Losing My Religion for Equality
Here’s a strong piece by Jimmy Carter, explaining why he’s leaving the Southern Baptist Convention:
Women and girls have been discriminated against for too long in a twisted interpretation of the word of God.
I HAVE been a practising Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world. So my decision to sever my ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, after six decades, was painful and difficult. It was, however, an unavoidable decision when the convention’s leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be “subservient” to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.
This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women’s equal rights across the world for centuries.
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
The impact of these religious beliefs touches every aspect of our lives. They help explain why in many countries boys are educated before girls; why girls are told when and whom they must marry; and why many face enormous and unacceptable risks in pregnancy and childbirth because their basic health needs are not met.
In some Islamic nations, women are restricted in their movements, punished for permitting the exposure of an arm or ankle, deprived of education, prohibited from driving a car or competing with men for a job. If a woman is raped, she is often most severely punished as the guilty party in the crime.
The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in the West. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.
It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices – as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.
I understand, however, why many political leaders can be reluctant about stepping into this minefield. Religion, and tradition, are powerful and sensitive areas to challenge. But my fellow Elders and I, who come from many faiths and backgrounds, no longer need to worry about winning votes or avoiding controversy – and we are deeply committed to challenging injustice wherever we see it.
The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by former South African president Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity. We have decided to draw particular attention to the responsibility of religious and traditional leaders in ensuring equality and human rights and have recently published a statement that declares: “The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.”
We are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world’s major faiths share.
The carefully selected verses found in the Holy Scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place – and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence – than eternal truths. Similar biblical excerpts could be found to support the approval of slavery and the timid acquiescence to oppressive rulers.
I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.
The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.
(Jimmy Carter was president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.)
This is incredibly powerful. I’m so impressed by the courage needed to do and to say these things.
The only problem I have is the felt need to somehow “include” all traditions, all cultures, all religions, all religious leaders, all religious texts under one big happy umbrella as if it is actually that simple (or even close!). Not that he should act either as if this is solely a Christian problem or as if the solution is unique to Christian faith; only that this sort of language flattens out the myriad particularities of each religious and faith tradition and so empties them of any power or truth. (Not to mention that the UN is cited as a sort of scriptural warrant before anything else is added!)
Still, a profoundly needed and brave statement and decision.
Amen! And praise the Lord.
As a woman in the church for nearly 30 years, this inspires me and touches me deeply.
I just had a long conversation a few weeks ago with some good friends where I shared that I truly believe that it will take men standing up in the church saying these things before anything will change.
This statement makes me feel cared for in a way that I haven’t felt in the church in a long time. To me, this is true masculinity, which seeks to not subjugate women, but to protect them, stand for them, and allow them to flourish.
Thank you for posting this. You truly don’t know the deep gratitude I feel to know that someone is brave enough to take a stand for this injustice.
A friend posted this on Facebook and I almost cried when I read it. Thank you for including it here. It is powerfully spoken by a man who holds much respect from the Christian community. Maybe it will make a difference.
Unfortunately, I think many people that need to read this won’t do so, simply because of the “D” beside his name. I hope not, but people (of all stripes) can be incredibly tunnel-visioned.
Thank you, Mike, for sharing this. I have been overwhelmed by this issue as of late and it is a sort of relief to know someone, particularly a man, is publicly making a stand. I have so much I want to say, but in an attempt to avoid melting into a puddle of tears I will just say thanks again and that I hope more men, women, and churches will be inspired to take a risk and make a stand.
President Carter has put his finger on what I’ve previously called “the spiritual slavery of women.” Of course, these wrongs need to be righted and of course, it will take prayerful men in leadership positions in their churches to make this change. In that regard, the former president’s writing is spot on.
And of course, there are things in the article that are disturbing. A group of “Elders” coming together under the mantle of the UN to accomplish this end? However, one bright spot is that this is right in line with many Evangelical eschatological beliefs …. A One World religion under the auspices of a One World government are signs of end times. Maranatha!!
Seriously, the idea of a group of men [please notice, only men are mentioned in the article] should decide international religious stances tied to international political beliefs is disturbing, at least to me.
