Review of RGM’s BA&S

Status
Not open for further replies.
In my own church there are times when women read scripture from the pulpit.
I don't think you'd have to use the concept of a slippery slope to say that this is wrong, however; it's quite contrary to Scripture, and represents a downgrade in the RPW that happened at some point in your denomination's history and remains to be corrected. How long have women been permitted to do this in the FCoS?
 
Aimee would say the same thing about being confessional and on the OPC side, which you took exception to when she said it. And are all the people who are supporting her "pro-women in church leadership"? That just isn't true at all. Is everyone who objects to Aimee misogynistic just because some in GC are? Collapsing everyone's views together based on their reaction to one topic is just pointless. There are almost certainly those who were in GC at one point who hold the exact same views on men and women as the elders who wrote the OPC letter against it, but it would be silly to say one "side" is a bunch of misogynistic bullies and the other a bunch of liberal feminist infiltrators.

You say you don't believe Aimee is feminist and say you seek clarification, but would you actually listen to her if she did? She has repeated time and time again that she believes only men should be ordained and yet you said this:

I have no issue with you saying you are on the OPC side, but why do you deny that Aimee can say that and accuse her of "liberal trickery" when she does?
Leading mixed bible studies, readings in church, instructing men. She seems to want to branch out in these areas. So I believe she is transitioning a bit. This will be a problem in the OPC. Let’s see where she goes. Todd and Carl were concerned about where she was headed. Todd alluded to this on his FB. She shouldn’t apologize if that’s where her understanding is or if she’s finding her female voice in Scriptures (I don’t recall how exactly she phrased it). But she should try to be transparent about how she may be evolving. I don’t view her as this bad person or anything, I just think she’s heading in a different direction and she has to be honest with herself and others but there are many who are using this opportunity to bash the OPC specifically, at least on Twitter, and that’s why I take a more defensive posture.
 
Last edited:
I think there are multiple points here that are not as black and white as you draw them out to be. Firstly, the idea of Natural Law and women not being able to hold certain jobs. I think it is pretty clear there is a massive difference between a woman police officer and a woman pastor. Or a female politician and a female elder. I'm not sure the hole is necessarily all that big. Not that there isn't an argument to made there, but I'm mostly just hearing "this is a concession to feminism so it must be wrong". If a woman in your church/denomination was a politician, would you place them under church discipline? Is a church that does not do that denying natural law? Are they moving inevitably towards denying the Deity of Christ? In my own church there are times when women read scripture from the pulpit. You might object to that, but will you say the elders in my church are on a slippery slope to liberalism?

Even in this thread there is a discussion about whether woman are "ontologically inferior" to men. I'm not sure disagreeing with that stance is a slippery slope to feminism either. One could even argue that saying that men are ontologically superior to women because of their difference in authority is a tank-sized hole which could lead to saying that a minister of the word is ontologically superior to a lay-person because of his authority, and therefore it leaves a door open to Catholicism or something.

I find nailing down the precise co-ordinates of all these slippery slopes to be a rather slippery affair in itself. It seems like they can be weaponised against anyone one wishes to discredit, but not against others. Pulpit and Pen once wrote an article saying my minister was a "papist wolf in sheeps clothing" because he repeatedly quoted Ratzinger in a book. A lot of the rhetoric I hear around these things is rather similar. You do/say one thing that sounds "feminist" or whatever and all of a sudden you are an undercover agent who at any moment could just suddenly betray orthodoxy completely. And in almost all situations there are multiple examples of others doing, allowing, or saying similar things but not receiving the same treatment.

I'm not sure why you are warning against others making pronouncements, when you are making plenty of your own about people in NAPARC. I think if you need to say that the significant portion of people in NAPARC who call themselves complementarians are actually just conceeding ground to egalitarians and are on one big slippery slope in order to say that RGM or Aimee are out of line with the confessions, you might need to make a bit more of an argument. It sounds like you are saying they are in line with NAPARC, but most of NAPARC is out of line.

That doesn't mean you are wrong of course, but it seems like a pretty serious charge to me.
The Christian Church has made a lot of accommodations to the culture. I think we need to take a serious look at Godly distinctions and ordinances while avoiding overcorrection. Pastors are servants. Those who are the greatest are the least, etc... but if there are Godly distinctions and great responsibility that comes with them, we are most blessed when we honor them. I think you are leaning into the grey a bit as a starting point.
 
Unfortunately, in retrospect, Todd and Carl, if it was their choice, placed Aimee in a position that would open her up to scrutiny. The internet is toxic and brings out the indwelling sin of the saved and hypocrisies of the lost. Todd and Carl put themselves in a position that they had to protect her when they disagreed with her. And Amiee also put them in that position. Those who bashed Amiee may want to look very closely at what they said and take inventory as I do believe they really hurt her. I think Carl and Todd should seek to restore her. Carl is going to look like a bad guy here if he doesn’t reach out to her one more time with regret about the way she has been treated. I know he’s defended her but she really got hit hard with attacks about her looks, her demeanor, her intellect and her place.

I am guilty of questioning her intent because I thought she departed from established OPC practice and belief and I was surprised she didn’t think it was problem. When called out she said she’s still learning. But when you write an authoritative type of book, there is responsibility that goes with it. Unfortunately, the theological and biblical discussion took a backseat to the politics which is a shame. I’m concerned with the denomination, not politics or a culture war... which is more of a devils domain at this point. Even though God controls all of it.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you'd have to use the concept of a slippery slope to say that this is wrong, however; it's quite contrary to Scripture, and represents a downgrade in the RPW that happened at some point in your denomination's history and remains to be corrected. How long have women been permitted to do this in the FCoS?
I have zero idea, I don't even think I agree with it myself. It's possible that there was never an explicit rule about this. That would be my guess. I will look it up. I only pointed it out to say that incorrect practices are not always symptomatic of a slippery slope. I have no problem with people objecting to it, but I think people are often rather inconsistent in what they call slippery slopes and where lines are drawn.

but there are many who are using this opportunity to tear down the OPC, at least on Twitter, and that’s why I take a more defensive posture.
The only mention I have seen of specific denominations on twitter is more along the lines of "I cant believe elders in the OPC are allowed to use this kind of language" when discussing GC. Which is completely fair in my opinion. I haven't seen anyone say "I cant believe the OPC doesnt let woman lead bible studies the misogynist scum". Some outside of NAPARC circles who have heard about this have said negative things about complementarianism and its inevitable results or something which is of course opportunistic, but most people who are familiar with the OPC sound more disappointed that this could go on in a denom they respected and are usually hopeful that it will be dealt with.
I very much understand the desire you have to defend your own denomination though, and I think many who are upset about what went on react out love as you do. It's a very sad situation all around, and many innocent people have been hurt.

