, 2008 @ 7:25 am

After reading the above comments, I pulled out an older version of the NIV that I have. It was copyrighted in 1995. The footnote in this version acknowledged that it is a feminine name. It then goes on to explain that this female person referenced is “outstanding in the opinion of the apostles.” In other words, the apostles, who were all male, thought she was an outstanding person.

Comment by Suzanne

February 29, 2008 @ 9:08 am

That is exactly why a literal translation of the Bible would be a good thing for women – if there were such a translation. The Greek says, “outstanding among the apostles” – those are the exact words, not “in the opinion of” that is all added in by some men who cannot accept that Junia was a female apostle.

Comment by fjs

February 29, 2008 @ 9:58 am

Brenda, that is an amzing story. I take heart that God is redmptively active. WOW…

It’s kind of like the Cornelius and Peter story in Acts. Where Peter has the dream about the sheet and the food… The dream opened the door to inclusion of the Gentiles in the early church. Jesus taught it but they had not yet grasped it.

Comment by Mary

February 29, 2008 @ 10:32 am

That’s what it takes sometimes, for some people, I think: a message directly, undeniably from God. However, given the way that some in the church will deny to a female pastor’s face that God ever called her to pastoral ministry in the first place (uh, were they THERE? How in heaven’s name could THEY know?), I am afraid that they are religiously conditioned to ignore even the voice of God if the message doesn’t align precisely with their interpretation of what the Bible says.

Yes, I know they say they don’t interpret the Bible, they just read the “plain meaning.” But all of us, to get the “plain meaning,” automatically interpret the words. It’s called reading.

Comment by Carolyn Plampin

February 29, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

Serious students will want to read:

Kroeger, Richard Clark and Catherine Clark Kroeger. I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN, RETHINKING 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15 IN LIGHT OF ANCIENT EVIDENCE. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Comment by Kathryn

February 29, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

My favorite “take” on this passage comes from an egalitarian book written in the time of Queen Victoria. In addressing this issue, the author stated that authority that is legally given is not usurped. He pointed out that Queen Victoria exercised authority over men but was not someone who had usurped that authority. One might say that a usurper is someone who steals authority from another through unlawful or immoral means. In addition, “being saved through childbearing” may possibly refer to the statement made by Christ that he who is faithful in little is faithful in much. In other words, if Christian women would be faithful to do the little they were permitted to do in restrictive cultures, i.e. childbearing and guiding the house, that ironically would be the very vehicle with which God could promote them to greater responsibility in all areas of life. The same verses that patriarchs use to limit women would in fact be the very undoing of patriarchy. Yes, I too believe that ITimothy 2 is redemptive rather than restrictive.

Comment by jlp

February 29, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

Everything everyone has shared has really blessed me. Thank you everyone for your posts!

Comment by Mary

March 2, 2008 @ 7:17 am

We should be aware that Kamilla Ludwig, at the CCC-Forum, is twisting Kathryn’s last comment (81632) into something she did not say, through this diatribe:

“Culled from the CBE blog. It’s only been up for a few hours so I don’t know that any of the administrators have seen it to respond to it. But I read stuff like this and wonder why there are such protests when patriarchalists acknowledge what is clearly advocated in this post – that Egalitarians *do not* value childbearing and childrearing! How can we think otherwise when such activities are termed ‘little’ and said to be vehicles to ‘greater’ things?”

Message #27341
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CCC-Forum/message/27341

Did Kamilla not even READ what Kathryn said about this being the work of a Victorian writer?

Her signature quote is also telling:

“I’ll believe the religious feminists and their fellow-travelers are serious about inclusive language when we see them start calling the Church, ‘Him’ and the Adversary, ‘She’ – unattributed”

Comment by Fr. Bill

March 2, 2008 @ 12:26 pm

Consider, on the other hand, the unashamedly patriarchal view of another Victorian (in spirit, if not in fact). Contra the Victorian feminists’ deeming childbearing and domesticity to be “little” (how else to parse this quote??), Chesterton’s evaluation runs like this:

… when people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean.

“How can it be a large career to tell other people’s children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one’s own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman’s function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness. [From What's Wrong with the World, toward the end of Chapter 3 in Part III in the online edition of this work.]

Comment by Suzanne

March 2, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

Bill,

You don’t mind sharing things about my private email to you with the general public so you ought to notice the point being made here – that something was misattributed.

