Chrysostom predicts the 21st century

Dr. Veith, you forgot the next line: “For God assigned to woman the care of the house only, to man the conduct of public affairs.”

As such, let’s only have men comment on this thread, please. Women, whip up something tasty. That laundry will not fold itself.

Yeah, lets shout down Crysostom. The world works so much better with people shooting at, and being shot by, women soldiers.

Well, at least there is one boundary that will not be defeated–male and female He created them. Can’t get past basic biology.

It may be circumvented for all practical purposes, however, when we can evolve technology to the point of producing babies in a laboratory, perhaps even cloning us.

I think Chrysostom was confused by the Devil 🙂
It seems to me that Satan’s purpose is not to mix up “gender roles”, but to kill (someone called him a murderer from the beginning in the Bible, I think). I suspect Satan is far more satisfied with male Chechnians bombing marathons than with the female police officers who strapped up to apprehend them.

It occurs to me that a lot of grasping for power and position is because those to whom it was given first have made such a hash of it. In a workplace, you can tell when the managers are doing poorly because even the janitor says “boy, if I were in charge.” In a family, you can often tell an abusive husband by looking at his resentful wife. In politics today, from both sides, you can tell that things have gone well beyond simple policy differences about the same way.

Or, put differently, I did a statistical test to compare the fitness of the four women who have attempted the combat infantry course to the men who have done the same. As all four women failed the introductory test (at least one of them due to an injury requiring medical attention), the probability that these women were in the same category, fitness-wise, as the men (both passing and failing) in the course is zero.

God made us different. Let’s celebrate and enjoy this fact.

@BB

Nothing wrong with celebrating difference. Gay or straight, let’s celebrate!!! But that’s not what you mean. Oh well . . .

Whenever someone advocates for strict “gender roles” that others should fit into, what they really are concerned about is authority – who has it and who doesn’t. It is driven not by a conern for the needs of the neighbor, but by -fear of losing their power, and sinful people are always concerned with both maintaining and increasing their power over others. It stems from our desire for control in a world that resists our attempts and is the preferred method of a moralist.

Mercy, rather, compels one to give all that up for the other, emptying ourselves of this need for authority and control for the sake of others. Paradoxically, this is the exact and perfect use of our power – to give it away.

Philippians 2:5

@8, Stephen
I think your intersex exception just proves the rule–some of them are sterile, and ones that aren’t have functioning male or female gametes, less often both. And the intersex child was the product of a male and female. And for the intersex to reproduce, s/he will need a opposite gamete from another source. So males and females are inherently different, inherently required for reproduction, there’s no changing that barrier.

Stephen, I believe ordinarily we’d call “intersex,” as you call it, a “birth defect.” The Scriptures describe this indirectly in Matthew 19:12, and allude to it in the restrictions for the priests in the Torah. So the Church is not caught unawares, nor is She caught bigoted. At the very least, I’ve not heard of any churches, even the lunatics at Westboro Baptist, attacking such people.

And since apparently nobody is having a problem with such tragic cases, and they only occur one time in 5000, that’s really a diversionary tactic of yours so you can sneak in the idea that roles based on one’s sex are simply a matter of power.

Nice try, but it simply doesn’t wash with reality. “Intersex” people don’t change the basic fact that women are biologically designed to bear and nurse children. “Intersex” people don’t change the fact that men are orders of magnitude more likely to be able to bear the strains of combat. And finally, “intersex” people have no bearing on the question of homosexuality, which is decided almost entirely by people with normally functioning genitalia.

And those homosexuals wanting to have families? Well, I looked up the data, and homosexuals are about a third as likely as heterosexuals to form a cohabiting relationship, about a twelfth as likely to marry, and about 4% as likely to become parents. It would appear that the two groups are different by nature, and perhaps we ought to respect that.

Are we sure that Chrysostom when writing “who use men, as if they were women” was speaking about homosexual behavior? I think not since “and lead out women to war” speaks more about gender differences than sexual activity. Surely (?) he was referring to a long-agreed understanding of Genesis 1 and 2 where “man” (male and female) is given dominion over the creation while male and female where given a different relationship; namely, that the woman (female singular) was to be a helper for the man (masculine singular). Now, God does not there identify what sort of “help” the woman was to give to (she was called “toward man” because she was made “from man”) the man/husband. That is also long-understood to be between the two of them. If he’s better suited toward the cooking and cleaning and child rearing and she is better suited for the hunting and defense of the family there is neither command nor prohibition within the family. True, there are some functions of the family which are “built-in” so that in no way could two men or two women form the foundation of the domestic estate since all that is needed for the family could not be present in conceiving, bearing, nursing children and providing the requisite parts for sexual fulfillment. (Yes, I do believe that homosexual sex cannot, a priori, give adequate fulfillment which is not to say that all heterosexual sex is automatically fulfilling either; but that’s not my point here.)

