“ARE WE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO SCRIPTURE?: WOMEN’S
ORDINATION, A TEST CASE”
The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul;
the decrees of the Lord are sure, making wise the
simple;
the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the
heart;
the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the
eyes;
the fear of the Lord is pure, enduring forever;
the ordinances of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine
gold;
sweeter also than honey, and drippings of the
honeycomb (Psalm 19:7-10)
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. (Robert Frost--”The Road Not Taken”)
About
twenty-five years ago I started to become more and more convinced that the
LCA’s official position on the Scriptures, articulated in the LCA constitution
and the Theses of Agreement and re-affirmed at all our synodical conventions,
was my own confession. For one who
loves language-study in general and the Biblical languages in particular, this
conviction led to my embracing Luther’s historical-grammatical approach to
exegesis with fresh enthusiasm. The
historical-grammatical road, with its high view of the Scriptures, is “the one
less traveled by”. Yet taking that road—“the hermeneutic of appreciation”--“has
made all the difference”--it has enriched my faith enormously and brought joy
and conviction for preaching, teaching, and counselling.
The
road most divergent from the one just described is represented by groups like
the Jesus Seminar or the upper echelons of the Society of Biblical Literature. Here we find the historical-critical
method—“the hermeneutic of suspicion”--practised most consistently. In the SBL, for example, for a large
proportion of the participants, it is not kosher to call God the “Father” or
Jesus the “Son”; it must be simply “God” and “Jesus”. The smorgasbord of offerings includes gay-lesbian studies.
But
there are, of course, many roads in between, some closer to “the one less
traveled by”, some closer to the most divergent road. Here we find various forms of the so-called “mediating
theology”.. This morning, however, I
want to focus on the “ancient paths”, as Jeremiah recommends:
Stand at the crossroads, and look,
and ask for the ancient paths,
where the good way lies; and walk in it,
and find rest for your souls (Jer 6:16).
A. SOME BASIC PRINCIPLES OF LUTHERAN
HERMENEUTICS
1.
The Bible is the Word of God.
The Bible does not merely
contain the Word. As a whole and in all
their parts the Scriptures are the inspired Word of the Spirit of God (cf the
Nicene Creed: “who spoke by the prophets”).
Everywhere the Bible attests that it is the Word of God. Thus in the OT we read again and again,
“Thus says the Lord,” and in the NT Paul thanks the Thessalonians that they
received the apostles’ teaching “not as a human word but as what it really is,
God’s word” (1 Thess 2:13; cf 2 Peter 1:19-21).
The
DSTO uses the analogy of the two natures of Christ--his divine and his human
nature-- to explain the divine and human characteristics of the Scriptures. The analogy is helpful, but like all
analogies it has its limitations. Are
we in danger of emphasising the human side of the authorship of Scripture to
the detriment of its divine side? We
need to remember the Biblical authors’ consistent assertion that their word is
“not...a human word but...God’s word” (see also Jer 1:9).
2. As the Word of God, the Bible is wholly truthful and inerrant. “Your word is truth” (Jn 17:17). While the Cretans and other human beings may
be liars (Titus 1:12), “God . . . never lies” (Titus 1:2). There may appear to be errors and
dissonances in some places in the Bible, but the extent of this problem should
not be exaggerated. Such discrepancies
may be due to copyists’ errors, limitations in our knowledge, etc (see TA).