Others,

I think that it is normally better to ignore and forgive things that people say in public unless they are actually libellous. However, the correction could be noted but in a gentle fashion perhaps without naming names.

Bill,

You didn’t really offend me, but I was amused at your inability to restrain yourself from sharing something private about me. As you know, I was attracted to the outrageous and amusing aspects of your blog, ie the tubby gentleman in the tutu, especially posted for my benefit it appears, and I commented in a manner that I thought was in tune with your humour.

I regret that I misjudged you. I was unaware at the time of your strong committment to a specific view on gender. Therefore, my comments on your blog were perhaps ill-advised. Please accept my apology.

Comment by Ralph

March 2, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

Suzanne, what in the world are you talking about?

I came to this blog because of what Kamilla posted, read in confusion what others had said about her, and then read Fr. Bill’s comments… now reading yours, I’m totally confused.

Back to what was posted, I think that Fr. Bill made a good point as to what some find belitteling about motherhood… to me it’s the most fascinating aspect of woman, something that the male gender can’t even understand, and then I see it down-graded to something that is seen as being a drudgery?

These are the types of issues that we must become clear on, for if egalitarianism seeks to down play mothers, then it’s something that has to be considered as being against what God has ordained between man and woman… something that demonstrates his desering for us all.

Hopefully I just read you wrong.

Comment by Suzanne

March 2, 2008 @ 7:08 pm

Ralph,

I made no point about motherhood but let me now make Christ’s point about motherhood.

“As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” 28But he said, (AK) “Blessed rather are those(AL) who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 11:27

Further, I have never made one remark in my life, and never would, to downgrade motherhood. If you had any idea of my life you would understand the extraordinary demands that certain situations make on women.

However, the entire early church promoted virginity as a spiritual lifestyle, as did Paul and evidently Christ too, who does not put motherhood at the pinnacle. The fact that motherhood fascinates men is their problem.

Hopefully I am reading you wrong.

Next, I have been much spoken about in public, (but never for downplaying motherhood.)

However, I make a plea here that we explicitly not criticize Kamilla. Since I am aware of the pain caused to me by Bill and others, I make a plea on behalf of Kamilla that she not be criticized here – even though Bill has criticized me.

Do you understand now? I make a plea for tolerance foe those we disagree with and my intention is saying this is to defend Kamilla.

Regarding a fascination with motherhood, that is best shared privately. The sexuality of women should not be up for regard by the general public.

As a mother myself, I am uncomfortable with the notion that men find women’s reproductive capacity the most interesting thing about women.

It should interest men that women are people like Anna, Joanna, Mary, Lydia, Phoebe, Prisca and Nympha. That would be more appropriate.

Comment by Suzanne

March 2, 2008 @ 7:13 pm

PS It would be more appropriate if men realize that women (on the internet and unseen) could well be over 50 and still have many years left of participation in church and society that will not be related to childbearing or childrearing.

Comment by Liz

March 2, 2008 @ 8:44 pm

Ralph..I appreciate that you may find motherhood to be fascinating for many reasons and would affirm that egalitarians do not downplay motherhood at all.

The original quote from a very old book was referring to a time when women were only ‘allowed’ to do housework and mind children . As I read it, I thought the author was meaning that whatever situation we find ourselves in (slave or free, educated or uneducated, single or married) that if we are faithful in where we are at, then God may open up to us larger things.

I don’t think the quote was meant to be the last word on the status of motherhood, femininity or women in general.

Comment by fjs

March 2, 2008 @ 9:10 pm

I am confused, who is belitting motherhood. I did not catch that on this blog.

Is someone reading our comments through a lens?

Comment by Mary

March 2, 2008 @ 9:14 pm

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to refer to a public denigration of egalitarians in particular made by those who declare egalitarians to be their (allegedly) heretical enemies, when that denigration is built on a comment made here, twisted into something it never said. There’s been further twisting, as well (e.g., the allegation that egalitarians consider motherhood “drudgery.”

There’s an epidemic of anti-biblical equality strawman burning going on among CCC-Forum participants right now. I wonder someone in their number doesn’t call for a stop to it. The group members earn no points for honesty when they stoop to attributing to egalitarians attitudes and beliefs we do not hold, particularly when they show in their own inventive re-tellings of “evidence” that egalitarians have said nothing like what they are trying to “prove” about us.