My point is that I believe our confusion over the boundaries *in society* frequently comes when this principle where the man and woman are “one” so that everything necessary is being accomplished between them is then applied to the realm of society. They (husband and wife) “submit to one another as to the Lord.” It’s reflexive. In other words, the husband/wife can split up family duties however they like and are best suited. How to do that is left to them within their marriage and biology. But this truth is not necessarily also true with the relationship between all humans and their Creator or even between all humans outside of marriage. There *are* commands and prohibitions regarding male and female in the realm of spiritual things and in the realm of societal things. We must look closely at what those are.

With regard to spiritual things, we first notice that it was to the man (masculine singular) that God gave several commands. To Adam God gave the command to work and care for the Garden (Genesis 2:15). Since Eve had not yet been created, but was later created to be a suitable helper for the man, it follows that she was to help him fulfill the command that was given to him. Their children also were to be under his authority/responsibility until they leave their father and more and cleave each to his own wife (feminine singular). Likewise, God commanded the man not eat from that certain tree even before Eve was created. Eve would be a suitable helper for this as well, but the authority/responsibility for applying the Word of God had been put upon the man who would have needed to instruct his wife who, in turn, would have submitted to her husband and the husband to God.

The “use” of men as women to which Chrysostom is referring is men subjecting other men to do for them what God had given them to do for themselves. It is one thing to “lead” men (and women!) out to war, but it is quite another to “send” them as if they were meant to do that on their behalf as “suitable helpers”. And to “lead out women to war as if they were men” is to give women a responsibility as if it were God-given when it was not. In short, the relationship between the man and the emperor is not the same as the relationship between husband and wife. Likewise, the relationship between women and the emperor is not the same as the relationship between husband and wife.

We would do well, therefore, to refrain from applying what can be said for the relationship between husband and wife to the relationship between the emperor and his subjects. The emperor is not husband to his subjects (but Christ IS husband to His bride, the Church; which would not need to be said if every lord were husband to his subjects).

For a contemporary application, we must see that our government is not to be the provider for all its citizens and that the government is not to apply the authority/responsibility of the husband/father to all it’s subjects. The government is a separate estate with its own responsibility/authority.

Context and interpretive principles must be applied!

Bike Bubba, are you sure you meant 4 women? You can’t do a statistical test with four treatments; did you mean 400?

Other cultures have let women fight, even expected it.

LOL, yeah, there is a word for those cultures: Losers.

If anyone thinks removing historical boundaries between gender roles means that there will be fewer boundaries in general, they are sorely mistaken. Humans are all about organizing roles and drawing boundaries. These will just be, and are currently being, imposed in other areas of life.

You mean like Vikings and Saxons?

Link?

Paul in Kato, those seem like wise words.

Paul,

“To say that a man is commanded by God to do certain things and a woman is not is not to say that a woman *may* not. It is only that she has no command.”

So how does that square with women pastors? “May” they do so, even though they are not commanded to do so? If they are willing, have the temperament and skills, and it does not interfere with their first order duties as mother, then whose to say they “should not” do that work if they choose it. It is, after all, an earthly vocation just as is any other, with its own prescribed duties.

Stephen: Thank you for the complement. I don’t post anywhere very often, but I do read here nearly every day. I appreciate very much a good discussion and would be curious to know how many others are following us on this. I think you would agree with me that the Church, even my own, has not spoken very clearly about this even though it can be clearly explained and understood. I’m guessing that’s because they/we fear being misunderstood and labeled as misogynist.

A few things come quickly to my mind concerning the questions you raise@29. These are also commonly misunderstood and add to the confusion over the pastoral office in general and who should be Called to be a Pastor in particular.

First of all, no one has a “right” to be or do whatever they choose. I cannot be a World War II Veteran. I was born much too late for that. I cannot be a jet fighter pilot since they need math and engineering skills which I haven’t been given and now I’m just too old. I cannot be a mother or a wife – God has not given me what is needed to do those things. Our contemporary society has told us, however, that any person can “be whatever they want to be” which simply isn’t true and has led to a great deal of misery (especially for thousands of kids who want to be pro athletes) for although “all men are created equal” (read also “women”), we are not all interchangable (LCMS CTCR document).

So each of us must examine the gifts, skills, resources, and interests which we have been given by our Creator. This includes when and where He has placed us in history and geography, the culture into which we were placed, and even the parents and siblings which we were given. Taking these into account as best we can, each person then aspires to or takes up a particular vocation. This also is sometimes beyond our individual control since there may be no openings in a particular vocation and I am forbidden to scheme or seek to take away another person’s vocation. I’m really in Dr. Veith’s territory here, so I apologize to him for doing so on his own blog. Yet the point is essential when considering whether or not women may or should become Pastors because the point of vocation is not to make money, have a career, find personal fulfillment, or other inward purposes, but rather to love and serve our neighbor. So the proper question is not “What do I want to be and do in life?” but rather “How can I best love and serve my neighbor given the gifts, skills, resources, attributes, place and time that God has given me?” We need not ask “may” or “should” a woman be a Pastor. Rather, every one of us, regardless of gender, need to ask, “What has God given for me to do today?” So the question “May” a woman be a pastor even though they are not commanded to do so?” is not the best starting question. It seeks an abstract, absolute principle while God deals with us in down-to-earth, concrete, individual particularities. For example, if I were to ask “May I become an astronaut?” there are countless abstract scenarios in which the answer could be yes. But in my individual, particular situation, I cannot see any possible route to fulfilling that aspiration. This doesn’t yet answer your question, but it does help us refocus your question to one which can be answered.

