Thanks to Richard B. for this link: Luke Timothy Johnson and Eve Tushnet, a freelance journalist who is a lesbian, take different positions on the Catholic Church’s prohibitions against homosexuality. You may be surprised.
Here’s a statement from Tushnet: “But our human experience, including our erotic experience, cannot be a replacement for the divine revelation preserved by the church. We must be careful not to let it become a counternarrative or a counter-Scripture.”
- - - -
I’m going to spend a few days here working through John Stackhouse’s wonderful Finally Feminist: A Pragmatic Christian Understanding of Gender (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology)
Stackhouse honestly shows that the Bible is both feminist and patriarchal. It has passages that sound complementarian and those that are egalitarian (for those who are familiar with this language). And he seeks to show why that’s the case.
Here are a few words from the end:
“We are happy to affirm for the record that men are not inherently superior to women, that male and female together are created in the imago Dei. But then we act as if males really are superior — superior as topics for Bible study, superior to lead in church and home, even superior to represent all human beings (as in the so-called generic language of ‘mankind’). Where are the women? More basically, where is the female, the feminine, the not-male in the Bible, in our churches and families, and in God? We must resist contemporary extremes such as lesbian marriages and goddess worship. We must resist the loss of rich biblical truth encoded in masculine language for God in the Bible and in traditional theology. But our fear of those losses must not keep us in a masculinist extreme. We must encourage more women to undertake careers in theological scholarship. We must hear women’s voices in our churches. We men must ask feminist questions along with our more standard lines of intellectual interrogation. We must pray for God to forgive us our sexist sins, heal our blindness, motivate our hearts, and open our minds. If the women are absent in biblical and theological studies, we are missing out on half of the Story.”
Mike, that sounds like a fantastic book - I’ll have to get a copy. It is such a shame to see how reactionary we can be as individuals, congregations, and larger church affiliations and organization. This author seems to be taking the approach of really being led by the entirety of scripture and God’s voice, rather than either adamantly clinging to or reactively rejecting church tradition.
My shaking fingers on the keyboard illustrate the way women possibly feel when approaching this subject. I have so much I would like to say about this, but I hold back. I place a high value on unity in the body of Christ, and love takes a higher position than rights. At the same time, I wonder how long our stance on women’s roles can remain unified.
I appreciate your leadership in this area. I listened to one of your sermons on this subject, and John shared about how Highland incorporates women in leadership there (he visited a couple of weeks ago).
The book you quoted sounds like a must-read.
I’ve always taught our daughters that God can use anyone he chooses, when he chooses, and for what purposes he chooses. That is the witness of Scripture.
I think Stackhouse’s book is weak on exegesis, but generally I agree with his thesis.
I much prefer Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church: Building Consensus on Christian Leadership. It’s scholarly, well written and written in humility. I met her at the National Pastors Convention last year and she is a very capable speaker. She includes in her book what those who disagree with her strongly in the evangelical community have to say about her role as professor and preacher. I was quite surprised and pleased.
Peace.
As a woman who holds a BA in Biblical Studies from Dallas Christian College, I long for settings to put my degree to work. Thankfully, I attend a church in Houston that has put much time and study into women’s leadership, and incorporates female leadership in our ministry (public and private).
I’ll never forget the feelings in my mind and heart when a beloved (perhaps mislead) college mentor told me that no matter how hard I studied or how much I acheieved academically I’d never teach Bible courses at an Independant or C of C Bible College. Apparently these ideals stretch across denominational lines (the authors of said book being Catholic) in delves into sexist theology. This promises to be an interesting study for you, Mike, and I’m keen to see what your insights will be. I’m checking Amazon and Half.com for a copy of my own. Thx for the inspiration!
It might be interesting to take this as an occasion to look beyond the counternarratives others advance about gender or sexual orientation and to ask ourselves what our own counternarratives to scripture might be.
So you decided to lay off the controversial topics (like saying the Pledge in church) and discuss something more mundane like the roles of men and women in the church. BTW – that’s a joke.
Anyway, I love that quote from Stackhouse. I think the two challenges facing our churches today are how to deal with couples who live together without getting married and the roles of men and women in the church.
Stackhouse does a good job of outlining the dangers of going to extremes on this subject.
Beth,
I completely agree with Steve’s POV about Sarah Sumner’s book. It made my heart jump with excitement and hopeful joy! She has written one of the best, imho. I’d strongly urge you to read her book as well as the one Mike is about to read.
We must treat women like like the majority of decent US companies. Seems like the US business world has lead the way on this one.
I find it funny and infuriating that my female boss Monday -Friday at work, can’t be an elder on Sunday.
This is a huge civil rights issue within the church. Men only watering fountains (positions). Women aren’t genetically smart enough to have a good theological thought in front of a man.
I don’t get it and it is really pathetic.
The church is so full of Pharisees, no wonder you are irrelevant in my life. The people who attend are relevant, but so are the people at work and the people next door.
Shut ere down Gator!
I don’t know if it is right or wrong but I have heard women “preaching” on links and frankly they put me to sleep, like they were reading an essay.
I think many cofC’s have taken a step backwards in this area, sad, but that’s my take on it. If not a true step backwards - they’re certainly entrenched. I’ll refrain from posting what my heart is really saying right now. I just really feel for the young Christian women who are pre-eminent Bible majors, take leadership roles in their Spring break trips and summer intern programs for multiple years, then find their options remain childrens ministry or church secretary unless they opt to move on to another denomination - which many are doing.
Mike,
thanks for the book reco, and thanks in advance for your thoughts.
Allison,
i’m just nerdy enough to enjoy essays being read aloud. any particular sites where i could find these womens’ sermons?
Okay, I have a theory I’ve been working on…
I’ve been part of a tradition that has historically relegated women to non-speaking, non-”up in front” roles in assemblies (I’ll let you guess which tradition). I have noted in a number of my own personal interactions as a member and as a minister within said tradition, that much trouble has been stirred up by women who hold very fast to their roles as “submissive wives” but work a great deal of control and manipulation via covert means (ie gossip, passive-agressive manipulation, etc.) NOW… before you get angry a seemingly “sexist” accusation, let me share my theory: when you relegate intelligent, insightful, Christlike human beings to “non-vocal” roles, they will OF NECESSITY find ways of exerting influence. They might not even realize that they are actually “running the church” via covert means, but I’m certain I’m not the only one to notice this within my tradition (it’s often stated like a joke… “well Brother so-n-so is our preacher, but it’s his better half who really runs things!”)
