Abi, Paul, Timothy...and subtle humor

Today, I have my dear brother in Christ, Len Hjalmarson, to thank for the inspiration behind this post.  He Tweeted a link to his post that collects important links concerning women in ministry.  Please take a look...particularly at the link to Don Rousu's post, since it is the one that provided my "missing link" moment!

If you have been following me for any length of time, you will have come to learn about my friend and mentor, S. Scott Bartchy...who was gracious enough to preach at my ordination 18 years ago.  His scholarship and friendship over the past 33 years has been so very important to me.  For this post, it is timely to link to this important post of Scott's from two years ago. While his post concerns Paul's letter to Philemon, the importance of what he calls "deep contexting" in paragraph 2.12 is so very important ... and is the point where translators so often fail us.

Go ahead and read it ... I'll be here when you come back.

You will see that Don Rousu has provided a bit of "deep contexting" for the tension-filled text found in 1Timothy 2:11-15.  I'm going to connect it to some teaching I heard and synthesized from Scott and others over the years.  I am sorry that I do not have links.  I am grateful that all the pieces fell into place for me today...even with a sluggish brain.  I only hope to challenge you with another view.

I'm going to start with the end and work my way forward.  To prepare for this, I ask that you follow J. R. R. Tolkien's sage advice to those who would read imaginative works:  suspend your disbelief long enough to enter into the story so as to experience it as the author intended.  Listen all the way through.  Hear the whole tale.  Could it possibly be true?

Ready?

My paraphrase of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, inspired by The Voice, adapted from the New Century Version and building on the deep contexting of Rousu and Bartchy, goes like this: 


¹¹ Let that woman who is troubling your congregation learn by listening quietly and being ready to cooperate in everything. ¹² But I do not allow such a woman to teach or claim that a woman was the originator of or superior to a man, but want her to learn the truth peacefully, ¹³ because Adam was formed first and then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not tricked, but Eve was tricked and became a sinner. ¹⁵ But that woman will be saved through The Childbearing if she continues in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

Need to take a deep breath or two?

It is important to remember a couple of things right off the bat:  this is considered to be a personal letter from Paul to Timothy -- probably a response to a letter from Timothy concerning his ministry in Ephesus.  It is full of insider information and context to which Timothy would have been totally aware.  Timothy would have been completely familiar with Paul's style of rhetoric and his use of humor and other "clever" speech.

The deep context Rousu provides is critical here concerning the culture in Ephesus regarding Artemis/Diana, as interpreted by the Gnostics.  What possibly was being taught by "that woman", among other things, was that women were superior to men because Eve was created first and that, being the Mother of All, she birthed Adam on her own -- with no need of a man. She possibly went further to claim that Eve was the "illuminator" who received "knowledge" from the Serpent and shared it with Adam.  So, they revered the Serpent as the Savior revealer of Truth.

Ugh...the twisting of Truth always comes from reading our own context into the Text, without regard for the deeper context.  This is why it is so important for those who teach to have learned in quietness and cooperation first.  It is just as difficult a task today as it was then.  Sigh....

So here we have Paul, responding to his "son in the Faith" with insightful encouragement and a bit of wit:

• All, men and women, are to be encouraged to learn the Truth in a posture of humility.
• Those who teach falsehoods are to be stopped gently and taught the Truth more fully.
• Just as in Corinth, those in Ephesus had problems with Jesus' new paradigms that subvert their ideas of power and patriarchy. They did not know how to embrace their new situation as brothers and sisters -- joint heirs of God in Jesus.  Where no man is called Father but God and no one is Lord but Jesus.
• As Paul said in 1Corinthians 11 (another passage requiring "deep contexting" and rarely getting it), Adam was created first -- and Eve came from him.  But Adam came from Christ, who created everything.  And Christ comes from God, as the Only Begotten. And now every man comes from a woman in the process of childbirth. It is not about power and hierarchy and authority and subordination, but simply about source in the perichoretic Circle of Life.
• Because Eve did not have enough education, she was tricked by the Serpent and sinned.  There is lots of room to wonder why Adam didn't speak up to defend her ... or why he had not educated her properly ... and, in the end, he went along and ate, too.  The point is to teach well -- without improper embellishment --  and correct error gently as it crops up.
• And in a delicious twist of humor, Paul reminds Timothy that salvation comes -- to that woman (and all humanity) -- through Jesus, who actually was born of a woman (The Childbearing) without the aid of a man!  That woman, if she continues to learn the Truth in faith, love and holiness, with self-control, will be saved.  As will we all....

So there you have it. 

I fully realize that there are a great many scholars who would not agree with me.  Listening for humor, irony, quotations -- this is difficult work in Koine Greek and First Century context.  But we must continue -- especially with the difficult passages that seem out of step with the rest of what Paul teaches and what Jesus lived.  We must all determine that we will learn in quietness of spirit and a humble heart that is open to the Spirit's still, small voice speaking the Truth that will set us free.

I hope that you were able to process this wee post with your disbelief suspended.  I pray that we will allow the Spirit to continue to lead us all into All Truth.  I yearn for the day when we can all truly be brothers and sisters in Jesus, sharing the Good News with those around us that our Father has already adopted them too...even if they don't know it yet! 

Be blessed!

Abi is a non-patriarchal conservative progressive egalitarian

Things have been very quiet at this blog -- for lots of reasons.  But I finally have the strength to speak to an issue that has been slowly bubbling on the back burner of my over-stimulated brain-on-fire:  I have to really disagree with the use of the word "egalitarian" to describe the opposite of "patriarchal" or "complementarian".

