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.
We appreciate you Mike! I think this is a generational thing. Our current elder members simply cannot take this much farther. The question I never get answered is - what are we going to do with all of these female Bible majors?
Mike, thanks for these quotes from Stackhouse. I like your asides, too; especially the part about us being in egalitarian marriages, even though most of use have (or have had?) some sort of language that we’ve used to explain how things ideally work(ed) in our marriages.
I know there are faithful Christians who believe 1 Cor 14:33-38 and 1 Tim 2:11-15 should not be understood to preclude women teaching, leading, or speaking publicly in the church. I am not among that number. I do not know why God said those things. I readily admit that if it were up to me, I would not have said those things. Yet to me, those passages could not be clearer. While I don’t fully understand the reasons, the commands themselves seem (to me) to be unmistakeable. I cannot in good conscience condone what I believe these passages clearly prohibit. To me it is a question of obedience.
I don’t treat this as a salvation issue. But it is encompassed within a larger issue that is a salvation issue: obedience. If I practice even what I merely suspect is prohibited, I place my salvation at risk (1 Cor 14:23).
We need to learn better how to deal with areas of conscientious disagreement such as this. The mature approach has to include mutual respect, and protection of conscience on both sides.
Correction… Rom 14:23, not 1 Cor 14:23. Sorry.
Growing up in a situation similar to Stackhouse’s description, it was nevertheless clear to me that some of the deepest spiritual minds and hearts I knew were possessed by women. While some of the men tacitly accepted this, and some men (and women) were clueless, there were a number of men who were contemptuous of any woman who spoke “out of turn†or became “uppity†even in a small Bible class. And for those of us women who really liked men and valued their opinions, it was very difficult to risk their disapproval if we appeared impudent. Even other women joined in to scornfully vilify women who expressed too many opinions. There were just not many men who championed women in those days in my hometown. And if there were any in my congregation, it was unknown to me.
So, even among us “women-folk†I cannot remember ever discussing the fact that women have spiritual insights that are often equal—sometimes greater, sometimes lesser—than the men around them. But I do think we knew this secret thing: that God really did give women a brain. And later I even knew that we were given the Spirit of God.
It took me many years to realize that as a woman I am indeed made in the image of God and that I am a priest. I heard discussion of the “priesthood of believers†and certainly knew that was part of the belief of my congregation that made us more “right†than those folks with a clerical hierarchy—but the sad fact is, because of our practice, the phrase “priesthood of believers†just meant that I could pray directly to God—leaving out all the richness that a holy priesthood and chosen people implies.
Things have changed in so many ways, however, and I am thankful for all the men and women who have helped me, and who continue to help me, view my femaleness as God intended.
This is funny, because just as I was coming to log on to the computers in my company’s break room, a woman from my office asked if the church I attend allows women to pray and preach publicly. As a minister of the independent Christian Churches who attends a Brazilian Church of Christ (a cappella) I could honestly answer that this depends on the local church (congregational autonomy) but that the church I attend does not.
The question really comes down to accepting or not accepting the Pauline model of church leadership. It is abundantly clear that he wanted only men in leadership. Then again, it also seems to me that his model was never widely accepted (the church in Rome apparently had a plurality of male presbyters until sometime in the third or fourth century, though) and that already in the early second century the monarchial episcopate was being developed. I tend to think that this could only be because the other apostles and early leaders did not promote a well-defined leadership structure, as did Paul.
Personally, I’d rather accept the plan laid out in canonical Scripture, not putting women down or oppressing them but reserving the public leadership for committed men of God. However, I also can’t deny the genuine Christianity of those who do not accept the Pauline model.
Alan,
With no disrespect and no desire to debate, I wouldn’t say anything that was written in a letter to a specific church or group of believers almost 2000 years ago, some 60 years after Christ’s death that deals with expelling greedy people, not getting married, covering your head, not cutting your hair, eating meat used in pagan sacrifices, speaking in tongues to persuade non believers, etc… is anywhere near clear.