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we officially gave voice and influence to that beautiful, insightful “other half” of our body so that we didn’t tempt them beyond bearable measure to exert influence under the table? I don’t blame the “female gossips and manipulators” as much as I blame those males who, by virtue of anatomy and faulty proof-text, prevent them from participating in healthy, Christ-like ways….
Anyone else noticed this pattern?
Luke Timothy Johnson’s words are a bit hard to swallow.
“Many of us who stand for the full recognition of gay and lesbian persons within the Christian communion find ourselves in a position similar to that of the early abolitionists-and of the early advocates for women’s full and equal roles in church and society. We are fully aware of the weight of scriptural evidence pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts. To justify this trust, we invoke the basic Pauline principle that the Spirit gives life but the letter kills (2 Corinthians 3:6). And if the letter of Scripture cannot find room for the activity of the living God in the transformation of human lives, then trust and obedience must be paid to the living God rather than to the words of Scripture.”
I don’t think that is what Paul was getting at, that if your perception of God working and moving in this world (in this case the love, care and concern shown by gays and lesbians to each other) somehow contradicts Scripture, then chunk Scripture. It’s your personal experience and testimony that hold the most weight.
God might be a bit insulted at that, don’t you think?
Alison, if you’ve ever heard Barbara Brown Taylor preach, I promise you wouldn’t be bored. I was an undergrad Bible major at one of our smaller C of C schools. At the time, I was one of two female Bible majors. It was made very clear to me that it was generally a waste of my time to major only in Bible, so I doubled and also got a BS in psychology. It was very surprising to me when one of my professors in Intro to Ministry showed a video of one of Barbara Brown Taylor’s sermons to provide an example of an excellent sermon. Of course, there was an extensive disclaimer given before we watched the video. Ten years later, I still remember that sermon for a few reasons. First, she was a woman who spoke so authoritatively about the Bible, and I was enthralled with her. Second, the language she used in her sermon was beautiful and poetic in a way I have never experienced since. Unfortunately, we are still not accustomed to hearing women’s voices in public forums in our society. Those that we do hear often sound more like men in their speech because of their efforts to fit in. We must learn to accept and appreciate women’s voices as they are rather than expecting them to sound like men’s.
I found it highly amusing and at the same time highly frustrating when a special course was developed for me and the other female Bible major, Religious Speaking for Women. A preaching class was a requirement for the degree, but there was no way they were going to let us preach in front of the male Bible majors. So, we preached in a female-only class. I ended up continuing my education in marriage and family therapy and am now a professor at ACU. I’m very pleased with my career path and would not change my decision if given the opportunity. But, if I had had a supportive environment and seen ministry as a real option, I may have chosen a different route.
Brad,
This issue is similar to the one faced in Acts 15. The pro-circumcision group had Book, Chapter and Verse on this. God says to Abraham in Genesis 17:12-14 that circumcision is to be an “everlasting covenant.†The point being that Paul’s case for uncircumcised Gentiles receiving the blessings of God’s promises had scant biblical support (similar to the abolitionist, women’s roles, and LTJ’s stances). All the biblical support was for circumcision. Yet, the church went against Scripture and with human experience (note that all that Paul shares as evidence in Acts 15 are his experiences from his missionary journeys). The point is that in Acts 15 we see clear BILICAL evidence for allowing human experience to trump what appears to be the clear witness of Scripture. LTJ is simply reading the bible the way the first-century church did.
Richard,
The issue was not circumcision, but some claiming its necessity for the Gentiles “to be saved”. The pro-circumcision group was completely at odds, not only with what God had required of the Gentiles up until that point for salvation, but also at odds with Paul and Barnabas. It was always about faith and will forever be about faith. There was no biblical support requiring circumcision of the Gentiles to be saved, and Paul and Barnabas came and straightened them out on it. The experience referred to by Paul was that God was saving all kinds of Gentiles because of their faith, not because of their circumcision.
Circumcision?! Isn’t this a discussion about women?
;-D
Brad and Richard,
A rhetorical ?? for you. Was circumcision pronounced a sinful action by God’s word?
Mike,
Thanks so much for having the courage to break with the c of c lines about women in the church. I remember hearing sermons as a child in my small town churches about how women were first deceived, silenced by Paul, therefore their voices could not be heard in church. I felt like someone had hit me in the stomach.
On a personal note, my family and I go to just a plain christian church now, and women are allowed to speak and pray. Just hearing their voice in the service made my heart glad: not because they speak better than men, or have less or more insight than a man, but because the silencing of women in the church is unjust. And, any student of the scripture knows that above all things, God is a just God.
Brad,
I think you are missing the point.
Q: Where did the pro-circumcistion group get that crazy idea that access to God’s promises required participation in an everlasting covenant?
A: The Bible.
Q: Where did Paul get the idea that such a requirement was not necessary?
A: His Experience of God (he certainly didn’t get it from the Bible)
Do you see?
Richard,
I get your line of thinking, but it’s faulty. Circumcision was never meant for the Gentile. There were no scrolls, no papyrus, no tablets, no Scriptures anywhere where God laid circumcision on the Gentiles as requirement for everlasting covenant relationship with Him, at least the physical act they were demanding in this case. That all came out of the head of some Jews there in Acts 15, and Paul put a stop to in no uncertain terms. In fact Paul said it was a load being put on people that no one could bear, not them or anyone before them. They weren’t quoting the Scriptures in regard to the Gentiles needing circumcision because it wasn’t there. Their own arrogance, selfishness, human will and misunderstanding of God led them to that conclusion. So no Scripture is being set aside for the sake of experience.
Circumcision was a sign of the covenant God had with Abraham and his descendents only, a sign of God blessing a man who was as good as dead in his body, reproductively speaking, and making him the literal father of multitudes. You might want to look into the “everlasting” idea. Covenant promises were only valid as long as the covenant was in force. The new covenant God makes with all people, Jew and Gentile, is not the one He made with Abraham and his descendents. That one was replaced because the people walked away from it. (Heb 8:7-13) It is the new covenant Paul invited the Gentiles into based on their faith in Jesus, not their observance of rituals from an obsolete covenant no longer in force.
And, just logically thinking, how far do you take this idea of experience trumping Scripture? Which experiences do I say are trump experiences and which ones aren’t? When do I know that it’s OK to tear pages out of my Bible?
(I am enjoying this discussion, though. No sarcasm here. Your ideas just puzzle me.)
Sorry, Kathy. I meant to respond. I’m not sure I get what you mean. Circumcision was only pronounced sinful if it was done outwardly only. Signs and rituals were never meant to be a substitute for the dedicated heart God wants.
