Finally Feminist
I’m finally getting back to Finally Feminist
After asking the question some of you are asking — “How can one be a Christian feminist?” — Stackhouse says this about himself:
“On the one hand, I am a white, middle-class, heterosexual, evangelical Christian man — and thus clearly not everyone’s idea of a feminist. Indeed, one might think that I would have a lot to lose in supporting the equal treatment of women in every sphere of life — whether one sees that loss as ‘legitimate authority’ or ‘scandalous privilege.’ On the other hand, I am also a career academician, someone who has earned degrees from two secular universities, has held appointments at three more, and has had books published by the presses of yet two others. Someone with that sort of mainstream scholarly background can be expected to be a feminist, of course. But one might not expect such a person to be an orthodox Bible believer. In this book, then, I try to show how one can be both authentically feminist and authentically Christian. In particular, I try to show how the Bible, which has often been understood by both feminists and patriarchalists to be inimical to feminism, properly can be seen to support feminism in our time.”
Before this, he’s already cleared the air a bit by trying to strip away many social pathologies often associated by Christians with all forms of feminism. He follows his autobiographical note with these words: “The noun feminist can mean several things, but this is what I mean by it: someone who champions the dignity, rights, responsibilities, and glories of women as equal in importance to those of men and who therefore refuses discrimination against women.”
Stackhouse goes on to describe his upbringing, raised not just in a Christian home but in a “Focus on the Family-type home.” Traditional, in other words. Dad as the formal leader.
In his congregation, the Plymouth Brethren, anyone was allowed to suggest a hymn, pray out loud, or offer an explanation of scripture. Everyone, that is, who was male. “I began to wonder why my mother, who was otherwise so esteemed as a leader in our church, remained demurely silent week after week and year after year while Mr. So-and-So rose to bore us once again with his meanderings through Scripture and Mr. Such-and-Such followed with his interminable prayer. When young Bill or even younger Bobby was encouraged to lead in the service while their mothers and grandmothers silently looked on, my wonder deepened.” (Can anyone else identify?!)
Through college and graduate school, he continued to meet women who were gifted in prayer, faith, scholarship, and leadership. The older arguments (that women are too emotional, irrational, illogical, or defensive) or the newer arguments (that the old arguments were wrong and shouldn’t have been made but that God just doesn’t want women to lead at church and home, though maybe in society, and we shouldn’t question him) lost steam as he faced the world of Spirit-filled women around him.
And in addition to that, he entered an egalitarian marriage. (I would contend that many, many Christians are actually in an egalitarian marriage, even if they’d never admit it.)
So, back to scripture he went, searching for a model for understanding gender issues. I’ll pick up there tomorrow.
Alan, just for your reference, there have been churches in fellowships from the restoration movement, including many churches of Christ, that didnt allow woment to sing in the assembly as part of their standard practice. There are a few, very few, of those congregations still in existance today. Its much like the congregations that insited on only using one cup for communion etc. As times change we certainly reevaluate the texts of Scripture. This neither negates or changes scripture, it simply takes the truths of the Text and applies them to our comtemporary context. Peace you my brother.
Not to mention, churches of all types have prohibited women from singing in an assembly for centuries.
This past Sunday at my church a woman preached the sermon and faciliatated the discussion afterwards. I was no more ruined by her presentation of a chapter from the book of Acts than in prior weeks when men did the sermon on other chapters from Acts. She was as unpolished as the other non-professional speakers. I liked hearing a different kind of voice. She probably highlghted soe areas and de-emphasized other areas that a male might not have, but it was all from scripture.
Does my support of this woman in the role of preacher make me a feminist? Well, maybe a Stackhousian feminist. I really don’t claim the word feminism. Not until I read the Stackhouse definition have I entertained the idea because prior to this definition I have been exposed to definitions that are outrighly hostile toward men or speak as though men exist, but completely leave them out of the conversation – that which they accuse men of doing to women. I am all about equality with a healthy appreciation for similarities AND difference that are and sometimes are not associated with men and women.
What if, for the sake of arguement, God meant to communicate that women were not supposed to have any authority in churches, but we made the mistake of sharing authority between men and women in our churches? And suppose this was not some sort of act of rebellion, but a sincere effort to uphold the idea that men and women comprise the image of God? What would God do?
Julie,
Thanks for your honest response. I know there are no easy answers and every situation is different. Maybe it’s not a fair question. It’s not an easy thing to place your convictions above what I’m sure was a close relationship with your church family.
My intention is not to engage in any deep theological discussions with anyone on this topic. I doubt my mind or yours will be changed and it gets tiresome. I have just been genuinely puzzled by the number of people here who seem so unhappy in the Church of Christ but yet remain. I’m sure some here have not remained but for those who have I still ask, “Why stay”?
