“I always get very frustrated at the “cultural” biased arguments… that the Bible was written in a patriarchal culture and therefore we can dismiss certain commans as only being relevant to that culture. 1 Peter 3:5 tells us that 1st century Greeks were to follow the model of Sara set 2000 years prior in another time and culture. Why is it so hard to believe we should do the same?”

My response:
Nick, same argument could be made for slavery. I’m glad we no longer condone slavery.

I agree with you though. I believe that in Paul we see a highly “culturated” discussion when it comes to women, especially in 1 Corinthians. However, in Ephesians the case is quite different; 5:21 hermeneutically controls 5:22 (and I love that the TNIV has included 5:21 in the “household” section, while the NIV and others don’t!). That is not to say that there is no cultural imprint on the Eph 5 passage, there is. However, we can textually soften the violence done to modern sensibilities. As to the texts in Colossians, the Pastorals, and 1 Peter, they are more difficult. But again with what you call a “careful reading” we can glean much of value; specifically the call in all of those documents for husbands to be loving, considerate, and faithful. In this discussion we often forget the tall order presented to men by Paul! But these texts are hard nonetheless and have caused much disarray in biblical studies and church life in general (it is my unfounded contention that one of the motivating factors that scholars have to distance Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastorals from Paul is the attitude toward women found in the them, i.e., it is often implied that Paul could not have had thoughts like that…he was the Apostle of the gospel that judged not based on gender [Gal 3:28]. In implying this, these scholars seem to forget, however, 1 Cor.).

Keep up the good work. I wonder if the Plutarch text we’re reading has shed any light on this for you?

Now, I haven’t really answered your questions. I’ve said, well, they may seem unacceptable to our modern sensibilities, but they’re really not if we look close enough. On this question (and I think I would have a similar answer about the way slavery is not condemned… and of course, it’s a different kind of slavery than we 21st century Americans imagine), I think that’s where I stand. But hypothetically speaking, if a text did truly go against my modern sensibilities, I think it would depend what those sensibilities were. Is this challenging the bad sensibilities that I have from the modern era, like hyper-individualism? Then I question my own perspective (difficult as it may be) and not the text. And if it were truly unacceptable, I guess I would point to the cultural context and try to figure things out from there (and here I can’t think of a good example in the NT . . . maybe violence in the OT, but that’s my Anabaptist ideal offended, not my modern outlook).

It comes down to the reality that I belong to a tradition within which I cannot simply dismiss a biblical text just because it is difficult. I used to do that, but now I try to understand its situation and see what meaning I can find . . . the hermeneutical endeavor.

Something that I kept thinking about while reading this entry…what if a biblical text IS unacceptable to our modern sensibilities? What if Paul was openly demeaning femininity, as many ideological interpreters claim he was? What should we do then? Accept the letter over the spirt? Or the spirt over the letter?

The role of women in the ministry was never much of an problem for me growing up. It was a church issue, and point of contention. But in my house, at least, it was understood that women were quite capable and permitted to take on ministry leadership roles. And Mennonites, at least in Harrisonburg, VA, where I had my spiritual coming-of-age, have been pretty accepting of women pastors. Several churches in that area have women as lead, and sometimes only, pastors.

However, I now have several friends and coworkers who are quite conservative in their views of women in the ministry. So I am in a position of having to defend my understanding without the knowledge to do so. Doh.

Carry on!