Comments on: Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard – Part Two

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:50:00 +0000

That should be: "He chose an unusual word. . . ."

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 00:30:00 +0000

Given that this is a secondary issue for me, I'm not into this discussion that much either. "But then timbo, you mentioned that you do believe that women shoule be silent and not have authority." Be careful, David. I said I lean toward the complementarian understanding, which is a great deal more nuanced than you seem to give it credit. It is not simply a question of whether or not we think that "women should be silent and not have authority." Clearly, I blog with Amy, so I don't think she should be absolutely silent. But that doesn't mean that we are picking and choosing what to take as normative, and what to take as outdated. It is of the utmost importance in understanding this issue to understand as best we can what exactly it was that Paul was condemning. Do you know that the word for authority Paul uses in 1 Timothy 2:12 is different from the word he uses elsewhere? In 1 Tim. 2:12 he uses authenteo which conveys a different nuance than exousia, which is "his usual term for 'the normal exercise of authority'" (Towner, IVPNTC). Furthermore, "He chose an usual word that could carry negative conntations such as 'to usurp or misappropriate authority or 'to domineer.'" So what implications does this have for our understanding of the passage? And how do Paul's responses to other situations in which women were either encouraged to minister, or were told to submit, play into all this? As you noted, Paul talks about how childbearing will save women. What does this mean? So, the issues are far more complicated than you make them out to be. To determine whether or not the passage should be normative for today requires us to determine what Paul's intent was in its original context. Only when we have some idea of what Paul was saying to Timothy and the Ephesian church can we determine whether or not he meant it to be normative for all Christians in all times. To be sure, what we think should be the case influences what we see in the text and how we interpret difficult passages, but the issue is far more complicated than accepting what our English translation says divorced from its original context. Interestingly enough, when I knew little about biblical hermeneutics, I was more inclined to take the passage in an egalitarian light. However, as I look at these issues more fully, the more I understand that they are far more complex than saying that I think a woman should be silent and not have authority. As for resources, check out the CBMW for the complementarian side and the CBE for the egalitarian side. There are good people on both sides of this debate.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 23:12:00 +0000

Timbo,
I didn't originally want to do this conversation, but that's ok, it's an interesting one. Originally I just figured the passage I mentioned was as good a passage as any to discuss the bible relating to us, relative to our place and time in history, since Amy was the original author, and is apparently ok with taking some authority and doing some teaching, something I am assuming just from the fact that she is a part of this blog team, all of which I have no problem with. (arguabally posting on a blog like this gives a person some type of authority and is certanly teaching.)
But then timbo, you mentioned that you do believe that women shoule be silent and not have authority. I agree that this does not have to be an incredibly sexist position, and I think your summary is apt: “but whether Paul's directives were intended to be normative for all Christians.”
What I don't understand, and Amy fell free to chime in here as well, is why if these passages are normative for today, that official teaching and authority is off limits, but doing some teaching, having some authority, not braiding hair, and not covering heads is ok?
What am I missing?
It appears that your position chooses some passages to be taken very litterally, but then others not so much. So how do you decide? I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I mean obviously I disagree at this point, but maybee I'm missing something. Help me out.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 16:00:00 +0000

Although my given name is Timothy, I was not the recipient of Paul's letter (as awesome as that would be), nor do I go to the church in Ephesus, so I'm not the one to ask about whether the Ephesian church to which Paul was writing practices these things.
What little I do know is that the issue is not so much whether or not Paul was condemning these things in the Ephesian church in the first century, but whether Paul's directives were intended to be normative for all Christians. The reason some have reached this conclusion is the reference to Adam and Eve in vv. 13-14 of chapter 2. I lean toward the conclusion that Paul intended these things to be normative, yet I acknowledge that good people exist on both sides of this debate. To suggest that complementarians are deeply sexist, however, as some critics are wont to do, is a complete and total misrepresentation of the position in question.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 26 Mar 2006 05:58:00 +0000

Does your church have no women speaking at all during the church service? No testimonies, no singing. Does your church do head coverings, and no braids as well? Do you teach that women are saved by childbearing? (1 Tim 2)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:06:00 +0000