Julie,
I don’t know that I have the capacity to “profess” anything. I’m just a salesman. However, Paul addresses slavery in Galations as a social issue. It was practiced then, and Paul directed slaves to be loyal to their owners and masters to treat their slaves well. OF COURSE SLAVERY IS WRONG. My comment to Kent was that is has absolutely no place in this argument. We are called by this same writer to be content in our place. The social side of this issue was corrected, and should of been. I agree with Stackhouse’s definition of feminism. I also want to be sure that I state that I do not have a “lord and master” mentality. I fully acknowledge that there are women who have unbelievable talent and abilities. I think Royce’s point is scary. If we looked at all scripture under the premise that it only applied to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians et. al. then we have no compass from which to operate. I’ll have to wait for the next letter to the Oklahomans.
Thanks Mike for opening this can of worms again. And thanks Amy for reminding me how blessed I was there. I fail to see how reading scripture from the “pulpit” and praying aloud usurps the leadership of men? I have no desire to WREST the leadership out of the hands of my elders, I just want to add my voice.
Judy!!
PTL for your voice! You are so missed at Highland and I feel especially deprived since you moved on just about the time I moved in which gave us NO time to really get acquainted. But I listen your wise words as often as possible. This response is a perfect example of why you are SO missed!!
Blessings to overflowing for you and yours!
The shame is in our inconsistency. As Mike pointed out a year or so ago in his sermon concerning women, we are perfectly accepting of a woman in every role for 167 out of the 168 hours in a week……..but not that ONE hour on Sunday. It’s ok for them to be our doctor, our attorney, our Supreme Court Justice, our Senator, our coach, our teacher, our marriage counselor, our policewoman, our court Judge, our airline pilot, our Christian University Board member………..but suddenly they have NOTHING worth contributing during our time together for an hour on Sunday morning. And then we wonder why unbelievers scratch their heads and go “huh”?
To their credit, at least Muslims are consistent and not hypocritical in their treatment of women. No, don’t act like I am saying we should treat women like Muslims do. I’m just observing their consistency. They treat them horribly ALL the time.
We are about as consistent on this as we are our music.
It’s the path you choose when you begin the journey of legalism.
DU
Alan – I’d like to congratulate you on your extreme patience and restraint. Thank you for insisting on respect for differing views.
Someone already lobbed my holy hand grenade — questioning the infallibility of Paul. I would characterize it differently — by simply asking who was Paul writing to?
He was writing to a church in most cases, unless he was writing to a specific person. That’s where the letters of the Bible differ from the remainder in that most of the other books were written for posterity. The OT, the Gospels, etc. were written for consumption by people of that age and any other – meant to be timeless.
The other question is whether there is a perfect model of a church that Paul was pointing to, or if he was more directly trying to improve the current situation(s) he was dealing with. I find the latter more plausible. …actually the idea of a perfect church is laughable…
The last point on this is the thorn that has been sticking in my side for a long time – the self validation that has been applied to “all scripture is inspired and useful for…” At the time those words were penned, the letter wasn’t finished… I’m not refuting inspiration of scripture – just questioning that Paul would consider his letter to be in that category.
But… My wife is one of those “12 women” who sees the blessing of having the assemblies taken care of for them — and I’m no slouch!
…and she is not short of gifts – she leads more than most from her day job as right-hand man… err… woman to our minister.
Personally, I’m still digesting this issue of women’s rights in the church. At this point, I’m past the question of “can they” and more into the question of “should they” — and this is much more dependent on the church you’re living with.
I am not opposed to involving women in worship, but I am opposed to alienating our older populations who built our church and have already adapted to so much in the recent years. I am also nervous about the contrived approach that would result from premature change — “OK, I need to find a prayer person for Sunday’s service – last week, it was a guy, so I’d better sign up a lady to keep it even…”
Ed, I want to try and answer your question, because it is valid and understandable.
I am born and raised CofC. When I claim a “church home”, that is where I feel at home. It is my family. Just because someone doesn’t like everything about the family in which they grew up, does not mean they turn their backs and look for an alternative. There is strength and sacrifice required to stay with those loved ones and patiently work for improvement, but that is our choice.
I believe there is great danger in approaching church as a shopping trip. where you make the rounds and try them on for size until you find one that doesn’t rub any blisters at all. Proverbs 27:17 comes to mind, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” We’re supposed to lay down our lives for our Lord, and be willing to face these iron clashes to help strengthen our churches. It’s about what is best for His kingdom, not what is easiest on me.
