This is the continuation of my response to Steve's initial reply to my essay. As time permits I will also respond to subsequent posts by Apollos and Steve.
Steve wrote:
Those of us (you and me, at least) who do not identify the institutional church with the real thing should know better than to buy into the carnal notion (held by institutionalists) that church leadership is a “privileged role,” and that those restricted from it are being somehow “held down.” The church began thinking this way after it began to mimic the pagan institutions (Matt.20:25). Before that, being a church leader usually meant becoming a lion’s lunch. Your feminist writers are institutional church people. If they are not allowed to become “professional pastors,” they feel that men are hoarding all the “status” and “privilege,” and locking the women out. Good heavens! I would be horrified to be a part of a church where being “the pastor” was viewed as a profession and as a status symbol! Those demanding equality of "rank" have two problems: first, they mistake leadership for rank; and second, they have not the mind of Christ, who did not count equality a thing to be grasped.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that if I'm not part of the "institutional church" I shouldn't worry about it? Are you saying that all "institutional" churches view leadership as a "privileged role"? Are you saying that
all "feminist writers" are "institutional church" people? You seem to be making some pretty broad generalizations here!
Many non-institutional churches, such as house-church networks, also prohibit (or limit) women from teaching, participating in decision-making or other leadership roles. I would venture (though correct me if I'm wrong) that if you oversaw a house-church or group of house-churches you would have restrictions on women as well, based on your understanding of scripture.
Danny wrote: We live in a day and age where women are police officers and pilots and neurosurgeons and CEOs and leaders of nations, yet within the walls of many churches, they are still told they must be submissive followers of men.
Steve replied: We live in a society where good is called evil and evil is called good. It is a society that has rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is in them? The proper relationships of husbands to wives, of children to parents, of church leaders to saints, of man-to-man and woman-to-man, have all been lost to our culture. The institutional churches are following hard after the world in this respect, hoping to totally release their grasp on the distinctive truths that the Bible affirms in plain language, but which our society despises. There are not many steps downward from where our society now stands. I do not see any reason to allow the norms of such a society to move us away from clear biblical standards of right and wrong. The church is supposed to differ from the world in at least one important feature—obedience to God.
Again, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. My statement was about equal opportunities for women in the workplace and how women have proven to be competant in a multitude of careers that were once primarily the domain of men. You responded by talking about "evil" and "sin" and rejection of "the word of the Lord" and moving away from "clear biblical standards". Are you opposed to women in the workplace?
Every society is a society where good is called evil and evil is called good. As far as there not being "many steps downward from where our society now stands", do you think our society was better as a whole when it oppressed blacks with Jim Crow laws? Or was our society better during those hundreds of years when it enslaved millions? When we dropped atomic bombs on two civilian targets in Japan, or intentionally carpet bombed cities in Germany, was that our "Christian" society at a higher point?
Personally, I can't think of a time I'd rather be alive and participating in the expansion of the Kingdom!
Regarding 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Steve wrote:
It is good to have thorough knowledge of historical backgrounds and cultural pressures under which the original readers lived. Since the ancient societies were not monolithic any more than are modern societies, one can easily identify any number of independent movements, philosophies and subcultures in a given region at a given time. When someone is looking to prove a certain thesis by appeal to a particular scriptural passage, there are many items in the historical background from which he/she can pick and choose to make a novel interpretation appear to be tailor-made to fit the circumstances. I appreciate your honesty in using the phrase, "One can only imagine..."
I am not suggesting that the presence of the Cybele/Artemis cult (a mystery religion) and of Gnosticism (an entirely different philosophical system) had no impact on the Christian church, nor would I deny that some of their beliefs may have concerned Paul in writing to Timothy. However, there were many other religious factors in the culture that were also disagreeable with Christianity—e.g. statism, Judaic legalism, Christian heresies (teaching that the resurrection was past), etc., whose influence might as easily (and as arbitrarily) be invoked,...
I think you're disproportionately understating the importance of the cult of Artemis and Jewish Gnosticism to that particular locality at that particular time in history. Imagine if, many years from now, a letter was discovered which was written in 2009 from a missionary who had previously been stationed in Saudi Arabia to a younger missionary who had recently arrived in Saudi Arabia. The letter provided practical advice and encouragement. Do you suppose that the religious and cultural climate of Saudi Arabia circa 2009--particulary as it relates to Islam--would have a bearing on what the older missionary was saying to the younger missionary? Or would you think that to seriously consider the effects of the Islamic culture in Saudi Arabia circa 2009 on the content of said document would be to make an "arbitrary" invocation?
