In the letters of Heloise to Abelard, there is a sly disquisition, based on Aristotle's biology, concerning whether women, whilst remaining sober, can drink more wine than men. I am sometimes reminded of it.

And, honestly, I have never met a cat on a mat who was not fairly good at yoga.

 Fern

You comment on my view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. But before I get to that passage I build up a case in a linked argument from Ephesians 5, Galatians 3:28, 1 Corinthians 11 and Genesis 2.

Before I comment fully on your comments and questions on 1 Timothy 2 I invite you to say in detail where you agree/disagree with this case and also to clarify, when you say “Methinks that either Paul didn't know his psychology or he must have meant something quite different to what you have concluded” whether you are just referring to 1 Timothy 2 or also to some of these other passages.

But to get the ball rolling:

You posted, “You seem to be saying that women are not to be trusted with handling the Word because they are too easily deceived”. That is not an accurate description of what I did. What I did in my reference to the Fall was to paraphrase what Paul says in1 Timothy 2:11-15. Here is the whole passage (literal English translation) as set out in the Nestle-Marshall Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. The superscript numbers are there to give help in the order of the words in English for those (like me) who can’t read Greek.

1 Timothy 2:11-15

‘A woman in silence let learn in all subjection; but ³to teach ²a woman ¹I do not permit, nor to exercise authority of(over) a man, but to be in silence. For Adam first was formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived ²in ³transgression ¹has become; but she will be saved through the(her) childbearing, if they remain in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety’.

I am aware that this passage has been the subject of intense scrutiny and that many scholars would dispute this translation e.g. the word translated ‘silence’, the word translated ‘exercise authority’, the word translated ‘but’.

In a previous post I have said that Steed Asprey’s dictum (he was George Smiley’s mentor in the Le Carre spy stories) was ‘Learn the facts then try on the stories like clothes’. And I think this is a good approach to take when considering disagreements about exegetical options for disputed passages. I would like to try it with 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

First, we must agree on the facts.

1                    Do we agree to take the Nestle Greek text (I can’t reproduce it here because my version of Word is not up to it) as what Paul wrote?

2                    Do we agree on the following: (I am not asking you to agree at this stage that this is the right translation, I am just using the Marshall translation to explain what I mean):

2.1                          In ‘A woman…’ to ‘…subjection’ Paul makes an exhortation.

2.2                          In ‘but…’ to ‘……silence’ he describes something that he does not permit.

2.3                          In ‘For Adam…….’ to ‘…become’ he gives the reasons either for both 2.1 and 2.2 or just for 2.2

3                    Do we agree that 'For Adam...' to '...has become' is a reference to the Creation of man and woman in Genesis 2 and the Fall in Genesis 3 and that ‘was not deceived’ and ‘being deceived’ are correct translations of the Greek words?

Phil Almond

Phil, you write

"This brings us to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Ephesians links asymmetry, headship and authority. 1 Corinthians 11 links headship with the creation of man and woman. 1 Timothy 2 appeals to the creation of man and woman reinforced by the Fall in which the woman was deceived by the serpent and Adam listened to the voice of his wife, although he was not deceived by the serpent. So Creation, Fall, headship, authority, asymmetry are all implied when Paul writes, ‘…but I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority of(over) a man…..’. This is the clear framework within which the appearance of Christ first to women and their conveying the news to the men, 1 Corinthians 7, the women Paul commends (e.g. Phoebe) etc. should be understood, not the other way round."

I'm afraid that I'm struggling a bit here - this doesn't make much sense to me.  You seem to be saying that women are not to be trusted with handling the Word because they are too easily deceived.  This doesn't seem to be a Biblical theme - isn't the OT full of examples of men having the wool pulled over their eyes by women?  And if women are extra gullible, then surely having women as the first witnesses of the resurrection makes absolutely no sense whatsover.  After all, what could provide greater evidence of how easily a woman can be deceived than her belief she's seen a dead man walking?  And yet the women were instructed to tell the news to the men who were expected to believe them.  Odd that if women were thought of as fundamntally unreliable.

And if women are especially susceptible to false teaching, it seems odd that Paul permitted them to teach other women and children.  A case of the weak leading the weak, perhaps.  And since the Jesuits never wrote a truer word than "give me the child 'till the age of 7 and I'll give you the man", it seems extraordinary that the easily deceived are allowed to shape and influence young minds when we know how important these formative years are.  Methinks that either Paul didn't know his psychology or he must have meant something quite different to what you have concluded.

I've asked you this question several times and you've never answered so I'll try again - can you give some examples of what you think is a husband's legitimate use of authority over his wife? 

Bowman

Hi Am i reading you right, your post indicate to me the example of Mind Body and Spirit  what with the yoga , psychoendicrinal and cerebral cortex connection. This does indeed explain Hinduism..