As has been said above, this does NOT detract from the deep truthes proffered in former President Carter’s article and one all church leaders would do well to pray and study about.
An aside: Thank the LORD for just such a group of Elders at Highland!!
Interesting article and interpretation by on of the worst leaders our generations has ever known, with a D or an R by his or her name. To link a direction by an inspired writer to slavery, an excuse for genital mutulation or any other extreme and idiotic practice is absurd. The Bible does not condone slavery, it says to be content in your place. It is submitting to the Word. To take a few specific scriptures as justifaction? Silly! Its IN THERE!! In the perfect Book, the Inspired (by God) Word. I guess since the same Bible tells us to pray and you will be forgiven, or to call the Elders, annoint with oil and you will be healed are also issues of the time the Bible was written and may not be true today either. Therefore, we must stop praying, it doesn’t work anymore! Women are equal to men, women are strong and deserve equal treatment and should never be abused, mis-treated or anything else; no human should. We all have to decide if we are going to follow Jesus, thus follow the teachings of the Bible, and submit to it.
I agree. Praise God for the Elders at Highland. The ones I know are all very loving and committed to serving God and the people of the church.
However, I cried through a lot of the service on Sunday when “man” language was so frequently used. I don’t think this was done intentionally and, I believe, not with any desire to be hurtful or exclusive…but it was. We must be incredibly careful with our words. Even if Highland isn’t going to consider hiring a woman as the preacher, Sunday was (and every day is) still an opportunity to practice inclusive language if for no other reason than to stop reinforcing the long-held, deeply ingrained notions regarding church leadership.
Again, please hear this said in a loving way. I respect the elders at Highland and am sure that the effect the service had on me was absolutely unintentional. I simply feel like this voice should be heard. But please hear it said in a gentle, humble tone.
Like it or not, our society is deeply patriarchal and it will take men, whether the elders at Highland or those who meet with Jimmy Carter, to truly and effectively bring about change. I am thankful for the efforts of both sets of elders (and undoubtedly countless others) to make this change happen and I pray that God will continue to guide them in the future.
Chris, could you clarify what you were saying? I couldn’t quite track with you.
Can’t wait until heaven when the “last shall be first”. Too bad we can’t experience “as it is in heaven” now.
Thanks for this, Mike. I’ve posted a link to it at Gal328.org.
Wow…
Laura, I probably can’t and I admit I am ranting a little. My own belief (and I don’t dispute anyone’s true beliefs) is that we have to be very careful to determine what teachings in the Bible are no longer relevant an apply to us in 2009 or beyond. Thats all. Its not a “slippery slope” thing with me…that is a weak argument. My point is if Paul’s teaching on this issue is no longer relevant, what else is no longer relevant? Prayer? Healing? Should we have Elders? Thats all. Just tough for me to decide what applies now and what doesn’t. I personally can’t pick and choose.
Chris,
I appreciate your conflicted questioning. Your conflict is difficult to answer and I’m sure someone will try to give you the answers. Just wanted you to know that with the return to women’s equal participation in “man’s” church come yours and other legitimate questions. You are not alone. So we continue to pray, study, pray, reason together and pray some more. all in the Light of His eternal love, grace and mercy
Kathy
I just wish JC would leave the United States.
Chris, while we may differ in opinions and beliefs, I admire and appreciate your value of Scripture and your desire to be faithful to God.
I understand your reaction against picking and choosing. That doesn’t sit well with me, either. However, taking not only Paul’s teachings but also Jesus’ life and teachings into account, it seems that some things are pervasive and consistent (such as prayer and love) and others are more specific and less frequent (such as women’s roles in the church).
Perhaps what Paul does (and what we should do) is take the example we have in Jesus to determine core values and beliefs that shape the way we live our lives in our current situation, whatever that might be. For me, some of those core values are love, the acceptance, respect, and equality of all people, and the ability for God to work through them in many ways. In my opinion, this alone is reason enough to constantly rethink through our actions and traditions and continually be shaped into the likeness of Jesus…and that includes but is absolutely not limited our views on women’s roles.