3. The Bible has one primary author, the Holy Spirit. With such an author, we can expect Scripture
to be clear, harmonious, consistent with itself. The Bible is the clearest of all books (Luther). Thus
“Scripture interprets Scripture” is a fundamental and venerable
hermeneutical principle, with widespread ecumenical acceptance. E.g., the marginal references in the
Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament presuppose this principle. Consequently:
a. Texts are not to be ripped out of
context. “A text taken out of context
is a pretext”. A classic example is the
women’s ordination movement’s use of Gal 3:28 (“in Christ...neither male nor
female”), which in itself, and in its context, says nothing about women’s
ordination or anyone else’s ordination.
b. Since the Bible has one author who speaks in
a clear and consistent manner, it is improper in Lutheran hermeneutics to
introduce statements about the Biblical data on women’s ordination with the
phrase “on balance” (“On balance, the Bible permits women’s ordination...; On
balance, the Bible does not permit women’s ordination...”).
c. Bearing in mind the principle “Scripture
interprets Scripture”, it is apparent that the NT rescinds the levitical laws
of the OT, whereas there are no NT texts rescinding the apostolic injunctions
about women’s teaching in the churches.
4. The sufficiency of Scripture (Sola Scriptura). We need fresh conviction on this. In the aftermath of General Synod, one
proponent of women’s ordination charged: “Your side just relied on
tradition.” Whether this charge is fair
or not, we need to be aware that the only arguments that will “cut it” with
pastors and laity are biblical arguments.
The practice and teaching of the early church and the church fathers may
bring us helpful encouragement and testimonies, but our position as a Lutheran
church is not Scripture plus tradition.
We can--and should--rest our case on Scripture alone.
According
to James Kittelson, Luther realised that we cannot preserve the gospel through
the creation of new church structures, by imposing it from the top down, or by
a league of defence. The only way is by
Word and prayer--and by universities and seminaries that train good pastors
equipped with that Word.
Without
taking anything away from Sola Scriptura, we must nevertheless ask how
modern churches can go their own way in the matter of women’s ordination, as if
their unique cultural situation somehow justified it or they now possessed
superior wisdom to the church of earlier generations. Peter Brunner’s citation of 1 Cor 14:36 with regard to Christian
traditions in worship applies with even greater force to the church’s universal
and ecumenical tradition of not ordaining women:
In this area... decisions have been made which only
the Enthusiasts can disregard and ignore, who have no fathers and brothers, but
are given to the delusion that the people of God on earth had their inception
with them. “What! Did the Word of God
originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?” (1 Cor 14:36 RSV). This critical question of the apostle, which the Enthusiasts in
Corinth had to hear, obligates the church of all times to approach with due
respect and reverence the traditions of Christendom which do not conflict with
Christ’s institution and the Word of God (Worship in the Name of Jesus,
230-31).
5.
We interpret less clear passages in the light of clearer passages. For example,
1 Cor 11:5 (a brief passing reference to women’s praying and prophesying) needs
to be read in the light of the longer emphatic pronouncement in 14:33b-38.
6. All things must be interpreted in the light of the Gospel
(yet without falling into “gospel reductionism”). The Gospel is the great central theme of the Scriptures.
7. The New Testament is the final authoritative interpreter of the
OT. Whereas the OT is a lamp
shining in a dark place, the NT brings us the full light of day and the Morning
Star (2 Pet 1:19). Whereas the OT is
the moon, the NT is the sun (Wilhelm Loehe, Three Books about the
Church). [Thus it is dubious to
begin with the assertion that the key NT passages in this debate, 1 Tim 2 and 1
Cor 14, are unclear, and therefore we must turn first of all to the clear
passages which are only supplied by the OT (Genesis 1-3), where (so it is
claimed) we only find statements about the equality of the genders.]
8. If we want to settle a doctrinal issue, we go to the specific
texts that deal with the issue.
This is only common sense. If we
want to know how to change the wheel on our car, we don’t open the manual to
the pages dealing with the electrical system.
We cannot just appeal to “the Gospel” while ignoring its clear
statements on a woman’s role in the church.
9. We need to distinguish between what is merely a precedent or
Biblical custom and what is commanded, mandated. Footwashing, for example,
was a Palestinian custom which Jesus used merely as an “example” (Jn 13:15) of
how Christians should love one another.