I know that some Christians believe that Yoga is not Christian. I tend to take the view that anything that becomes an object of worship other than Christ is not christian. However i believe it is quite possible to worship alongside others for whom Christ is not the primary aspect of spirituality.

Yoga is about emptying the mind, as Christians we are trying to fill the mind with Jesus and his teaching, Sometimes i sit with a particular thought for a while and it can be peaceful , giving the same result as yoga.

I have never seen a cat doing yoga though have you??

Angela

Phil's and Roger's thoughtful work on this deserves more attention than I can give it this week, but I will post a brief note now, hoping that I can return to it later. The issues implicitly raised are very profound.

The first question is: is my understanding of this passage [Ephesians 5: 21-33] right?

St Paul's mission in all these passages is to remind a readership in the Hellenistic world that Christ is the true exemplar of the wisdom that some sophisticated pagans had sought from the Jews of the diaspora. In this passage, supposing that women and men are different in a way that calls for wisdom, and that the marriage bond makes a way of living with this difference urgent, he does what ancient psychagogues often did-- he proposes an exemplar of wise virtue.

He explains to men/husbands that, as they relate to their women/wives, their exemplar should be Christ's self-sacrifice. Male psychoendocrinology can indeed be programmed to follow other models; St Paul indicates this one is the wise one. Men who desired wisdom enough to break with a pagan polytheism, to associate with Jews, and eventually to follow Christ would learn from experience that this is true. And they, and others like them, are his intended readers here.

The Church reciprocates Christ's sacrificial love according to its order of being. Since a relationship problem requires an exemplar that is itself a reciprocal relation, Saint Paul goes on to urge that women/wives reciprocate their men/husbands' love just as the Church does. Notably, he does not ask women to imitate the sacrificial Christ, nor men to imitate the Church. Both roles may be inferred to have some element of submission.

The differences in the created natures of  men and women are what constrained the apostle to propose this exemplar. About institutional authority, as moderns have thought of it, he is here silent.

Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity explained a deep property of matter. It's not the sort of law one can break, though one can come to harm by ignoring it.

The second question, if I am right about this asymmetry, is-- what bearing does this passage have on the ordination of women disagreement?

To me, the word "asymmetry" is confusing, because it suggests a difference of measure where it would be easier to see St Paul's words in Ephesians 5: 21-33 as marking a difference of created kind. But Phil offers a further catena.

In the Orthodox view, the passages Phil has cited reflect, not so much a positive law from the apostle, as the actual redemption of masculinity and femininity that was realized in the actual Church, which both is and exhibits the New Creation. Given St Paul's premise that men and women are different in kind, ignoring, or trying to eradicate, this difference defies the created order, and amounts to a repudiation of the Church's essential calling to exhibit its regeneration.

An Orthodox archbishop once told me that, when he heard the arguments against the ordination of women, they seemed so absurd that he was sure that women must be ordained. "Until I then hear the counter-arguments for the ordination of women, and then they too are so absurd that I realize that it would be a catastrophe!" The ambivalence arises, so far as the writings of St Paul are involved in it, from pitting the insight that conflicts between orders of creation are reconciled in Christ against the insight that all the created kinds are redeemed.

I hope that this hasty reply is not more difficult than the matter itself.
 

Phil, I don't think I can substantially add to this dicussion.  With regard to women's ministry and, as I see it, its implications for women's ordination, you and I differ in our views.  We both seek to be faithful to scripture and God's voice through the written word.  In this matter you emphasize the individual 'trees' of certain texts and I stress the overall 'wood' of narrative and of the bible's 'bigger' statements, including women and men's co-partnership as seen in Genesis 1 and 2, the unfolding of women's leadership from the resurrection accounts and in the Acts of the Apostles and Romans 16.  We differ too in the interpretation of Galatians 3:28.  I see its reach as global and panoramic, you see it as hedged in by other texts.  A number of the latter I see as culturally-conditioned and not foundational to our understanding of God's ways with women and men.

‘Women, Bishops and the Church of England’ has been started as another thread on this subject. But there is an unfinished interaction from this thread. This is a disagreement about what I see as the weakest part of the case for the ordination of women: a failure to give the right amount of weight to Ephesians 5: 21-33 and its implications. I have argued that this passage shows that the husband-wife relationship is asymmetric: the husband has to ‘die’ for his wife as Christ died for the Church and is the Saviour of the body; the wife has to be subject to her husband as the Church is subject to Christ, because a man is head of the woman as also Christ is head of the Church.