In addition, I think in all of our focus on Paul’s statements on what women cannot do, we overlook the statements on the ministry that women were actively doing at the time and his commendation of those women. And, in doing so, I think we’ve done a different kind of picking and choosing.
I’m getting wordy so I’ll stop. I’d love to hear your thoughts, Chris. I hope we can challenge, encourage, and love one another as we both strive to faithfully follow the same Lord and God.
I’m glad you also posted this, Mike. As you know, many men and women who have chosen to leave the Churches of Christ for this reason, including myself. Like many others have expressed so eloquently, it is not enough to have been brought up in a tradition that fosters a Christ-like foundation, biblical scholarship and beautiful singing, just to name a few. I am grateful for all these things. It just isn’t enough.
Interesting, but not unexpected. Carter uses the same tactics used by those who support homosexual priests and condone open homosexuality in the church.
If you start taking a pen knife to cut out those portions of scripture that don’t suit your particular taste or that of the current culture, where do you stop?
Jimmy Carter is a nice person. However, his theological ineptness is only surpassed by his inability to govern well. He is typical of left wing thinkers who arrive at odd conclusions. His reasons for making this “brave” decision are no more logical than if I blamed Toyota Motor Corp because my Sears lawn mower didn’t start as it should.
The Bible is clear about the headship of men in the home and the church. It is also clear that women are to be honored and loved without measure. The roles for men and women in the Bible are never about worth or intelligence or even ability. Jesus, who is fully God, submitted to a lesser role. That submission has absolutely nothing to do with worth, importance, or value.
Before we come down too hard on the SBC we must admit that the abuse of a few selected verses have been used to abuse women in the coC for generations. We are just not as vocal about it. It is one thing to say you don’t want a woman preacher. It is quite another to treat your wife as a second class citizen.
Carter’s best use for society is driving nails in a Habitat for Humanity house some place in Georgia in my view.
Royce
Hi Mike!
Greetings from Uganda. Cheryl said I should read your blog today. I am teaching the master’s level students at Uganda Christian University a course called “Women in Leadership and Ministry” (A Church of Christ missionary teaching a class at an Anglican University? What a fun kingdom opportunity!)
One day I came into the class representing the body of Christ (the church) wearing handcuffs and a blindfold. I just started teaching and tried to ignore my condition.
The students asked if they could help set me free and they began to look for the key to my freedom. They found the key to the handcuffs tied in my Bible!
We had a great discussion about how we can use scripture to bind people or to set them free!
The next day in this male dominated place, all of the men got on their knees and washed the feet of all the women! Then we washed one another’s feet.
Some of these men who are Pastors of large churches repented with tears.
God is doing a great work in the hearts of these men and women here in Uganda.
I learned that if I want there to be change in the church there needs to be change in me. That is always the best place to start.
Through my tears I say, bless you and thank you, Jeff!!
Royce, I disagree with you so infrequently – and you are such a Christian gentleman about it when I do! – that I’ll quibble for a moment. What the Bible specifically teaches about the headship of man (1 Corinthians 11) is largely the middle part of one verse (v. 3), and that’s in the context of defending an instruction that we largely disregard as being cultural in nature.
To extrapolate too much from it (and Christian men HAVE done so, for centuries) while ignoring the egalitarian aspects of the passage (vs. 11-12) does it, and all of the feminine gender, a great injustice.
I’d be willing to propose that at least a dozen female lurkers have yearned to say something here – even anonymously – but have been prevented from doing so because they would feel guilty for “violating” such teachings of men (and the use of the masculine pronoun is intentional as well as biblical) by not being submissive and silent ON A BLOG, FOR CRYIN’ OUT LOUD and will continue to suffer their perceived second-class status in silence – when the purpose of the passage specifically addresses behavioral problems in first-century gathered worship at Corinth. Nothing about it claims to be anything else, nor does it forbid a woman to prophesy or pray in that worship (v. 5) – only to do so in violation of cultural norms and could well be talking about restricting “shorn women” from doing so until their shorn hair (perhaps a sign of cult prostitution/”worship”) has grown out.
Whether we like Jimmy Carter or not; whether we agree with his politics or not … we really need to read what he has written and ask honestly from hearts that are open to what God’s word actually says (rather than what we’ve always been taught by men that it says) and ask whether the two writings agree!