The Christian Church has made a lot of accommodations to the culture. I think we need to take a serious look at Godly distinctions and ordinances while avoiding overcorrection. Pastors are servants. Those who are the greatest are the least, etc... but if there are Godly distinctions and great responsibility that comes with them, we are most blessed when we honor them. I think you are leaning into the grey a bit as a starting point.
Saying pastors are to be honoured is very different from saying they are ontologically superior. If that is what you are replying to, I'm unsure here.

My main issue here though is that "culture" is taken to be this monolithic entity which is very feminist and egalitarian, which is untrue and often leads to the assumption that anything that is opposed to this is godly and biblical. It is similar to how people often go on and on about the errors of Postmodernism but say very little about Modernism, which leads to the assumption that everything was fine and dandy in philosophical thought until Derrida or someone came along and ruined everything. But actually Modernist thought is also incredibly incompatible with Christianity too, and by refusing to acknowledge the valid critiques Postmodernism makes of it (though we may disagree with their conclusions), we implicitly fall into a Modernist way of thinking. The same happens in other areas. Communism is ungodly, so free market capitalism is the God-ordained economic system. We see all the madness that the riots and BLM are causing today, and in reaction fall back into advocating what they are reacting against, maybe the Confederacy if you are a US Southerner, or Imperialism if you are British like me. Is it not true that in the past the church made many accomodations to the Modernist culture as well? Did we not also stain our hands? And I am not talking about liberal theology here.

Even today, there are those who despise Christianity, but have a rather Modernist view on things. The New Athiests are the prime example. They hate all things feminism and "SJW" and are often dragged over the coals for it. Many who are influenced by them have a very misogynistic view of women and have all sorts of strategies based on "scientific" data to get them to sleep with them. They have a whole vocabulary based around this. Some of the same language is used by some in Christian circles, in places like GC. This is always seen as isolated incidents of individuals being rude, but never as a capitulation to culture or a slippery slope.

When most Christians say "culture" they seem to only refer to one specific section, which often leads to lack of nuance, both in how we react to other parts of our culture, but also in how we analyse the philosophies behind it. It also seems to lead to a very conspiratorial way of thinking, where everyone who is not us is perfectly in-sync and is always trying to destroy us regardless of what they say. Which leads to "I'm not a feminist, so I cannot be capitulating to the culture" and "this other 'christian' is critiquing me on this point, they must be capitulating to the culture". I am increasingly suspicious of charges of "postmodern", "liberal", and "marxist" being levelled at other Christians. I'm also very wary of the explanations some give of what these things are as well.
 
Thanks very helpful. So basically the superior / inferior relationship exist because of the essence of the office God has assigned to each (specifically within a marriage)?
Fundamentally, all true authority rolls DOWN (there's a nature analogy (gravity) for you; of course it's relative...) from ON HIGH. It does not derive from a "law" of nature, though nature supplies no end of illustrations and analogies. God has ALL authority, and that which men possess is delegated. I already pointed out some of this in an earlier post, where creation and instinct have but a limited role in determining how moral creatures find their rights and obligations. Man was expressly NOT subjected to nature, but rather was placed in dominion over it. Therefore, nature cannot norm; all it can do is guide. Otherwise, we might as well agree with those who deplore medicine, or view airplanes as "contrary to nature" (if God meant man to fly...!).

Therefore you would say it is erroneous to say a women is an inferior to a man because of her being? In other words a women of no familial or civil relationship to me, beyond neighbor, is not my inferior? And also this helps us understand how my mother is actually my superior..... correct?
Absolutely. Is man the summit of creation because he was formed last of all? Not at all; but if he was, would not then the woman's creation after the man argue for her superior position? If not the latter, then also not the former; but he is the ruler of creation by appointment, and by his being "made in the image of God," which is expressly declared true of both male and female, Gen.1:27. Ontologically, the two share a single essence.

Furthermore, she was taken from his side (as many exegetes have observed) and not from his head or his feet, witnessing the side-by-sidedness of man's dualistic forms. As Paul notes, Adam was formed first, then Eve; which order of creation is taken to be instructive for the church, on account of it's instruction for marriage. The woman was brought to the man, rather than the other way round. If we suppose the first marriage had been described contrariwise (he being brought to her), we would be witness to the opposite sort of presentation than we are actually given, and with it a different teaching.

Sometimes 1Cor.11:3 is appealed to, as though it might support the notion of "ontological" female inferiority. But I would cast such an appeal aside, both as that interpretation is overturned by other Scripture e.g. Gal.3:28 and Eph.5:22; and better exegesis calls for admitted limiting factors apt to the context. Yes, it may be said that Christ is head of all creation (and all men indiscriminate); but Paul has in mind specifically the Church when he is acclaimed "head of every man." Nor does Christ fail to be the head of every woman of the church as well, though that fact is not stated; and directly so, not mediated through any lesser authority.

As in the last expression of the v, "the head of Christ is God," where the truth refers particularly to the economy of redemption and no wise to being/essence; so too are all the other expressions of headship bound in an ecclesiastical frame. The economy of marriage is incorporated into the economy of the church, families being still the essential (not excluding singles) building blocks of the church (see. Mk.10:1-16). What Paul refers to in the second clause, "the head of woman is man," should not be extrapolated from the marital order whence it has original expression, and the family's standing within the church's organic order.

The woman in general is not in a position of inherent natural dependency on man. The children of parental union are so naturally dependent; deriving all their substance from each parent's contribution. Their very existence is dependent, as is their survival; as their debt is natural and deep, so goes their subordination. Every departure from this order is noteworthy for its exceptional quality. Your mother is your superior because she is your mother (and any other woman with whom you find yourself in a legitimate comparable relationship is, for that reason, also your superior) even if you are male. Is she your queen? Then show her the honor of her rank, regardless of your manliness.

But any random woman of herself is not by nature inferior to any random man. If the average woman has particular disadvantages to the average man--noting that natural dominion of the animal kingdom is typically indexed to size and strength--those disadvantages are in certain categories, and in other categories the average woman has particular advantages over the average man. Brute power does confer one kind of advantages, but it is manifest that these are not for such reason moral in nature or descriptive of ontological superiority. There are no moral lessons to be learned from average superiority in physical speed, dexterity, flexibility; or even in mental acuity, agility, or soundness of reason. Greater emotion or sensitivity to intuitive clues--which are sometimes regarded as more feminine--neither confer nor diminish moral authority. Nature has the savant capacity to teach (e.g. Prv.6:6), but is subservient to mankind, not its master.
 
It's a very sad situation all around, and many innocent people have been hurt.
:amen:

Fundamentally, all true authority rolls DOWN (there's a nature analogy (gravity) for you; of course it's relative...) from ON HIGH. It does not derive from a "law" of nature, though nature supplies no end of illustrations and analogies. God has ALL authority, and that which men possess is delegated. I already pointed out some of this in an earlier post, where creation and instinct have but a limited role in determining how moral creatures find their rights and obligations. Man was expressly NOT subjected to nature, but rather was placed in dominion over it. Therefore, nature cannot norm; all it can do is guide. Otherwise, we might as well agree with those who deplore medicine, or view airplanes as "contrary to nature" (if God meant man to fly...!).