If the church moves in the direction of egalitarian and the feminization of the church then the church will be weaker. If we begin to compromise on the homosexual question then the church will become weaker. And we will not be more relevant to the culture. The chuch must always be counter - cultural.
There is the desperate need for the church to have an even greater emphasis on strong male spiritual leadership. No , not the oppression of women but the complementarian basis is the design from God. His word and our obedience to His will is what makes for good relationships.
What I’d like to see are women in professional baseball. I’ve had it with that exclusive boys club. Maybe the right book could convince people.
Brad,
Since your are enjoying the conversation we can keep it going.
First, let me suggest that you’ve again misunderstood the situation in Acts 15.
You say this: “That all came out of the head of some Jews there in Acts 15, and Paul put a stop to in no uncertain terms.”
This is a baffling statement for someone who says they are reading the bible closely. The belief in the early church was that access to God’s promises had to come via the covenant of Abraham. Please back up and read Acts 10 for the account. The circumcision idea was decidedly NOT made up out “of the head of some Jew.” This was the universal understanding of the church (who were all Jews, BTW). The reason for this universal consensus was that this was the overt witness of Scripture. God’s promises were to come through the convent made with Abraham. There was no clear indication in Scripture that this would be otherwise. Neither did Jesus teach anything to the contrary. So it is not surpassing that this was the church’s understanding.
Also, in Acts 15 we don’t see, in your words: “Paul put a stop to it in no uncertain terms.” Brad, did you even take a minute to READ Acts 15? Paul doesn’t render the verdict, James does. Also, the conclusion of the Counsel was “it seemed good to us” (vs. 28) which contrasts markedly with your “put a stop to it in in no uncertain terms.” The point here is that the whole process was very uncertain, tense, and error-prone. Why? BECAUSE SCRIPTURE WAS A CONFLICTING GUIDE. In fact, the Counsel’s decision was glitchy (How could it not be with Scripture pointing in different directions?) in that they prohibited food sacrificed to idols and some other “Jewish” (to use your word) stuff that Paul had to fix later on in the Corinthian church.
The point of all this is not to rip pages out of your bible but to encourage you to read your bible. The early church shows you how. Sola scriptura is a nonstarter and, ironically, an unbiblical notion.
Perhaps they will just sound like essays being read, but here are some examples of preaching and teaching by a woman.
http://rccaudio.christianwitness.us/?page=5
http://rccaudio.christianwitness.us/?page=13
http://rccaudio.christianwitness.us/?page=12
Two of my favorite speakers are Kim Engelmann and Nancy Ortberg (wife of John Ortberg). Kim speaks regularly and pastors with John Ortberg at Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in California. Nancy is only an occasional speaker which is very unfortunate since she is a great speaker.
You can listen to these speakers at http://www.mppcfamily.org or watch them on video.
Click on online sermons.
Nancy Beach, who, I think, is at Willow Creek is also an excellent speaker. I heard her at the National Pastors’ Convention a couple of years ago.
Peace.
Richard,
This is spiraling into a debate which may not belong on Mike’s comments. I’ll be brief and then let it go.
I’ll give you one thing. I said, “Paul put a stop to it in no uncertain terms.†Oops. It wasn’t Paul, or James. It was Peter. But the point still remains. Circumcision was never required of the Gentile by God. The Jews were trying to put that on them, and the result of Acts 15 was that the leaders of the church told them to stop teaching that.
The Abrahamic covenant was never designed to be the vehicle to bless Jew and Gentile with salvation. It was the vehicle which brought the covenant that would, prophesied through Jeremiah, explained in Hebrews 8.
Your comment that “scripture was a conflicting guide” has no basis, because Scripture never addressed the circumcising of the Gentile for salvation. There was conflict in their mind because they were Jews, thinking themselves to be a “guide to the blind”, but Paul spends a large amount of space in the book of Romans trying to straighten that mess out.
Your original premise and the words of Luke Timothy Johnson are dangerous ground to stand on. It is humanism defined, to let experience dictate God to you. I pray you’ll see that.
You get the last word.
I grew up believing women had just as much right to speak and pray in church as men. Imagine my shock when I got to ACU and realized what a heart-wrenching issue the role of women has been in the Church of Christ for so long.
I’m thankful to be a part of Highland, which welcomes my voice and participation and my story as a member of the body of Christ. I, too, am keen to see what the discussion leads to here. Thanks, Mike, for facing this issue again and again - it needs to be faced.
Brad,
My only comment is that I think you are reading too much certainty back into the events of Acts 15. Paul’s letters occur a long time after those events. That is, the teaching on this issue looks more certain, solid, and worked out in his letters. But you can’t read that back into Acts. In Acts the situation was a lot more fluid and opaque. Clarity came much later. Also note that Paul was very uncertain about his teaching on this matter as well. Note that in Galatians 2: 1-3, FOURTEEN YEARS into his ministry, Paul thinks he may have made an BIG MISTAKE on this very issue. Just keep that in mind. Paul himself had grave doubts. It is not so clear cut as you think.
The point is that the reason why this new teaching was so doubt-filled was that there was no biblical guidance. If anything the bible was giving Paul doubts. He was swimming against Scripture (I can see him reading the Torah at night and trying to jibe the bible with his sermon in the morning) and this, apparently, worried him. It took a toll on him. And, fourteen years later, he just couldn’t take it anymore.
In sum, the revelation about Gentiles was extra-biblical.
For more on this, see Religious Experience in Earliest Christianity: A Missing Dimension in New Testament Study
by Luke Timothy Johnson.
Katie,
As a person who has grown up in the Church of Christ, I have never known the role of women to be a “heart-wrenching” issue. I have gone to several different congregations and it has never been a point of discussion. Perhaps it is more so now. I agree with Ray B. It is not a matter of men being superior to women. Men are the head of the house and should be the leaders in the church. I don’t recall, in the selection of elders, that the Bible says that an overseer should be the wife of one husband.
Allison ,
Thank you for your comments. You are right. God’s word instructs the men to provide the leadership in the home and in the church. This gives the church the strength that is needed and protects the women from being abused. The women of each local congregation have a very important ministry in the church. They can help and reach out in the distinctive way God has designed. The church is a body and when the church functions as a body by God’s design then the church is relevant and will reach out and become effective in touching lives.
Brad,
Oh, one last thing (and please feel free NOT to give me the last word)
If by humanist you mean that my primary religious impulse is to reduce the suffering of humankind then I am, I guess, a humanist. I take Jesus to be the charter member of this club.
Club mottos are:
“I desire mercy and not sacrifice.”
