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.)
God in Genesis 2 gave man (and woman) dominion over the animals, birds, and fish. In Genesis chapter 3 He establised male headship.
In every company, even a very large corp, there must be one person who is finally responsible, the chairman of the board, president, etc. Every athletic team must have one who is the leader. Its just the way it is. And in the home and in God’s church that person is to be male.
God’s ideal is that a man love his wife as Christ loved the church. Let’s see, that would be unconditionally, without regard to what he might get in return, without regard to circumstances, in spite of her flaws and failures, and even dying to assure her safety and security.
That sort of man who is fully submitted to God, his fellows in the Christian community, and yes even to his wife, is the one who is to make the final decisions in the home, be the servant leader in the church.
You can pretend the Bible doesn’t say what it says about this matter if you choose, but it says what is says. In all of creation, in the family, and in the church on earth, God established “order”. The headship and leadership of males was and is his idea not mine.
I can’t say it strongly enough; The fact that God’s ideal is for men to lead in no way puts women down, it says nothing about their value, how much God loves them, or even hints that women are in any way less able in almost any area of life.
Those women who “labored with” Paul in the gospel were not carrying his Bible and cooking. Those women who had churches in their houses are esteemed highly. Women should be able to serve communion, visit hospitals and encourage and pray for the sick, and many other things. But males are to be in authority in the Christian fellowhsip. One of the requirements for leaders is that a “man” rule his own house well before he starts to lead in the church.
If we refuse to submit to the authority of the word of God its all down hill from there on.
Royce
Royce , Amen and Amen! Especially your point about accepting the authority of God’s word.
Royce/Ray,
You are from a very dark time, in a distant past, I truly feel sorry for you and the doors of heaven are unlikely to be open to you with such a misguided and inaccurate interpretation of the bible.
I can only prey that your god reveals to you a truth that takes away your bigotry………
Royce, you surprise me! Your adamant and well taken defense of the Bible is so admirable, but I can’t understand some of your writing.
You mention women ‘Women should be able to serve communion, visit hospitals and encourage and pray for the sick, and many other things’ – yet these services are never mentioned that I can find.
The things about women in service that ARE mentioned you seem to have overlooked. Paul mentions women “witnessing, prophesying, teaching [Paul himself reaped the benefit of a woman teaching him about Jesus.] And Peter himself reminded those on the Day of Pentacost of the prophesy of Joel that said, among other things “…’In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy, …
Am I to understand that these days the only spirit we are to heed is the spirit of man that denies what God says HE has done in these last days and daughters, as well as sons are to prophesy? Must admit to being a bit confused by your conclusions and have been confused by them since I was a young girl. The spiritual slavery of women seems to be alive and well, even in this 21st century of the ‘last days.’ Again, thank You, LORD for Highland and other such congregations of God’s church.
I think this will be the last comment I will make on this discussion, since I have only read 1 response to the questions I raised. Similarly, I posted questions in a recent discussion in this blog about instrumental music and its relation to the text. I got similar results. I’m not interested in bashing Jimmy Carter or calling names, just seeing if this role of men and women squares with the text. I have noticed that those who believe in the concept of male spiritual leadership have been treated as spiritually immature and inferior in some (definitely not all) comments. I appreciate the civil discussion from so many, but I think we need to be careful in how we treat each other. Just because someone has a more “conservative” view doesn’t mean that person is inferior or uninformed, nor vice-versa. It also doesn’t mean that person is intentionally disrespecting or denigrating women. We’ve talked alot about tradition, but not much about the text. I would like to hear your responses to my earlier comments. Thank you!
I spent over a decade studying this one issue to see what God was really saying to me as a woman. My stomach churned, my heart ached, and my fingers swelled. A CoC lifer, it is hard and painful letting go of that with which we have been brainwashed. And how sweet and fresh, how full of God’s redeeming love, is the air outside those walls that bind and confine. Even sweeter that I found freedom from within those very walls.
I am so very blessed to be able to stay where I am, to stay within my CoC fellowship and experience the full acceptance of who I am, who God created me to be, to be able to fully use all the gifts from God that He has given me as His woman. Our church family is small, and the other CoC’s in our area don’t publicly fellowship us, but I’m totally OK with that. It is God Whom I serve first and foremost, not the Churches of Christ at-large.
There is no such thing as partial redemption. Christ fully redeems us all. Even in Genesis 3.