There is no permanent command to the church to keep the custom of
footwashing, a custom that only makes sense in a culture where people walked in
sandals on dusty roads. What is
permanent, the new commandment (mandatum) is that we love one another
(Jn 13:34). The word “commandment” in
Greek is entole, the very word Paul uses in 1 Cor 14:37 in undergirding
his injunction (in 14:34) that the women be silent in the churches: It is the
Lord’s command [entole--14:37].
On the rare occasion that Paul gives a
personal pastoral opinion (“I say, not the Lord”) he takes pains to
differentiate it from the divine Word and commandment. The former may, after due consideration, be
disregarded; the latter may not (1 Cor 7:10-12, 19, 25). Paul’s statements in 1 Cor 14:33-38 fall
into this latter category.
10. The Word of God transcends time and place. We have no licence to revise the Bible
in light of our culture. For example, when Paul speaks on matters like
homosexuality or the role of women in the church, he is speaking for all times
and places. We don’t have the right to
say this doesn’t apply to us. We cannot
appeal to current ideas about sex discrimination. Jesus and the apostles speak into a culture, but their thinking
wasn’t bound by culture; it could rise above it when the culture was wrong (cf
Jesus’ denunciations of Pharisaism).
11. As in the debate on the Lord’s Supper, Lutheran theology
abides by the “simple, proper, and natural meaning of the words” (M.
Chemnitz, The Lord’s Supper, 21).
B. INFLUENTIAL TRENDS IN MODERN HERMENEUTICS
1.
Gospel Reductionism. The most respected and plausible
presentation of a gospel reductionist approach comes from Edmund Schlink in his
Theology of the Lutheran Confessions:
The Gospel is the norm in Scripture and Scripture is
the norm for the sake of the Gospel....
Without the knowledge of the Gospel the Bible remains unintelligible and
useless. Only from the Gospel do all
individual statements of Scripture receive their proper place and meaning
(6-7).
All
evangelical Lutherans would agree that the Gospel is the leading theme in
Scripture, the theme which makes sense of the Scriptures as a whole. The Gospel of the forgiveness of sins has
been described as the hub of the wheel from which all the spokes radiate and to
which they all lead. But the Gospel may not be set in opposition to the spokes,
or the wheel will collapse. The Gospel
(or the spoken Word) may not be used as a critical authority which we set over
against other parts of the Bible. We
may not use a “gospel focus” to drain other parts of the Bible of their colour,
so that we reduce and homogenize other teachings (e.g. the order of creation,
the fall into sin, the Law, and the doctrine of the ministry) until they no
longer have any significance. “Instead
of being the sole principle for the interpretation of the Scriptures, it [the
gospel] provides the basic rule which clarifies the Scriptural view concerning
the relation between faith and good works” (H. Fagerberg, A New Look at the
Lutheran Confessions, 36). We
uphold both the “material principle”
and the “formal principle”, both the Gospel and the Scriptures.
Exponents
of a gospel-reductionist hermeneutic assert that opponents of women’s
ordination lack a “gospel focus” and consequently are “legalistic.” (E.g. “It
is the legalistic interpretation of two verses in two letters written to two
ancient congregations which is causing so many people so much pain”). Much could be said in reply, but I have set
this out elsewhere (Concordia Commentary on First Corinthians 522-525).
Closely
related to “gospel reductionism” is a phenomenon which could be called
“Christological reductionism”. The
Luther scholar H. Obermann, following statements from Luther, has stated “All
theology is Christology.” [cf Luther’s
statement “was Christum treibet”--”what promotes Christ”] We need to recognize
that Luther was given to making dramatic, colourful statements. These must always be understood in
relationship to the whole picture of his theology. In terms of the women’s ordination debate, we cannot restrict
ourselves to what may be gleaned from Trinitarian theology or Christology
(“what the Lord [Jesus] says”). Again
this is to go in a reductionist direction.
As I will develop in Part III of this paper, we must give proper weight
in the debate on women’s ordination not only to Christology but also (and above
all) to Biblical anthropology and the doctrine of creation and fall set forth
in Genesis 1-3.