I believe that the words of Paul, the entire Bible, and the canonization process was inspired by the Holy Spirit. I also believe that Holy Spirit is much needed when it comes to interpreting and contextualizing scripture today. Maybe it is clear to you, but anything (and I mean anything) that is sandwiched between, “there should be no division in the body” and “Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.” is by its very placement in the letter, not all that clear to me.
yep..mike, this should get the clicker spinning!
I guess I just wonder why we have to have all these labels. Why do I need a label besides Christian for someone to know what I believe. Besides..they just got to watch me live. Oh well..there’s not a political bone in my body..these are my views as of late…let’s get the freak out of Iraq …let’s notice those who are hurting…let’s wash each others feet (without having to form a committee)..I am a Peopleist.
Alan, Do you feel that the women in our fellowship (church of Christ) obeyed what Scripture says in the past, but not now?
In the past—and mostly now, women sing in the assembly & we also teach in “Sunday school” or the more current term, “Bible class”. If we are to be silent, does that mean the moment we walk into the assembly(not participating in singing or teaching) or does it mean something else?
I would miss SO much getting to sing, but not so much miss working in the nursery or teaching classes week after week. My congregation doesn’t allow women to read scripture or say a prayer from the “pulpit”, nor does it allow a woman to help the man “pass the emblems” or give the “communion thought”, so no problem there. I’m just asking about the singing(not as silent as “passing the emblems”) or teaching classes & working the nursery(definitely not able to have silence there!)
In my world, we tend to break “feminism” down into sub-types, as the word “feminism” is too broad:
Gender Feminism (sometimes called “radical feminismâ€) = The notion that “gender” is socially constructed and, thus, has no objective reality. More strongly, the claim that this socially constructed entity (i.e., “genderâ€) is created and used to protect male hegemony.
Equity Feminism = Acceptance of biological gender as a legitimate category; thus the focus is less on “gender” and more on issues of justice, dignity, and fairness.
Stackhouse’s definition marks him as an equity feminist. These distinctions may be helpful as we talk.
I thoroughly oppose the use of apricot miniature poodles to pass the emblems in the assembly, based on the silence of Scripture.
Discuss.
If God wanted apricot miniature poodles to pass communion, he would have given them opposable thumbs, therefore, I would argue ontologically that poodles should not serve or pass communion.
I know this discussion is about church “leadership” and whether or not women ought to participate publicly or not, but I’d like to know what you all think about family leadership? I know one poster said to him it comes down to whether or not one accepts the Pauline philosophy of church leadership, but to me it seems to come down to whether or not we accept God’s design for the family. Does anyone else see a coorelation here or am I reading too much into it?
Also, my knee-jerk reaction to the word ‘feminist’ is very hard to resisit. Most women who I know who are feminists hate men and portray them as dumb and disgusting.
I have found it interesting that Paul’s teaching in Gal. 3 : 28 will be used by some to say that there should be no restrictions between male and female and yet want to reject or walk all around his teachings in I Cor. 14 and I Tim 2 and say it was cultural or whatever. When an apostle writes he writes by the authority of Jesus Christ. So what Paul wrote about male leadership is in harmony with the will of our Lord Jesus Christ.
I’m hearing several people equating “leadership” with “standing up front in a church service.” Though a leader may, from time to time, do this, I would contend that most leadership goes on behind the scenes. It’s the shepherding, the counseling, the prayer that discerns Christ’s calling on a community of His followers. Anyone who’s been around churches knows that, a) there are many, many women who steer the direction of churches by prayer and behind-the-scenes service and discernment (and, therefore, “lead”); and b) there are many, many men who can stand up front and lead a song, read a scripture, pass a tray or preach a sermon, but who have the leadership and discernment capabilities of a piece of birch bark.
Kudos to Stackhouse for his simplified yet inclusive definition of “feminist”. When women’s suffragist movements began in the late 19th century in the states, all these men and women wanted were to be heard and respected, to be given equal opportunities to do things like vote and serve in the military. However, in the 125 years or so since then, although feminism has had some positive steps (Title IX, an action requiring schools to increase budgets for women’s athletics, is something that immediately hops into my mind), feminism has been horribly distorted by men and women craving superfluous power and has been horribly undermined by men and women, particularly in our churches, by a fear of change. Unfortunately, the feminism that so many of our youth know is the latter and not the former and therefore refuse to learn the foundations behind feminism. I think if more people read books like Stackhouse’s and go back to the basics of feminism, more people would be longing to seek women get equal opportunity with men.