Absolutely. Is man the summit of creation because he was formed last of all? Not at all; but if he was, would not then the woman's creation after the man argue for her superior position? If not the latter, then also not the former; but he is the ruler of creation by appointment, and by his being "made in the image of God," which is expressly declared true of both male and female, Gen.1:27. Ontologically, the two share a single essence.

Furthermore, she was taken from his side (as many exegetes have observed) and not from his head or his feet, witnessing the side-by-sidedness of man's dualistic forms. As Paul notes, Adam was formed first, then Eve; which order of creation is taken to be instructive for the church, on account of it's instruction for marriage. The woman was brought to the man, rather than the other way round. If we suppose the first marriage had been described contrariwise (he being brought to her), we would be witness to the opposite sort of presentation than we are actually given, and with it a different teaching.

Sometimes 1Cor.11:3 is appealed to, as though it might support the notion of "ontological" female inferiority. But I would cast such an appeal aside, both as that interpretation is overturned by other Scripture e.g. Gal.3:28 and Eph.5:22; and better exegesis calls for admitted limiting factors apt to the context. Yes, it may be said that Christ is head of all creation (and all men indiscriminate); but Paul has in mind specifically the Church when he is acclaimed "head of every man." Nor does Christ fail to be the head of every woman of the church as well, though that fact is not stated; and directly so, not mediated through any lesser authority.

As in the last expression of the v, "the head of Christ is God," where the truth refers particularly to the economy of redemption and no wise to being/essence; so too are all the other expressions of headship bound in an ecclesiastical frame. The economy of marriage is incorporated into the economy of the church, families being still the essential (not excluding singles) building blocks of the church (see. Mk.10:1-16). What Paul refers to in the second clause, "the head of woman is man," should not be extrapolated from the marital order whence it has original expression, and the family's standing within the church's organic order.

The woman in general is not in a position of inherent natural dependency on man. The children of parental union are so naturally dependent; deriving all their substance from each parent's contribution. Their very existence is dependent, as is their survival; as their debt is natural and deep, so goes their subordination. Every departure from this order is noteworthy for its exceptional quality. Your mother is your superior because she is your mother (and any other woman with whom you find yourself in a legitimate comparable relationship is, for that reason, also your superior) even if you are male. Is she your queen? Then show her the honor of her rank, regardless of your manliness.

But any random woman of herself is not by nature inferior to any random man. If the average woman has particular disadvantages to the average man--noting that natural dominion of the animal kingdom is typically indexed to size and strength--those disadvantages are in certain categories, and in other categories the average woman has particular advantages over the average man. Brute power does confer one kind of advantages, but it is manifest that these are not for such reason moral in nature or descriptive of ontological superiority. There are no moral lessons to be learned from average superiority in physical speed, dexterity, flexibility; or even in mental acuity, agility, or soundness of reason. Greater emotion or sensitivity to intuitive clues--which are sometimes regarded as more feminine--neither confer nor diminish moral authority. Nature has the savant capacity to teach (e.g. Prv.6:6), but is subservient to mankind, not its master.
Not asking this with the same attitude as another PB user, but in meekness, how would approach “the weaker vessel” attribution to the female?

How does your reasoning ( which was very helpful) compliment the concept of women not to have authority over men (in the context of church)? A qualified layman might be allowed to teach a mixed sabbath school of adults, but would you say a women could as well?
 
Last edited:
A qualified layman might be allowed to teach a mixed sabbath school, but would you say a women could as well?
How do you define Sabbath school? I ask because there are people from a number of different countries represented on the PB. Eg, in my country Sabbath school means Sunday school which means teaching the Bible to children. Thus some would argue a woman could teach children but not a congregation of adults. In other words, I am not sure how you are defining Sabbath school would be true in my country.
 
How do you define Sabbath school? I ask because there are people from a number of different countries represented on the PB. Eg, in my country Sabbath school means Sunday school which means teaching the Bible to children. Thus some would argue a woman could teach children but not a congregation of adults. In other words, I am not sure how you are defining Sabbath school would be true in my country.
In this case, for simplicity, adults.
 
how would approach “the weaker vessel” attribution to the female?

How does your reasoning ( which was very helpful) compliment the concept of women not to have authority over men (in the context of church)? A qualified layman might be allowed to teach a mixed sabbath school of adults, but would you say a women could as well?
Are there three Q's here? or one? or two?
What does "weaker vessel" have to do with 1Tim.2:12? Is there an argument here for me to handle? Not seeing it...
May or ought a woman lead a mixed-adult S.S. class? This may or may not be doubtful; it is a question for the session, and the answer may vary, God grant the wisdom. I'm sure 1Cor.11:5 & 10 would be minimally pertinent; which is to say: IF the circumstance did permit it (the prior question), some sign of recognition of higher authority would be doubly demanded in that circumstance.


The text in question, 1Pet.3:7, is interested in family/marriage relation, man (husband) and woman (wife). It is not a passage geared toward church government or teaching.

It should be first noted: the emphasis in v7 is on the jointness of the two persons' inheritance, one male, the other female. Which in a word, as a singular Christian perspective, overthrows the whole second-class regard for women that existed as a rule in the ancient and heathen world (find whatever exceptions you will). The female is not vouchsafed an inheritance in God's kingdom on account of her father, brother, or husband. But she is heir, and he is heir, both on the same ground (personal union with Christ).

So, it is important to understanding the v, that Peter's point is maintained notwithstanding any such weakness as may be found in the woman vis-a-vis the man. Attribute any relative weakness to the woman (wife), and she is still not set behind the man (husband) in the way of the grace in view. That man is himself frail comes as no surprise, Ps.90; Ps.39:4; Ps.103:14. The mighty king David came to the point of weakness, where he could not keep himself warm; he needed a wife of greater energy and strength to help him, 1Ki.1.

Yet, the male sex's outstanding exhibits of physical strength--on display in the more bodily punishing and dangerous occupations, or in military service, or sports played at peak conditioning levels--show that on average, she is weaker by those measures. She may be able to endure pain with equal stoicism or for just as long a time; though some think hers is greater on average. She might have the willpower to keep going as long as the man does; but statistics will show that her muscle-failure point will come quicker than his, all things being equal. Women (and their children) are commonly the vulnerable victims of war.

But let the relative physical prowess of each sex be what it is, Peter uses the metaphor of "vessel" (cf. 1Ths.4:4; Act.9:15), standing for a body, but more significantly that body as a container and an instrument of the self. There is a natural duet in a marriage relation, a complementarity between the two instruments or vessels. And the "weaker"--for the purpose of description in this marriage relation (the singular sense for which Peter has taken up the term)--will forever be tied in marriage relationships (even a couple in which the wife is a physically or mentally stronger specimen of humanity than her husband) to the vulnerability--cast as delicacy and fragility, weakness in other words--on account of that which she CARRIES inside her.