Or the club bumper sticker:
True Christianity? People First!
mike, this is the most christlike a contentious discussion as i’ve seen on a blog lately. good topic. if you happen to read this, could you point me to anything you’ve written to account for highland’s move toward recognizing women’s gifts, roles, and leadership in the church?
ray b., i hope that the irony of defending the bride of christ from feminization isn’t lost on you.
allison, as one committed “lifer” to another, and for the sake of the church, please look around you. ask sympathetically whether other women (and men) feel the heartbreak katie mentioned, even if they’ve never complained aloud. there are some hurting women out there (every Godfearing woman in my family, in fact) who need a lot less of our judgment for wanting to serve in some so-called “male” ways, and a lot more of our love, whether we ask them to serve in those ways or not.
Mike, I preached a sermon at my congregation about women’s roles in the church, and I used many of the ideas you used in one of the sermons you preached on the topic. I wouldnt have preached it at the time that I did except for the fact that we had so many gifted women in our congregation who were hungry to use their gifts to serve the body and so many men who only held them down, but never did anything themselves.
Anyway, I got fired fairly soon after that and I was told that I was too liberal and the church needed more conservative folks so that they could get more people in who could put money in the offering plate. Its going to continue to be a battle like many of the traditions we must face as we genuinely seek out the face of God!
The children of Israel probably were heartbroken for not having a king, but in the long run it was a wrong decision. I’m sorry for the heartbreak in your family. In my case, I’ve always considered myself lucky. I hate speaking in public, horrible stagefright!
I do not have to defend the church from anybody or anything. All any of us can do is to teach the truth of scripture.
I realize that most of the discussion has been concerning gender roles, but I wanted to comment on Tushnet’s remark about homosexuality. She said that our erotic experiences must not become a counternarrative or a counter-scripture. First of all, concerning narratives, from what I understand about narrative, it is a story of significant length that revolves around and supports a central theological truth. I see no biblical narratives revolving around or supporting the condemnation of homosexuality. The few times homosexuality is casted in a negative light through a narrative, the story is dealing more with rape (Gen. 19, Judges 19) not a voluntary relationship between two people. Secondly, in regards to being counter-scriptural, from what I have learned about the cultural context of the NT letters condemning homosexuality, it is speaking about orgy type relationships or relationships between older men and younger boys, once again not a sexual relationship between two committed consenting adults.
The homosexual sin is a clear violation in that God joined a man and a woman together in marriage Male amd female he made them. Also the sin mentioned in Romans 1 in that the natural relation of a man and a woman is violated. There is in homsexual behavior a sinful lust.
I skipped over reading all the comments in my rush to say, “YEA!”. I’m excited about a book like this. I’m excited you’re quoting it, Mike. Last Sunday morning after I attended Highland I weighed my choices since the rest of my family was out of town - attend class or visit another congregation. I chose the other church, First United Methodist, and was pleasantly surprised to encounter a visiting preacher. Her name was Peaches Evans and God poured through her the gift of preaching that day. He rocked the place! I didn’t get home until nearly 2:00 and I hadn’t even eaten lunch. I didn’t need to. I was full. I was so glad I went - to both services.
That’s a misnuderstanding of what narrative means in the philosophical sense, I think.
A narrative is not simply one story about a topic, but rather a set of texts, traditions, and interpretations that defines a group’s discourse and what can be taken as true (”scientific”, but not just in the biology-sense) among that group — what scholars would call its episteme (see Foucault in his book Power/Knowledge: “I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific†(p. 197).) Our metanarratives (like the Biblical one) give us a sense of what kind of judgment to make about situations so that they are in accordance with that narrative, whether or not the situation is explicitly mentioned.
There are many reasons why Christians reject endorsing a consensual homosexual lifestyle, and most of them fall into the category of being consistent with the Christian narrative (in the larger sense), which declares that God ordered the world and human relationships in a certain way — one that excludes homosexual behavior as acceptable to God. Whether or not the narratives explicitly mention homosexuality is beside the point (by the way, they don’t mention “consensual” or “adult” either — those are words from the contemporary American counternarrative).
In regards to Romans 1, the main point of the passage is the condemnation of these people for suppressing God’s truth. The homosexuality mentioned here is a characteristic of the oppressors, not the main point of the passage. Furthermore, we have no idea what kind of homosexuality Paul is addressing here and like I stated before, a very probable situation in Rome is public orgies, not an erotic relationship between two people of the same sex who happen to be in a loving committed relationship.
In regards to Jonathan’s comment. The scriptures not mentioning “consensual” or “adult” was my whole point. Just because homosexuality is condemned in a certain context while being practiced in a certain way does not mean that is impossible for it to be practiced in an appropriate way in any context. Just as there are many reasons Christians reject a consensual homosexual lifestyle, there are also many reasons Christians endorse it. I agree that God ordered human relationships in a certain way, but I think the core characteristics of those relationships are: self-sacrifice, forgiveness, accountability, mercy, grace..etc. which are all perfectly compatible within a consensual committed adult homosexual relationship.
Part of suppressing the truth would be to engage in homosexual behavior of any kind. To engage in homosexual behavior is a clear violation of God’s design for intimate sexual relationships.
Brian –
Right. And my point is that if we define what those supposedly appropriate contexts are (such as “adult” and “consensual”), then we are doing violence to God’s narrative by preferring our contemporary definitions of what is appropriate over asking what God might think is appropriate. Sure, self-sacrifice, forgiveness, accountability, mercy, grace… etc. are things God desires for our lives, but he desires those in all stations of life, whether relationship-related or not. To point to a homosexual relationship and say that those things are present and thus God must endorse the relationship is like saying there must be peace in the world because we’re all sitting at a camp fire singing kumbayah. I think what this is is a prime example of a desire to be good and loving trying to come to grips with the fact that not everything that seems good and loving, as we see it, is something that God must also see this way.
I think we would be well advised not to elevate our desire to include everyone who plays nice over God’s desire for us to be holy — on His terms.
Manley Pointer, you are right, I think there are a lot of silent, hurting women in churches. Or maybe they buried their pain a long time ago. I myself used to have a recurring nightmare about 1 Corinthians 34-35 even though I never complained in church. Click my name to read about it on my blog. (I would have Trackbacked my blogpost but it didn’t seem to work.)
Sounds like an amazing book.
Ray - First of all, the suppression of the truth and the homosexual behavior are two different issues. Secondly, as I already said, it is not fair to use this condemnation and say it applies to homosexual behavior “of any kind.” That would be like quoting 1 Corinthians 13 and saying there is absolutely no circumstance that permits a woman to speak in a church. Thirdly, it’s obviously not so “clear” or else it would not be so debated in the Christian community.