Royce: Ouch!
“The Bible is clear about the headship of men in the home and the church.”
There is so much to address in your comment, but I’ll hold my response to your statement above. If it’s so “clear,” why is their so much controversy among honest men and women of integrity who truly desire to please God? Why can you and I (both, I beleive, who love God with all our hearts) arrive at a totally different conclusion while looking at the same verses? The truth is, the issue is not all that clear. What is clear is what you rightly named…that all of us are called to submit to “a lesser role” following the example of Jesus. By doing so, we can continue to love, serve and fellowship those who see this issue (and many others) different from the way we see it.
And I would be very careful in castigating one who you deem as theologically inept. Seems God might esteem the art of swinging a hammer for the benefit of the poor over theological “eptness.”
Jeff Cash, I love, love, love your story. I am typing this with tears in my eyes and a lump in my throat. Thank you. Beautiful. I will carry this story with over the next few days…I just know that it will take awhile for my heart to process it.
And Laura, are you the Laura that I think you are? I will come by your office tomorrow. We are on the same page and were on the same wavelength on Sunday.
I’m glad to see President Carter found time between coddling dictators and corrupting elections around the world, to withdraw from the Southern Baptist Convention. It may be the first thing he has done that I agree with. If you do not agree with your church, the best thing you can do for the church, is leave. The Southern Baptist will no doubt be stronger, in spite of Carter’s late onset of conviction.
In the same way, our country would be stronger, had Carter left on that UFO he saw in 1969.
Thank you, Keith and Steve. You have no idea what it means to me just to see two men speaking up for women. It fills me with great hope.
Keith – Honestly, I almost didn’t write anything on here for fear of what might people might think of me. I was especially timid because it is so easy to misunderstand or misinterpret something that is written – particularly when you don’t know the writer. But, as a woman half-way through her MDiv, I know I need to start having these conversations at some point – why not now? It takes guts for anyone to share their thoughts and opinions on this subject because it is so risky. So, thanks also to those who disagree lovingly. Your voice deserves to be heard just as much as mine.
Troy – There are certainly times when it is best to move on to another church family or denomination, and perhaps this was the best move for Jimmy Carter. But, I would have to say that I think part of our problems as Christians is that we divide very easily. We all want to have things our own way and are willing to switch churches as many times as we want until we find exactly what we’re looking for. I think there is something to be said for sticking with a church and relying on the blood and grace of God in Christ to unite us in spite of our differences. If everyone leaves a church because their views differ, then there will be no progress. There will be no one to challenge their church family and bring about much needed changes. But, perhaps I have read too much into your comments…
And, Julie, I am not the Laura you think I am.
But I would be happy to meet you!
Troy, which of your numerous prooftexts would you use to back *that* up? Or is that just your bitterness showing again?
From my understanding of the identity of the body of Christ and our local families — they’re families. You’re not supposed to leave every time someone gets in a huff.
ETA: there are, I would assume, rationale for leaving when you believe the body you’re aligned with no longer resembles the body of Christ and is in no way able or willing to change.
President Carter “left” the Southern Baptist Convention several years ago, although he remains a member of a congregation affiliated with the SBC.
In his piece, he exhibits a poor understanding of the Bible, Christian history, and the world.
Men and women are different. We were created different, but in the image of God. Recognizing that fact does not lead to abuse and injustice.
When God places different and heavier responsibilities on a husband/father/pastor, he is not calling for a diminished view of women. He is not seeking oppression. He is not calling on men to mistreat their wives or other women in their lives. He is calling on men to take the initiative and the responsibility to care for others (their wives, their children, and their congregations–which includes other men). God knows that men need to take the initiative and responsibility to care for other people. Otherwise, chaos follows. As Bill Cosby has said, “A house without a father is a challenge. A neighborhood without fathers is a catastrophe.”
It appears that President Carter changed his religious views because of his feelings and peer pressure, both of which are fickle. He would be on more solid ground if he were not to ignore or explain away the “selected Bible verses” which explain the different roles and responsibilities of men and women.