The mark of gestating women: their vulnerability, their need for help and protection, for the sake of the life within; and during her recovery; and we may add for the years she typically spends distracted by the cares of more than just her own body. If there is no husband both finding the sustenance and standing guard... is it no wonder (given the trials of single mothers in our modern age) that the widows of Israel (even!) were to be pitied and shown kindness, for only Jehovah stood guard and provided for them, Ps.146:7, 9. This, and not the lack of upper body strength, or the "hormones," or the alleged mental vacuity (how demeaning!), is what is "weak" about this vessel of the two.

Every female Olympic sprinter will blow my doors off. Female body builders will bench press more than I can lift. Those women are not bound to marry only those men who can best them in those departments. The average woman is slower and less muscular than the average man, but her character shouldn't be any weaker. She's not more easily duped, on account of her sex (in spite of misinterpretations of 1Tim.2:14). But however her strengths and weaknesses manifest, the maternal needs of her sex are what chiefly validates the label, "weaker vessel." In marriage, there are two vessels, and pregnancy marks the weaker.

I don't see how the issue of weak/weaker has direct bearing on the teaching office of the church, or on informal teaching. 2Tim.3:6 identifies certain women as "weak" (but not the sex in general). Tit.2:3 identifies certain (older or mature) women as doing a service in teaching, particularly of the younger women.
 
“Being more easily deceived, she more easily deceives. Last in being, she was first in sin—indeed, she alone was deceived. The subtle serpent knew that she was ‘the weaker vessel’ (1 Peter 3:7). He therefore tempted her, not Adam. She yielded to the temptations of sense and the deceits of Satan; he, to conjugal love. Hence, in the order of God’s judicial sentence, the serpent, the prime offender, stands first; the woman, who was deceived, next; and the man, persuaded by his wife, last (Genesis 3:14-19)” (Jamieson-Fausset Commentary).


“…Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh” (Gill’s Exposition).


Everybody wants to read old dead theologians until they say non-PC things. Look up Calvin and witches and the traditional view of the Curse of Ham as well. Either we are more enlightened and they were ignorant children of their time...or perhaps...sometimes.... we are clouded by our current fog of culture. Most non-Western Christians untainted by modern Western thinking would still agree with the quotes above.




(don't dox me, yo!) :)
 
Last edited:
“Being more easily deceived, she more easily deceives. Last in being, she was first in sin—indeed, she alone was deceived. The subtle serpent knew that she was ‘the weaker vessel’ (1 Peter 3:7). He therefore tempted her, not Adam. She yielded to the temptations of sense and the deceits of Satan; he, to conjugal love. Hence, in the order of God’s judicial sentence, the serpent, the prime offender, stands first; the woman, who was deceived, next; and the man, persuaded by his wife, last (Genesis 3:14-19)” (Jamieson-Fausset Commentary).


“…Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh” (Gill’s Exposition).


Everybody wants to read old dead theologians until they say non-PC things. Look up Calvin and witches and the traditional view of the Curse of Ham as well. Either we are more enlightened and they were ignorant children of their time...or perhaps...sometimes.... we are clouded by our current fog of culture. Most non-Western Christians untainted by modern Western thinking would still agree with the quotes above.
Those have been some of my same thoughts, Matthew Henry runs along those same lines.

3. They must be silent, submissive, and subject, and not usurp authority. The reason given is because Adam was first formed, then Eve out of him, to denote her subordination to him and dependence upon him; and that she was made for him, to be a help-meet for him. And as she was last in the creation, which is one reason for her subjection, so she was first in the transgression, and that is another reason. Adam was not deceived, that is, not first; the serpent did not immediately set upon him, but the woman was first in the transgression (2 Co. 11:3 ), and it was part of the sentence, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, Gen. 3:16 . But it is a word of comfort (v. 15) that those who continue in sobriety shall be saved in child-bearing, or with child-bearing—the Messiah, who was born of a woman, should break the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15 ); or the sentence which they are under for sin shall be no bar to their acceptance with Christ, if they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety. II. Here observe, 1. The extensiveness of the rules of Christianity; they reach not only to men, but to women, not only to their persons, but also to their dress, which must be modest, like their sex; and to their outward deportment and behaviour, it must be in silence, with all subjection. 2. Women are to profess godliness as well as men; for they are baptized, and thereby stand engaged to exercise themselves to godliness; and, to their honour be it spoken, many of them were eminent professors of Christianity in the days of the apostles, as the book of Acts will inform us. 3. Women being more in danger of exceeding in their apparel, it was more necessary to caution them in this respect. 4. The best ornaments for professors of godliness are good works. 5. According to Paul, women must be learners, and are not allowed to be public teachers in the church; for teaching is an office of authority, and the woman must not usurp authority over the man, but is to be in silence. But, notwithstanding this prohibition, good women may and ought to teach their children at home the principles of religion. Timothy from a child had known the holy scriptures; and who should teach him but his mother and grandmother? 2 Tim. 3:15 . Aquila and his wife Priscilla expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly; but then they did it privately, for they took him unto them, Acts. 18:26 . Here are two very good reasons given for the man’s authority over the woman, and her subjection to the man, v. 13, v. 14. Adam was first formed, then Eve; she was created for the man, and not the man for the woman (1 Co. 11:9 ); then she was deceived, and brought the man into the transgression. 7. Though the difficulties and dangers of childbearing are many and great, as they are part of the punishment inflicted on the sex for Eve’s transgression, yet here is much for her support and encouragement: Notwithstanding she shall be saved, etc. Though in sorrow, yet she shall bring forth, and be a living mother of living children; with this proviso, that they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety: and women, under the circumstance of child-bearing should by faith lay hold of this promise for their support in the needful time.
 
Those have been some of my same thoughts, Matthew Henry runs along those same lines.

How easily we cling to the Reformers and to Church History over things like Sabbatarianism and yet throw them all out wholesale when they talk about the nature of men and women. Selective acceptance!

Who actually is more impacted by current culture and who more impacted by Scripture, I want to ask.
 
I think there are multiple points here that are not as black and white as you draw them out to be. Firstly, the idea of Natural Law and women not being able to hold certain jobs. I think it is pretty clear there is a massive difference between a woman police officer and a woman pastor. Or a female politician and a female elder. I'm not sure the hole is necessarily all that big. Not that there isn't an argument to made there, but I'm mostly just hearing "this is a concession to feminism so it must be wrong". If a woman in your church/denomination was a politician, would you place them under church discipline? Is a church that does not do that denying natural law? Are they moving inevitably towards denying the Deity of Christ? In my own church there are times when women read scripture from the pulpit. You might object to that, but will you say the elders in my church are on a slippery slope to liberalism?

The idea of Natural Law is a huge one since Paul grounds his prohibition of women as elders in it. Women should not be soldiers for reasons of natural law. Women should not be pastors for reasons of natural law. Selective enforcement of this in one area gives rise to charges of hypocrisy and inconsistency.
In regards to women being politicians, Calvin said female rulers were “a deviation from the primitive and established order of nature” and “ought to be held as a judgment on man.” In his commentary on 1 Corinthians he wrote “unquestionably, wherever even natural propriety has been maintained, women have in all ages been excluded from the public management of affairs. It is the dictate of common sense, that female government is improper and unseemly.”