I know for myself, this feminist understanding (Stackhouse’s definition) has been a gradual development. It is not as if I walked in the door ready for a fight. When I began my Christian walk, it was the least of my worries. At different points in my journey, new issues have become evident. They are not grounds to walk away. They are opportunities to learn and grow, and hopefully inspire others to learn and grow as well.
My last thought is that your question does not encompass all aspects of a church that are reasons to stay. Yes, maybe we disagree with the way things are done on this front, but there can be lots of strengths in a church family that more than warrant sticking around and trying to improve the weaknesses. Moving to another church would simply mean that the women’s role issue was in agreement and something else would be the point of conflict. I once heard a preacher say, “Whenever the will of heaven mingles with the dust of this earth, there will be problems.” We will never get it all exactly right. But we can’t give up trying, right where we are.
Larissa,
Thanks for your response. You make some very good points. Anywhere human beings gather together there will be differences and certainly we will never find a church home where everyone agrees on everything. Hopefully we will always treat each other in a loving way even if we don’t see eye to eye.
Jonathan, I too see a lack of sensitivity at times to our older bretheren. Somehow it’s hard to see my Dad who has a different view than most here as “immature”. I don’t so easliy discount his years of wisdom and experience. And it pains me to see his feelings of alienation as the church that he loves leaves him.
Larissa said:
“Moving to another church would simply mean that the women’s role issue was in agreement and something else would be the point of conflict.”
and I think in many ways that sums it up for me.
me too rejoyce
Hi Jonathan,
Thanks for the kind comments.
You wrote:
> I would characterize it differently — by
> simply asking who was Paul writing to?
It seems that Paul was describing the practice at all the first century churces (at least those he was familiar with). In 1 Cor 14:33, he says “As in all the congregations of the saints…” and later:
1Co 14:37-38 “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”
Compare that to 1Co 11:16 “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.”
If Paul’s reasons no longer apply, then we might be right to say that the conclusions no longer apply. But the reasons are as true today as they were when they were written. These instructions were not unique to first century Corinth. Note also that his justification for the commands is not specific to a single culture or congregation (the order of creation, 1 Cor 11:8-9; the availability of the message to men, 1 Cor 14:36; the order of creation again, 1 Tim 2:13-14). Paul anticipated and knew that these instructions would be controversial in Corinth, but nevertheless they were binding there.
“But the reasons are as true today as they were when they were written”. Really? You have women being disruptive in your worship service? Do you have some folks eating the Lord’s Supper ahead of other folks and getting drunk when they partake in your congregation? If so, I think I would have read about your church in some newspaper or maybe the Christian Chronicle. C’mon Alan. Surely you agree Paul wrote some advice and instructions to address CURRENT situations in churches at that time.
DU
Chris – I obviously did a poor job of trying to state that the “church” has used scripture in the past to support slavery, segregation and women not being allowed to vote. I haven’t found any one in the church today that attempts to use scripture to support those views, thus, I drew the fairly simplistic conclusion that we were Biblically off-base in the past on these issues. If I’ved muddied the waters even more my apologies.
Do not forget in this discussion that Paul gave two reasons why women were not to teach or have authority over men. He said it was because of the order of creation. Some have mentioned this in the various posts. But Paul also mentions the fall. Remmeber when an apostle wrote he wrote by the authority of Jesus. What Paul taught is the will of Jesus Christ. Also , what Paul wrote in I Cor . 14 was not limited to just Corinth. He said it was an instruction for all the churches. It is really exciting to think about how much will be accomplished when both men and women work together in the kingdom and according to God’s design. To do otherwise will cause the church to have less of an influence to the world and the culture. Let the world see and hear God’s design not manipulated by culture but Christians rejoicing in the obedience to the living word of God.
I’ve been enjoying the discussion but would encourage commenters to refrain from arguments based on anything but Scripture and interpretation of same. Please do not bring up the “but women don’t really want to lead” argument. There are lots of women who don’t want to lead, just as there are lots of men who don’t. But for those who do, the argument that they can do just as much service for their church as cooks and bottlewashers behind the scenes just doesn’t cut it.
This comment was written by a lifelong feminist who has been happily married for 13 years, a stay-at-home mother of two for 6.5 of them, and who, by the grace of God, will NOT be silenced!
I wrote:
>> “But the reasons are as true today as they were when they were writtenâ€.
And David responded:
> Really? You have women being disruptive in your worship service?
> You have women being disruptive in your worship service?
Check those scriptures again. You will find that Paul did not cite disruptive women as the reason for his instruction about women being silent. The reasons he did cite are still true.
We hear that rationale (disruptive women) thrown around so often, it seems like it must be there in the passage. But the text does not really say that was happening…much less, that such incidents were the reason for instructing women to be silent.