Life was simple when I too had all the right answers and everything seemed so clear. The older I get, the more “inept” becomes my theology.
I’m right there with you, Lee.
It isn’t, of course, a matter of people just deciding to disregard scripture. It’s a matter of understanding scripture — even while recognizing that honest Christ-followers have come to different conclusions. After spending years reading everything I could — but especially the relevant scriptures again and again — I came to the conclusion that there is an egalitarian trajectory. And because of that — and in light of my experience of the way God has gifted some women (just as he has some men) with gifts of teaching and preaching — I look forward to the time when all aspects of church life (ministry, preaching, eldership, etc.) will be open to women and men. That is not to diminish one iota the way women and men serve in other ways that are often less visible.
Here is a good piece from Dale Pauls. (Thanks, KS, for pointing me to it. Lots of other good articles are available on the Stamford Church of Christ website.)
Culture-Bound
Part 97 of the series on “The Story We Find Ourselves In”
July 26, 2009
Volume 39 Number 30 July 21, 2009
STAMFORD CHURCH OF CHRIST
THIS WEEK
Now in the story we find ourselves in we come to the part that culture plays, especially the part culture played in the original writing of Scripture and the part it plays in our interpretation and application of Scripture today. What in Scripture, people wonder, is timeless, universal truth untouched by culture? And what is culture-bound?
For a case study of this issue, we will look at the public role of women in the church and take as a starting point 1 Timothy 2:9-15, specifically Paul’s injunction in verse 12, “I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man.” Now twenty-five years ago armed with that text, I would have told you that women are not to hold public leadership roles in church, and I would have supposed that those who thought otherwise were selling out to their culture, and a liberal, feminist, permissive culture at that. But shortly after that, I came to see that, yes, culture does play a role in all these matters, but not necessarily the role I had thought it did. I came to realize this partly from seeing that the actual practices of the contemporary church were more than a little confusing—that we were making a lot of fine distinctions: between what could be done in a church auditorium and what could be done in a Christian living room; between classes and worship services; between pews and pulpit; between seated and standing; between written and spoken.
Moreover, we were not being consistent in the way we interpreted Scripture. Many examples could be given, but I could just take our text, 1 Timothy 2:9-15. For a very long time, we’d understood the prohibition against women braiding their hair as cultural (“Times change”), but we would say that the prohibition against women teaching three verses later is not cultural. So some twenty-five years ago I began to study this subject, at first only to defend the way things were. And I studied it thoroughly, but there were just too many things that didn’t fit, that didn’t square with Scripture or real life, so I kept studying. I came to see: that God had created both male and female in his image (Genesis 1); that Jesus’ teachings were egalitarian, that he urged his followers to no longer think in terms of domination, of who lords it over whom, of who exercises authority over whom; that on the very first day the church met Peter had envisioned that “your sons and daughters will prophesy,” that on both men and women God would pour out his Spirit (Acts 2); and that Paul himself had declared that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Galatians 3).
I came to see that when Paul wrote to Corinth in 1 Corinthians 14 and to Ephesus in 1 Timothy 2, he was guiding his first Christian readers in the setting in which they lived; he was not making their first-century setting valid and mandatory for all times. He was writing under the shadow of Rome, a fallen world where no respectable woman could speak in public. Moreover, he was writing to a small persecuted minority with no realistic, loving way to change the deep structures of its society. It was an age that was culture-bound. It was an age that insisted on hierarchy, on a rigid chain of command under its Roman masculine elite, on clear patterns of dominance and subordination learned from men like Plato and Aristotle. It was an age of sophisticated brutality and military occupation. It was an Empire. It was an age so misogynistic that many men in the highest class of Greek-Roman society chose homosexuality, because why love a woman, why be intimate with a woman, when men were so much more noble, more admirable, more physically beautiful, in fact, superior in every way? It was an age when an aristocratic father (the paterfamilias) had life-and-death authority over everyone in his household, and nothing would be allowed to challenge his authority. And Paul will say, “Pray that we may live peaceful and quiet lives.” Paul was writing in dangerous times, years when James, the Lord’s brother, was killed, when Peter was killed, and when he himself had just spent most of five years as a Roman prisoner. These were years in which frankly any caring Christian man would caution against women rising to prominence, just as a matter of safety and security. The Roman elite already suspected eastern religions of subverting Roman values. The satirist Juvenal in the early second century complained that the Syrian Orontes had poured into the Tiber; he was saying that the river of Christian Antioch was pouring sewage into the river of Rome undermining its authority patterns and its ways of doing things. And Paul was calling his readers to live as disciples of Christ within the leadership structures of his day, so “Slaves, obey your masters.” He was guiding Christians in the setting in which they lived; he was not making their setting valid and mandatory for all time.