Jonathan - I began including the words “adult” and “consensual” in my definition by asking what I thought God thinks is appropriate, not by looking at contemporary definitions. Furthermore, I don’t think your camp analogy is fair. We could all be sitting around a camp fire singing kumbayah while bombs were exploding and bullets were whizzing by. If there was no fighting it would be fair to say “there is peace in the world.” I connect the love, forgiveness, mercy, grace, adult, consensual characteristics with the bullets, bombs, and tanks. If those exist (first set that is) I think God is pleased with the relationship. Lastly, whenever disagreeing I think it is dangerous to present your side as God’s side by using words like “on His terms,” when you are really referencing “on Jonathan’s terms.” Obviously we both believe our views are in accordance with God’s.
Brian –
I assure you that I have a whole lot of sympathy and respect for your position. So when I say “on God’s terms”, I don’t mean to equate my own understanding with God’s; I don’t need to take cheap shots like that. I’m saying exactly what I mean: We need to live life on God’s terms. And I don’t believe that my views or yours ARE in accordance with God’s. I don’t know His mind. But I do think — and this has been my point throughout — that our priority should be to align our views with God’s as far as we can, not with what we want God’s view to be because it serves our desires.
Secondly, I’m afraid you prove my point about coercing a contemporary take onto a question that has been around within Christianity since its inception. For two thousand years, Christians have agreed that homosexual relationships of any kind are contrary to God’s will. It is only since we’ve (contemporarily) have defined appropriate relationships as those which are by today’s standards consensual and between what we would today consider adults, that those two aspects have come to redefine that debate.
Nowhere in the Bible or in the long history of Christian tradition has God been understood to assign to a God-pleasing relationship PRIMARILY the characteristics “consensual” and “between adults.” There are plenty of arranged marriages in scripture that God seems quite pleased with, and frankly if Mary (who was approximately 14-16 at the time) were to conceive in the U.S. today, the Holy Spirit would find Itself in court for statutory rape of a minor. So I agree with you on love, forgiveness, mercy, grace, and so on. Those are clearly expressions of God’s love, as taught by scripture. The rest, I’m afraid, is tagged on.
Nor am I saying that we’re wrong about our view of appropriate relationships today. I certainly agree with them. My point is that it is faulty reasoning with scripture to say that God wants us to have all the things scripture says he wants us to have, plus what we think he ought to have said he wants us to have if He’d just remembered to put it in — especially if it just so happens that the addendum God forgot turns our to fit better with our desires.
There is a case to be made for dealing more lovingly with people in homosexual relationships than we have in the past, but playing the It-seems-like-a-good-thing-by-my-standards-so-God-must-like-it card is faulty.
Brian ,
When the truth is suppressed then one of the results will be homosexual behavior. There is more but it is one of the many results of disobedeince to the truth.
Scripture is clear that all homosexual behavior is sinful. All of our sins
express a rebellion to God’s standard
The teaching about women in the assembly is clear. Sure , it is debated but that debate begins when individual will becomes more important than the will of God.
Ray B,
Here’s my take:
God’s a big boy and can take care of Himself. So it seems to be a poor use of a religious life to spend your time worrying about pissing Him off.
And if God is so easily pissed off then people have good cause to consider Him unworthy of worship. Sure, He might send them all to hell for that defiance, but who looks more virtuous in that transaction? The God you worship, or the people holding out for a more perfect Deity?
I never said that it being “consensual” or “between adults” were the primary characteristics, but merely two in a line of others.
I also do not believe that for the last 2,000 years there is ANY issue that Christians have universally agreed upon. If you plan on making an appeal to the view of the majority of the Christian body for that majority amount of time let me go one step ahead and say that the Bible was interpreted by the majority in a specific way for the first 1600 years of Christianity before Martin Luther decided to break with the “traditional view.” And even today Protestants are outnumbered by Catholics 3 to 1. I have never understood Protestants that appeal to tradition. The very fabric of their creation was based on debunking tradition.
As far as God “remembering to put something in.” I think the Biblical writers spoke to issues they witnessed first hand. The Bible does not tell us which car to buy or whether or not to shop at Wal-mart not because “God forgot to put it in,” but because there were no cars or Wal-marts. We can however examine Biblical principles about possessions and stewardship and make these decisions. My argument for homosexuality is very similar. From what I have been taught about historical context, there is no biblical writer who witnessed a committed loving relationship between two people of the same sex, so I consider the Biblical text to be silent about this specific type of relationship. However, I do believe we can examine the biblical characteristics of an appropriate relationship and deem certain homosexual relationships to fit the criterion.
In reference to your comment about it “fitting better with our desires,” I don’t ever remember saying my position on homosexuality was spurned from a personal desire. As far as playing the It-seems-like-a-good-thing-by-my-standards-so-God-must-like-it card, I am not making that appeal. I am playing the It-fits-in-accordance-with-the-best-understanding-I-have-of-the-will-of-God card.
Ray - I agree in Romans 1 Paul presents this type of homosexuality being displayed as an outcome of suppressing the truth. Like I said before, I believe there are different ways of expressing homosexuality and the expression of it within Romans 1 is in violation with many other principles. You continue to state that “Scripture is clear that all homosexual behavior is sinful,” without offering any reinforcement to the statement. I, along with many others, do not find your clarity, but rather see a rejection of one specific manifestation of homosexuality.
As for you comment about women, are you saying there is never an appropriate situation for a woman to be allowed to speak in an assembly? I think the people arguing against you on this topic would not say that they are elevating the individual above the will of God, but merely understand the will of God differently than you.
Richard,
To appropriate the thinking of Luke Timothy Johnson, if I explicitly appeal to the weight of my own experience, I would come to conclusions about you based upon your most recent post that would cause me to say some things that would be considered rather un-Christian. However, since I happen to believe Scripture trumps my own experience, I will keep it to myself.
Nancy,
that link was dead when i clicked it. a238phreak@gmail.com if you’d like to send something there.
Jim,
To appropriate the thinking of Lewis Black, following Jesus, “if you thought it, you did it.” none of this passive-aggressive “say it by saying i didn’t say it” stuff, please; we’re christians.
Ray B.,
would you do me the favor of directly responding to my question? i asked if you got the irony of defending the bride of christ from feminization. i ask that because i want to take seriously the tradition, beginning with the prophets and continuing through john’s gospel and apocalypse, of picturing israel/church as feminine. any chance you might offer, or point me toward, a positive statement of which spiritual gifts, which roles, which forms of leadership (always redefined in scripture as servanthood) women are commissioned to take up by God? i’d love for our exchange to extend past disagreeing on what the church ought not do, all the way to affirming what we’re seeing God do in our churches through women.
