So in Warnock’s women | The Protestant Pub I am taken to task for my post 42: When did the practice of ordaining women begin?
I am afraid I have no idea who Sofyst is and whether they are male or female so am not sure what form of address to us. Is it less offensive to use she or he?
Anyway, some of the comments are worth looking at. The response to my correction about history is interesting.
Meh. Tomatoes tomatoes.
History is boring, Scripture is our aim.
H’mm. Do I dare quote George Santayana "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." or point out in a fairly obvious way that much of scripture is a history or God’s relationship with his people.
Now I know that I am a poor scholar of history and so frequently get it wrong, however, it seems odd that it seems so unimportant that a historical mistake that formed a significant part of the original argument can be dismissed so easily.
Even if one was to concede that being ‘of note among the apostles’
meant that this ‘noted’ one was one of them, we would then have Paul
put in a rather funny situation. Commending this Junias for her
apostleship and leadership within the church, and then turning right
around to Timothy telling him that no woman can lead within the church.
Bad, bad Paul.
My understanding from a number of articles on the subject is that the construction of the Greek leaves little doubt that Junia was considered an apostle by Paul.
So there is tension for complementarians between what Paul writes in Romans 16 and Galations 5:28 which clearly support equality in ministry and what is in 1 Timothy which is used to claim there is not equality. In this I would simply suggest
a) reading more widely that just your own tradition to see how others interpret these passages.
b) See Faith and Theology: Ten propositions on preaching and note proposition 4. Paul was a highly intelligent man, hence his letters reflect both the context and his own faith journey. Remember also how he developed his thinking during his life. For example consider his eschatological understanding. Suddenly there is the possibility or even probability that what is in 1 Timothy is contextual.
And it is quite superfluous as to who the first evangelist was, we ALL
are evangelist. I had assumed we were speaking of women priest or
elders, why then are we drudging up the duty of evangelism?
Yes and no. In the case of John 4 the woman (who is the first to tell others of Christ in John’s gospel) tells everyone about Jesus. According to my understanding of complementarian thinking that is not acceptable. See "Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth" by Wayne Grudem p93-101 which I understand to not really support not support this work by a women.
I do think it is highly significant that the first evangelist in John’s gospel is a woman. That stands significantly against the complementarian viewpoint.
No, the gospels may say nothing about women being ordained, but Paul sure says a lot.
Well no Paul does not. Our current understanding of ordination did not exist in Paul’s time. To apply Paul’s teaching to the modern church requires interpretation.
THERE WE GO! Theres that quotation of Paul. Naughty naughty on only using it when it is beneficial to you.
And your point is? I am trying to consider a wider view of Paul’s teaching rather than simply take a few verses from 1 Timothy and ignore their context. The complementarian position relies totally on taking isolated verses from the Epistles, ignoring context, ignoring the Gospels and ignoring the wider teaching by the same writers.
But let me try to understand this a little. Driscoll and Joshua make a
statement, a claim. Warnock then comes back and makes a counter-claim.
Warnock then charges Driscoll and Joshua with being unwilling to
recognize that they do not have a monopoly on truth?
I absolutely deny making any claim to have a monopoly on truth. For example I wrote
I suggest a small rewording to pay lip service to integrity and truth
for example "I am abreast enough on the interpretation of Scripture in
my tradition to know that we believe the issue of homosexuality and
female ordination was settled with the N.T."
This does not deny truth for other traditions than my own. It certainly does not claim sole truth. Indeed I also wrote
Only God is truth and Paul reminds us that we can see only dimly at the moment.
These do not sound like the words of someone claiming a monopoly on truth. Instead I have and will continue to argue against anyone who claims to have the whole truth and deny all other view points. That does not mean that truth is unimportant, merely that it is so important and so part of God’s nature that we cannot understand it fully. If we cannot understand it fully then to claim we have it all right is preposterous.
Or is such hypocrisy by Mr. Warnock acceptable given that the gospels never forbid ministers from being hypocritical?
Hypocrisy is quite hard to get past the teaching of Jesus. Both the two greatest commandments and his attitude to the Pharisees make that quite clear. At the moment though I do not understand the charge. Where am I being hypocritical? Or is it just that I disagree?
I should have said how much Sofyst’s title "Warnock’s women" amused me. It was the title that caught my eye when I was browsing technorati and it intrigued me. Still not sure of the relevance to the subject but it did get my attention.