SO today I was reading Mark Elrod’s highly entertaining blog and came across this post http://www.markaelrod.net/category/church-of-christ/. (Go. Read. Reflect. Report back here regarding what you think). The commentary on that post contained a fascinating like to a N.T. Wright speech on Women’s Service: http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm (Go. Read. See above.) I find particularly interesting Ken Bailey’s explanation of the silence texts– if anyone has the reference for this particular work, please let me know. Other highlights– ” she needs to be truly what she is, since it is to male and female alike, in their mutual interdependence as God’s image-bearing creatures, that the world, including the angels, is to be subject. God’s creation needs humans to be fully, gloriously and truly human, which means fully and truly male and female. This, and of course much else besides, is to be glimpsed in worship.” I particularly like this wording, and the “fully and truly” understanding of gender roles. I also appreciate “This passage tells, for me at least, quite strongly on the side of those who see the ministry of women as significantly different to the ministry of men and therefore insists that we need both to be themselves, rather than for one to try to become a clone of the other” in light of some modern movements toward eliminating gender distinctions entirely. I believe we should always be skeptical of attempts to explain away Biblical passages using cultural explanations… but I certainly find the Wright article interesting, perhaps the single most interesting piece I’ve read on the topic in some time. I wonder, though, how fairly we can approach the texts– how much our traditional biases and modern femininity effect how we read and re-read the texts– and believe we need to be throughly careful to avoid reading either extreme onto the original. I like Wright’s rendering of the text… it appeals to me, and seems to sit more freely with the rest of the Scripture in a way that supports rather than proposing a conundrum. It is a cultural explanation, which I typically avoid, but it just might be a valid one. We’ll see. But at the present I’m withholding judgement on the issue pending further study…. as usual. I’d welcome thoughts/comments/disagreements/feedback in whatever form. Feel free to comment away….
Wow – definitely fascinating stuff… I know I’m going to have to go back and read through several times before I grasp it all. It’s interesting that he doesn’t actually argue one way or the other, but rather puts the passage into a new cultural context. It’s intriguing to say the least, but I can definitely see this ballooning into something earth-shattering in the christian world…