So Paul was doing in 1 Timothy 2:9-15 what he did in 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 when he asked Christian women in Corinth to remain silent and submissive in church. He was asking them—in spite of their freedom in Christ—to accommodate to contemporary standards of decency. In 1 Corinthians 14 Paul wrote what the moralist Plutarch also wrote, that respectable women should not be heard in public, and what the historian Livy quoted Cato as saying, that Roman matrons accosting other women’s husbands (about political matters) should have asked their own husbands at home. Paul wrote then exactly what he had to—to keep the church respectable in Corinth. As near as we can tell, he was asking Christian woman to quit disrupting worship by asking stupid and misguided questions out loud, the kinds of questions only the uneducated would ask, questions that are always disruptive.
Paul’s instructions to Timothy at Ephesus (in 1 Timothy 2:9-15) arise out the same concerns and address the same Greek-Roman society. But they also take into account a specific heresy, a specific weird idea, or set of ideas, plaguing the Ephesian church. This Ephesian “strangeness” involved myths and endless genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-7). And women were heavily involved in it and deceived by it. We know this from the text, the references: in 1 Timothy 4:7 to “old wives’ tales” (these were, as far as we know, the original old wives); in 1 Timothy 5:13-15 to women leaving their homes and meeting together as idlers, gossips and busybodies; and in 2 Timothy 3:6-7 to weak-willed women susceptible to wild speculation.
This heresy or weirdness appears to be an early form of Jewish Gnosticism. Gnostics were those elitists who claimed to have special knowledge; gnosis was the Greek word for knowledge. The religious climate in Ephesus focused on Artemis as the Mother Goddess and glorified female primacy. This was the region that gave birth to the legends of male-hating Amazons. Expressed in Jewish terms, one would say Eve—the feminine principle—came first; she created Adam, gave birth to Adam; after all, did not women give birth to men, not men to women? The notion that woman came before man, the female before the male, was, in fact, as old as recorded history. In any case, in response, Paul insists that women are not to teach or have authority over (in the Greek, they are not to authentein) a man. This is the only time the verb authentein is used in the New Testament. There is another word for authority, and it shows up often. But this is it for authentein. That alerts the interpreter to think hard here. Authentein means either (1) to domineer or to seize authority in an overbearing way; or (2) to claim authorship of, to claim to be the origin or source of. And Paul is saying: The feminine did not create the masculine. Adam was formed first. And far from the woman possessing special gnosis, it was she who was deceived. The creation story, he says, offers no room for female primacy. Women, as novices, are to learn in a spirit of quiet submission.
There are things I do not know about this text, for instance, what verse 15 means—that women will be saved (kept safe, maybe?) through childbearing. But again it starts to make a lot of sense (and it’s the only way that makes sense, really, to me) if it’s a response to some Gnostic horror of the body, the physical, or sexual and ordinary bodily functions. In any case, there is a strong circumstantial and cultural aspect to Paul’s instructions to both Corinth and Ephesus. In both cases, the background is the inferior training and education of women, and in each case, Paul offers a long-range solution, in this text, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.” They shouldn’t stay unlearned.