2. Pluralism of New Testament theologies. The idea that the Bible is a hotch-potch of
often conflicting theologies has become popular. E. Kaesemann, for example, has laid the fracturing of
Christianity into many denominations in part at the doorstep of what he claims
to be the diverse and conflicting theologies found in the New Testament itself
(similarly James Dunn in Unity and Diversity in the New Testament). It may be asked whether such assumptions lie
behind the “on balance” phrases referred to above.
3. Impugning the Clarity of the key Scriptural Passages. While the movement to ordain women in the
LCA has not made a general attack on the clarity of Scripture, one of its
striking features is the specific attack on the clarity of 1 Cor 14 and 1 Tim
2. In contrast to normal practice,
which gives pride of place to Gal 3:28, this impugning of their clarity has
been raised to Number One place among the arguments in the LCA for women’s
ordination. The danger is that
laypeople and pastors accept these imputations on face value without checking
the texts for themselves. While the scope
of the texts may be unclear (does the injunction to silence mean a woman may
not read a lesson or say the creed?), the church for centuries has believed
that the apostolic command (“I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority
over men”) is fundamentally clear, and that at least it precludes
her from preaching, leading worship, and presiding over the Lord’s Supper.
4. The role of feminist hermeneutics.. Here I go beyond the
CTICR and pastors conference/general synod debates to take up an issue that is
having sometimes a subtle--sometimes not so subtle--impact on all
churches. I refer to the invasive
effect of feminism on our Bible
translations and liturgical practice.
Let me give two examples that have entered our LCA parish life in recent
months. The first example is more
subtle. The Collect for the 17th Sunday after Pentecost begins well
enough:
Loving heavenly Father, you have made us your own
children, the younger brothers and sisters of your Son Jesus. Give us faith like a little child, so that
we ask you for whatever we need with complete confidence [so far so good!--but
then the collect continues] just as children speak to their loving parent.
The
Collect closely echoes Luther’s explanation of the Introduction to the Lord’s
Prayer: “God would by these words tenderly invite us to believe that he is our
true Father, and that we are his true children, so that we may with all
boldness and confidence ask him as dear children ask their dear father.” Clearly the author/editor of the Collect was
following Luther. But evidently when he
came to the end of the second sentence, he found the word “father” offensive
and edited it away. As pastor in
Bendigo I edited it back in.
The
second example, this time not so subtle, comes from the Epistle for the same
Sunday, which includes Hebrews 2:5-12.
Instead of following the Greek original of Heb 2:6 (“What is man that
you are mindful of him, and the Son of Man that you care for him?”) the NRSV
(followed by the Revised Common Lectionary readings) edits away the offensive
masculines and pluralizes the text, so that we have “What are human beings that
you are mindful of them, or mortals, that you care for them?” In the process, the text’s Christological
reference is lost.
But
this is just the tip of the iceberg. I
will add just two examples from my recent reading of the major prophets. The NRSV in Jeremiah 35 regularly refers to
Jonadab son of Rechab as the “ancestor” of the Rechabites rather than their
“father.” This is political correctness
taken to the n-th degree! Not only does
the Hebrew text read “av” (“father”), but Jonadab actually was a man. The second example is from Ezekiel, where
the NRSV routinely translates “ben Adam” (“son of man”, referring to Ezekiel)
as “mortal one”.