Brian, Richard, Ray B, et alia,
anyone have any takes on tom wright’s view of the authoritative use of the biblical narrative? http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Bible_Authoritative.htm
i’d say our brother the bishop of durham eloquently and faithfully frames the argument some of us (especially those named above) are having.
I thought scripture was someone else’s experience at a point in time. People’s experiences has changed but the Christian time point of reference has not.
There are so many obtuse, ad nauseum discussions going on here it is hard for non-mysterious people such as myself (unlike Jonathan) to be engaged or even give a shit.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999
US physicist (1933 - )
Got this quote off Google.
What we have done to homosexuals is evil. What the rest of civilization has done is good. We need to strt playing catch up. Its 4th down in the 4ht quarter.
Manley .
I did say women have a vital and important role in the church. My concern is with the instructions concerning leadership in the church from the New Testament. The leadership is given to the men in the home and in the church. Not a popular statement to make in this current world. But the kingdom and the world will always collide. The women of the church have significant and valuable contributions to make to the body of Christ. Their participation in the home , the church and their outreach to the world is crucial.
Brian L. ,
I do not know how to add to what I have already said other than to say Romans 1 makes it clear to me that all homosexual behavior is sinful . And as to women in the assembly , I refer to I Timothy 2 and I Cor 14 . And yes I know some will not agree with me. Just giving my view in the discussion.
Richard ,
Certainly God can take care of himself. He is all-powerful and sovereign. Personally , I just want to obey Him and give Him glory and try to understand every aspect of His divine , perfect and wonderful attributes.
Jim,
Sorry to have caused you to struggle with me, but I am expressing a cogent point.
To suggest that a Transcendent God could be moved to spasms of anger at a woman elder or preacher or at two lonely people of the same gender finding each other in this hellhole of a world, paints a sick and demented picture of God. Seriously, what kind of God is that, to fly of the handle for moral peccadilloes?
Maybe you are right and that is the way God is, but there would be little to inspire worship in that God if he were not so big and held hell as the big stick.
But there are some of us, devout Christians, people who sit beside you in the pew, who think God isn’t really like that. We think the final and ultimate witness about God is this: “God is love.” And that all Scriptural witnesses about God before and after that great and grand revelation are fragmentary and partial and must be so read.
Hey, maybe I’m wrong and God sends me to hell for honoring a women’s dignity in the church or saying live and let live to the homosexual community. But you know what, I’ll look at God and say “You’re sending me to hell for THAT?” And if he says “Yes” my response is simple, “Fine. Because I’m ashamed of you.”
Manley — ah, good, you’re a psychologist: “none of this passive-aggressive “say it by saying i didn’t say it.”" I suppose if I were as passive-aggressive as you say, I might steal my moniker from Flannery O’Connor and sign my name that way, don’t you think?
I’m sorry, I thought that would fit right in. Sort of like, “I know the Bible says it, but I’ll say it didn’t say it, or I will appeal to my experience over Scripture.” Sort of a passive-aggressive hermeneutic. And, what do you mean by appealing to Jesus, via Lewis Black, by telling me if I thought it I did it? I think it important to state clearly that I do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when I declare that sarcasm and bad thoughts can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? I appeal explicitly to the weight of my own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sarcasm and bad attitudes are in fact to accept the way in which God has created us.
Richard, you sure put a lot of words in my mouth regarding God’s character. I think you missed my point.
Kisses and hugs to all.
Ray B.
I think Brian’s point is that Romans 1 is not refering to a relationship of two consensual adults. While I dont agree with Brian’s conclusion, I think that in Romans 1 that homosexaulity is not between consensual adults.
Homosexual behavior is sinful . It is wrong. It will never be right. All sin can be forgiven. All of us need the precious blood of Jesus to save us from the eternal consequences of any and all sin.
Richard: “God, I’m ashamed of you?”
Have you not read the book of Job? Surely you jest, or qb is misunderstanding you, or something. But to speak as though you are willing to stand as judge of the creator of the universe is a remarkable display of hubris. One supposes you might have the wisdom to season your positions with a degree of humility that says, “if I’m wrong, which is possible, God will set me straight, and I’ll submit to his infinite wisdom.” But what you actually said is starkly different.
Mercy.
qb
Who cares who stands on the stage..woman, man, holder of BA in Biblical studies or just some guy or girl who got his or her GED?..good grief..we are killing ourselves here…and missing out on some incredible fellowship.
and….two people who have held my hands and my heart this last year from miles away have been a homosexual man from Montreal who tells me God is with me and calls on me and Sam regularly. Another is a Lesbian who lives in Denver who has surprised me with financial help when I was struggling..
Black and white laws and rules and exact theories on what sin is is a secure place to be for some but it sure does alienate those who would otherwise be touched by your love for the Master…
Great post Mike…man, I got too much to say as usual right?
Mike,
Love the quote. Sounds like a good book. Thanks for pointing it out to us.
qb,
I think you are missing the rhetorical point. I’m shaming an idol here. Not God.
And btw, are you just totally unaware that billions of people are refusing to come to Christianity because Christians are trotting out a shameful version of God?
I mean, here’s the situation. Most Christians are basically sending this message: “I know that God is going to horrifically torture 99.99% of all humanity for all eternity, but He really is GOOD, He really loves you. Really.”
I mean, how addled is that message? No wonder we come off as screwballs. You don’t think people might have some slight moral quibbles with God on this score? A wee little quibble? And you say that those quibbles are acts of hubris? Hubris!? Are you kidding me?
jim,
i’d like to start by asking forgiveness for any ire i’ve raised. i’m not trying to be mean; i’m just trying to have some conversations. so let’s keep the conversation going by not saying we’re sorry if we don’t mean it, and clarifying our points if others miss them.
“manley pointer” is not a passive aggressive theft; it’s a pseudonym, or an allusion.
it’s intended to point people toward my interest in literature, particularly the short stories of Flannery O’Connor, which you obviously recognized. i’m also shooting for some irony by giving myself the name of a lying, cheating traveling bible salesman. this is a caricature most of the world think fits us perfectly, and sadly, we often paint ourselves just that way in our discussions on the internet.
jim, I’d honestly like to know why you took that self-revelation and used it to attack me. in hopes of disarming any further ad hominem attacks: my name is nick dunn. i was recently a member of niceville church of christ and campus church of christ (UF). my personal email address can be found in a recent comment.
but back to the rest of us,
an informal poll: would anyone interested in the hermeneutical question at hand, namely how we look at the bible to find out how to live out Jesus’ way, please explain in just a few words your favorite metaphor for how the bible works? is it truth? all the truth? every truth? is it a rulebook? is it a story? a novel? a play? an instruction manual? a theology text?
finally, does anyone see room in Jesus’ teaching about the Spirit in John 14-16 for the idea that we don’t read new truth into scripture, but that we may be led by the Spirit through scripture into truths that aren’t spelled out verbatim in scripture?