I have known many women with gifts greater than my own for being a Pastor. (I almost said “or theologian” but I had better leave theologian out of this discussion.) One woman in my college days far surpassed most of the men in her understanding and skill with the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. Another was a extremely persuasive speaker. I have known many women with the compassion and skill of a pastor in dealing with others (see “The Hammer of God” by Bo Giertz, pp. 24-25 where Katrina comforts Johannes on his death bed with the Good News of Christ’s atonement!). So we need to be clear that yes,there are many women who have been given the gifts, skills, resources, time and place necessary for providing good Pastoral care. If we say otherwise, people will ignore us from then on. God can and does work when and where and through whom He pleases to accomplish His will.

God has not bound Himself to work only through certain means in creating and sustaining faith. But He has bound us. The most familiar example of this is our Lord’s command that we Baptize all nations. We understand this to mean “to apply water” in the Name of the Triune God for forgiveness and regeneration. If one were to ask, “Could we Baptize with coffee?” since it contains water or “could we Baptize with hand sanitizer since it is now used to ‘wash’?” we would need to answer “No” because that is not what God has bound us to do. A similar question today is whether or not Holy Communion can be given using grape juice and glutten-free wafers since God certainly “can” use whatever He pleases to bestow forgiveness, life, and eternal salvation. But how far afield can or may we go before we no longer have the command to Baptize or to “Do this in remembrance of me?” In the same way we see that God certainly “can” and has used women to deliver His Word and gifts, even in the public office. The question, however, is not therefore “can” or “may” a woman be a Pastor, but rather “What has God bound us to in filling the public office of Word and Sacrament?”

So we look to the Scriptures to find God’s instructions. Specifically, **with regard to the Office of the Public Ministry*** (I mark that strongly because the question is not concerning authority in the home or even in the Voters’ Assembly of the Church, but specifically to this Public Office) we see that God has indeed given instructions as to who is to be installed to fulfill this office. The candidate should be respected in the community, able to teach, not a drunkard, etc. The candidate is to be “the husband of one wife” which speaks not only to the number of spouses but also to gender since there are at least several ways the Scriptures could have said “spouse”. This is perhaps the most commonly used set of instructions, but not the only one, which tells the Church whom they are to consider as a candidate for the Office of the Public Ministry.

And this leads to the third point for this post (which cannot be exhaustive): only those who are rightly Called “can” or “may” serve in the Office of the Public Ministry. God’s instructions are not directed to the individual who desires the office, but to those who are responsible to fill that office regarding who they are to consider. Again: the question surrounding women pastors is not about who “can” or “may” do the job. Rather, it is about who the congregation may consider for the office.

Finally, we must also allow that we may not always understand or agree with God’s instructions. For example, one does not need to feel the need or agree with the command that we are to set aside time *weekly* for the Word and Sacraments. One need only know that we are commanded to do so. While God does not bind Himself, He may bind us whether or not we understand or agree with His instructions.

I hope that this response provides you with some further thoughts to pursue regarding your questions.

Paul

@ 30

I disagree. That is, if do not understand Paul rightly and what his intentions are in writing what he did then there is plenty of room for discussion. And I think that is exactly the case, so I keep at it.

Stephen @34

+1

Except that very many homosexuals also practice hetrosexual sex acts and produce progeny. As I have seen, when you look behind the curtain, many very straight seeming people with biological children and ostensibly good heterosexual marriages, also frequent the bars and baths to burn with lust. Nature is not selecting against gayness, as should be obvious to all.

When I think of the role of women in religious ceremonies within our tradition, I think of Anna the Prophetess. Although she was a widow, perhaps of very long duration, her title probably meant that she was the wife of a prophet, but that she was present at the temple and there with Mary and Simeon for the rites of presentation of the baby and the purification of Mary, probably meant that Anna was the woman who would actually bathe Mary in the mikvah, as no man was allowed even to see it. To purifiy a woman, the church had to have women perform the ritual bath on the naked woman in need of purification, which most childbearing women were at least once a month. Does this mean there were mikvahs at the Temple? Experts in Temple history will know, archaeologists will know. But a woman was the necessary performer of the rite and there was Anna, johnny-on-the-spot. Although a man must cover the ritual with his authority, he may not even enter the room.

Given both the Jewish and Christian intense prudery about female nudity, one wonders how large numbers of women were baptised, quite naked, in the early church. I don’t know how it was done, but I will bet you dollars to donuts that no men, any men, could be present, even within the same room, when women were naked in a religious ritual. When naked baptism was the rule, women baptised women in a very similar way to women purifying women. The assigned man held the authority, but women performed the rite very carefully out of the sight of any man.

The movie Kadosh has several scenes of the ritual bath purification rite, though I didn’t find a film clip showing them. This one is pretty good though. A question: can a religion aford to lose its condratictions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCcpL3-guY4