My
concern here is not primarily to complain about inclusive language in general
or the NRSV in particular. Where do we
find the perfect English Bible? Some of
the “inclusive language” refinements in the NRSV are appropriate, although
others are no longer a faithful rendition of the original. But thanks largely to Bruce Metzger’s
moderate leadership, the NRSV is far more restrained than some alternatives
(e.g. The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version, Oxford, 1995,
where The Lord’s Prayer is introduced “Our Father-Mother in heaven”). My point, simply, is that wherever feminism
is given its head, it wants to revise anything in the Bible which smacks of
patriarchy and male headship. This
includes female submission in the family as well as in the church. The
Holy Trinity comes in for revision for the same reasons. When a translation team cannot tolerate
calling Jonadab son of Rehab the Rechabites’ father, it is not surprising that
there is similar discomfort with calling Jesus “the Son of Man”.. In its extreme forms, feminist theology is
no longer a theology; it has become an ideology, an ideology that doesn’t
hesitate to run rough-shod over the Biblical texts. I repeat that what prompted this paragraph is neither the CTICR
documents nor even the pastors conference/synod debates. Rather, it is the subtle (or not so subtle)
ways in which the international feminist movement is having its impact on our
worship. I am not for a moment blaming
our Worship Commission. When a
bush-fire is raging out of control, the fire-fighters cannot attend to every
flare-up at once.
C. THE ORDER
OF CREATION
John
Reumann is an American New Testament scholar and a prominent Lutheran advocate
of women’s ordination. His book, Ministries
Examined, was largely instrumental in paving the way for women’s ordination
in the USA. At one point Reumann argues
that the strongest text in the pro-case is Galatians 3:28, while the strongest
text(s) in the anti-case are the order of creation/headship/subordination
texts. Here I agree with Reumann
entirely. Gal 3:28 is the strongest
text in the pro-case (Reumann calls it “the breakthrough”). I have already given my estimate of its
strength. The order of creation texts,
on the other hand, command respect even from advocates of women’s ordination.
What
do we mean by “the order of creation”?
For the purposes of this paper I would like to define it simply as the
“ordering” of the creation and fall depicted in Genesis 1-3 and picked up in
the New Testament.
In
the wake of Darwin’s theory of evolution, the first three chapters of Genesis
have been a source of enormous controversy and embarrassment for numerous
Christians. Even more conservative
Christians--Lutherans included--find these chapters embarrassing, and sometimes
bend over backwards to ensure they are not charged with being
“fundamentalistic” or “biblicistic” or “simplistic”.
No
such embarrassment can be detected in Jesus and the apostles and evangelists of
the New Testament. Without exception
they take Genesis 1-3 at face value; they accept the testimony of these
chapters as truthful and historical.
The following is a reasonably comprehensive list of the New Testament
references to Genesis 1-3:
1. The opening
sentence in three of our gospels refers to Genesis: the first two words of Mt
1:1 (biblos geneseos--”the Book of Genesis”); the first word of Mark 1:1
(arche--”the beginning of the gospel...”; cf Gen 1:1, LXX, en arche,
“in the beginning”); Jn 1:1 (en arche--”In the beginning was the
Word...”). Cf the whole of Jn
1:1-5. The opening words of the Bible
rang in the ears of the apostles and evangelists.
2. The great
marriage texts in Matthew and Mark (Mt 19:3-9; Mk 10:2-12), where the clinchers
for Jesus’ argument that marriage is indissoluble come from Gen 1:27 (“In the
beginning it was not so...”) and 2:24.
Compare the use of Gen 2:24 again in Ephesians 5:31 (“Therefore a man
shall leave his father and mother...”).
3. The
people’s exclamation over Jesus’ miracles, “He has done all things well” (Mark
7:37) clearly echoes Genesis 1:31, especially the Greek version (“God saw all
things that he had done, and behold [they were] very good”).
4. A number of
miracle stories echo Genesis in the way Jesus speaks and immediately his Word
is done (e.g. Jn 4:46-54; Mt 8:5-13).
4. Adam is
listed in a straightforward way in Luke 3:38 as one of Jesus’ forefathers. Other references to Adam: Rom 5:14; 1 Cor
15:21-22, 45; 1 Tim 2:13-14; Jude 14.
5. Eve is
referred to in a simple, factual way in 2 Cor 11:3 (“As the serpent beguiled
Eve...”) and 1 Tim 2:13.
6. The Genesis
theme of “Paradise” (paradeisos--Gen 2:8; 3:8 LXX) is picked up in Lk
23:43; 2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7.
