Bonnie
If you look at the passages I mentioned they are all commands in the same way as women be silenent etc.
4Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

Sounds like a command to me.

If you were not allowed to speak at a public gathering in the US, not allowed to vote, not allowed to speak a word of thanks to the president in the presence of a man and not allowed any voice in the decisions of the country would you be a second class citizen?  I say yes.

As I said we practice that but some people don't.  What does that say to you about the ones who don't?  Some people take Communion every Sunday, some only do that once a year.

So you say.  However, my perspective and understanding is not the ONLY one being challenged.  I am challenging your perspective because of your un-questioning allegiance to certain interpretations of many translators.  More later...



It might be that simple if 1 Timothy weren't such a "low context" document.  All of the epistles are much like listening to one side of a phone conversation...we have to infer and construct much of the in-coming conversation.  The letters to Timothy are especially one-sided in this way. (I'm not going to argue whether or not Paul actually wrote all of the Pastorals or not.)(btw, we know from internal evidence in I Cor. that the Corinthian ekklesia had received at least one letter from Paul prior to "1st" Corinthians.)  We don't know to any great degree what the questions were from Timothy which Paul is addressing.  Paul also makes statements in regard to specific individuals in his response to Timothy which Timothy must have directly understood even though the names of the individuals were not mentioned in the letter.  We do the same when we share a common personal history and experience--like when a jealous wife refers to another female who presents a challenge to the exclusivity to her husband, "THAT woman!!"

That "low-context-edness" is certainly at play in your I Tim. 2 citation.  I'll try to demonstrate the flow...

Notice that in vs. 9-10 "women" plural is used;

Then, in vss. 11-14 Paul shifts to "the woman" or "a woman" singular;
(NASV)

I don't think Paul was speaking in the "generic singular", that is, he wasn't referring to all women, rather, he was directing his remarks to Timothy in how to deal with a specific woman in the Ephesian ekklesia.  The addressed problem fits the cultural context of Ephesus, which contained the Temple of Diana where women were the authorities and men the subjects.   Verse 14 drives that point home; it wasn't the man Adam who was deceived, rather it was the woman who fell prey to Satan and transgressed.  (The only thing about vs. 15 which has general agreement is that vs. 15 lessens the impact of vss. 13-14.)

I don't know if Paul used spacing and punctuation when he wrote his letters, if indeed he did the actual writing (and we do know that he employed amanuensis from time to time).  The oldest manuscripts we do have are Uncials with no space between words, and certainly no chapter/verse demarcations (nothing you don't already know).  Given those realities, we, and the translators, make little more than leaping guesses as to punctuation, sentence beginning and endings, shifts in subject, etc.  I don't think translators have typically picked up on the shift between vs. 10 and 11.  Another example of institutionalized bias.  (The other example which we might dicuss is the "silence" passage in I Cor. 14.)

You may agree or disagree, but you do not have the latitude to say that my argument (or Wiley's or Sherman's, or johnb's or whomevers) isn't supported by the Bible.  And, to be blunt, the Bible doesn't support itself or interpret itself; only people interpret and/or support the Bible.  What you would prefer to be "cut and dry" and conform to your hermeneutical methodolgy isn't of the same nature as "fornication, murder, and lying", though it's apparent that you'd prefer to see all issues from the same level playing field of a Biblical Blueprintism which relies on proof-texting over against text plotting and Cononical criticism (which basically says that every part of the Bible must be interpreted in its relationship to the entire Canon and not just interpreted by authorial intent).

You might find this paper by N.T. Wright useful...A conference paper for the Symposium, 'Men, Women and the Church'

However, if you are of the opinion that Anglicans are "gets of Satan" then I'm sure it will be a waste of your time to read the paper.





I have no problem with obedience, or, at least no more than the next bloke.  I do think it's important to know what it really is that we are to obey, and even more important than the "what" is to know the "who".  Jesus did not "genderize" in any sense as has been common in His church.

As Samuel said, "It is better to obey than to sacrafice."  But, even better than obeying is to Love the Lord with all the heart, mind, soul.  If we have the grace to do that then all else will find its place, despite our mistakes.

To discern is not to live outside of the Bible...rather it is more like "rightly dividing" and is one of the gifts of the Spirit.  I'm not claiming infallibility, and I have not always believed what I've been attempting to articulate in this discussion, but I am at peace with my understanding at this point and with the Spirit of Christ within me.

We all "pick and choose" to some degree, even you.  Do you practice foot washing and snake handling and drinking poison in your assembly?



And you miss the point.

Genocide, rape, homosexuality may be expressed in any culture, and in any cultural expression they are sin, anti-Christ, contrary to Life in the Spirit.

The most insidious kind of rebellion and disobedience that Jesus addressed with the Pharasees and Sadducees was their religiously justified disregard for God's intent.  By substituting the traditions of the Fathers they nullified the Word of God.  

Do you think that your understanding on this subject is penultimatly definitive and beyond modification?  





Each person must determine what it is they believe and what they don't believe.  To blindly accept a group-think is not obedience, rather, that is conformity to the group.  Our "conformity" is to be conformed to Christ...not to a systematic theology, a  hermeneutic, not to a religion.  This conformity to Christ is a messy process, and difficult, and impossible by our own resources.

I too must get some sleep.  God's peace upon you also.


V

And women are not called to that?

V

Kensington

You have the picture now.  I once preached at a church that had a bus program.  We could not have a woman teaching the children if a man was driving the bus.  She might be teaching him also.  How absurd. 
Again I ask is the NT a new rule book or law? 

If our theology is based on CENI.  We must follow all NT commands, and aproved example.  Logic demands it.  If not why not?  Who gets to choose which commands and examples we must follow and which ones we are free to ignore?  This is a theology based on human logic and rule keeping.  Simply can not work and has no chance of unifing Gods children,  

I must admit my thinking on this subject is in a continual state of flux.  From a more male dominant view due to the obvious patriarchal themes in the OT and the analogy to Christ as the head of the church and the man/husband is the head of the woman/wife, to cultural considerations, to what was really the status of man/woman - husband/wife in the Garden of Eden, to the meaning of "authentein", to current cultural considerations, to well, OK, just no preaching or eldering for women, to the bottom line of good arguments on both sides of the issue.

I'm still listening and learning from many of you.  So if I'm learning from you, you're teaching me.

I think anybody worth their salt would help a young Christian in that situation.