Comment by Mary

March 2, 2008 @ 9:17 pm

FJS, no one except Kamilla, Bill, and Ralph have said or intended any such thing, and they only to pretend that Kathryn’s comment #81632 meant something like that. It was Kamilla’s invention, which Bill and Ralph have either bought into or decided for their own reasons to defend despite its falsehood.

It’s just the latest attempt by members of the CCC-Forum to attribute to egalitarians things that we neither believe nor have said.

Comment by Kamilla

March 2, 2008 @ 10:03 pm

For those who doubt my familiarity with the Victorian mindset, may I humbly suggest you peruse Priscilla Papers (volume 16, number 4) for an interesting little article on John Stuart Mill. I won’t bore you with the rest of my credentials. However, I will be happy to say “hello” to the remains of Jeremy Bentham, he is housed in a little closet at University College, London. It is only a short walk from the former home of Sir John Everett Millais, where I will be staying for a week next month. I don’t mind, really. But you should know, the rumour about Bentham’s head being stolen by a rival college and being used as a football is simply that – a rumour.

As to the rest, if anyone from CBE takes issue with my characterization of the post above, they know how to reach me.

Kamilla

Comment by Suzanne

March 2, 2008 @ 10:14 pm

Kamilla,

I appreciate the fact that you commented here. I would regret it deeply if something was shared about you and you did not have the opportunity to comment in return. I have often been in this position.

Comment by Mary

March 2, 2008 @ 11:54 pm

Speaking only for myself, I don’t doubt that you are familiar with the Victorian mindset, Kamilla. You merely demonstrated your failure to notice that Kathryn said she was relating someone a Victorian’s thoughts, when you attributed that Victorian’s ideas to CBE and egalitarians in general and to Kathryn in particular. That’s a sadly common ploy used at the CCC-Forum to smear egalitarians: misattribution of one person’s statements to egalitarians in general, then twisting the statements into something neither said nor intended.

It was a classic strawman argument. Who cares that egalitarians and CBE do NOT belittle or devalue motherhood? Perhaps if the lie is big enough and repeated often enough…

Comment by Mary

March 2, 2008 @ 11:56 pm

And yes, I am familiar with your paper, as well as some of your more recent writing. It’s the latter, an example of which I quoted, that shows you to be less than truthful about what egalitarians believe and promote.

Comment by fjs

March 3, 2008 @ 8:14 am

If I remember right, it says something in the bible about not bearing false witness.

That’s what this is… a false witness about what has been said. I guess we get to pick and choose what we will be Biblical about…

Comment by fjs

March 3, 2008 @ 9:39 am

81570… good point. I am done with child-rearing. Was home for 20 years raising children. What am I supposed to do with my time now? housecleaning takes minutes and my spouse and I share. Preaching the gospel is a great kingdom use of my time.

Comment by jlp

March 3, 2008 @ 2:48 pm

Anymore comments on 1st Timothy 2:12? I would love to hear them.

Comment by Liz

March 3, 2008 @ 5:08 pm

Thanks JLP for bringing the topic back into focus.

The difficulty with conversations like some of the previous posts is that we can never know what is going on in another person’s heart – what is the motive behind a statement.
Both sides of a discussion/debate can attribute less than honourable motives to others and this is hardly fair as only God knows our hearts.

Everyone hurts when motives are misjudged and it makes it hard to return to intelligent discussion.

Comment by Watcher

March 4, 2008 @ 9:51 am

Well,
I’m at work again and don’t have my Bible on hand so am at a disadvantage.
But since you’re asking, JLP, and no one else brought it up, I’d thought I’d throw this in as a possible explanation of the above described obscure phrase, “Women will be preserved through childbearing.”

I understand I could be way off and do not mind if the Bible and Greek scholars explain how this doesn’t apply.

But I always considered this phrase to be an assurance to me before I went through the process of childbirth, especially the first time.
It can be a fearful thing for any woman to go through, especially the first time or after already having a bad experience with it.

If it is so now, with all the wonderful advances in modern medicine, how much more was it to be feared back during a time when death was more common in childbirth for both mother and child.

I don’t know. Whatever assurance I could have venturing into the unknown or a previously known to be painful experience, I’ll take what I can get.
And if it’s some obscure verse in I Timothy, then so be it.

Comment by Liz

March 4, 2008 @ 4:57 pm

I’m not about to comment on what I think this verse means but it occurred to me that proponents of reading ‘plain scripture’ most often interpret this verse to be other than just as it reads. There are many places in the bible where words are interpreted, sometimes without our even realising it.