Thanks for reading, David!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:43:00 +0000

so I hate to admit it, but yah your right, I'm not a relativist ; ) That said, I lean more in that direction than you. Technically no, but culturally yes, if you know what I mean.
Ironically it goes back to something you would agree with (I think) the depravity of humanity. even if your not a calvinist, you can brodely agree with the idea of the total depravity. If total depravity is true, than how are we in a position to make abselute truth claims? (yes I am contradicting myself by suggesting that total depravity is true) : )
Keep up your relatively good work (yak yak) : )

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:23:00 +0000

Vicky, thanks for reading my long-winded response! 😉
“Even well-intentioned Christians may misread, or believe a misreading, so we must be careful and prayerful in our certainty.”
I absolutely agree that Christians can be wrong in their interpretations, and as I said, it's those wrong interpretations that have caused problems–so no disagreement there.
My hope, though, is that Christians will start to think primarily in terms of seeking to believe right things (a subject the Bible talks about extensively) rather than having their first concern be about their level of certainty (a subject the Bible says nothing about). Does that make sense?
In other words, to avoid people getting hurt, we ought to be careful and prayerful in our determination of the true meaning of each passage, and we ought to be careful and prayerful in how we treat people who disagree with us.
The issue of our certainty is secondary to the above issues on which we ought to be focusing. But here's where I think certainty does come into play: we ought to acknowledge which of our positions are essential and have good, careful reasons behind them and which are non-essential and not entirely clear in the Bible (or ones we haven't studied enough to have a well-informed opinion). We'll have more certainty about the first category than the second. We ought to acknowledge that there are some things we'll uphold and argue for to our death, and there are some things we can let go.
And don't worry, even if you were a postmodernist, you'd still be welcome to read and discuss what we write! I was just responding to your statement about what you've been reading, and I was hoping to clarify this issue as much as possible so that as you're reading, you'll be able to separate the good, biblical ideas from the not-so-good ones entering our culture from other sources.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:20:00 +0000

Thanks for the encouragement, Tim!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 23:05:00 +0000

David, that's an interesting challenge, but I think you're misunderstanding what relativism is.
It's one thing to say that you know the meaning of Paul's words but you think they don't apply and quite another to say that we can't really know what Paul meant. In fact, by your saying you think those ideas are not correct today, you're already saying you're not a relativist when it comes to understanding the words of the Bible because you're saying you understand them and think they're wrong.
A relativist would say that every interpretation of that verse is equally valid (note I'm talking about meaning, not application), or that we shouldn't try to judge other interpretations or convince anyone of our interpretation using reasoning because we can never know which interpretation is correct. A non-relativist would acknowledge that there was one intended meaning of that verse, would seek to understand that meaning using all hermeneutical skills and historical information, and then try to apply the principle within it as best she could to our culture today.
[Incidentally, I absolutely agree with the principle that men ought to be the leaders of families and churches for reasons I've stated before but won't go into now (it would get us completely off track). That might look a little different today, but I still think it's wise advice–and I've put my money where my mouth is, turning down the position of elder offered to me in my own church.]
If by “recognizing that some scriptures are culturally conditioned” you mean that “Paul was influenced by his culture to write something that God didn't intend for all Christians to read and take seriously in all times,” then I disagree. But that would simply be an argument over what the Bible is, not a question of relativism.
If you mean that “the principle would look different when lived out today because our society looks so different, and yet the principle remains,” then I agree. That's simply a question of application, not meaning.
If you mean that “God never intended for this to be followed at all times because of A, B, and C reasons,” then I disagree, but still, you're not a relativist, because you're trying to understand what God has communicated to us in the Bible, and you're stating your position as one that is true.
The Law is another example of the non-relativist idea that it's possible to find that God never intended something to be followed by all people. God wrote about what he wanted the Israelites to do as a nation and included this in Scripture, but He intended these laws to be for the ancient nation of Israel for a purpose, and today you and I are not under these laws (even though I would argue they illustrate enduring principles that show us who God is and how we should act). That doesn't mean we're relativists because we believe the Israelites had to follow the Law but we don't. It just means that we're making a determination of the intended meaning based on all of Scripture as to the purpose of the Law and whether or not God intended for us today to be under it.
So to sum up, you are saying that you understand Paul's words, you understand what their purpose was, you understand how God would expect us to apply them to ourselves today, and you believe your position is the correct one. You can see how this example, then, would not qualify as relativism.