An interesting discussion. I’m anxious to see further posts from Mike and what Stackhouse has to say.
Annie,
My posting on this topic is motivated more by the need for us to learn to accept differences on this subject, than by a desire to persuade people to my way of thinking. But because you asked I’ll give a quick overview of my beliefs.
I think 1 Cor 11-14 is probably addressing the Sunday worship assembly, based on several references in that section to a general assembly, and also on the kind of things being discussed, particularly the inclusion of communion in the discussion. I don’t think the instruction from 1 Cor 14 for women to be silent means for women to abstain from singing. The same word, in the same chapter, is used to tell tongue speakers to hold their peace under certain circumstances, and I don’t think anyone takes that to mean the tongue speakers (beyond the first two or three) were prohibited from singing. But it did mean they were refrain from speaking out.
Paul didn’t say that the women’s ideas were of less value than those of the men. He merely said that the word of God did not originate with them, and that they were not the only ones it had reached (implying that one of the men present could deliver whatever message was needed).
The instruction about teaching and having authority from 1 Tim seems to me to be more general (ie, not limited to Sunday worship). Taking the two passages together, I would not be comfortable with a woman publicly teaching or giving instructions to the congregation.
BTW this is not what I started out believing about this subject. My two daughters studied this out in quite a bit of depth, and then persuaded me to this understanding.
I find it interesting that people will say — “I’ve really studied this issue..” and then will reach a conclusion that just ironically is exactly what their current social/environmental structure is dictating at the present moment.
In other words, “well, yes, it was wrong that we used scripture to not allow women to speak at all in church in the late 19th century, or vote in the early 20th century, but, we have it exactly correct now. Women can sing, vote, teach children up to the age of 12.5, but they can’t preach, lead singing, wait on the Lord’s table, give announcements or pray. That is exactly what God meant in Scripture…”
Of course, we used the same reasoning for justification of slavery, segregation and a host of other issues.
KentF
You said it before I could. But that’s okay, I’m a woman.
I talked with about a dozen ladies at my church about this issue. And, the reason that THEY (not I) said that they are okay with the way things are is that… It would be taking on too much if it changed.
They said that they are already the keepers, growers, and tenders to the children. They said they already are the feeders, the cleaners, and the discipliners at home. They are the strength in the midst of exhausted fathers. They said that they love the fact that, for once, church is not something that they are “in charge of.” They said it was like a break. One day a week, they get a break.
Yes, many have studied this issue. It is hard to get around the cultural commands that we no longer really use in I Corinthians. It is hard to speak about what the Greek says about silence for woman and silence in government. It is a touchy subject because of the current socio-political atmosphere.
Honestly, I am in a relationship with my wife that holds equal footing. I am also in a relationship with Christ that says there is no slave or free, Jew or Greek, and Male or Female.
But, I will default with the ladies at my church on this one. Why push for preaching, serving the Eucharist, and deaconnesses when females are already run ragged as is? Or, are we just arguing so that someone can have the “freedom” to do these things? In such a case, why argue for the sake of arguing?
Let’s just have house churches, meet in synagogues, and have traveling preachers. Let’s make our churches missional and eat Eucharist as a meal. Let’s worship in the Spirit and the Truth. Let’s pray and prophecy. Let’s care for everyone like Christ cared for us (no matter the race, gender, or baggage.)
Well, Roberto, I knonw a lot of over-worked, overburdened, over-committed men too. So where does that observation leave us?
And just because 12 women at “your church” feel the need for a “break” I would rather not bind their desire for this on everyone. And by the way, do you think the 12 women you mentioned will be pleased to know that rather than being “allowed” to pass the bread and the wine, there will now be a Eucharist meal? Who do you suppose will be “in charge,” as you put it, of that?
Thank you, Steve! LOL
Roberto - are men in your congregation “forced” to serve, pray, preach, etc? Then why would presume that women would be any different in exercising their gifts?
