It’s worth noting that when Alabama had that court ruling that imperiled IVF in that state, the state’s Republicans did fairly quickly pass legislation to rectify that particular situation, despite the influence that conservative Christianity has had on state politics.
The churches that allow female pastors choose to believe that passage was addressing a particular problem in a particular church with some particular women who had been led astray and were teaching the whole congregation and attempting to lead others astray… not a rule that was meant to be enforced for all women for all eternity.
Yes, the language (certainly as translated into English) does not seem particularly vague or temporary in nature or only applying to a specific situation, but that is the justification I have seen. (Paul could have said “I do not permit Sheila and Donna and Carrie and their followers to teach” but he didn’t.)
I think it’s largely the same across denominations with female clergy: United Methodist, Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopalian, United Church of Christ, probably several others I’m not thinking of at the moment.
Some Lutheran sects allow female clergy. The one I grew up in (Missouri Synod) maintains they can only be deaconesses. That sect seems to have backslid relative to society in their doctrine. They used to basically be “gay people can be saved if they resist their unnatural urges and repent.” Now, looking at their official website, they heavily insinuate that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked, stopping just short of making that exact claim. But they say things like “Congress introduced this bill that would protect pedophiles just like similar laws made for homosexuals in the past.”
In the book The Making of Biblical Womanhood Beth Allison Barr (PhD historian) makes the point that Paul seems to be quoting the Gentiles of the day who were commonly trying to keep women in their place. She says that Paul was being satirical. She points out that these statements are contradictory to other statements where he holds up certain women as saints whom we ought to emulate.
She has all the historical references so that the interested reader can follow up at their leisure. I took her word for it that this is a reasonable interpretation of the Scripture.
1 Like
I once asked an acquaintance who was pretty hard core about the more literal / traditional interpretation of that scripture verse… pointing out that women are prophets and saints. And he said yes, but prophets and saints are not teachers. Women can be prophets and saints, but they cannot teach. Pastors teach.
So there’s the counter-argument to that.
Note that both the church where I am technically a member and also the church I currently regularly attend have female clergy, so that gives you a clue as to my personal viewpoint. That said, I’m not totally good with God at the moment so in that sense not necessarily the best person to ask.
That sounds like a very modern distinction being projected backwards.
Yeah, I thought that was odd, but he was quite adamant about it.
Possibly, but I think there is a list of “different gifts same spirit” somewhere. If there are distinct items in there, arguably they were thought of as different at the time.
A couple of places (the one in 1 Corinthians 12:4 is the more commonly referred passage).
However, there is a difference between a gift/talent and an office (which the passage in question above is making a reference to).
To that point, i don’t think women were ever ordained priests or bishops until recently.
they may have been apostles.
but teachers? how could they have not been teachers?
more generally, christianity has always been very subversive of power in relationships, definitely including those related to sex.
it makes me skeptical of people who say: but that doesn’t apply to women being obedient! that doesn’t apply to women as pastors!
Did a bit of reading. For Christianity, looks like way back in approximately AD 200-400, we have evidence of some female clergy in some sects, but the Roman Catholic Church had crushed this by the 400s or maybe 500s.
By the 1700s, some Quakers had allowed female clergy, but it really came back into vogue in the 1900s when in particular many Protestant sects began allowing clergy. It looks like the Church of England allowed women into some clergy-adjacent roles during WWI, perhaps due to lack of men? And the same Church of England began allowing women to be Bishops in 2014. A lot of churches began ordaining women around 1905-1960.
2 Likes
I imagine if you read the Bible as satire it might be quite entertaining…
According to The Bible Project much of Job is also satire. And yes, reading it this way WAS entertaining (and made sense).
1 Like