Quote:
Originally Posted by Drake
Is Paul a hypocrite too? Does the charge Paul made in 1 Tim 2:12 apply to Priscilla in regard to Apollos? Is that an exception to the charge? Or is something else in play?
|
I think the case of Priscilla and Aquila does more to undercut the argument for 1 Tim 2:12 being universally and continually applied to prohibit women from teaching, than it does to give permission to ministers today (e.g., Nee & Lee & Kangas) to be hypocrites, and simultaneously forbid women from teaching while still quoting women authors as authoritative sources of church doctrine.
P & A are mentioned by name six times in the NT; three times Priscilla's name is mentioned first. Clearly she functioned in a ministerial role. Probably under the "covering" of her husband (he's always mentioned), but still functioning. I personally feel she likely wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. Notice the author of the epistle says, that the gospel was made known to them by eye-witnesses (2:3). I daresay Paul would never have written that: Paul didn't get his revelation from men but from God. Yet the author is in Paul's circle, if you look at the greetings at the end. And the author remains anonymous. All of which points to Priscilla.
So why did Paul not permit women to teach? To me, Paul's word is in the same ambit as "slaves, obey your masters": he was saying to respect the social and cultural norms that the Christians found themselves in. Women were essentially the property of their husbands, legally. They had no legal individual rights. Paul was saying, Don't use your newfound freedom in Christ to upset the social order. Slaves still must obey masters, and women must obey husbands. We must do all things respecting the social values of our surrounding societies. Notice Paul's repeated admonitions: don't steal, don't be drunkards, avoid fornication, avoid every appearance of evil. Even if we all believe that there is no more "man" or "woman" or "slave" or "free" or "Jew or "gentile" in Christ Jesus: and though these distinctions have been effaced by the death of Christ and the creation of the one new man, yet we must still behave in a becoming way amidst our current society.
And as society changed, Paul's admonitions for slaves to obey masters, as well as women to obey husbands loses its thrust. So why do I remain conservative? Because I tend to frequent conservative churches. I don't like loud, electrified music. I like sedate hymns. But that's a case of personal preference. I don't think "women can't teach" is a doctrinal truth that must be applied to all churches at all times. That's like banning electric music simply because you don't like it, and nobody saw Jesus playing electric guitar or drums.
I'll tell you why Nee & Lee kept women from teaching, and it's not because of 1 Tim 2:12. They did it because this automatically eliminated 50% of their rivals. At their core, people like Nee & Lee (& Dong & Chu & Kangas & Philips) want power. People like Jane Anderson were removed as threats to power, simply because they were women. Nee & Lee (& Dong & Chu & Blendeds) still had to deal with the other 50%, but it made their task much easier. Yet they still quoted women (who were now conveniently deceased) as authoritative sources (Penn-Lewis, McDonald). And the Blendeds today pretend that Dora Yu and Peace Wang were scions of the early church, even while current LSM prohibition wouldn't allow them ministerial function. They should be called on it; there's a glaring contradiction.