...if our agenda was to prove some alternative thesis, which required such an appeal. It is mostly speculative, in a passage that makes no direct allusion to any particular cultural factor, to suggest that Paul’s instructions should not be taken at face value, but should be informed and restricted in meaning by some cultural factor of our choosing. This is particularly unnecessary when Paul’s own reasons for giving his instructions are stated within the passage itself.
You seem to be assuming that I first chose to have an egalatarian stance, then arbitrarily sought out a "cultural factor" that would support my stance. This is not the case. Rather, it was by educating myself about the "cultural factors" in Ephesus (as well as Corinth, Rome, Judea, etc.) that I began to realize the degree of prominance such "factors" as the cult of Cybele/Artemis and Gnosticism had in that time at that place. Based on this information (not a pre-determined agenda, as you suggest), I began to have a greater understanding of 1 Timothy then I previously had had.
1 Timothy 2:11-15 does not exist in a vacuum. It is a piece of a whole. It is clear throughout the epistle that Paul has the "cultural factors" of Ephesus in mind.
Danny wrote: Next Paul writes, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man…” The word Paul used here, which is translated “have authority over” is authentein. It is not the word normally used for authority in the New Testament…]Authentein is a compound word made from the Greek word auto, meaning “self” and hentos, meaning “thrust”. Literally, it means “to thrust oneself forward”.
Steve replied: I am hearing Catherine Kroeger here. In 1979, she theorized that authentein was an erotic term which meant “to thrust oneself.” Three years later, Carroll Osburn demonstrated that Kroeger’s claim was “more curious than substantive.” Then, in 1992, Kroeger and her husband Richard published an acknowledgement that this word has “a wide range of meanings,” including “(1) to begin something, to be responsible for a condition or action, (2) to rule, to dominate, (3) to usurp power or rights from another, (4) to claim ownership, sovereignty, or authorship.”
I didn't say anything about
authentein being an erotic term. I would agree with Osburn that Kroeger's claim in this regard is not substantive. This is why, a few sentences later I used the example of "thrusting the dagger". Are you disagreeing with the etymology being based on the words
auto and
hentos? My primary source on that was the 2nd century Greek etymologist Phrynichus. Do you have an alternate etymology to offer?
I'm quite sure I covered the various meanings of
authentein in its verb and noun forms. In fact, this was the essence of my point: That
authentein was a word that carried rich overtones ("a wide range", as you say) of meaning.
There has been much scholarly interest in authentein, since it is a hapax legomena (a term meaning “a word found only once in scripture”). In the extra-biblical literature, a large number of meanings have been attested. Rather than trusting the claims of one scholar, who has proved herself by her intellectual dishonesty to be a mere ideologue, one can consult the full range of lexical studies on this word (there is no general agreement as to its primary meaning). Here are some of the ways that various respected lexicographers have rendered its meaning:
Sophocles: 1. To be in power, to have authority over 2. To be the originator of anything 3. to compel 4. mid: to be in force.
Preisigke: 1. beherrschen (= to rule, control, dominate) 2. Verfügungsberechtigt sein (= to have legitimate authority to dispose of something) 3. Herr sein, fest auftreten (= to be master, to act confidently )
Lampe: 1. hold sovereign authority, act with authority 2.possess authority over 3. Assume authority, act on one’s own authority 4. Be primarily responsible for, instigate, authorize.
Moulton and Milligan: 1. From the word “master, autocrat.’
LSJ: 1. to have full power or authority over 2. To commit murder.
Mayser: 1. Herr sein, fest auftreten (= to be master, to act confidently)
BAGD: 1. have authority over, domineer
Louw and Nida: 1. To control in a domineering manner—‘to control, to domineer.’
DGE: 1. tener autoridad sobre andros [como algo prohibido a la mujer] (= to have authority over a male [as something prohibited to a woman])
First off, I take exception to your charge that I was "trusting the claims of one scholar". Perhaps making a false inference like that is an acceptable tactic in a debating situation, but I don't find it honorable. I would have expected a higher standard here on these forums.