Mike, I’ve looked around for your podcast sermon on women’s roles. It may have been on the Zoe website at one time, but could you link to it again?
MP,
“an informal poll: would anyone interested in the hermeneutical question at hand, namely how we look at the bible to find out how to live out Jesus’ way, please explain in just a few words your favorite metaphor for how the bible works? is it truth? all the truth? every truth? is it a rulebook? is it a story? a novel? a play? an instruction manual? a theology text?”
Outdated and the source of good men doing evil things in the name of God. Hermeneutical sounds like some air tight sealing method.
leland..”Hermeneutical sounds like some air tight sealing method.”…you made me laugh outloud on that one.
The intersection of culture and Christainity seems to always be in tension. Red, Yellow, finally Green. There is always a constant dispute over the balance of the two, but in my heart, I believe there is a better way.
http://www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchrist.org
Manley P,
Here’s my hermeneutical metaphor:
The bible is an autostereogram.
Think about it.
Does anyone ever wonder why God chose to speak on the issue of a woman’s role (in the church and the home) through an unmarried man who likely had very few deep relationships with women throughout his life?
Mark,
You forget Mary Magdelene.
Paul chose to speak on women’s roles, don’t attribute it to God.
Jesus had very little to say and nothing directly (written by him)to say about the matter.
I think Jesus could give a shit about leadership being male or female.
I was actually speaking of Paul, not Jesus. Sorry for the confusion.
Speaking of Jesus and how he related to women, I came across this excellent piece from Dorothy Sayers recently. It is quoted by Yancey in his book The Jesus I Never Knew:
“Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man - there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised: who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as ‘The women, God help us!’ or ‘The ladies, God bless them!; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unselfconscious.”
“There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about woman’s nature. But we might easily deduce it from His contemporaries, and from His prophets before Him, and from His Church to this day.”
Amy
If I may answer for Mike, the podcast is the last one listed under Resources, then podcasts. It’s the sermon of a date none of us at Highland will ever forget, January 16, 2005.
Jan 16, 2005: Mike Cope - Women, Gifts, and the Body of Christ. 14.8 MB 1:05:05
Hope that helps.
Kathy
I would again suggest reading Sarah Sumner’s Men and Women in the Church. It is one of the clearest, best stated I’ve come across in a long time on the question of women exercising God-given gifts in open church settings. Also, she has written one of the best on headship and marriage in this same book. Wonderful book, imho.
Mark,
Good words from Yancey. THX
I think it is interesting that Jesus chose men to be His apostles. When the apostles spoke or wrote they wrote by the authority of Jesus. When they wrote about male leadership they wrote as men inspired by the Father , the Son and the Holy Spirit. Jesus cared a great deal about male leadership. But he cared about all of us and died so we can be forgiven. He is the head of the church and whenever He speaks then we should all pay attention. And when His apostles speak , He is speaking.
Ray: Do you think Jesus was influenced by the culture of the day when choosing his apostles? In other words, is it possible that, if God had entered the world as a mechanic in London in 2007 (for example), rather than a Jewish carpenter 2000 years ago, he might choose his apostles differently?
Mark ,
It really does not make any difference about today. That would be conjecture on my part. It is just very interesting that God has chosen male leadership. The scriptures transcend all time and culture. Culture cannot dictate the living word.
Thank you, Kathy! I am sure that is a date your blessed church will never forget. Waiting for it to happen here.
Ray B.
You must have attended ” I Got It All Figured Out University” and graduated with honors.
Let me know if they have some kind of on line thing going, I sure could use some\alot of classes to eradicate my stupidity on how women are not fully capable to lead the church.
In case you wondering that wasn’t spoken in love. It was spoken in disdain for a culture which limits its full membership to the good old boy club.
And if you argue women lead with the pot luck (and other non elder/preacher) ministries thats just pure bullshit. Until women are elders and preachers in the CoC they are second class participants.
Some don’t won’t the role but neither do some men.
Leland ,
All I hhave written about is guided by the word of God. If I could find the scriptures that teach women can be elders then I would teach such but that is not what is written. And there is in I Timothy 2 and I Cor. 14 instructions that tell us that the men should be the preachers. It is God’s design. Not my idea but the divine plan.
I have already said that women have a vital part in the work of the church. They can teach,be invovlved in evangelism, benevolence and a myriad of very important works. And in no way are they second class participants. Those are your words, not mine.
None of what I have said has anything to do with culture. Culture does not dictate the divine standard. Only when the word is taught and obeyed will the church continue to be relevant because what the church teaches and practices is counter- cultural. I know many will disagree with me. And no , I do not have it all figured out. Again , those are your words. At this point , in my understanding of scripture , this is where I stand.
The premise that women are inferior or incapable of leading the church is a complete fabrication. It is not a viewpoint of God and is not stated or implied anywhere in the Bible. It is an arguement that is put forth by proponants of women in leadership roles in church, because they cannot argue with the truth. The truth is that God simply prohibited it. He doesn’t support his decision or justify it in any way. He certainly does not say that women are incapable, incompetent, or inferior. To win the arguement, people have to put words in God’s mouth.
Troy,
“The premise that women are inferior or incapable of leading the church is a complete fabrication….The truth is that God simply prohibited it.”
Why would God prohibit it if the premise were not true? Man prohibited it in the name of God.
“…because they cannot argue with the truth.” What truth you talking about? The one in your fairytale land or the one supported by modern reality?
Leland,
You made a mistake. You left out the “s” word.
“Why would God prohibit it if the premise were not true?” That’s the beauty of it. God is smarter than you. He is not confined to your pseudo intellectual laws and restrictions. He does not have to explain himself. That’s what drives you people crazy. You cannot even accept the fact that God is right.
By your comments, I doubt that you’re in agreement with 2 Timothy 3:16. You would have to deny it in order to dismiss 1 Cor.14:34 and 1 Tim.2:11-12. These are the truths I’m referring to.
One of the comforts I take from this discussion, is the realization that you, and most of the ones who have posted above, are on the extreme left fringe. I know this, because most of you don’t possess the courage of your own convictions. You’re afraid to take that step that would test your beliefs. You’re also afraid of the loss of power and influence. Otherwise, Mike would turn the pulpit over to a woman, or Rick Atchley would add instruments to Sunday morning worship.
