----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 8:42 PM Subject: Re: [L3 ] Re: Jesus-anity and the status of women
A quick answer focusing on one point. > > <wry> Then what do you make of the 1 Timothy verses > above? Was he having a bad day? It was his son, Deuteo. :-) Seriously, it is well established among serious scholars that Paul didn't write Timothy. It was written by one of his followers in his name. Timothy is a work of the later church. Another work of the later church, I'll go back and get the quote if need be, set up at least some women in authority. So, what do we have for practice by the new followers of "The Way"? We have both acceptance of women as legitemate leaders and the statements that they must not lead. We can reasonably conclude that there was a variety of opinions and practices in the early church documented in the New Testiment. Thus, it seems reasonable for us to reapply basic principals of scripture to discern what God is calling us to do now. The statement that Paul highlights as fundamental, by his choice of words, guides me to understand that women are called to be pastors. Another interesting point is that we see the acceptance of more sociatal norms as the church develops in time. Given that Paul clearly acknowledged leadership roles for women, and that the understanding of later times in scripture is mixed, and the understanding developed after the writing of scripture was less favorable to women; it makes sense to argue that the regulation of women to a secondary roll was not in response to fundamental principals preserved from the beginning, but a well documented retreat from radical principals. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