I used some (though not all) of the same resources you have listed, and others you have not. I see the same patterns in the examples you have provided as I encountered in my own research:
Domineer. Control. Commit murder. Be primarily responsible for or originator of something. As Kostenberger wrote, "...consensus on the meaning of the rare word authentein has proved elusive." And as you yourself admitted "...there is no general agreement as to its primary meaning." This is why I dealt in my essay with
possibilities.
After surveying 82 occurrences of authentein in the available literature of the period, H. Scott Baldwin concludes that, among the twelve possible meanings attested in that sample, only four could possibly fit the grammar and context of 1 Timothy 2:12. Those would be:
1) To control, to dominate
2) To compel, to influence
3) To assume authority over
4) To flout the authority of
It seems from this information that there can be no compelling reason to object to the rendering of the standard translations— “have authority over” ( NKJV, RSV, NIV) or to “exercise authority” (NASB, ESV).
So, now who is "trusting the claims of one scholar"? I am familiar with Baldwin's study in the appendix of Grudem's book. It was not, however, the final word on the matter. The core meaning of
authentein is clearly "to dominate" but, again, I would posit that it carried overtones of the other definitions which you provided earlier (from multiple sources). Thus (as I mentioned in the essay) Jerome translated
authentein into Latin as
dominare (dominate) in the Vulgate (Jerome also used “dominari” in his translation of Luke 22:25, where Jesus instructs his disciples that they are not to do this).
Even if we were to go with the watered down "exercise authority" translation, the emphasis is on
action rather than
position. There is a world of difference however, between "exercise authority" (or "have authority") and "dominate". If Paul had intended the former, he simply could have used
exousiazein or, for that matter,
proistemi. Paul is clearly intending something stronger than that. As John Jefferson Davis (Professer of Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell) noted of
authentein, "It is clear...that a neutral meaning such as 'have authority' is not in view."
Danny wrote: In the oldest examples we have, the word was used to describe someone who committed murder or suicide by planning the action and then carrying it out with their own hand (thrusting the dagger forward themselves). The word came to be used to describe the mastermind of a diabolical scheme to overcome and murder someone. It was not just the action itself, but the authoring of the plan also.
Steve replied: The parts of this that are not demonstrably incorrect are mere speculation. There is one known instance of the word meaning “to murder,” but it is found only in a document from the tenth century AD. There is no evidence that the word had any such connotations in or near New Testament times.
"In the earlier usage of the word it signified one who with his own hand killed either others or himself. Later it came to denote one who acts on his own authority; hence to exercise authority, dominion." - W. E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (1940)
I assume the disconnect here (and I take responsibility for it due to my poor wording) is that I was referring to
authentein in its verb and noun forms (
authentein/authentes/authenteo), whereas I assume you are strictly referring to the verb
authentein. I'm sure you would agree that my statement is neither incorrect nor speculative if one includes all forms. For example, Wolters in his study of
authentes found 24 instances of the word in the 5th and 4th centures BC to mean “murderer” and 16 additional instances between the 4th century BC and the 2nd century AD. L.E. Wilshire, who isolated 314 references to
authentein/authentes/authenteo going back to the 7th century BC, described the evolution of the word's meaning this way: "Sometime during the spread of koine [300 BC - 100 AD], the word
authenteo went beyond the predominant Attic meaning connecting it with murder and suicide and into the broader concept of criminal behavior. It also began to take on the additional meaning of 'to exercise authority/power/rights' which became firmly established in the Greek Patristic writers [100 AD - 450 AD] to mean 'to exercise authority'".
Wilshire, by the way, came to the conclusion that the most likely sense of
authentein in 1 Timothy 2:12 had to do with "instigating violence."
Even if we stick strictly with the verb form, Belleville has pointed out the following five examples which predate or are contemporaneous with Paul.
1) The Scholia (5th century BC) to Aeschylus’s tragedy Eumenides: “commit acts of violence”
2) Aristonicus (1st century BC), “the author“ (of a message)
3) A letter of Tryphon (1st century BC), “I had my way with him”
4) Philodemus (1st century BC), “powerful lords” (or "tyrants")
5) The poet Dorotheus (1st or 2nd century AD) in an astrological text, “Saturn … dominates Mercury”.
My statement was neither "demonstrably incorrect" nor "mere speculation."