7. Paul’s
condemnation of homosexuality in Rom 1:26-27 contains palpable allusions to
Genesis 1 (“Male and female he created them”) in his choice of the words “the
females”, “the males”. Originally
designed to find their companionship in the opposite sex (“vive la
difference!”), the sexes have abandoned this natural created purpose for what
is contrary to nature.
8. Romans 8:18-25 speaks of the creation’s subjection
to decay as a result of the fall, and the creation’s longing for redemption
from this state. The “creation” words
(ktisis, ktizo, etc), referring either to the original creation in Genesis 1-2
or the continuous creation occur 39 times in the New Testament (e.g. “If anyone
is in Christ, he is a new creation”--2 Cor 5:17).
9. Nine times
Paul uses the word “image” (eikon) in a way that echoes its source, Gen 1:26,
28 (e.g. “The new person is being renewed in knowledge according to the image
of the one who created him”--Col 3:10).
10. Great
Johannine and Pauline themes like “light” and “life” have their roots in the
creation accounts in Genesis 1-2. One
of the most beautiful expressions of this is 2 Cor 4:6: “The God who said, ‘Let
light shine out of darkness’, has shone in our hearts with the light of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”.
11. Paul’s
great chapter on the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) draws on themes from Gen
1-3, notably the Adam/Christ typology which contrasts our wearing “the image of
the man of dust” (Adam) and “the image” we will wear, “the image of the man of
heaven” (Christ--15:44b-49). In the
process, Paul quotes Genesis 2:7 (“the first man [Adam] became a living soul”)
verbatim from the Septuagint. Compare
other allusions to Genesis in 1 Cor 15:38-41.
12. The theme
of the Sabbath rest for the people of God, the seventh day, plays a significant
role in Hebrews (compare Genesis 2:2-3 and Hebrews 4:4-11).
13. Last but
not least we come to the Book of Revelation.
Here there are numerous allusions to Genesis 1-3, for example “paradise”
(see above) and “the ancient serpent, called the devil and Satan” (Rev
12:9). But we will focus on two
features of the Apocalypse:
a. John’s use
of the number “seven”. Checking the
Greek concordance, I counted 90 occurrences of the number “seven” (hepta)
in Revelation. W. Hendriksen says the
number seven “indicates completeness”.
True enough, but it signifies more than this. There can, I believe, be little doubt that it stems ultimately
from the creation account in Genesis 1, when the Lord God rounded off his
creation work in six days and rested on the seventh. Thus “seven” signifies the perfect work of God. It serves as his signature. In the OT we see this most clearly in the
account of Joshua’s victory over Jericho, when the Israelites marched seven
times around the city on the seventh day, and the walls came tumbling down by
no human hand. Here in Revelation the
number signifies God at work, God bringing the world to its final, perfect, and
just consummation.
b. The
beautiful way the Bible’s last three chapters (Revelation 20-22) relate to its
first three chapters (Genesis 1-3).
Hendriksen expresses this in a fine way:
There is a beautiful connection between the first book
of the Bible and the last. Scripture
resembles a flower. We find the seed in
Genesis, the growing plant in the books which follow, the fully developed and
beautiful flower in the Apocalypse.
Observe the following comparison.
Genesis tells us that God created heaven and
earth. Revelation describes the new heaven
and earth (21:1). In Genesis the
luminaries are called into being: sun, moon and stars. In Revelation we read: ‘And the city has no
need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it; for the glory of God
lightened it, and its lamp is the Lamb’ (21:23). Genesis describes a paradise which was lost. Revelation pictures a paradise restored (Rev
2:7; 22:2). Genesis describes the
cunning and power of the devil. The
Apocalypse tells us that the devil was bound and hurled into the lake of fire
and brimstone. Genesis pictures that
awful scene of man fleeing away from God and hiding himself from the presence
of the Almighty. Revelation shows us
the most wonderful and intimate communion between God and redeemed man:
‘Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall tabernacle with them’
(21:3).
