Newfie

Roland Martin from CNN recently posted a commentary on the issue of certain Christian bookstores marginalising women pastors. In it he states that the Rev. Dr. Ralph Douglas West Sr. preaches sermons that 2 Timothy was specific to that church and not a blanket ban against Christian women serving leadership roles, and that "There were instances where Paul wrote that his views were his own and not mandates from God."

I've had difficulty finding information on this Rev. West, so does anyone know which "instances" he might be referring to? Did Paul ever indicate that he was only giving his personal opinions on proper Christian practice and were his letters intended for specific churches at specific times? If so, what is the justification of the various churches in treating his opinions as theology?

Quana muchly,

Newf

Amaleq13

I suspect he has 1 Cor 7 in mind. At verse 6 he is understood to be identifying his statement as a personal opinion and at verse 10 identifying his statement as coming from the Lord and not just his opinion.

bacht

Paul was a Jew, a Pharisee, a bachelor, and an apocalypticist. He wasn't a feminist, but he wasn't a monster either [Nero was rumored to have raped a Vestal Virgin]

Newfie

Taken in his contemporary sense I would hardly consider Paul to be monstrous either. He was largely the product of his time and culture, and who could blame him for that? What may be monstrous, however, is the application of his teaching to modern society, which is far removed from the times and circumstances to which they were developed. Do you consider his attitudes towards women to be outdated, and are modern Church movements justified in marginalizing women pastors nowadays?

Newfie

This seems pretty weak to justify that opinion. Has anyone heard the Rev. West preach the sermons to which Roland Martin is referring?

bacht

Good question, but probably belongs in another sub-forum.

One point: since Paul and the others were expecting the day of judgment very soon, his provisional instructions to believers really should not have been seen as deeply considered guidance for the future (ie. post-1st C). Via the twists and turns of history, Paul's social ideas became part of Catholic doctrine.

I agree that society has changed since then, but does human nature really change? Aren't we virtually the same kind of humans as walked the earth two millenia ago? The tension between egalitarianism and hierarchy is not new.

Amaleq13

Well, it is an instance but I can't recall any other examples.

bacht

Maybe it was 1 Timothy (ch 2):

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion.
Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.
I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Paul's argument here is based on Genesis.

It should be noted that there are several women mentioned in Paul's letters. It seems he didn't mind accepting their help in his work.

Newfie

And the protestants inherited his social ideas from the Catholics, correct? I wonder if those who view the RCC as having corrupted the "original, correct (modern-day evangelical) faith" view Paul's ideas as being outmoded?

You are right, though, that Paul's provisions were intended to guide Christians until Christ's return, which he saw as being imminent. It's the Christian idea of "imminent" that seems to have stagnated the faith. One would have thought that, after the first half-dozen centuries or so, the various elements of the Church would have relaxed their urgency and started planning for the long haul but, as events in the recent US economic crisis show us, oftentimes the powers that be prefer to press the sense of urgency in order to manipulate people through fear.

This was widely recognized even within my Catholic upbringing, and I especially see fear of an imminent return being used by forces within American protestantism to the complete disregard of social equality and the future. Paul may not have been a monster, but his ideas have been mutated into something frightful indeed.

Yes, human nature remains a constant, but isn't the purpose of religion to compel us to suppress our baser instincts? Where we can now recognize intellectually the equality of women, but are compelled by a belief system to marginalize them, which appeals to the baser instincts of men, then isn't this against the purpose of religion?

I, for one, am very tired of hearing the argument that "God's plan" trumps human compassion and reason. I can recall a discussion when I was somewhat younger regarding a distant family member who had lived quite happily with his male mate for years, a man whom everyone agreed was good and had made him happy in life. "The best thing to ever happen in his life" was the common sentiment about the match. Yet, when it came to the question of inviting his mate to his funeral the deciding factor was a religious objection. Everyone said what a shame it was to exclude him, and some even had some hard words to say about the Church, but nobody, myself included I am ashamed now to say, dared go against "God's plan." I list this amongst the many things I did out of religion's sake that now haunt me.

Newfie

Which version did you quote from? Paul's language "I desire" and "I permit" certainly have the ring of personal opinion, don't they? Interesting.

Still, to say that women will be saved through having children hardly sounds like anyone expecting an imminent return, does it?

Where would any congregation be without all the hard work done by the "Church women?" Women have always done the lion's share of work in Church and Paul recognized this perhaps. There doesn't even seem to be an issue with women leading other women. Nuns had Mothers Superior for example, but ultimately, the Mothers had to answer to some man in the hierarchy. "Fit enough to serve, but not to lead" seems to be the Christian credo in these matters.