And Watcher….so glad you experienced God being with you when you had your child(children) I’m sure God honoured your faith and trust no matter what your biblical understanding.

Comment by Lolly

March 6, 2008 @ 9:20 am

JLP in 81575:

[em]Anymore comments on 1st Timothy 2:12? I would love to hear them.[/em]

Yes, thank you for bringing this thread back on-topic. I have no clue who Kamilla, Ralph, and company are, and to be quite blunt I don’t give a toss. If they want to take what’s written here and twist it around on their own websites then let them. Don’t bring it back here and start a mini-debate. As we’ve seen, it just leads to confusion and chaos. I come here to The Scroll to learn about gender issues, not to watch people I don’t know or care about get into a flame war with the people here.

I might add that why are people getting upset at what the people at CCC do? I have heard of them on other forums, and what I’ve heard has been universally negative. Evidently they are quite content to lie about and smear their fellow Christians to pursue their own agenda. Frankly, I don’t give a toss about them, either. If somebody here wants to go defend themselves, help yourself, but I’ve got better things to do with my time than waste it on people who just want to stew in their own bitterness. The people here at The Scroll know that the egalitarian movement is biblical, and trying to tell the extreme patriarchs that is just wasting your breath.

Comment by fjs

March 6, 2008 @ 10:11 am

I actually read something about women being preserved through childbirth somewhere in a commentary or book. The essence is this: At the time 1Timothy was written there was a goddess that women looked to to preserve them through childbirth. And that Paul is seeking to remind women in the new community that it is God who preserves them…not the goddess, he is refuting false teaching. I would like to look that up but contextually it makes sense because false teaching was the issue… it was why women needed to be taught.

Comment by Dr. J

March 14, 2008 @ 12:20 pm

So….what about Jesus? Does he get a vote on this one?

If the “roles” issue was important to him, wouldn’t he have addressed it? Once?
John Phelan has a wonderful book (All God’s People) that looks at what Jesus came to do (set captives free and break down barriers) and suggests that his church should not try to rebuild what he came to tear down.

Isn’t an important check to our understanding of a biblical passage that it fits within the corpus of an author’s work? Could the Paul of Galatians (no Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female) be the proponent of disallowing women to use the ministry gifts God imparts to them? And then, doesn’t the understanding have to also fit within the teachings of Christ? Can an interpretation be correct which does not fit with the character of God as he has revealed himself, and which is not in agreement with the story of the entire text … which is setting captives free and redeeming humankind?

Does not the One who created us have the right to give gifts to whomever he chooses? I’d like to be standing beside a complementarian brother or sister when they try to explain to Jesus why the church suffered from a dearth of gifted shepherds while half of them were forbidden to do their job. (by the way, I find it interesting that God’s chosen metaphor for his leaders is shepherd, and that women were shepherds in the OT text. The word translated “pastor” appears as such only once … in Paul’s list of non-gender linked gifts.)

Personally I think Paul would be aghast to see people writing his words into their own agendas, when the nature of the entirety of his writing is freedom in Christ and the health of the Church. Historical-cultural context is of tremendous import, especially concerning the predicament Timothy faced in
Ephesus!

I wish we all could go to scripture to discover truth, not to prove what we think that truth should be. Thank you, Jesus, for the way you treated the women you met while living in this fallen place.

Thanks for this topic. God bless each contributer who allows the Lord Jesus to edit his or her work. :)

Comment by jlp

March 14, 2008 @ 2:00 pm

I always think of gender hierarchal teachings as “Wasting talent for God in the name of God”.

Comment by Don

March 14, 2008 @ 3:18 pm

I am a visitor to this site, having been directed here by a friend. I come from a complementarian position, but have for years participated in a group which reads and discusses books from various disciplines and positions, from athiests to rigid fundamentalists, from politics to theology, and everything in between.