Would I say that churches should discipline women in political leadership? I’d say it depends. I believe America is under judgment. So why wouldn’t we have women like Nancy Pelosi ruling us?

Do I think churches doing this are similar to deniers of the Trinity? No. Of course not. But there are degrees of error.

In regards to women reading scripture during Lord’s Day worship thats a rather big violation of the RPW. It would remain such even if an unordained man was doing it.




Even in this thread there is a discussion about whether woman are "ontologically inferior" to men. I'm not sure disagreeing with that stance is a slippery slope to feminism either. One could even argue that saying that men are ontologically superior to women because of their difference in authority is a tank-sized hole which could lead to saying that a minister of the word is ontologically superior to a lay-person because of his authority, and therefore it leaves a door open to Catholicism or something.

I find nailing down the precise co-ordinates of all these slippery slopes to be a rather slippery affair in itself. It seems like they can be weaponised against anyone one wishes to discredit, but not against others. Pulpit and Pen once wrote an article saying my minister was a "papist wolf in sheeps clothing" because he repeatedly quoted Ratzinger in a book. A lot of the rhetoric I hear around these things is rather similar. You do/say one thing that sounds "feminist" or whatever and all of a sudden you are an undercover agent who at any moment could just suddenly betray orthodoxy completely. And in almost all situations there are multiple examples of others doing, allowing, or saying similar things but not receiving the same treatment.

I'm not sure why you are warning against others making pronouncements, when you are making plenty of your own about people in NAPARC. I think if you need to say that the significant portion of people in NAPARC who call themselves complementarians are actually just conceeding ground to egalitarians and are on one big slippery slope in order to say that RGM or Aimee are out of line with the confessions, you might need to make a bit more of an argument. It sounds like you are saying they are in line with NAPARC, but most of NAPARC is out of line.

That doesn't mean you are wrong of course, but it seems like a pretty serious charge to me.

Pergy nails it in this thread. I think there are those uncomfortable with what the Divines had to say on this topic. It’s not just an issue in NAPARC
 
What text of Scripture teaches that Eve was of such character: "being more easily deceived?"
What text of Scripture teaches that Eve took on such character: "she more easily deceives?"
More easily... than previously she could? Than Adam would?
And who did she deceive? Herself? The same author admits, correctly, that Adam was not deceived...
Or is this an indictment of her sex? Ah, now I think I see...
Then, which text teaches that women are the deceivers of our race?

Look... we're told the serpent saw she was "weaker;" but not physically vulnerable (perhaps only modern Western Christians would be so foolish as to think Peter so superficial); but rather mentally and emotionally fragile, quite open to Satan's psychological tricks and manipulations (that men, especially non-Western, non-modern Christian men are so strong to avoid). So, of course "the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh." Of course it was, and no doubt given God's seal of approval too! But, can we have a text for this too, please?

When we have actual texts, we can start to interrogate them, pick them apart, and sift the wheat (of God's directions) from the chaff (of men's opinions). Those paragraphs of commentary are full of opinions, and not very much text on which to base them.

“Being more easily deceived, she more easily deceives. Last in being, she was first in sin—indeed, she alone was deceived. The subtle serpent knew that she was ‘the weaker vessel’ (1 Peter 3:7). He therefore tempted her, not Adam. She yielded to the temptations of sense and the deceits of Satan; he, to conjugal love. Hence, in the order of God’s judicial sentence, the serpent, the prime offender, stands first; the woman, who was deceived, next; and the man, persuaded by his wife, last (Genesis 3:14-19)” (Jamieson-Fausset Commentary).


“…Now inasmuch as the serpent did not attack Adam, he being the stronger and more knowing person, and less capable of being managed and seduced; but made his attempt on Eve, in which he succeeded; and since not Adam, but Eve, was deceived, it appears that the man is the more proper person to bear rule and authority, as in civil and domestic, so in ecclesiastic affairs; and it is right for the woman to learn, and the man to teach: and seeing that Eve was the cause of transgression to Adam, and of punishment to him and his posterity, the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh” (Gill’s Exposition).
 
What text of Scripture teaches that Eve was of such character: "being more easily deceived?"
What text of Scripture teaches that Eve took on such character: "she more easily deceives?"
More easily... than previously she could? Than Adam would?
And who did she deceive? Herself? The same author admits, correctly, that Adam was not deceived...
Or is this an indictment of her sex? Ah, now I think I see...
Then, which text teaches that women are the deceivers of our race?

Look... we're told the serpent saw she was "weaker;" but not physically vulnerable (perhaps only modern Western Christians would be so foolish as to think Peter so superficial); but rather mentally and emotionally fragile, quite open to Satan's psychological tricks and manipulations (that men, especially non-Western, non-modern Christian men are so strong to avoid). So, of course "the subjection of the woman to the man was confirmed afresh." Of course it was, and no doubt given God's seal of approval too! But, can we have a text for this too, please?

When we have actual texts, we can start to interrogate them, pick them apart, and sift the wheat (of God's directions) from the chaff (of men's opinions). Those paragraphs of commentary are full of opinions, and not very much text on which to base them.

"Sifting the wheat from the chaff" seems to shift each decade as our culture drifts away from its traditional views.

The voice of the Church throughout 2 millenia of history has been somewhat consistent on these points. These current views are a historical anomaly.
 
"Sifting the wheat from the chaff" seems to shift each decade as our culture drifts away from its traditional views.

The voice of the Church throughout 2 millenia of history has been somewhat consistent on these points. These current views are a historical anomaly.
Right now it's just an assertion, a claim that 2K yrs of church history has given us an exegetical pattern. That's an argument from authority, minus the authority, hence lacking both the pattern and the argument.

Right now, we have on the table a 19th century commentary paragraph, paired with an 18th century paragraph of similar stripe; neither of which is doing much to strip down whatever text they may be expounding. Two authorities offering up too little in the way of textual engagement.

The Matthew Henry (18th C, but also not MH himself) paragraph submitted by another poster does a better job of exposition, and consequently there's more there to be approved; but not the whole piece without exception, in my view.

You may disagree with what I've expressed in my previous posts, but at least I've gone to the text. I'd rather have an offering laid down of a piece that purports to be better exegesis than I've given. I'm open to persuasion to improve my effort or reconsider.

By all means, let's hear our fathers' testimony and receive it with grace. But they would be the first to tell us to judge them by the text. And I'm not persuaded that our problem is uniquely one in which we are listening to the current culture rather than history and the text.

Rather, I'm convinced that the modern age is deeply anti-authoritarian, or devoted to radical autonomy (which will open them up eventually to despotism); and that too many, resisting them, have resorted to the passe authorities of "science" (and its putative objectivity) or "history" (claiming the weight of tradition).

