Cold Turkey

Okay, I admit. I could not go cold turkey. In a moment of weakness I instinctively went over the the Outhouse and read a post. Of course, it was on women in ministry so I got suckered into reading some posts - no posts just perusing others' comments. The responses were typical.

• There were a surprising amount of people who were open to and accepting of women in ministry and at least could acknowledge there is not a clear, biblical witness
• There were those who dogmatically claimed that "they believed the Bible," which states women cannot be pastors, have authority over a man, etc.

And as always, my position is the correct one ... that is a joke. But seriously, one cannot reasonably make an argument either way without acknowledging that there is tension in the biblical witness. You have women leaders in theOT and the NT, and Jesus' liberal attitude - if not flat-out rebellion - against the social convention of the day makes it hard to believe he would support the paternalistic attitudes of first century Jews and 21st century Southern Baptists. I thought one person madea novel argument I had never heard: the Great Commission commands all to go out and and make disciples and to baptize - I guess our fundamentalist friends do not care to take that passage so literally.

I think that is my beef with the fundamentalist position - the absurdity of its inconsistency. Fundamentalists pick and choose passages to taker literally while ignoring other passages. I am a traditional Baptist, so I respect a fundamentalist's privilege to not support women ministers; but if they want to keep me from doing so, reciprocate with a little consistency: do not let women speak in church, forbid jewelry and makeup, and make them cover their heads; but no, they pick and choose their literal passages.

The fundamentalist argument largely hinges on the 1 Timothy passage; and theological arguments are exhaustive on both sides. However, I am more apt to believe that the writer of this letters intendes his direction to be situational as it is written to a specific person at a specific time. Paul's letters by contrast largely were intended to be circulated. Paul not only permits women to preach but considers them in equality with men (Gal).

When I started this post, my intention was not to dwell on preaching women. I also read an article in a magazine about the family feud going on in Episcopal life over the ordination of gay bishops. I think many Fundamentalists (in addition to other reasons) fear that letting women vote and leave the kitchen opens the doors for gays next (all this started when they let the blacks in).

How do we as hold on to orthodoxy while allowing for teneble positions that legitimately evolve? While there is tension over women, one really has to get out the mental gymnastics to support the ordination of homosexuals (IMHO). Yet so many in church leadership and the academy tend to have political and cultural agendas disguished as theology: my favorite is the "Mother God" movement ... there is a reason God chose masculine language more than a matter of grammar.

My concern is allowing liberty in places where one finds legitimate theological tension while preventing the slippery slope into accomodaton. I guess one has to define "legitimate."