Sometimes, someone with more experience and more expertise in the field has paraphrased an argument for you. I have just read Fee on 'New Testament Hermeneutics' and as you've probably gathered I became quite excited by his approach and want now to read the rest of the stuff he has written (busy life allowing).
He analyses 1 Tim in much the same way as Peter Carrell of Anglican Down Under. Peter explains thus:
More likely is that 2:13-14 would have been understood in terms of the danger of women taking a stance, as Eve did, in which (a) they listen to the word of the devil and permit it to deny the word of God, (b) act upon that word and thus disobey the word of God, and (c) draw men along with them in their disobedience. In the particular context of the Ephesus of 1 Timothy, Paul’s prohibition may have had particularly in mind (i) the cultural context of female dominated religion, i.e. the cult of Artemis in Ephesians (ii) the pervasiveness of false teaching affecting the church, especially a false doctrine of marriage as something to be forbidden. To this false teaching, incidentally, 1 Timothy 2:15, with its affirmation of the goodness of childbirth (and intrinsically also of sex and marriage), may have been a rejoinder.
It is great and something of a relief to see Peter engaging with a certain Rosemary who has hung out here from time and time and given me much cause to study the scriptures and stretch my brain cells (and emotions at times). What she has said to me has not always been affirming, which is not personal but because of her 'hermeneutical bent'.
So Peter engages with Rosemary's 'Why Jesus didn't choose women for apostles', here and it is worth reading.
2 comments:
Rachel,
In all your musings on WO,it seems to me that both sides are fairly well entrenched as to what they believe about this. I don't think you are likely to change the minds of those who are persuaded of the Complementarian position and vice versa re- those of the Egalitarian one.
Yet from what I have read, outfits like Reform et al, accept that Woman Bishops will eventually come to the CofE and are prepared co exist with them provided their own theological integity is safeguarded. Certainly their statement on the 29th Decemsber 2008 ( see Reform website) appears to imply this.
However it does seem to me that many Egalitarians have the attitude that:
1. Complementarians have little or no theological integity on WO (I do not think you hold this view BTW).
2. Synodical decisions should be made so that Complementarions in the CofE will eventually be expunged from, or find their own positions within the CofE untenable. I believe this to be the view of people like Christina Rees. (The Reform statement goes on to point this out).
Rather than just reply to this post I would be interested to see you write a piece as to how you think the two parties should (or indeed whether they can), co-exist in the CofE because this is where the real battle is being fought.
Worth considering?
Iconoclast
Iconoclast
Quite a challenge. I'll consider it, indeed. Not sure I am well-enough read yet so you might have to wait a while.
Post a Comment