Both of these are "bottom up" authorities. Nature, physics, chemistry, math, evolution... all supposed to ground what can be "sure." Or tradition: the ways that worked and should still; objective history, what "really" happened and what it may teach us: to replicate past success and avoid the pitfalls of our progenitors.

The text of Scripture is an historic document, but its form is dictated into history from eternity. The authority of Scripture is "top down," from God, who delegates authority, and uses nature, but who is not ruled by it; who instilled his moral authority in man's heart de novo, not arising from ethical trial and error.

This is the authority of true miracles, which is not embarrassed to claim the sea was divided into walls of water with dry land between; or that the sun stood still; or that the dead man Lazarus was raised to life; without resorting to naturalistic, "scientific" explanations.

Men can long misread the text (as history attests they did), and recover the proper sense of it; because they are not slaves to history and blind tradition. We can acknowledge OUR OWN quite human tendency to read passages with cultural spectacles coloring our interpretation; and still manage to overcome the inclination.
 
Did anybody mention 1Timothy2 ? That seems to cover all the bases..... not that the woman is more blameworthy but pretty much the rest of the ground we’ve been covering.
 
“ She's not more easily duped, on account of her sex (in spite of misinterpretations of 1Tim.2:14).”

“9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; 10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”


What is being conveyed here?

Are there three Q's here? or one? or two?
What does "weaker vessel" have to do with 1Tim.2:12? Is there an argument here for me to handle? Not seeing it...
May or ought a woman lead a mixed-adult S.S. class? This may or may not be doubtful; it is a question for the session, and the answer may vary, God grant the wisdom. I'm sure 1Cor.11:5 & 10 would be minimally pertinent; which is to say: IF the circumstance did permit it (the prior question), some sign of recognition of higher authority would be doubly demanded in that circumstance.


The text in question, 1Pet.3:7, is interested in family/marriage relation, man (husband) and woman (wife). It is not a passage geared toward church government or teaching.

It should be first noted: the emphasis in v7 is on the jointness of the two persons' inheritance, one male, the other female. Which in a word, as a singular Christian perspective, overthrows the whole second-class regard for women that existed as a rule in the ancient and heathen world (find whatever exceptions you will). The female is not vouchsafed an inheritance in God's kingdom on account of her father, brother, or husband. But she is heir, and he is heir, both on the same ground (personal union with Christ).

So, it is important to understanding the v, that Peter's point is maintained notwithstanding any such weakness as may be found in the woman vis-a-vis the man. Attribute any relative weakness to the woman (wife), and she is still not set behind the man (husband) in the way of the grace in view. That man is himself frail comes as no surprise, Ps.90; Ps.39:4; Ps.103:14. The mighty king David came to the point of weakness, where he could not keep himself warm; he needed a wife of greater energy and strength to help him, 1Ki.1.

Yet, the male sex's outstanding exhibits of physical strength--on display in the more bodily punishing and dangerous occupations, or in military service, or sports played at peak conditioning levels--show that on average, she is weaker by those measures. She may be able to endure pain with equal stoicism or for just as long a time; though some think hers is greater on average. She might have the willpower to keep going as long as the man does; but statistics will show that her muscle-failure point will come quicker than his, all things being equal. Women (and their children) are commonly the vulnerable victims of war.

But let the relative physical prowess of each sex be what it is, Peter uses the metaphor of "vessel" (cf. 1Ths.4:4; Act.9:15), standing for a body, but more significantly that body as a container and an instrument of the self. There is a natural duet in a marriage relation, a complementarity between the two instruments or vessels. And the "weaker"--for the purpose of description in this marriage relation (the singular sense for which Peter has taken up the term)--will forever be tied in marriage relationships (even a couple in which the wife is a physically or mentally stronger specimen of humanity than her husband) to the vulnerability--cast as delicacy and fragility, weakness in other words--on account of that which she CARRIES inside her.

The mark of gestating women: their vulnerability, their need for help and protection, for the sake of the life within; and during her recovery; and we may add for the years she typically spends distracted by the cares of more than just her own body. If there is no husband both finding the sustenance and standing guard... is it no wonder (given the trials of single mothers in our modern age) that the widows of Israel (even!) were to be pitied and shown kindness, for only Jehovah stood guard and provided for them, Ps.146:7, 9. This, and not the lack of upper body strength, or the "hormones," or the alleged mental vacuity (how demeaning!), is what is "weak" about this vessel of the two.

Every female Olympic sprinter will blow my doors off. Female body builders will bench press more than I can lift. Those women are not bound to marry only those men who can best them in those departments. The average woman is slower and less muscular than the average man, but her character shouldn't be any weaker. She's not more easily duped, on account of her sex (in spite of misinterpretations of 1Tim.2:14). But however her strengths and weaknesses manifest, the maternal needs of her sex are what chiefly validates the label, "weaker vessel." In marriage, there are two vessels, and pregnancy marks the weaker.

I don't see how the issue of weak/weaker has direct bearing on the teaching office of the church, or on informal teaching. 2Tim.3:6 identifies certain women as "weak" (but not the sex in general). Tit.2:3 identifies certain (older or mature) women as doing a service in teaching, particularly of the younger women.
 
Last edited:
Did anybody mention 1Timothy2 ? That seems to cover all the bases..... not that the woman is more blameworthy but pretty much the rest of the ground we’ve been covering.
I mentioned misrepresentations of 1Tim.2:14. Two (then three) commentators were set forth, on that passage, of which the first two (but not the third) affirmed that the woman Eve was more susceptible to the wiles of the devil.

I don't think Scripture attests to that. That's textbook eisegesis.
 
I mentioned misrepresentations of 1Tim.2:14. Two (then three) commentators were set forth, on that passage, of which the first two (but not the third) affirmed that the woman was more susceptible to the wiles of the devil.

I don't think Scripture attests to that.
But that does seem to be implied there, no? It’s connected to how women should not teach. It seems to imply that she is under the authority of the man and left exposed is more susceptible, no?
 
But that does seem to be implied there, no? It’s connected to how women should not teach. It seems to imply that she is under the authority of the man and left exposed is more susceptible, no?
No, it doesn't. That's eisegesis, reading something into a text that's not there. A true implication (something not spelled out) is a proper inference, needing support from other Scripture; or an actual deduction, a good-and-necessary consequence.

What do we have in vv11-15 as you quote it above.

v11, a statement about proper decorum for a woman in the church's stated worship.
v12, a further statement, reference what is not proper for a woman in the church's stated worship.
v13, a (first) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of creation.
v14, a (second) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of the sinning in the garden.
This fact brings back to mind Eve's shame, but it is stated as that which affected "the woman;" notice how it impacts all women, as seen in the next v.
(v14 echoes precisely how God addressed the two in judgment, see Gen.3:9, 17, "Adam," and 3:13, 15, "the woman")​
v15, a reminder of the grace (Gen.3:15) that accompanied the curse (on A&E affecting posterity), a blessing specifically tied to Eve and her daughters to follow.​

Notice, there is nothing there that makes any claim whatsoever about women's nature in general. Eve is said to have been deceived, but not why she was. There's no tying her inadequate "nature," or women's in general, to the office of teaching. As if there had to be some kind of defect there to explain or justify God's refusal, beyond the positive reason in the order of creation, and the negative consequence that echoes down through the generations impacting all Eve's daughters.