The first question is: is my understanding of this passage right? The reason I think that the husband-wife relationship is asymmetric is obviously because the Christ-Church relationship is asymmetric. Roger Hurding has argued earlier on this thread (13 October 2011) “…. And so I am less convinced by your strong insistence on 'asymmetry' with respect to Christ and the church and, analogously, to husbands and wives”. I responded to this on 23 October 2011 and pressed Roger further on the ‘symmetry/asymmetry’ aspect of the Christ-Church/God-His People relationship. The ball is in Roger’s court to respond to that post. Roger also posted his view of Ephesians 5:21 to 6:9 on 23 October 2011 which ended with

“And so a 19th century Paul would say, 'Slaves, seek your freedom from your masters, as you are free in Christ' and 'Masters, work towards freeing your slaves as in Christ there is no partiality'.

And, I suggest, a 21st century Paul would say, 'Husbands love and respect your wives; wives love and respect your husbands.  Be mutually submissive to one another, as to the Lord'.”

It is not surprising that Roger says that. Because the asymmetry of this passage can only be avoided by not squarely facing what Paul does say and instead suggesting what “a 21st century Paul would say”. It is sad that those who take this ‘trajectory’ line (as Marshall broadly does in his essay in ‘Discovering Biblical Equality….’) do not seem to realize that they are crossing a fatal Rubicon.

If we examine Roger’s suggestion on what a 21^st century Paul would say we note that “Be mutually submissive to one another, as to the Lord” is quite similar to what Paul does say in verse 21: ‘being subject to one another in [the] fear of Christ’. But there is no way that what Paul goes on to say in verses 22 to 33 can be adequately summarized by “Husbands love and respect your wives; wives love and respect your husbands”.

The second question, if I am right about this asymmetry, is what bearing does this passage have on the ordination of women disagreement? The Church is commanded to be subject to Christ because Christ has authority (Matthew 28:18 and elsewhere). So by analogous asymmetry wives are exhorted to be subject to their husband’s authority because ‘a man is head of the woman’. So headship and authority are linked.

The first implication of this is that Galatians 3:28 cannot be rightly understood as bringing an end to all male/female authority distinctions in this life (whatever may be the situation in the ‘regeneration’, in the life to come), because Paul in this Ephesians passage is exhorting wives to be subject to their husband’s authority.

The second implication is that Paul’s appeal to male headship in 1 Corinthians 11 must also carry with it the linked notion of authority. However we understand that passage the different attire of men and women when they are praying or prophesying is linked to headship and therefore to authority. And what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 points us back to the Genesis 2 account of the creation of woman. This account is enormously significant whether we regard it as a literal or a figurative account. It tells us that the linked male/female asymmetry, headship and authority is part of the pre-Fall very good human nature created by God.

This brings us to 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Ephesians links asymmetry, headship and authority. 1 Corinthians 11 links headship with the creation of man and woman. 1 Timothy 2 appeals to the creation of man and woman reinforced by the Fall in which the woman was deceived by the serpent and Adam listened to the voice of his wife, although he was not deceived by the serpent. So Creation, Fall, headship, authority, asymmetry are all implied when Paul writes, ‘…but I do not permit a woman to teach, nor to exercise authority of(over) a man…..’. This is the clear framework within which the appearance of Christ first to women and their conveying the news to the men, 1 Corinthians 7, the women Paul commends (e.g. Phoebe) etc. should be understood, not the other way round.

The fundamental difference between slavery and this male/female framework is that the latter has its tap root in Eden (to use one of Lewis’ phrases). I once heard someone say that the move to ordain women is an assault on the Created order. At the time I thought it was an overstatement. Now I don’t think it is.

None of the above denies or undermines the ministry of women or the free and equal access to God, as sons of God, by faith in Christ Jesus, of Jew, Greek, slave, freeman, male and female.

Phil Almond

The yoga cat-- syncretistic or scientific? From the provenance of the account, we can see that the cat is on a yoga mat, and so engaged in an ancient Hindu practice that improves her muscular flexibility, reduces her stress biomarkers, and stengthens the executive circuit of her cerebral cortex. She can do more, resist disease better, and think with greater self-awareness and compassion. Some worry that a Christian cat should not follow a Hindu discipline. But her theological college on the California coast is inclined to view this as a scientific matter, not a religious one.

Im out (another david) lol!!

Do i need the last word on the mat hmm go on then.

I do not understand why the mat has feelings please explain! I do understand however that the mat has value, it has value as a resource and it has value because of the time and effort that went into making it. The fat cat simply wears the mat out faster, especially if it stays in the same place..The fat cat implies unfair profit, should the cat feel comfort on the mat as it is a cat thats what i would expect, i would expect the cat to get pleasure from the mat in the same way as a fat cat gains profit from the efforts of someone else..I never was good at diets so it is a good job i am not a fat cat. I have in my time made a mat and rug for pleasure, to give pleasure, that is very valuable in my view

.In relation to the title of the thread, The mat has the order of being an ornament ie a wall hanging or being a practical piece to sit on or wipe your feet on, the cat has the purpose of valueing the comfort of the mat whilst it can also be used to keep people warm, so the mat is multifunctional with a multi purpose, the purpose of the mat relies on the individual application of purpose and meaning.