—Dale Pauls
Human society has, thankfully, evolved some in the last 2,000+ years. Please don’t hold that evolution back by holding on to 2,000+ year-old moral systems. Moses, Jesus, Paul, et al. could not have fathomed our modern, urban society where women hold some of the highest positions in government and business. The patriarchical “lesson” from the Bible is trully dangerous and must, MUST be discarded.
gt, JC has left the country many, many times. I’m assuming you mean he is a threat to America, and he should leave “for(our)good”. He has served to assist Third World countries struggling to establish many of the freedoms we Americans have. He’s an example of service not unlike his mother who joined the Peace Corps at an older age. He reminds me of many of the beautiful young people who are scattered all over the world working in the favelas of Brazil, the slums of India, the orphanages of Ghana, rescuing the discarded women of Bulgaria, teaching English in the little villages of China, serving Houston’s inner city’s poor and mentally ill, etc. etc. Interestingly, the individual ones I know are predominately women.
I strongly disagree with Jimmy Carter’s politics — he is, as someone else noted, one of the worst leaders in the history of our nation (but soon to be surpassed by the current occupant of the White House).
But I’m (mostly) in agreement with him on this.
Women have been pushed down and held back for too long in our churches. Thankfully, that’s starting to change — but it’s not changing fast enough for me or the women who are being treated like second class citizens of the Kingdom of God. I believe some men are going to have some explaining to do when they stand before God at the end of all things.
D’Esta Love wrote a very moving piece on her role in ministry over the past 30 years, and I think it is still on the Gal 328.org site – thanks Keith. Some of her stories are chilling to say the least.
I do find it interesting that most want to completely disregard where the Church has come from over the past 150 years. As if we didn’t support women not voting 90 years ago, or women remaining completely silent in the church house as recently as 1900. But, I guess some figure we’ve got it “just right” now, or do we?
I definitely don’t claim to have all the answers on this (or any issue for that matter), but I have been following this discussion with interest. Before even commenting, I feel the need to let you know I have known of individuals who misused and abused the male spiritual leadership principle to the detriment of female Christians, and I don’t want these statements to be viewed in that light. I love the way Everett Ferguson begins his discussion of this issue in The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today by reminding the reader that women can be (and in many cases are from what I have noticed) the “spiritual superior” of any man. I think that quote is great to repeat in any discussion of this topic.
Here are a few things I would be interested in hearing thoughts on, especially after reading Dale’s article. I have also watched Mike’s video presentation on the subject that he did a few years ago, and I still wonder about these questions –
- I know that Galatians 3:28 proves that salvation is open to all and that God does not view any members of His Kingdom as second-class citizens. The immediate context of the passage deals with salvation rather than roles in worship, though. I don’t believe that we can locate a mandate for how churches should view men’s and women’s roles in worship based on that verse.
- In many presentations, the call seems to be to restore the role of men and women (among other issues) to the way things were before the fall (a “redemptive movement”), almost as if there was no plan for male spiritual leadership before the fall. Yet, when Paul deals with the subject in both 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, he links it back to creation. That seems to me to indicate that the male spiritual leadership principle was in place before the Fall.
- And on a practical level, can we replace the “husband of one wife” requirements for being an Elder with the “spouse of one spouse”? I’m just not sure that we can re-interpret the clear language of scripture based on how we view passages that (as Mike has pointed out) so many sincere people disagree on.
I would welcome responses, and I hope this comes across with the tone in which it was intended (always a challenge when typing!).
Martin F., Jesus couldn’t have fathomed what is going on today in our modern, urban society? Really?
Sorry, Matt, but this is an important issue; don’t let superstition cloud it up.
I agree, Matt. If Jesus couldn’t understand our modern day society how are WE supposed to do so?? Or does the responder mean that only those of us that have lived in these ‘modern’ times can understand it – that Jesus hasn’t lived in our lifetime ergo could not understand today’s society. Either way, it’s puzzling to consider that in anything mankind is more aware of anything over what Jesus would. Puzzling, to say the least.
Bobbie, as a fellow Georgian of Mr. Carter I wish him no ill will. Politically however, I think he was one of the worst Presidents in the history of this country. His entire administation was marked by incompetence and was generally an embarrasment. He also has a pecuiliar tendency to coddle third world dictators.
I’m sure though he is a perfectly nice man who has done numerous good works. Lest you think I am a right winger who sees all left wingers such as Carter in a negative way I can assure you I see ALL politicians this way. Carter was merely worse than most.
His views on the role of women matter not to me nor his leaving the SBC. I’m happy though if it makes you and others here feel better.