Why must it be assumed there is a temperamental defect, or something else? I think I know why. Because people are uncomfortable with a reason so simple, and an imputation that stark; and they want something "natural" that softens God's decree.
 
Men can long misread the text (as history attests they did), and recover the proper sense of it; because they are not slaves to history and blind tradition. We can acknowledge OUR OWN quite human tendency to read passages with cultural spectacles coloring our interpretation; and still manage to overcome the inclination.

Fully agree with this. And would extend it a little, back to the topic at hand.

What troubles me most about Byrd's thought, and not just her, of course (I have no idea how widespread this is), is her appearing to partly embrace the notion that certain communities have access to certain knowledge by virtue of their experiences, gender, etc. that is closed off to others. Note, this is not to say that we can't learn a great deal from others; in fact, that's the very opposite of what I am saying (and ironically, if you take this to its logical conclusion, that is exactly what they are saying!). It's more the notion that certain minority groups, female, black, LGBT+, etc. have knowledge of the Scriptures, etc. that must be deferred to. Typically, this seems to only flow one way, since the majority's knowledge is claimed to be perfectly assimilated by the minority, which seems illogical, but there you have it.

So, for example, I regularly see things now about what a woman's perspective on the Bible, an Asian perspective on the Bible, an LGBT+ reading of the Bible... And it's always emphasized that this is a special reading and perspective that you just wouldn't get as a white, Western man. To which I want to reply: OK, if that's a better reading of the text, let's compare and then incorporate it, switching it out with the inferior reading we've been holding. But never seems to be the point!

I'm sure Byrd, as a conservative, and others would disagree with this conclusion, but it seems logical to me that if a perspective (or "woman's voice") is only discoverable by women, then it must ultimately be accessible to only women. If we must have a woman's voice, a black voice, an Asian voice, to complete our reading of Scripture, then our understanding must be limited by and to our identity, and we cannot fully assimilate the perspective they bring to the table. Again, deference is the only way forward here.

I feel like in this POV, each community's perspective is a cage that prevents it from reaching toward an objective understanding (of reality, the text, etc.) at all. Because in this model, knowledge is not something discovered (which had its weaknesses as a model, I admit), but purely (and this is key) constructed. While appearing affirming, it's actually the very postmodern understanding of reality that we've been desperately trying to avoid, in conservative garb.

I'm sorry if this is confusing, as I'm trying to work through all my thoughts on this thoroughly for the first time. But I just wanted to see if anyone else was considering the matter in the same way or if I'm out on my own here. :candle:

Btw, to say I don't condone all the nastiness against these women should be so obvious, I shouldn't have to say it. But I will anyway, because internet. Besides, pragmatically speaking, all this has done is to make it so much harder to make a legitimate case against their work and to interact legitimately with their thought--which I consider a sign of respect, not an insult.
 
So there is no predisposition implied there? Ok, I’m fine with that rendering. Because God says so is good enough for me. I thought there was a natural (design-oriented) consequence related to not following Gods ordinance (which is why the devil used that back door of sorts), not merely a supernatural decree. And I don’t mean to appear to be picking on women, if there is something in scripture about men prone to shortcomings in a certain area due to some design incompatibility I would be willing to accept that possibility. But I may be going off the rails a bit with that sort of thinking. Gods thoughts are much higher than mine, that’s for sure.

But it’s the ordained order that is the emphasis, I definitely see that, thank you!
No, it doesn't. That's eisegesis, reading something into a text that's not there. A true implication (something not spelled out) is a proper inference, needing support from other Scripture; or an actual deduction, a good-and-necessary consequence.

What do we have in vv11-15 as you quote it above.

v11, a statement about proper decorum for a woman in the church's stated worship.​
v12, a further statement, reference what is not proper for a woman in the church's stated worship.​
v13, a (first) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of creation.​
v14, a (second) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of the sinning in the garden.​
This fact brings back to mind Eve's shame, but it is stated as that which affected "the woman;" notice how it impacts all women, as seen in the next v.​
(v14 echoes precisely how God addressed the two in judgment, see Gen.3:9, 17, "Adam," and 3:13, 15, "the woman")​

v15, a reminder of the grace (Gen.3:15) that accompanied the curse (on A&E affecting posterity), a blessing specifically tied to Eve and her daughters to follow.​

Notice, there is nothing there that makes any claim whatsoever about women's nature in general. Eve is said to have been deceived, but not why she was. There's no tying her inadequate "nature," or women's in general, to the office of teaching. As if there had to be some kind of defect there to explain or justify God's refusal, beyond the positive reason in the order of creation, and the negative consequence that echoes down through the generations impacting all Eve's daughters.

Why must it be assumed there is a temperamental defect, or something else? I think I know why. Because people are uncomfortable with a reason so simple, and an imputation that stark; and they want something "natural" that softens God's decree.
 
Last edited:
One more thing, what is the link exactly between the order of creation in 13 and the order of sinning in 14? I’m missing it, if there is a direct one.
No, it doesn't. That's eisegesis, reading something into a text that's not there. A true implication (something not spelled out) is a proper inference, needing support from other Scripture; or an actual deduction, a good-and-necessary consequence.

What do we have in vv11-15 as you quote it above.

v11, a statement about proper decorum for a woman in the church's stated worship.​
v12, a further statement, reference what is not proper for a woman in the church's stated worship.​
v13, a (first) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of creation.​
v14, a (second) rationale for the positive and negative descriptions of the above proprieties, derived from the order of the sinning in the garden.​
This fact brings back to mind Eve's shame, but it is stated as that which affected "the woman;" notice how it impacts all women, as seen in the next v.​
(v14 echoes precisely how God addressed the two in judgment, see Gen.3:9, 17, "Adam," and 3:13, 15, "the woman")​

v15, a reminder of the grace (Gen.3:15) that accompanied the curse (on A&E affecting posterity), a blessing specifically tied to Eve and her daughters to follow.​

Notice, there is nothing there that makes any claim whatsoever about women's nature in general. Eve is said to have been deceived, but not why she was. There's no tying her inadequate "nature," or women's in general, to the office of teaching. As if there had to be some kind of defect there to explain or justify God's refusal, beyond the positive reason in the order of creation, and the negative consequence that echoes down through the generations impacting all Eve's daughters.

Why must it be assumed there is a temperamental defect, or something else? I think I know why. Because people are uncomfortable with a reason so simple, and an imputation that stark; and they want something "natural" that softens God's decree.
 