If men are granted God-given gifts of preaching, singing, praying, walking up and down an aisle [passing trays], or for discerning depths of insight into the LORD’s supper, and then expressing those insights publicly - what do we do with women who are equally God-gifted? What comes to mind immediately is Jesus parable of The Talents. Can you explain your POV in light of Jesus/God’s teaching as it would apply to women? btw-what IS the special gift men are given for walking up and down an aisle with a tray in their hand? Especially when you consider most of them wouldn’t be caught dead with a food tray in their hand at home.
Where is tray carrying mentioned in the NT, as long as we’re talking about Biblical references?
When Paul writes that man is the head of the wife [not woman btw, his wife] and Jesus is head of the church, are you extracting from this the thought that women have no status in front of God without a man around to speak to God for them?
As Dr. Sarah Sumner says in her book, [my paraphrase] ….not all men are gifted to preach, neither are all women. Not all men are gifted to pastor a flock and neither are all women, but shouldn’t those that are be on equal ground for using their gifts from God?
There are many inconsistencies in the masculinism [as opposed to feminism] POV….Sarah Sumner’s book includes one of the most complete explanations I’ve read.
Ooops! Within last paragraph it should read:
Masculinist and feminist
A frustrated dad and friend, who is actually fairly conservative on this topic, expressed a painful example to me about a recent occurrence. His young 5 year old daughter was in a Bible class with other 4-7 year olds and the male teacher asked for a volunteer to lead a prayer. My friend’s daughter waived her hand frantically in the air hoping to be called. The teacher over-looked her for the boy hiding behind her and called on the boy. The boy, with a pained, “do I have to” look on his face mumbled a few words with an amen attached to the end. The girl in tears later said to her dad something to the effect of “I guess God doesn’t want to hear my prayer”. The poor boy was terrified to pray and the girl felt a strong urging to pray only to be re-buffed. I share this story, not to enflame, but to hopefully enlight. I agree there needs to be common ground, but, at what point do we free ourselves from such dysfunctionality?
Roberto…”They said that they are already the keepers, growers, and tenders to the children. They said they already are the feeders, the cleaners, and the discipliners at home”
I think there are twelve men that need to get off their butts and help.
Alan, Thank you for your response. I understand what you say, but you have too many “I think”s or “I don’t think”s. That is the problem, imo. IF Paul meant for women in the church to be silent until Our Lord comes, THEN it MUST mean that we(women) are not to sing aloud or teach—-children or teens or other women in the four walls of our buildings we use for worship assemblies, & certainly not say a prayer—even a sentence prayer when a man is present. Seriously.
I think it’s better to be “safe” than “sorry”, don’t you?
Hi Annie,
Don’t be misled by my “I think” language. I have pretty strong convictions on this. I am trying to acknowledge my own fallibility while expressing those strong convictions. I might be wrong, but I don’t see how in this case. And I must live by what I believe to be true.
The Greek word for being silent in 1 Cor 14:34 is sigao, defined by both Thayer and Strong as holding one’s peace. There is clearly room for “sigao” in 1 Cor 14:34 to refer to public speaking but not singing. For an illustration of that, see how the same Greek word (sigao, Strongs #4601) is used just six verses earlier, in 1 Cor 14:28. Tongue speakers were to refrain from speaking in tongues if no interpreter was present. That did not mean they could not sing, but merely that they were not permitted to speak in tongues. Similarly, women were not permitted to speak out, but they were permitted to sing.
Here is what Robertson’s Word Pictures has to say about this word in 1 Cor 14:34. I am essentially saying the same thing he is saying.
“Keep silence in the churches (en tais ekkleÌ„siais sigatoÌ„san). The same verb used about the disorders caused by speakers in tongues (1Co_14:28) and prophets (1Co_14:30). For some reason some of the women were creating disturbance in the public worship by their dress (1Co_11:2-16) and now by their speech. There is no doubt at all as to Paul’s meaning here. In church the women are not allowed to speak (lalein) nor even to ask questions. They are to do that at home (en oikoÌ„i). He calls it a shame (aischron) as in 1Co_11:6 (cf. Eph_5:12; Tit_1:11). Certainly women are still in subjection (hupotassesthoÌ„san) to their husbands (or ought to be). But somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul’s commands on this subject, even 1Ti_2:12, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now. Women do most of the teaching in our Sunday schools today. It is not easy to draw the line. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. It seems clear that we need to be patient with each other as we try to understand Paul’s real meaning here.”
