…
On an individual level, Jesus didn’t marry. Jesus didn’t have children. “It does not follow” that individuals cannot do those things. More support would be needed to argue that. On an ecclesiastical level, Jesus didn’t offer indulgences. Jesus didn’t sign concordants or call crusades but “it does not follow” that the church doesn’t have the authority to do so.
…
But you do dismiss His example quite easily. You don’t ban Gentiles from ordination.
…
In this passage Paul says women are not to have authority over men. He does not limit that to church but rather he is speaking of everyday living. Indeed, his reason is not because Jesus only appointed men to be apostles but rather because Eve fell before Adam.
Hi again,
I know what non sequitur means, even though I didn’t spell it right. Anyway, it seems you are equating two different realities–one where Jesus did
nothing, one way or the other, and was completely silent (concordats, indulgences, etc.) and one where He deliberately did *do *something (called and sent Apostles, remained unmarried). Then, you suggest we can, in principle, assign no value to either what He did or didn’t do. I think that is the bottom line of your argument.
On the other hand, I think we should seriously take into account the *actions *of Christ (and the Apostles after Him). As they say, actions speak louder than words. In this case, He spent the night in prayer and called those whom He wanted, as Luke says, and named them Apostles. That is not silence. That is a divine example, performed deliberately. The question is, should the Church follow it in any way? Somewhat? Not at all? Since the beginning, the Church **has **followed that example in calling men to be successors to the Apostles and their co-workers. In the Latin Church, we even take it a step further and say these men should be celibate, too, since they are supposed to represent and act in the person of Christ. As far as me not banning Gentiles–the distinction between a woman and man is on a different level than between a Jew and Gentile. And, it goes back to the fact that those whom Jesus sent, just as He was sent, didn’t ban Gentile men from being their successors.
Now, if you want to take that passage from St. Paul to be meant for every place, women would never be allowed to speak: “in every place…she is to be silent.” I think you realized that at first and so you situated this passage in the context of “church.” That is the most reasonable way to understand the context–he is speaking about the assembly, in every place, offering prayer and worship, not just in one place. (This is how most, if not all, Bible commentaries situate this passage.) In 1 Cor. 14, St. Paul himself clearly situates this discussion in the context of the assembly. This passage from Timothy is clearly a corollary. This is how this passage can be understood–it is liturgical law, not for “everyday living.” Like I said, if it was for every place and time, he would have been banning women’s speech, totally. That is both absurd and contrary to what he says in other places. (1 Cor. 11, for example, if you actually need an example.)
In another post you said “Nothing in the Bible warrants subordination in church but equality everywhere else.” How about comparing 1 Corinthians 12 (on the members of the body of Christ) and Galatians 3:28 (neither slave nor free, male or female…) to 1 Cor. 14 (proper worship)? These at least begin to warrant such a distinction.
Thanks for your time.
Dan