There, I said it.  I am starting to feel better already, but I will continue and explain myself some.

My dear mentor, S. Scott Bartchy, PhD., is still in the process of the final edit of his long-awaited book:  Call No Man Father.  I long for it to be finished, but in the meantime there are a few links to articles he has published which can give you some of the general background.

Who Should Be Called Father?
Undermining Ancient Patriarchy
Secret Siblings

On page 145 of his article "Who Should Be Called Father?", Dr. Bartchy addresses the third of three barriers to understanding how Paul has been misunderstood as supporting patriarchy (and with it, hierarchy) in the section entitled Egalitarianism Is Not the Opposite of Patriarchy.

The problem is that is has become common to blur the distinctions between two ancient Greco-Roman social institutions:  politics and kinship.  They are not opposite ends of the same social-political spectrum.  They are on completely different spectrum.

Patriarchy belongs to the semantic field of kinship -- the realm of the family.  Egalitarian belongs to the semantic field of politics, referring to things like equal access to the vote, to positions of public leadership, and to ownership of property. The opposite of patriarchal dominance is not egalitarian anarchy/cooperation.

Because of this ongoing confusion, we have not assigned a proper term.  We must slog along with, um, non-patriarchy.  This is the term used where the power of the fathers and males has been undermined in favor of the Heavenly Father's leadership of his Kingdom Family of siblings who follow Jesus as First Born, Lord and Master.

In the same way, the opposite of egalitarianism is not patriarchy but monarchy, oligarchy or despotism.  And part of the confusion came from Roman Emperors who disguised their monarchy behind a kind of public patriarchy -- the pater patriae, the father of the fatherland.

Understandable yet regrettable...and, ultimately, something that must be made right by those who call Jesus Lord and no man Father but God.  Jesus, and Paul, turned the power of the patriarchs on their heads.  There was no longer an entitlement to power over ... but a command to love and serve as Jesus loves and serves.

Jesus, and Paul, called on the men to give God's place back...to let God be Father of those who accept his amazing offer of adoption as siblings of, and joint heirs with, Jesus Christ.

* * * * * * *
In a really funky way, the polarized politics in America is caught in this same kind of semantic problem.  Stay with me all the way through, please...so you understand where I am coming from:

• Conservative means faithfulness to the "status quo" -- and is meant to apply to the Constitution as intended by the original authors.  The Framers have the same problem as the Apostle Paul as folks try to twist and expand and change the original meaning of their writings.  Conservatives believe that the Constitution cannot mean today what it did not mean when the Framers wrote it.  This requires diligence with regard to historical and linguistic and social and political distance ... because history and language and society and politics have changed over the past two centuries.  
• Progressive means adapting to the changing meanings of history and language and society and politics -- and is meant to apply to learning from history, updating colloquialisms, removing barriers to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in society and seeking peaceful unity in politics.  If this requires amending the Constitution, there is a policy in place that is to be followed.

I find it interesting that American politics has continued the Roman error, where many on both sides of these terms see them as opposites.  Some Conservatives yearn for a kind of Political Patriarchy that gives lip service to a kind of Christian Monarchy.  Some Progressives yearn for a kind of Political Oligarchy that gives lip service to a kind of Social Patriarchy.  

But the American experiment is one where neither of these scenarios fit.  We are honored to have a Constitution to which we are pledged to be faithful.  It is, indeed, our "status quo" and it must be conserved.  And as a free people, we are honored to be self-governing and choose our representatives.  We need to continue to progress as we learn better what justice and mercy and rule of law look like, so that we can build on the Framer's Foundation.

We conserve the contents of the Constitution for everyone's benefit.  We make progress as a society and a republic by following the rule of law and practicing responsible freedom at home and abroad.  Neither of these endeavors are aided by methods of coercion that leads toward patriarchy or oligarchy.

It's still true that power does tend to corrupt -- and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  This is why God's power is made perfect in our weakness.  When we submit to one another in cHesed -- looking out for the best interest of the other, according to the covenant -- the world sees that we live in a different Kingdom.  A Kingdom where Jesus is King and God is Father.  Lording it over others has no place in the lives of those who follow Jesus Christ -- not in their home life, not in their business life and not in their political life.  Life is messy and it takes time and humility and good humor to "...listen one another into free speech."

Those who try to make politics a subset of religion err.  America is not an experiment in Christian Theocracy as an upgrade of Hebrew Theocracy.  America is not an experiment in Christian or Marxist Collectivism, either.  America is an experiment in being a Representative Republic made up of many Sovereign States -- of the people, by the people and for the people -- where there is tremendous freedom for progress toward a more perfect union and freedom from oppression in all its forms -- especially those known as patriarchy and oligarchy.  Out of many States we forge the United States of America -- and we need to respect and value each person and each state to the best of our ability.  And when we are wrong, we need to repent and progress toward that more perfect union -- the one the Framers envisioned.

Those Americans who are also followers of Jesus have an opportunity to join this wee purple abbess as she endeavors to live as a non-patriarchal conservative progressive egalitarian.  

O, that would be glory, indeed!

Be blessed....

Abi's cHesed Tweetinar Update....

It has been a particularly worthwhile endeavor to break down the beauty and complexity of the Hebrew concept of faithful covenant keeping into 140 character thoughts.  If you want to follow, you can find me at @abisomeone and follow the conversation at #cHesed.  I have another few weeks of material, I think.

*******

...and in other news:  this wee purple abbess will be next week's blogger at Ed's Women In Ministry series.  If you haven't been following, start with today's post....

*******

Be blessed, friends ... and enjoy browsing older posts while I get my first bunch of  Tweets ready to share in a future post.