Alan,
The problem with that is that Paul, in 1 Timothy 2, says that he does not permit a woman to teach. And Colossians 3:16 fairly clearly (at least in my NASB) says that when we sing psalms, etc., that we are to be “teach[ing]” and “admonish[ing]” one another. If we teach when we sing, then Paul’s instruction that “women are to learn in silence with all submission” is expressly clear: for a woman to sing in church is “disgraceful” or “improper”, just as it is for a woman to speak or teach.
All of that is assuming that Paul’s teaching on women’s roles in the assembly is authoritatively applicable for us today.
Has anyone mentioned that Paul refers to a woman named Junia as an apostle in Romans 16:7?
Although there has been some dispute over whether “Junia” (a woman’s name) should instead be translated “Junias” (a man’s name), as best I understand the issue, thorough archeological research (i.e. reading tombstones) and research into extra-biblical Greek literature has failed to reveal any record of the male form “Junias”, while three occurrences have been found of the female form “Junia”.
As I am neither archeologist nor historian, I could be wrong about this. However, I understand most bible scholars today (including N.T. Wright) to accept that Junia was a woman. Not to be outdone, a more recent argument suggests that, although Junia was probably a woman, she was only outstanding AMONG the apostles, and not actually an apostle. The 2005 book “Junia: The First Woman Apostle” refutes this argument. I think you have to really want to believe Junia was a man to argue that.
I don’t expect this to convince those of you who are certain you are right about Paul’s view re: women. But I find it interesting, and completely consistent with the prominent role women clearly played in the early missionary work. Paul’s references to Priscilla teaching Apollos (Acts 18:24-26), Chloe hosting a house church (I Cor. 1:11), Euodia and Syntyche (”fellow workers” - Philippians 4:2-3), and the other women mentioned in Romans 16 leave no doubt about that. Considering the culture in which the church was born, I find this remarkable.
As someone who made the argument for years that women need to keep their mouths shut in any type of mixed gender church gathering I can understand where those of you who still hold similar views are comming from. I would say that I have come to the understanding that we must read all of scripture through the lens of the life of Christ. Jesus made all people feel important, and He treated them with the same dignity and respect regardless of thier perceived status in life. I believe we must learn to understand every other book in the bible with in the context of the way Jesus lived His life. If that is the case, then I believe that we must understand the prohibitive texts about women to be written in order to deal with an immediate problem and give us a principle that we apply to our lives because Jesus seemed to give the same esteem to both men and women and called all people to work together in all kinds of ways for the advacement of the Kingdom.
KentF-
That is a good question (about what to do with female Bible majors.) I recently did a very informal survey of my female friends from the Bible dept to see what they were up to after graduation. The majority of them were in some sort of education field, a few in graduate school and fewer still in full-time ministry. What does this say if we encourage our young women to take advantage of ministry training, all the while realizing that the opportunities for employment are few???
Thank you, David Johnson, for helping me out here.
Alan, I’ve heard all the arguments you presented, & have studied myself, but it still boils down to the point that IF Paul said what he said about “women should be silent” in the church, THEN all women who profess to believe God’s Word really should not be singing OUT LOUD or teaching OUT LOUD in our assemblies. In any way, shape, or form. We should just be silent in ALL areas of church life. Truly.
An important issue, it seems, is this:
What warrant is there to read Paul in an infallible way?
No doubt that Paul has apostolic authority, but is he infallible? That is, should Paul be read as Holy Scripture?
If so, where is the BIBLICAL warrant for reading Paul this way?
Joel… I knew I liked you! You mean to say scripture isn’t really that clear cut? Crud. By the way… how’s the meatloaf?
Beverly, I laughed out loud at your comment about the 12 men! Anna Claire wanted to know what was so funny and frankly, there was no way to explain to a five year old!