So there is no predisposition implied there?
What's the argument? How does anyone get from what's in the text, to a "predisposition" belonging to a party mentioned in the text? It seems apparent to me that the predisposition is located in the mind of the interpreter.
One more thing, what is the link exactly between the order of creation in 13 and the order of sinning in 14? I’m missing it, if there is a direct one.
The transition from Gen.2 to Gen.3? Two historic moments, covering about 25-30 verses consecutive. Paul simply gives the reader two rationales, born out of the beginning of the world. It would be possible to simply leave it there, as individual if proximate testimonies. But perhaps we can do more.

The first is the order of creation. Adam was appointed to minister. Eve, who came after him, was not; but, as suited her vocation, was ministered unto. It suits that original distinction, which was exhibited in the sex-difference, that Adam's role and then Christ's role be filled by persons bearing the same original distinction. Psychologically as well as physiologically, not only do we know next to nothing of our first parent's visual presentations, their personalities, or their proclivities, given the mixing of their profiles in all their offspring, we have no clue whether a random male or female is phenotypically more similar to the prototype father or prototype mother. We are shut up to the most basic, and obvious distinction, the irreducible binary of human biological sex. Moreover, it is not an order with which evolutionary theory (bottom up) agrees. How could there be a male, prior to its own gestational body?

The second is the order of their sins. To Eve's shame, she was deceived. Should she have refused the exchange of one word with the serpent? She offered him a correction of his alleged religious premise. Did she have the truth accurately from Adam, or was the mischaracterization her own invention? Who is responsible for the original verbal corruption of God's decree, as it was relayed to the tempter? We know this inaccuracy was a costly failure of being a minister of the divine word. When she was put on the defensive, she did not then call her husband.

She put herself in a position to (attempt to) weigh the relative reliability of the two contradictory words which she now possessed, one from God, through Adam, and restated precisely, with confrontational force by the serpent; and the serpent's alternative, with its barbed lure. She was already dangerously compromised; because God's word is not subject to review or evaluation. He, and it, ought to be obeyed immediately because he is God and the creature owes it to him. The creature is in no position to judge the word of God. Eve had already softened the word, or she had received it softened, which softening is a judgmental act. Now, she gave the weight of her approval ("seeing that the tree was good...," Gen.3:6) to the denial of God's word. The lie had done its work, and the falsehood was taken for truth.

Eve completed her sinful act by ministering the forbidden fruit to her husband (having taken, and eaten, she gave...). This inverted and perverted the ministerial order of creation from start to finish. Prophet (word), king (judgment), priest (service). The problem is not that Eve didn't have the "correct" vessel; the problem is not that she had an "inadequate" mind for the work. Unprepared, she was made the point of attack, and the man assigned to tend and keep her (as much as the garden) did not fulfill his task.

Eve's sins were an altogether empirical failure, she experimented with herself. Adam's sin was more of the rational variety, she was his guinea pig. Whether the original verbal deviation was his or hers, he did not correct his wife's errant representation of the divine decree (close enough, he reasons). He left her to judge what she was in no position to judge; and he regarded her (erroneously) to be successful in escaping death by (forbidden) fruit (she didn't surely die, so it's safe for me to eat, he reasons). He accepted her new role as minister/servant on his behalf (she's bringing me closer to god(like), he reasons). Adam abdicates his responsibility entirely, and in the judgment he blameshifts on Eve, and on God.

Adam is required to resume his original ministerial assignment, but under a new promissory covenant. The patriarch must fill the role of mediator for his family. Eve must relinquish the usurped ministry she assumed and overturned. That she was deceived is only a slight mitigating factor for her guilt, her penalty is tinged with mercy; her responsibility, however, is not diminished. Adam enjoys no mitigating factor, and is penalized without a word of mercy for his guilt. When interpreters make Eve's experience of being deceived an effect of her innately "weak" constitution, it diminishes her responsibility (of course).

I don't think her responsibility is diminished. And I think her daughters have had to help her bear that responsibility. I think they do this abundantly when they reverently and humbly accept what Paul says in 1Tim.2:11-15.
 
I'm sure Byrd, as a conservative, and others would disagree with this conclusion, but it seems logical to me that if a perspective (or "woman's voice") is only discoverable by women, then it must ultimately be accessible to only women. If we must have a woman's voice, a black voice, an Asian voice, to complete our reading of Scripture, then our understanding must be limited by and to our identity, and we cannot fully assimilate the perspective they bring to the table. Again, deference is the only way forward here.

I feel like in this POV, each community's perspective is a cage that prevents it from reaching toward an objective understanding (of reality, the text, etc.) at all. Because in this model, knowledge is not something discovered (which had its weaknesses as a model, I admit), but purely (and this is key) constructed. While appearing affirming, it's actually the very postmodern understanding of reality that we've been desperately trying to avoid, in conservative garb.

Byrd is explicit in Recovering that there is not one Bible for men and another Bible for women. She isn't saying that there are parts of the Bible only discoverable or accessible to women. She is objecting to the view that the Bible is a man's book which needs to be rewritten or specially explained in order for women to be able to relate to it or learn from it. Feminists are wrong to say that the Bible is a patriarchal text. But also Complementarians are wrong to say that the Bible is a patriarchal text - a text for men, by men, with women as an irrelevant afterthought needing to accommodate themselves to the men's text.

There are women's voices and women's perspectives in the Bible. They are not there just for women, they are there for men too. Women and men have to learn from the weeping and lamentations of a man (eg Jeremiah) and men and women sometimes have to learn from the bravery of a woman (eg Abigail). It's all there for all of us, so men are doing everyone (themselves included) a disservice to the extent that they ignore or dismiss the parts that perhaps connect more directly to a woman's experience (just as women would, if women decided that because the Book of Job is all about a man there's nothing there for women).
 
Byrd is explicit in Recovering that there is not one Bible for men and another Bible for women. She isn't saying that there are parts of the Bible only discoverable or accessible to women. She is objecting to the view that the Bible is a man's book which needs to be rewritten or specially explained in order for women to be able to relate to it or learn from it. Feminists are wrong to say that the Bible is a patriarchal text. But also Complementarians are wrong to say that the Bible is a patriarchal text - a text for men, by men, with women as an irrelevant afterthought needing to accommodate themselves to the men's text.

There are women's voices and women's perspectives in the Bible. They are not there just for women, they are there for men too. Women and men have to learn from the weeping and lamentations of a man (eg Jeremiah) and men and women sometimes have to learn from the bravery of a woman (eg Abigail). It's all there for all of us, so men are doing everyone (themselves included) a disservice to the extent that they ignore or dismiss the parts that perhaps connect more directly to a woman's experience (just as women would, if women decided that because the Book of Job is all about a man there's nothing there for women).
Right... but I'm disagreeing that there is such a thing as a distinct men's voice or women's voice.
 
Do you mean in general, or in Scripture?
Both/and.

But I would also add, I don't think Byrd is being fully consistent with the philosophical position she's staked out on this either. That's what I meant earlier when I implied her conclusions are conservative, but her foundation is not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top