Danny wrote: So what is Paul really saying here? Here are two possibilities: ...
Steve replied: I accept your suggestions as genuine possibilities. However, in understanding the mind of the apostle on a subject of such vital interest to such a large number of believers, we need to beware of settling for “possible” meanings (of which there are myriad) and neglecting the “probable” ones.
Ok, I was trying not to be dogmatic. But, let me re-phrase. Here is the
probable meaning:
1. “I do not permit a woman to teach nor utterly dominate a man…” This is pretty much how the verse was translated in the Latin Vulgate up through the King James Version – a period covering about 1200 years. If we think back about Ephesus and its Amazons, Cybele, Artemis, Diana, castrated priests and powerful priestesses worshiping the mother goddess, suddenly Paul’s use of the word makes a lot of sense.
The verse is intelligible without invoking reference to these local religious beliefs. I don’t think that appeal to such things causes Paul’s statement to “suddenly” make sense, as if it previously did not. I think the only thing that these considerations “suddenly” do to Paul’s words is to raise doubts about their relevance outside of first-century Ephesus. This is the intention of the egalitarians, who have come up with this (and several other, competing scenarios) to neutralize the impact of Paul’s teachings for modern Christians.
You have misstated my words. I'm surprised and disappointed to find you stooping to such tactics. It betrays a lack of objectivity on your part. I did not claim that Paul's statement is unintelligible without invoking references to local religious beliefs. Nor did I say Paul's statement makes no sense. What I said is "...suddenly, Paul's
use of the word makes
a lot of sense." (The underlined bits are the parts you left out).
You seem to be downplaying the value that historical and cultural context has in understanding scripture. If that is your position, then we work from very different hermeneutical frameworks and it's no surprise we come to different conclusions. I made my hermeneutical methodology clear in the essay when I wrote, "One of the most important lessons I ever learned about studying scripture is to ask this question: 'What did it mean to the original hearers?' That simple question opens up a world of discovery." This methodology has nothing to do with egalitarianism. I believe that endeavoring to understand the historical and cultural context of scripture is foundational. Once we have an idea of what a given text meant to the author and to the original hearers within their original context, we can then extrapolate how it applies within our context. Otherwise, if we untether the scriptures from their historic-cultural context, we become prone to all kinds of goofy interpretations (like those who try to interpret Revelation "literally" without any awareness of the Jewish Apocalyptic literary genre). At that point, we might as well claim that the Bible fell intact from the sky.
Danny wrote: It is interesting to note that a couple of sentences later, in verse 15, Paul says “But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.” Here Paul is directly addressing the custom of pregnant women appealing to Artemis to save them during childbirth.
Steve replied: On this view, there could be such an allusion. There is nothing that compels the paradigm, however. Historically, Bible commentators have seen these words as an allusion to the “pain in childbearing” that woman incurred through her involvement in the fall (an event prominently featured in Paul’s immediate context).
Actually, there has been quite a bit of theological debate over the last 2,000 years as to what Paul was getting at here. Most decent commentaries will point out the competing interpretations that have been put forth. I believe that the interpretation I've presented is the simplest, most obvious and most natural
if one takes the historical and cultural context into consideration.
Danny wrote: 2. “I do not permit a woman to teach nor claim to be the author of man…” This interpretation directly addresses the Gnostic teachings about Eve being the one who gave life to Adam and received saving knowledge from the serpent. This would explain why, in verse 13, Paul says “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” Paul is directly contradicting Gnostic teaching, which he rails against throughout the letter to Timothy.
Steve replied: What is evident about these two possibilities (and becomes even more evident when additional possible scenarios are introduced) is that no one of them can make a strong claim to being the correct one. In other words, if Suggested Meaning #1 is correct then Suggested Meaning #2 is not, and vice versa. I know you raised the possibility that Paul may have ingeniously intended both meanings, but this is an unlikely suggestion, and only serves to obscure the fact that the existence of two alternatives strips both of them of any reason to be particularly trusted as unchallenged truth.
This indicates to me that you missed the entire point of what I was trying to put forth. I'll blame it on my writing skills. Meaning #1 and Meaning #2 are not mutually exclusive. It's not "either/or", it's "both/and". It may be your opinion that this is an unlikely suggestion, but your opinion seems to be based on an
a priori rejection of anything that might lend creedance to a more "egalatarian" view.