I LOVE going to a church that finds it natural to have the female children’s minister speak about the baby to be blessed from the pulpit. I love going to a church where families can serve communion together. I love going to a church where a female with a gift for public speaking/drama etc. can powerfully read from God’s word. I love going to a church where a husband and a wife can lead the body to the table of the Lord through scripture and prayer. I love going to a church where my sons hear the voices of Christian brothers AND sisters. I love going to a church where my daughter thinks it’s perfectly natural to be asked to pray, read scripture, etc. I love being married to someone who, like me, can’t imagine attending a church where women’s voices and gifts weren’t included in the assembly. I could go on and on, but I needed to write that mostly for myself lest I forget to be grateful each and every Sunday. I’m getting a little choked up.
Mr.Cope I have read your blog for quite awhile and I just felt compelled to say something.I have enjoyed reading your blog and have been blessed by it but something hit me today while reading your last post on “Finally Feminism”. My father died when I was 18 months old, my mother raised 4 children by herself, so I respect women and who and what they are and do. But I have to say Mr.Cope in this day and time with the Church being battered on every side,the family being torn assunder by divorce,losing our children to the world I just cant see spending our time on these kinds of subjects.Mr.Cope you are a very respected Minister and leader in the Church and we need you and others to help us in this life and death stuggle for our families, lives and Churches.This world is in desperate need of Jesus.Please forgive me if I have done anything than encourage you to fight the fight more passionately. In His name Adam
“No doubt that Paul has apostolic authority, but is he infallible? That is, should Paul be read as Holy Scripture?
If so, where is the BIBLICAL warrant for reading Paul this way?”
I would add:
The authorship of the pastorals is hardly in unanimous agreement. First, one has to assume that the author is Paul. Then assume that he is writing in an infallible fashion. I would agree that there is no Biblical warrant for reading Paul this way. In other words, the Bible is not self-validating–it doesn’t make these claims about itself.
Amy, I long for the kind of church you are a part of. Thanks for writing that. A girl/woman can dream, can’t she? At least dreaming is fairly silent!
I guess I don’t get it. Numerous posts have been made by women longing for the day when they will see gender justice. It’s as if it doesn’t exist in the way they would like to see it. Maybe not in the vast majority of Churches of Christ but there’s a regular feminist extravaganza waiting to be found with the Disciples of Christ. Female elders, preachers, women exercising their gifts in the assembly etc. For goodness sakes there’s 3 congregations in Abilene! Straight from the Restoration Movement no less. Why would those who seek these things not check them out?
Ed,
Thanks so much. I also thank the elders of Highland so much - in my own case, it isn’t necessary to “check them out.” We’ve stepped out of the dark corners and are able to be full participants at Highland. There are no women preachers for the same reason there are only two preachers on staff. It would be almost impossible to find others with the gifts that God has showered on Mike and Jerry. Yeah!
Kent, I have never heard such a rediculous argument in my life equating voting rights, slavery and segregation to women’s role in the assembly. Social injustice is just that, social. We have specific direction from Paul (inspired) tied to the creation of man and women. You are making a mockery of this discussion.
If you make the determination that Paul’s teaching here does not apply to us today, then let’s take out rest of his teachings as well. He spoke so often about grace; is stinks that it must have to go too in your argument.
Obviously, my question does not apply to you. I respect the decision of your elders at Highland and I respect their right to make that decision even if I don’t reach the same conclusions in my own study.
My question though remains for those who worship in a congregation where these changes have not been made. Do you stay and remain unhappy, do you seek to implement change, or do you seek out those whose views are in line with your own over this topic.
Ed asked: “My question though remains for those who worship in a congregation where these changes have not been made. Do you stay and remain unhappy, do you seek to implement change, or do you seek out those whose views are in line with your own over this topic.”
All analogies leak, and this one does, too, but here goes: it’s like staying with a chronically ill family member. You give all you can, you grind your teeth sometimes, you sometimes find grace when you see the face of Christ in the one you care for, you pray for healing.
Annie,
Your argument presents a false dilemma: It says that I must either permit women to teach or forbid them to sing. But there is another option. I’ve explained why I believe it is biblically consistent, based on the context in 1 Cor 14.