Alan ,
Again , I believe you are right. To say it was due to some issue about being disruptive is not true. We cannot let cultural influences dictate an understanding of this text. Not when Paul says this was a command for all the churches.
Alan, please read scripture in context. Also, please ask yourself if you are making scripture fit your positions, or are your positions the result of scripture…….there is a HUGE difference.
The whole context in I Cor. 14 is about NOT being disorderly! Are you kidding? My NIV study bible has this as the heading for that section of Chapter 14: “Orderly Worship”. Every verse following from verse 26 to the end of the chapter where he says “But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” is addressing this issue. Here is part of what my NIV study Bible says in it’s notes for this section: “Paul is discussing primarily the disruption of worship by women who become involved in noisy discussions surrounding tongues-speaking and prophecy. Instead of publicly clamoring for explanations, the wives were to discuss matters with their husbands at home (v. 35). Paul does not altogether forbid women to speak in church (see 11:5). What he is forbidding is the disorderly speaking indicated in these verses.”
DU
The text really DOES say: “women should be SILENT”. All the comments presented over the last two days haven’t changed the fact that the way Paul said it MUST mean that, in addition to the other ways our fellowship has excluded women in the worship assembly, we MUST also include remaining silent during singing of psalms, hymns, & spiritual songs, AND not teaching publicly—-children, teens, & other women.
Our fellowship cannot “pick & choose” what women do in the assembly IF we follow Paul’s statement TO THE LETTER.
David,
The NIV study comments are not inspired. I can point to other commentators who disagree. You might check out Albert Barnes for example. But my comment is based on my understanding of the passage in context.
Annie,
If that is what you think it means, then you are accountable before God to obey that. I don’t think that it includes singing. I am not violating my conscience by condoning women singing, though that does not make me innocent before God.
Should we suppose that “those women who labored with me (Paul) in the gospel, did so by carrying Paul’s luggage and preparing snacks? No, they labored with him in “the gospel”. The way one labors in the gospel is to teach others about the good news of Jesus.
Now are we to suppose that these good women who seemed to Paul equal in sharing the work of the gospel and of the grace of God are to suddenly not say a word in church? Oh, I forgot, there were no church buildings. Were they to be silent when men were present in the group? That is hardly the case. Such a position defies logic.
I was roundly criticized for saying that Paul was addressing specific problems in the context where the silence of women is discussed. Who in your congregation is sleeping with his step mother? Pretty speficic I would say.
Corinth was a metropolitan hub of commerce and travel and there were many languages spoken on the city streets. And, when the brothers and sisters met together to worship Christians of many tongues assembled. One of the problems Paul addressed was languages. Another was selfeshness and being rude.
When the text deals with specifics, as in this context to the Corinthians, we learn spiritual principals hopefully. It is always wrong to be rude, selfish, gluttonous, and to drink to the point of being drunk. It is also always inappropiate for several women to dominate the speaking in an assembly.
Sadly, men have taken this text and a few others out of context and now generations of coC homes have wives who are verbally and emotionally abused all in the name of God. And, in some cases, perhaps Winkler, it went further. God always wants men to be loving, caring leaders in their homes and His church. That is never in question. However, women are not 2nd class in God’s eyes and should not be treated as such by Christian men. Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen is not the limit of usefulness for women.
Can we today forbid a woman to “labor in the gospel”? No. I can find nothing in my Bible that forbids women serving communion, praying, and other things now forbidden. Things are changing in the coC and the day will come when most of the congregations will forsake many of the positions long held that are not supported by the Bible.
Card carrying change agent,
Royce Ogle
Thank you, Royce!
While I do not object to women praying aloud or preaching, further research says that men hate going to church because (even though it is typically headed by men…ministers and elders) the church has become too feminine in it’s approach (because women lead in every other area despite what is typically said) and I see why I dislike going to church many times.
The songs-feminine (lover, bosoms, breasts, feminine language)
The sermon-feminine (30-40 min. lectures)
The style-feminine (singing, listening, sitting)
The programs (MOPS, children’s Bible hour, Ladies Bible Class)
Men’s programs usually consist of a monthly breakfast on a Saturday at 6am…who’s gonna get up for that?
The more I read, the more I see our men not engaged in church and we have turned Jesus into a bearded woman. If we want to see more growth in the church, we need to find better ways for women to lead and give the men something they can connect with. Three books I have recently read back up all of this research:
Wild at Heart by John Eldredge
No More Christian Nice Guy by Paul Coughlin
Why Men Hate Going To Church by David Murrow
It simply is not about gifts or abilities it is about responsibilities. God has given men the responsibility to teach and preach. In 1 Tim. 2, Paul clearly argues not from a cultural standpoint from from a creation stand point.