When the cat sits on the mat does it intend to wear it out and thus lesson its value, with the final end of extinction i wonder but even then it can be used in many ways the birds can use it for nest once its worn out and even a worn out mat makes good compost i the garden bring about new creation !! Always look on the bright side of life lol.

My husbands useful contribution to this debate, if the cats got flees then the carpets got feelings!! hmm see what i have to put with lol..

Angela

The mat is important. Mats have feelings too. That we do not realise this is a result of centuries of oppression, so that the voices of mats are ignored. Many will know the saying, "Dogs have owners, cats have staff". The cat on the mat is a potent symbol for the age-old subjugation of mats. The (no doubt, fat) cat is a representation of the bloated plutocrat opressing the downtrodden proletariat. I would add that the integrity of those protesting outside St. Paul's is called into doubt as many of them are sitting or lying on mats. How can you criticise capitalism while opressing mats yourself?

Or, perhaps...

The cat implies that the cat is a prototypical cat, an archetype, and so the mat is also an archetype. That the cat is on the mat shows us the proper ordering of things, the proper subjection of mats to cats. It is clear from nature that cats should be on mats. The role of a mat is to be under a cat. How ridiculous would be a mat on a cat! Think of the chaos that would result if cats could not sit on mats.

On reflection, i want ot add a little more to my previous post, with the "importance of the mat" For we know that the Cat is important to the Egyptians, we also know that the Mat is important to the Muslims, so the Cat and the Mat are both very significant to Egyptian Muslims..

The Mat thus takes on a completly different connotation in this country, if I were a Muslim and you denied me my Mat, it would be as though you had denied me my bible..At this point i can say you could never deny me Christ because you would have to rip my heart out "be still my beating heart "hmm But you understand what i am saying.

We have discussed in detail and analized in detail something which at first glance looked (a) amusing and (b) so small as not to matter, if my councilling training taught me anything, alongside my own life i learnt very well that NOTHING is so small or insignificant not to matter. Our faith , Our Values and what we put them in MATTERS and there is a Mat in the word MATTER. So whether we use our Mat to pray or we use our mat to wipe our feet on WE are NOT the mat, Neither are we the Cat . The mat represents the vehicle of respect, if you wipe your feet on it you respect the cleanliness of the place you enter, and if you pray on it , it represents preparation and covering a dirty floor that one might not pray in the dirt.

These concepts are truly inpirational to me, look after the little things and sometimes the big bad things do not happen, or we can lose a church mosque or temple, we cannot carry bricks but we can carry a mat or bible..

ANGELA

"Why it is that denominations that ordain women to the pastorate quite soon afterwards experience great internal pressure to bless homosexuality and indeed sometimes go on to take that step.  In other words, if there really is no theoretical link between the two issues, why is there such a strong correlation in churches in practice?"

I've discussed this, indirectly, in the "Evangelical and Gay" thread.

In the United States, the relevant "meme" spreads, not from theology but from civil religion-- that an ever-widening circle of inclusion on the basis of mere humanity is a self-evident good is a theme in American life. The usual argument is that, if the fuller inclusion of African-Americans into the society is an imperative of justice, then so is the fuller inclusion of women and homosexuals. The presumption is that humans-- though not yet felines-- are categorically included by natural justice. Since the three differentia -- race, sex, and sexual orientation-- are all seen as involuntary attributes that do not impair the quality of humanity, they are therefore not seen as permissible criteria of categorical exclusion.

And the inclusion meme is applied prior to the rules of any particular social structure. Advocates for Southern slavery are seen to have erred in arguing that plantation society required that full membership be reserved to white citizens, when natural justice demanded that that, or any other society, first satisfy the requirement of just inclusion, and then set out to organize itself. Similarly, those who reserve special roles in American life for men or heterosexuals are repeating the error.

For liberal churchfolk in the United States, this social meme poses a problem for Christian identity-- how can Americans believe in the universality of a Church that is less inclusive than their state? If the gospel is universal, then its ministry must, in principle, be all-inclusive. The civil religion, however, sets a standard and priority of inclusion that is above that accepted by many Christians, seemingly forcing them to choose between a belief that the gospel is for all humanity and received Church arrangements based on attributes not essential to human nature. Few have offered scriptural guidance for the identity problem itself, which remains an elephant in the rooms of many discussions.