By the way, if he does leave he can take GHB, BC, GWB and BHO with him. And if RR was alive he could take him too. None of them have or had an appreciation for limited government and respect for the individual that I would like to see.
Andrew , I think you have it right. This is another attempt at trying to let culture speak to the text instead of just letting the text say what it means. Women are set free by living by the scriptures. What the church desperately needs is strong male spiritual leadership. And that does not mean any kind of abuse. And the Gal 3 : 28 verse is about equal standing in salvation. And yes Paul goes all the way back to creation and the fall. When the scriptures are applied properly there is no oppression but the perfect harmony of male and female responsibilities to help the church give God glory and to reach out to a culture that is already confused about male and female differences , given to us by our Heavenly Father. He made us male and female.
Why did it take Pres. Carter 60 years to figure this out? Oh–we haven’t figured it out yet–I am waiting.
Respectfully, Martin F., to what superstitions are you referring? That these men actually existed (historically evidenced by Christians and non-Christians alike)? Or that their teachings are a reflection of God’s desires for humanity? If you believe the latter is superstitious I understand your conclusion about why referencing Scripture is irrelevant. However, if this is not our source for a moral compass, from where does it come concerning this issue? You referenced evolution (albeit in regard to a way of thinking not physical development). Should we find our moral compass in Darwinianism? Survival of the fittest seems to tilt towards a patriarchal society. For the record, I’m an egalitarian and believe Scripture teaches equality; however, I’m okay with coming to a conclusion on this issue apart from the Bible, but how do you personally sort it out? What gives your reasoning on this issue credibility? Martin, I hope you read this not in an argumenative way, but rather as one open to dialogue.
Matt, great questions, though a bit off the blog’s topic. There are, of course, ethical systems that exist without Christianity (think of all the other societies that exist that aren’t influenced by Western Christianity and all those civilizations that existed before the Hebrews came along). Neither the Hebrews nor Western Christians invented the need, and then the various systems, which allowed people to live together peacefully. All higher animals have evolved some sort of system to live together somewhat peacefully; if not, they would not have lasted very long.
How can you think the Hebrew/Christian scriptures teach equality? The Old Testament teaches patriarchy and zenophobia (except for Jonah)and practices the extermination of whole populations. I get a lot of value from those scriptures, but equality isn’t one.
Martin, I don’t have much time to reply because I’m due in a meeting shortly, but I’ll tell you that I struggle to make sense of those texts which portray such violence and domineering qualities in Israel’s history. I don’t struggle so much with Israel’s actions (for there were many times Israel acted without God sanctioning such behaviors), yet when God commands such violence is troublesome to me. What I was referring to about equality in Scripture has been pointed out by a few other responders on this blog: that Christ’s teaching reflect an attitude of equality and compassion for all. I think the texts in which Paul addresses the gender issue can be explained, and the piece Mike posted by David Pauls does a good job of that. Feel free to respond, and I’ll try to do the same after my meeting. I’ve enjoyed the discussion, Martin.
Matt, according to Christian tradition, Jesus is the God of the OT who ordered the extermination of the peoples living in Canaan. There simply is no way to reconcile the much more enlightened teachings of Jesus with the laws/actions of the god of the OT. Certainly complete equality is a much more modern concept than anything imagined by the people of Biblical times. Still, a nice discussion.
I guess the popular thing to do on here is thrash Jimmy Carter one more time. The post had nothing to do with his presidency, and yet, everyone makes takes their jagged sword to the gut.
Some Christians sure wear their political bigotry on their sleeves around here. Sheesh… so much for salt and light. And we wonder why people call us bitter and divisive?
Really a great message from a wonderful Christian man and President.
Losing “religion” is a universally good experience! Replacing it with faith and the spirit leads to truth and new life. I’m not surprised by President Carter’s move. Consistent with his entire life. May we have the courage and the faith to give up on religion and its various oppressions.
Daniel Gray, troy & Larry James, AAAA-MEN!!!!!!
I would still welcome a response to the points I raised. I keep hearing that we have moved past this issue, but I still haven’t heard specific responses to those texts. I appreciate the discussion and would love to hear what you have to say.