I want to reinforce the spirit of those who say that discourse is best that includes both humility and respect. It is quite true that we come to scripture carrying all the ingredients of our identity and will always tend to find reinforcement for our preconceived notions (or those conveyed by our teachers). Obviously most of these posts are by those who consider themselves egalitarian, and further believe it to be the position most compatible with the biblical text. This may be the only post I will make here, but I wish to convey that I am interested in the conversation, respectful of those who share each view, and more than willing to come to a different understanding than my tradition. Thank you for the thoughtful analysis I see here. While I find my tradition comfortable and many females within my worshipping community also find their permitted roles fulfilling and satisfying, I have observed the power elements, and it is discouraging to me. It seems to me that the intention of God to fully use the giftedness of His people for the benefit of the body is a much greater and more easily supported principle than the ministry role teaching of complementarians like me. Perhaps I will end up egalitarian, but at this point I am at least willing to admit humbly that I don’t have all the answers, and God can certainly do what He wants without my approval, and I have no reason to doubt the commitment to Him and His Word of those who hold that view.

Comment by LMcC

March 14, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

Don: Welcome. Some of us are ex-complementarians, so you’ll find a few who can find ways to meet you on common ground.

Comment by jlp

March 14, 2008 @ 9:04 pm

Nice to read your comment, Don. Thanks for dropping in.

Comment by Liz

March 14, 2008 @ 9:05 pm

Don..I hope you stay around and contribute to this blog. You have written so clearly the desire to be open and willing to change and discuss differences in a gentle manner. One of the words used to describe the intention of this site is to promote peaceful discussion and it seems you desire that also. I also would not for one minute want to hold on to any belief if I could clearly see that it was faulty. May we learn from each other.

Comment by Graham Clinton

March 15, 2008 @ 2:16 pm

When I was at Gordon-Conwell, one of our New Testament professors was on the initial team translating John’s gospel for the NIV. He brought to an Exegesis class a sample of John chapter 2 verses 1 to 11, the Wedding Feast at Cana where Jesus changes the water into wine.

Now, this was back in the days when American evangelicals (it was an American seminary although I am English born and grew up in Canada) were mostly anti-alcohol (which is not a bad stance to have, by the way) and there was even some dispute as to whether wine in the New Testament was alcoholic or just grape juice.

In John 2:10 there is the Greek word methusthosin, which means intoxicated by alcohol. As I recall, the trial translation the professor brought to class had ‘drunken well’ as their English version. My current NIV says ‘have had too much to drink’.

Most of us were just learning Greek at the time but there was one bright spark at the back who had studied Greek as an undergraduate. He asked the professor what the word really meant and the professor answered, ‘drunk’. ‘So why didn’t you translate it that way?’ asked Bright Spark. ‘We didn’t think the church was ready for it,’ was the answer.

In my opinion, Bible translation remains largely in the hands of a ‘Boys’ Club’. The attitude of ‘We didn’t think the church was/is ready for it’ is alive and well, especially when translating the ‘Gender Passages’ like 1 Timothy 2.

Comment by jlp

March 15, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

Wow Graham! What an insight!

Comment by Dr. J

March 18, 2008 @ 12:59 pm

Don,
Welcome.
A book you might really enjoy is called Two Views of Women in Ministry, (Beck and Blomberg). In it, two Complementarian and two Egalitarian scholars give their reasoned positions on this issue. This is the text that helped me finally get my feet planted in my own reasoned convictions on the matter. I found Craig Keener’s writing there to be very helpful. I find it difficult and confusing to listen to the extreme end of either argument and find I can keep a more godly focus and approach with brothers and sisters who are MOST interested in unity of the body in Christ.

Comment by LMcC

March 18, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

Graham: Thanks for telling us that!

BTW, welcome :)

Comment by Liz

March 19, 2008 @ 12:38 am

Sounds like a valuable book Dr J. Keeping the unity is so important when it comes to differing opinions about what constitutes God’s word on any topic.

Comment by hrht

June 7, 2008 @ 2:33 pm

I am living in the parish where this is what’s preached http://www.stalkmunds.stixworx.com/mp3/roleofwomen.mp3. It’s killing me because I feel so called into ordained ministry. Could you recommend someone who would be willing to post this up on their site so that it can be commented upon and critiqued. I want to understand further the other ways in which this passage can be read. After all it has to have been interpreted differently for the Church of England to have decided to ordain women in 1994. For example, I do not understand how the vicar can say that biblical submission is to put yourself under someone’s authority – I thought it had more to do with putting their needs ahead of your own. The vicar talks of Christ and beauty of his submission but surely that was in sacrificing himself for us – atoning for us, dying for us – there’s the beauty!

If you want to post it on your site so that people can respond to it that would be great or if you could recommend someone else who would be able to offer an alternative reading that would be great.

Thanks so much.