This illustrates well my earlier point about the selective (and opportunistic) use by some scholars of “historical backgrounds” in establishing the author’s meaning. The two suggestions each select a different cultural factor, and each uses its selected factor of choice to put its own unique spin on the passage. The really significant context of Paul’s instructions in any given passage—more than one or another aspect of the historical setting—is the whole corpus of Paul’s writings on a subject addressed in many settings.
Again, you're arguing "either/or" when the solution is "both/and". You bring up the "whole corpus of Paul's writing" yet seem to be one of the few serious Bible students I've encountered who is unaware of difficulties in reconciling the Pauline corpus as it relates to women in the church. What "historical backgrounds" and "cultural factors" would you consider of value? Those that don't challenge your current position?
That Paul regarded the issue of male headship to be a divine institution is, frankly, indisputable (1 Cor.11:3/ Eph.5:22-23)—and the egalitarians' attempts to re-translate "head" (kephale) as "source" is an example of how far into blatant dishonesty an ideologue may go when the agenda is all that matters (see Grudem's excellent appendix on the subject of kephale, in "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood)! Neither Jesus nor Paul (both of whom esteemed women very highly) ever were known to appoint or acknowledge any women as primary leaders in the congregations. Add to these considerations the reasons Paul gives for his instructions in 1 Timothy 2:12ff, and you have a pretty good reason to stick with the most obvious and plain meaning of his words—at least until compelling evidence arises to favor some alternative.
I see that you are trying to preemptively "head" off any discussion of
kephale. I won't go there, purely for the sake of brevity, other than to say this: Of course
kephale means "head". That isn't the question. The question is, what does "head" mean besides a physical head. What are the acceptable metaphors? Was "head" (
kephale) used in ancient Greco-Roman culture as a metaphor in the same ways that we use it now? Did it denote a "position over" someone/something? Did it denote the "source" of someone/something? This has long been a matter of serious but cordial debate among serious scholars. That you would characterize fellow Christians and Bible scholars who disagree with you as "ideologues" who commit "blatant dishonesty" and to whom "the agenda is all that matters" is very disturbing. Rhetoric like that is typically used by those who want to prevent honest dialog and examination. It seems a long way from the calm and even-handed voice that so impressed me when I first read the Introductory chapter in
Revelation: Four Views.
Danny wrote: All the evidence put together strongly suggests that Paul’s statement to Timothy about women was very specific to the situation in Ephesus.
Steve replied: In fact, almost all of Paul’s instructions to any churches were addressing specific situations or problems in their churches. This realization must never be permitted to obscure the fact that all of Paul’s instructions were, in those situations, simply the local and particular applications of larger principles of the kingdom of God that informed his theology. Since Paul speaks about women in numerous places and contexts—sometimes as virgin daughters, sometimes as wives, sometimes with reference to their roles in the community or in the church—we have more than adequate opportunity to discover his overall beliefs about male and female functions and relations. To take 1 Timothy in a traditional manner is consistent with Paul’s general teaching and behavior concerning women, and it is consistent with the attitudes and behavior of Christ as well.
So now you are saying that "historical backgrounds" and "cultural context" matter? Hmmm, but I thought a minute ago...
Of course Paul's instructions were local and particular applications of larger principles. Who has said any different? The point of disagreement lies in determining what those larger principles are. I believe Paul is consistent with a larger Kingdom principle that bends towards restoration of equality and justice and is consistent with the words and actions of Jesus.
Danny wrote: There are several difficulties with [1 Corinthians 14:34-37]. The first is the previously mentioned contradiction between this statement and Paul’s other statements and praxis. ... The second has to do with the placement of this statement in the discourse. Some scholars posit that it was cut and pasted in awkwardly from another letter by Paul.
Steve replied: This difficulty has been acknowledged by traditional scholars as well as egalitarians. However, it is a problem of structure rather than of content, and need not detain us long in our consideration of Paul’s overarching theology of women’s function in relation to men in the church.
Yes, structure. That is what I meant by "placement". But to say it "need not detain us long in our consideration of Paul’s overarching theology of women’s function in relation to men in the church." sounds as if you are trying to avoid something. There is a legitimate difficulty in the text and it has something to tell us. I don't think we should be quite so cavalier about brushing it aside if it is not useful to the interpretation we've decided upon.
