It seems this theme is no longer so hot here on blogfeed but the conversation continues no doubt and I would like to contribute my thoughts. We had one opinon from Tom, another from BJD and it is important to me (and perhaps others) that someone gives the other opinion (even if a bit late, it took awhile to write this post) and I do so with respect for all those who have written and commented.

I believe that all people, including men and women, are equal. By equal I mean completely equal thus equally capable, and with the blessing of God, to lead businesses, countries, families and churches.

I admit up front that I read the Bible from a historical, metaphorical and sacramental point of view. Thus for me the Bible is a sacred document and central to my faith and the way I live. I try to read it every day and it helps me understand who I am, who God is and what my life with Him should look like. However, I do not believe that the world was created in a literal 7 days, that the red sea was literally parted in two for the Israelites to pass, that Jonah was literally swallowed by a fish and I am even unsure of some of the miracles of Jesus. And even if they were literal I am unsure of their relevance to how I live my life. That does mean I do not believe in the truth of these stories. I believe that they have a very profound “more than literal” meaning that is still very relevant today. That God created and is in the world, that no matter where we go it is in God “that we live and move and have our being” that the spirit of God was in Jesus and in him we can see what a life lived fully in God looks like and finally that our God is a transfornming God who brings people from slavery into freedom, fear into truth, crucifixion into ressurection etc. I also do not believe that God really called the Israelites to bring down death and destruction on the communities around them, such as they did (as much as I do not believe that He called the crusaders). Nor do I believe he told Isiah he would “dash infants to pieces before their eyes” or that He was/is particularly concerned about whether we eat animals that “have a split hoof and chew the cud”. For me these have a historical context of people trying to understand their God. Just as the idea that a woman is unclean for a week after the birth of a baby boy and two weeks after the birth of a baby girl. And if we need a New Testament example I do not believe that slaves should obey their masters.

It has been argued that this way of reading the Bible is arrogant. I would argue that almost everyone reads the Bible this way (hence the fact that very few people, probably none, continue to live by the above regulations) but I also believe that as Marcus Borg (and other Biblical scholars) argue the historical, metaphorical and sacramental way is the traditional way of reading the Bible. He says “the notion of Biblical infallibility and inerrancey first appeared in the 1600’s.” He goes on to argue that “it was the Enlightment that identified truth with factuality. Before that people were more concerned with the more than literal meaning.”

Thus I come to my argument about women in ministry, believing that much of what was written about men’s and women’s roles has a historical context (and I remind you I am not being selective as I read the whole Bible this way). And while I believe in the wisdom of wives at times “submitting to their husbands” I do not see it as a blanket rule (and most would certainly agree with me when we throw in the issue of domestic violence). Just as I believe at times “women being silent and listening to the wisdom of men” is important so do I believe in the importance of men doing the same. And I would argue if one truly believes in the inerrancy of this statement they should be silencing women in churches and in fact all circumstances totally.

For me the message of the Bible as a whole and of Jesus (who was suprisingly silent on the issue given how much air time it gets in church circles) is one of equality of all people, “in Christ Jesus there is no male and female”. The message is one of liberation, of giving voice to the voiceless and empowering the oppressed and if we silence women in any way they become voiceless. And as many have commented (even those who disagree with me), women held leadership positions in the Bible and in the ministry of Jesus. I am constantly drawn to the story of the crucifixion where, as the men flap around betraying and denying Jesus and then don’t even recognise him when he appears to them, the women stand at the foot of the cross and then go to the tomb. It is to them that the news of the ressurection is first given and to them the responsibility to share it with others (to minister perhaps).

It has been argued that this isn’t a salvation issue. As someone who believes that salvation is as relevent in this life as it is the next, if not more so, it is a salvation issue. This is a justice issue, and like all issues of injustice such as slavery, poverty, racism we as Christians are called to liberate. Christ has called us to freedom and I just can’t envisage full freedom for women while they are not able to lead chuches just as if black people were not able to lead churches I would be saying the same. This may seem over the top to some but perhaps not to the massive amounts of people who are leaving the church because of its irrelevance. And that is an issue that needs to be taken seriously in this debate.

Well that’s enough I think (although I could go on I am sure). Again I remind people I have written this post with respect and admiration for others who have written simply with the hope that as people consider this issue they hear both sides of view. I hope if you choose to comment you would offer me the same respect.