I’ve never encountered anyone who thought 1 Tim 2 forbids women to sing. It is not sound exegesis to clip Col 3:16 and 1 Tim 2:12 from their respective contexts to determine the meaning of Paul’s teaching. Neither context suggests that women are prohibited from singing. I see no reason to think that Paul had that idea in mind when he wrote either letter. Neither did readers of those letters get that idea when they read their respective letters. For nearly two thousand years, biblical scholars have agreed that Paul meant for women not to speak in the assembly. Some now argue (mistakenly, I think) that this teaching no longer applies. But I’m not aware of any credible scholars who believe Paul permitted women to speak publicly in the worship assembly in the first century church.
I am not writing this to persuade people to my point of view on these scriptures. Instead, I am writing this in an attempt to show that my view is not shallow or uninformed. If we are to learn to get along despite our different understandings, we need to respect one another.
Ed, your questions are legitimate. I was in a church for a very long time where I was called a femi-nazi and many other things. I don’t hate men, I am not even pushy but because I held strong views and would sometimes voice those opinions…I just wanted to be in control or I wanted my name in lights.
I don’t know why I stayed so long. I was trying to be loyal to my family. I was trying to have a conversation with my family. I was trying to be honest with my family.
Maybe I shouldn’t have stayed so long. Maybe I caused harm by staying so long.
I don’t really have an answer for you. Many stay in marriages long after they are viable. Maybe we are just hopeful people.
Chris — the relationship of any spirit to Christ and His spiritual body is, in fact, more than “social.” While I would argue that a lack of women’s leadership roles in the Churches of Christ is not on par with the fundamental oppression of a human being (as in slavery), they are certainly more than tenuously related.
“We have specific direction from Paul (inspired) tied to the creation of man and women” — we also have instruction applied to the creation of all human beings and the capacity to put others before ourselves. Are you really professing that slavery is a purely social issue? If you recall, church-going, Bible-quoting “Christians” nationwide had to take their cues from society in that case — they had to be convinced by a fallen society that oppressing another human being is evil.
(Eeeek! Sorry to get off-topic!)
To clarify, I accept as a possible exception that women with the gift of prophecy may have been permitted to speak in the public assembly. It is not clear that 1 Cor 11:3-16 refers to the public assembly (the assembly is not mentioned until verse 17, at the beginning of the discussion of problems during communion. But perhaps a woman who was a prophet was permitted to prophesy publicly if she wore a head covering.
But that would be the exception to the general rule. And unless women continue to have the gift of prophecy today, that exception would no longer be available.
Now I have discovered that I too am a feminist based on the author’s definition of the word. I clearly agree with his statement regarding women.
The usual contemporary meaning is far different. The “feminist” one would normally hear about on the TV news is an angry, left wing liberal woman who despises men and wants a gender neutral society. That sort of feminist I am not.
Alan, what you and others are missing is this fact. Paul was addressing a specific problem in a specific location in the passage you quote when he addressed the Corinthian church. Not much in that passage applies to my congregation today. We have never had anyone speak in a foreign language in the assembly. We have never to my knowledge had more than one person speaking at a time in the assembly either.
When you forget or do not correctly apply context, the text often becomes a pretext. I think that has happened here. The Bible is not to be taken literally in every case. For instance, “Judas went out and hanged himself”. Should I take literally and out of context “Go thou and do likewise”? This is a humorous and extreme example, but nontheless illustrates the absurdity of taking scripture out of its context.
I am amazed that the same people who take this passage to not allow women to speak in a mixed gender assembly have no trouble ignoring Jesus words about washing each others feet.
Thanks for the post Mike.
Grace to you,
Royce Ogle
Hi Royce,
I find it hard to resist the urge to defend my beliefs. But it is more important, and I hope more productive, to advocate acceptance despite disagreement.
People who see this issue differently from me are not rejecting the authority of God. They are not naive, and they are not dumb. They come to their belief sincerely (whether correctly or incorrectly). And they must live according to their own understanding, whether or not they might ever come to change their minds. I accept all of that on face value. I hope those who disagree with me would be willing to say the same about those on my side of the aisle.
You say I am missing a “fact”. That might be true. Or perhaps it is the other way around. We are both fallible.
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