Danny wrote: There is a solution to these difficulties which causes this portion of scripture to flow very naturally and eliminates the apparent contradiction: What if verses 33 and 34 are a quote from the Corinthian’s letter and verse 36 onward is Paul’s response?
It would read like this:
Quote from Corinthian’s letter: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
Paul’s response: Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
Someone in a Corinthian house-church has laid down a rule that women must remain silent. They have invoked the Old Testament Law to back it up (which is a clue that maybe the person is a Judaizer).
Steve replied: I have never found this line of reasoning to be very convincing. The problem is that it requires us to view an entire paragraph as Paul’s summary of the position of an objector. It is reasonably uncontroversial to observe that Paul sometimes does quote the objections of others, and then answers them. However, in every other case, the quoted line is very brief, never more than a sentence, and usually only a few words. This would be a unique case if Paul were here to rattle-off three consecutive, lengthy sentences as representative of the view of an objector, without providing a clue that he is doing so—that is, without including some indicator like “Someone will say…” (1 Cor.15:35) or “some affirm…” (Rom.3:8). To me, it is counterintuitive.
You seem to be saying that Paul didn't use lengthy quotes because Paul didn't use lengthy quotes. The reasoning of your objection seems circular.
Also, you didn't engage the point about the appeal to "the Law". There is no such command in the Torah. Whoever made this statement is most likely referencing the oral law. As Gordon Fee writes:
"Real problems for Pauline authorship lie with the phrase 'even as the Law says.' First, when Paul elsewhere appeals to "the Law," he always cites the text (e.g., 9:8; 14:21), usually to support a point he himself is making. Nowhere else does he appeal to the Law in this absolute way as binding on Christian behavior. More difficult yet is the fact that the Law does not say any such thing. Gen. 3:16 is often appealed to, but that text does not say what is here argued. If that were the case, then one must admit that Paul is appealing not to the written Torah itself but to an oral understanding of Torah such as is found in rabbinic Judaism. A similar usage is reflected in Josephus, who says, "The woman, says the Law, is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be submissive." This usage suggests that the provenance of the glossator was Jewish Christianity. Under any view this is difficult to reconcile with Paul.
The author of this piece seems intent on keeping women from joining in the vocal worship of the churches. The rule he wishes to apply he sees as universal and supported by the Law. It is difficult to fit this into any kind of Pauline context."
"Commentary on The First Epistle to the Corinthians"
Yet your view is:
If Paul was simply trying to restore order in a tumultuous Christian assembly, there would be nothing in taking these instructions at face value...
The only explanation I can fathom for not seeing contradictions or difficulties is a refusal to look at them.
Those of us who have made a career of criticizing traditional and man-made aspects of institutional Christianity need to beware of the slippery slope. When we see real faults in the churches, and find validity in the criticisms of unbelievers against much of the institutional church’s policies, it is easy to acquire a default attitude of siding with the world against the church, without adequate discretion.
However, not every unpopular thing that Christians have taught throughout history has been wrong. Some of it has arisen from the most responsible possible exegesis of scripture. In sorting out the sacred from the profane in religion, we need to remember that the most authentic form of Christian faith and practice is still offensive to human egos and invites hatred, anger and persecution. We must not embark on a mission of smoothing over the genuine differences between the call to discipleship and the sympathies of the flesh and the world.
Christ calls every man and woman to deny themselves and carry a cross. The world will always object to this. The denial of hierarchical demands is a reaction that anyone could have predicted to arise from unbroken sinners. While we desire that no injustice come upon them, yet we must answer that sinners are not the best arbiters of what constitutes justice:
“Evil men do not understand justice, But those who seek the LORD understand all things.” Proverbs 28:5
Again you seem to be making the assumption that those who differ with you do so because they have different (and less noble) motivations than you do. Rather than "siding with the world against the church" and "smoothing over the genuine differences between the call to discipleship and the sympathies of the flesh and the world" maybe--just maybe--those like myself, Gordon Fee, N.T. Wright, Stanley Grenz, et al, who come to different conclusions than you do, are every bit as dedicated to learning and following Biblical truth as you believe yourself to be.
Steve, you know I don't shrink from vigorous debate, but I really was taken aback by the rancorous tone in your post, as well as some of the questionable debating tactics that I might have expected from others, but not from you.