Troy,
“One of the comforts I take from this discussion, is the realization that you, and most of the ones who have posted above, are on the extreme left fringe. I know this, because most of you don’t possess the courage of your own convictions. You’re afraid to take that step that would test your beliefs.”
I would take that step if I could but you “right wingers” hold the power. Although you have tried to demonstare clairvoyance wrt to my courage, you have failed miserably.
I am not a left winger either by the way. I am a non-believer in your fairy tale religion. It refuses to treat others with equality and respect in all matters. I’ll just love “all” my neighbors and leave the religion alone.
I’ll advocate killing my enemies which would kill my children or community. If I loved my enemies they wouldn’t be my enemies would they (makes sense huh, sorry I did that).
The “s” word that offends you the most is sense, not shit. You are more worrried about being offended than real truth (reality).
You’re afraid to examine your beliefs and peek under the veil of outdated oppressive traditions. I know you have a direct line to God and all, but maybe you got a busy signal on this one.
Hey maybe your right, maybe we should oppress women. How’s the wifes daily head dress requirement going? How’s the not helping the widow’s under 65 going? Seems like the cherry picking is going well.
Richard, I don’t think I’ve missed your point at all. Your “explanation” only confirms what I thought I was reading. Cheers, and good luck with that. qb
troy,
as a brother of rick atchley in christ, i’m going to take him at his word. he didn’t say he was afraid of you, others like you, your judgment or opinion, or anything else. he said he loves you, respects you, and honors our shared tradition of a capella music in corporate worship.
you raise a question i’ve had for a while, though. do women regularly occupy the highland pulpit in the role of teacher, exhorter, evangelist?
ray b,
of course culture doesn’t “dictate” to God or scripture. what do you make of mike’s argument that slavery and segregation were always unchristian, but this teaching only became clear (and realized) in a certain cultural context?
I don’t presume to know anyone….but I wonder wouldn’t it be nice for some men to hold their tongues in these comments, remove their comments and listen to what our friends are saying of the female persuasion…and yet maybe there in lies our problem we don’t listen very well.
Hey Happy,
Don’t be so cryptic, say what you mean? Who needs to hold their tongue, remove their comments and listen?
Maybe the problem is we don’t say what we feel. Maybe its out of fear and as a result stupid traditions progress.
I disagree with Greg Kendall Ball (linked on Mike’s Blog) on just about everything. He even infuriates me sometimes (most), but he does say what he means and I respect him for that. At least I know where he stands.
The church has been having a courtesy stand-off way too long over way too many traditions.
The only MTV saying I ever liked is “Why don’t we stop being nice and start being real?” They go over the top with it more often than not, but others could say the same thing about me.
Leland-
You’ve made it clear that you are the supreme being in your universe. The knower of all things. The perceiver of all truth. Just one problem. It’s not your universe.
Manley-
I too, consider Rick Atchley my brother in Christ. That’s why I’m so passionate about this. It’s not me, or others who beleive as I do, that he is afraid of. It’s people who are on the fence, regarding the use of instrumental music, that can make or break the church that he didn’t build. If he truely had the courage of his convictions, he would resign, and start a new church from scratch.
I read Mike’s blog frequently and somethimes I read the comments posted as well. I don’t think I’ve ever added to the discussion because most of the people who post on here seem to be MUCH smarter than I am; definitely more eloquent. But, I feel like this is something I can speak intelligently about being a) a woman, b) a lifelong member of the coc and c) a lover of God’s word. I don’t think I’m going to comment at all about the homosexual debate since that seems a bit out of my league. suffice it to say that I agree with Ray about what the scriptures say about it and think it is dangerous to speculate about what may or may not have been implied in this or that setting during this or that culture at a certain period of time. While human beings have had the handling of the written word of God forever, I just trust that what we have is what we NEED to have to come into the knowledge of Jesus and His saving sacrifice.
Onto women’s roles…
As a woman in the c o c I have never felt opressed, nor do I know any women who have felt that way. I have never felt this way, I think, because I have always had strong, Godly men who led with grace and love. It is my opinion that the Lord did ordain the care of the church to the shepherds who seem to be men in all of NT scripture. That’s not to say that women can’t have a role in worship, I don’t think. I believe that the gifts the Lord doles out are meant to be used for the body, by anyone who has them, male or female. I don’t believe it is my obligation to submit to ALL men, because they are men, but to one man, my husband. Therefore, I think that if I felt led to offer my gifts in a public way on a Sunday morning, and the shepherds of my congregation thought that it would be benificial to the body where I worship and my husband concurred, I believe it would be ok for me to do that. I think we miss the mark and fail miserably when we say ‘leadership’ is only the things that take place on the stage in a corporate worship setting. Passing plates, singing a solo, reading the announcements, saying prayers aren’t, in my opinion, leadership. The place where this becomes really sticky, to me, is where it can lead to. My husband says the ’slippery slope arguement’ is not ever valid. So I’ll just say that I think scripture gives clear guidelines to who the shepherds of a congregation are to be and they are men. I worry that eventually we will get to the place where we want to have women shepherds. I,personally, don’t know how a woman could be a shepherd and then come home and be submissive to her husband. I know I couldn’t do it. It seems like this would be a role reversal that would ripple into families and shake up what seems to be God’s plan for how families are to be run, with the husband at the head.
I said at the outset that I have never felt opressed, and I think this is in great part due to the godly men who have been in my family. I think this is the real issue. Women will gladly step in and get things done if we see that they aren’t getting done. When men abdicate their roles as strong, godly leaders, you shouldn’t be surprised when women decide they can and will do better. This pertains to every aspect of our society, in my opinion. You can see in any place you care to look, the absence of men doing what they ought to be doing.
I think my train of thought has come to an end.
Leland, I don’t know why you give a flying flip about what goes on on this blog since you claim to be a nonbeliever who thinks religion is hogwash. Do you really think spouting obsenities at us is going to change anybody’s opinion here? If you feel the need to respond, please keep your comments clean…
All of these issues need to be veiwed in light of the grace we have received through the sacrifice of the Messiah. We have received so much, lets not keep it from each other.
In Christ
Dixie
I would suggest to all of you who feel as if women do not feel oppressed in the Church of Christ, go to Gal328 and read…you will hear stories and you will feel pain…you will witness much searching and a community that held each other up through some very dark times.
Julie- Please provide us with your understanding of Galations 3:28.
I should have said the website Gal328.org. I typed in a hurry. I told myself that I wouldn’t get involved in this