Finally, whereas Genesis shows us the tree of life,
with an angel to keep the way to the tree of life, ‘lest man put forth his hand
and take of its fruit’, the Apocalypse restores to man his right to have access
to it: ‘that they may have the right to come to the tree of life’ (22:14--W.
Hendriksen, More than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of
Revelation, 196-97).
Even
Hendriksen’s fine picture does not do full justice to the comparison. One notable feature missing from his
portrait is “the river of the water of life clear as crystal” (Rev 22:1),
answering to the river that flowed out of Eden (Genesis 2:10-14).
D. A PROPOSAL
What
is the purpose of this extensive walk through the New Testament? The point is simple: To show that the
account of the creation and fall portrayed in Genesis 1--3 had a highly
significant role in the spiritual formation of Jesus (if I may put it that way
with regard to our Lord) and his apostles and evangelists. That was where their Bible began, and they
accepted these chapters as the wholly truthful Word of God.
Thus
it is, on the face of it, highly likely that it is to these chapters that we
must look as the real and ultimate basis for the apostle’s injunctions against
women’s ordination. These injunctions
are not “a law in search of a rationale”.
Paul supplies the rationale, most clearly in 1 Tim 2:12-14: “I permit no
woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For [now comes the rationale] Adam was
formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived
and became a transgressor” (NRSV). The
rationale is found in the creation and fall account in Genesis 1-3. And thus, according to the principle
“Scripture interprets Scripture”, it can be taken as almost certain that when
the same author uses the clause “as the law also says” in 1 Cor 14:34,
undergirding the command that women be silent in the churches, this is another
reference to the Old Testament “law”, the Torah written in Genesis 1-3. Likewise, when Paul enunciates the
headship-principle in 1 Cor 11:3 (Yes, there are more than two texts opposing
women’s ordination!), he again supports his argument from Genesis 1-3 (see 1
Cor 11:8-9).
My
concern is that as those who would uphold the Lutheran Church of Australia’s
traditional stand against women’s ordination (“Friends of the Theses of
Agreement”) we need to simplify and streamline our case. We should not introduce arguments which lack
clear Biblical support and thus render us unnecessarily vulnerable. Let’s rest our case where Paul does, on the
creation and fall account in Genesis 1-3, and its authoritative interpretation
and application in the New Testament.
All the six admirable arguments put forward in the CTICR’s summary of
the Initial Case against Women’s Ordination rest ultimately on the Genesis
account. All of the numerous NT texts on loving servant
headship and willingly-given subordination—1 Cor 11:2-16; 14:33-38; Eph
5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; 1 Tim 2:11-15; 1
Pet 3:1-7--are like the ribbons of ore in a gold field, all of them traceable
to the rich mother lode in Genesis (as authoritatively interpreted by the NT!).
If we were to focus our attention on the order of creation, I believe it would
serve us well, not only for the women’s ordination debate but also for other
debates that may be waiting in the wings--like the nature of the Christian
family (Can we still follow Luther in understanding the “Hausvater” (“father of
the household”) to be the head of the family unit?), or like homosexual
practice and the ordination of homosexuals (“In the beginning it was not ‘Adam
and Steve’, but he created them male and female”). In other words, the articles of faith primarly at stake in this
debate are not in the first instance Christology or the Trinity, but the
doctrines of creation and Biblical anthropology.
Two
roads diverge. One road assumes that
any pattern of male headship oppresses and demeans women, and could not
therefore be God’s word and will for us today.
Those who travel this road baulk at Biblical passages which teach such a
pattern of headship. The other road,
the one less traveled by, accepts the clear Biblical teaching. It then takes up the challenge to show that
this Biblical pattern of loving servant headship, as exemplified by Christ, is
not oppressive or demeaning to anyone.
Taking this road will make all the difference.
Greg
Lockwood
Bendigo,
13/1/2001