[Vision2020] what the Bible really teaches (was DouglasWilsononwomen)

[keely emerinemix]

Gladly, Michael.  Certainly there are some things men can do and women can 
do that both sexes can't do, but these are biologically inherent and, 
therefore, speak only to the biological.  However, what is biological -- 
lactation, childbirth, wet dreams, circumcision -- is not germane to roles, 
service and gifting.  I believe that being a parent, a mother or a father, 
is a role; childbirth, however, only occurs in the uterus-bearer and is a 
biological function.  Further, there is no Biblical basis for using biology 
as the determining facgtor in leadership, use of spiritual and "natural" 
gifts, or service in or out of the church.

I find it interesting when men hear this and then point out that the 12 
disciples were all men -- meaning that Jesus chose to have men in what 
initially were the only leadership positions in his ministry.  Overlooking 
the clear testimony that the Twelve represented the patrilineal 12 tribes of 
Israel, one then confronts the reality that the Twelve were, therefore, all 
Jewish, all circumcised, and all with descendency directly traceable to the 
Tribes.  Are we willing to extend church leadership today only to 
circumcised Jewish men who can prove lineage from the 12 tribes?  Using 
Galatians 3:28, do we insist that the other categories Jesus proclaimed as 
having been done away with are, in fact, done away with -- except for, 
regarding leadership in church, home, and society, men and women?  If that 
were the case, we'd have grounds to anoint leaders in and out of the church 
on the basis of slave vs. freedman, Greek vs. Jewish status -- another road 
we clearly don't go down.

I believe that when God created men and women, and created them both equally 
in the image of the Divine, he did so with the intent of absolute harmony, 
equality, mutuality and intimacy.  He (and "he" is a concession to our need 
for a gender-specific pronoun; it doesn't mean that God has or lacks 
particular physical characteristics of maleness or femalenss) created woman 
as "ezer," or "helper," which in every other translation and usage in the 
Old Testament refers not to a subordinate, but to a "helper" as "savior," 
"rock," and even as God describes himself.  The term "ezer," describing the 
woman and her role, cannot be downgraded in two or three instances when the 
overwhelming majority refers to a partner of equal, even rescuing, 
substance.

We can't continue confusing what's ontologically true -- that women and men 
are created equal, and equally in the image of God -- with what's 
biologically true, that you, for example, won't ever have menstrual periods. 
  Further, we can't determine that biology trumps ontology in service, 
gifting, and roles in and out of the church when the clear intent and 
testimony of God before the Fall illustrates that being created in the imago 
dei is what makes us human, and, in his eyes, what makes us "enough," 
suitable to exercise our calling before him.

Three or four difficult Pauline passages cannot be used to hinder the clear 
intent of God in the beginning and throughout Scripture -- unless Christian 
guys want to start kissing other men in fellowship, selling their 
possessions and laying them at the feet of church leaders, or relying on the 
common purse of the first century church.  Nor can we assume that Paul was 
schizophrenic in his outlook -- why, for example, he affirms women 
prophesying in First Corinthians and then restricts them a couple of 
chapters later.   Culture-specific conditions seem much more likely than 
incoherent confusion in Paul's letters, and we seem to easily see that in 
other areas and yet utterly unwilling to see it in terms of gender 
relations.  That, I think, is part of the sin for which the church in the 
present age will be rebuked harshly, and more than just not wanting to be a 
part of it, I don't want women and men and their children to suffer from it 
any longer.

I look forward, Michael, to your comments.

keely

From: "Michael" <metzler at moscow.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
CC: keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>
Subject: [Vision2020] what the Bible really teaches (was 
DouglasWilsononwomen)
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:33:37 -0800

Keely,



Thank you for your exegesis and response to Wilson's exhortation.  In your
criticism of unbiblical patriarchy I don't think I recall you referencing
any natural distinctions that might exist between men and women-or more
concretely, between a man and a woman (even after the amazing reversing
effects of the Incarnation). Bearing children is clearly a 'role' that I'm
not very good at (given my particular tubing).  I wouldn't want to take
child birth on as a career. So even though there is no longer male or
female, it seems that there is some sort of distinction between male and
female.  With that in mind, I'm hoping you would add a bit more to your
criticism or offer a few helpful qualifications.



Thanks

Michael Metzler



_____________________________________________________
  List services made available by First Step Internet,
  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
                http://www.fsr.net
           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/