Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
In fact, if people truly believed in what the bible says about no male or female in Christ we would not be discussing about this male or female.
|
Hmmm, well maybe. But also one might question that, if there is no male and female, then why aren't there more females in certain roles?
So it can cut both ways.
The Bible certainly sends the message that generally speaking men are to take the lead and women are to follow. But the extreme subjugation of women we see in ancient times was, I believe, just that--an extreme.
Neither Jew nor Gentile, neither male nor female. This doesn't mean there are no differences between these groups, it has nothing to do with their abilities or roles. What it's talking about is their standing before God.
The OT, even some aspects of the Jewish ordinances and culture, was meant to reflect a fallen, Genesis 3 situation. But in Christ many things changed and were brought closer to God's original intent. Gentiles and Jews have completely equal status in the NT, there is no difference before God. Male and female, too, except for the reality of their originally intended roles--that the man was to lead and the woman was to be a "helper."
The extreme second-class status of women we see in the OT was not God's original intent--but neither was a situation where, except for physical aspects, the two are interchangeable. God intended man and women to come back to his original design--that through their cooperation in assuming somewhat different responsibilities God is glorified. If we were all the same things would run more smoothly, but God would get less glory--there is no need for cooperation in that case. So it is with the male-female differences.
But what is the extent of the expectation and limitation on each gender? Because I have see the Lord's blessing on teaching ministries of many women, I have to believe Paul's seeming restriction of women from teaching was situational to the culture of the time. However, I still believe that regarding lines of authority in the Church God prefers men to lead and women to follow (of course, most men follow too!).
That's my take on that subject.
But in general, simply because someone thinks it would be beneficial for women to have a larger role in the intellectual tasks of Biblical analysis does not necessarily mean he or she is motivated by appealing to "populism" or are being "conformed to the age."
This is what generally bugs and bothers me about
Evangelical's analysis. He throws out these snarky accusations with no conclusive evidence of their appropriateness. He sees the possibility of a conclusion and then goes from it being possible to being true, not because the evidence is conclusive, but because it fits his mindset. He comes across as a person so convinced he's right that he is above considering he might be wrong.