I find it amusing now that when anyone disagrees with what is said then all of a sudden one is considered bigoted. And the doors of heaven closed. Sounds like merit or soemething other than the scriptures. There is nothing bigoted about stating exactly what the scriptures teach on any subject. And from the dark past. Scripture is always contemporary. I thought this could be a place of open discussion. Just because I have my views does not mean I believe that women should be oppressed. It is just that scripture is very clear. It is not a cultural problem at Corinth. What Paul said is creational not cultural.
Andrew, Amen to you as well. No , what you say is not because you are immature or not informed but as you say, does it square with the text. Keep on writing.
1 Timothy 2:14-15
14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
These verses immediately follow the ‘full submission’ verse. Could someone tell me what this means? Saved through childbearing?! And to clarify before anyone attempts an explanation, I don’t take the Adam & Eve story literally, nor do I think the earth is 5,000 years old. Not sure if that matters. Also bear in mind that should the answer be ‘cultural,’ then I see no reason the verses immediately preceeding them are not also.
Hope ,
I do take the Genesis account as a real and historical. Therefore , verse 11 and 12 are taken in the context of creational and not cultural. But that does not oppress women. It is the will of God. And what He wills is perfect.
While many feel very strong about this issue, sincere Christians have different perspectives and we should show each other respect and patience as we discuss it. It may be a difficult subject, but treating each other with love is pretty straightforward. (See 1 Cor. 13)
About female leadership, I think the examples we see through out the Bible are strong and clear. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Esther, Mary of Bethany, the woman at the well, Mary Magdalene, Priscilla, Lydia, Phoebe, Junia, Nympha and others paint a clear picture that God does not limit the role of women, but uses them in exceptionally strong leadership positions.
I realize we have to reconcile this with other passages like 1 Timothy 2, but I think that can be done without disrespecting the text or each other. I recommend Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, volumes 1 & 2, edited by Carroll Osburn. These essays offer very insightful views into this subject.
May God bless us, everyone.
Well, this is nice, but it’s really a few decades too late. If Mr. Carter is only coming to this realization now, no wonder he didn’t get that second term. I do hope it begins a much needed see change, though it reads more as a death-bed confession to me. However, it does beg the questions: How will we as Christians be an example to the world for women’s equality, if we do not practice this ourselves? Wasn’t social justice why Obama appealed to evangelicals in the first place? Isn’t that what McLaren, Wallis, NT Wright et al have been harping about? How is gender equity not tied to social justice?
Growing up in the CoC (its a denomination, deal with it) I was always conflicted at the bias against women in the church. I see the same tired arguments have been drug out again. Look, the submission thing works both ways, fellas. Besides my husband, I can count on my hands the number of CoC men that have held up their end of the bargain. The submission argument is a poor choice, since when was denying a woman the right to use her gifts, other than the obvious casserole-making and baby shower-throwing, fall under the umbrella of submission? So, if I have a PhD in Psychology with years of experience in family counseling and offer my services in a Marriage and Family Therapy Counseling program at a church, but I happen to be a woman , I’m not as qualified as a man with a BA and no experience? That wouldn’t happen in the real world, but step through the doorway of a CoC, and it’s going on strong. You betcha.
Any so-called theologian worth his or her salt wouldn’t argue against the leadership roles held by women in the NT church. And the prohibitions for women keeping silent in the church were limited to Grecian churches. But you can’t reason with no reason. The CoC refuses to leave the 1950′s so there you have it – using Scripture to justify sexism. That’s not the Gospel I know. There are men out there who know things should be different but for whatever reason, they keep quiet. Pansies. Another example of not holding up that whole submission agreement.
You know my solution? I braided up my hair, put on my most expensive clothes, slapped on my gold and pearls and I took my family and my 10% and walked away. I found a church were women have a stronger voice and men have spines. It was certainly difficult. The CoC was such an integral part of my life. I’m a bit of a cynic, but I imagine this whole “women’s roles in the church” will only have footing when CoC colleges start seeing their endowments shrinking and church contributions dry up. I imagine then they’ll all “see the light.” So, my advice to ladies and progressive thinking men out there is to reserve your contributions for other deserving institutions and organizations who follow Christ.
In Christ, there is neither MALE nor FEMALE…
hmm…. the Bible raises an interesting point there.
Let’s see Royce-you are now a bigot, doomed to Hell, a slavemaster, and oh yeah a pansy and spineless. Pretty easy to join the unenlightened here isn’t it? On Preacher Mike anyone who doesn’t agree with Mike’s posts and the responses of his fawning myrmidons is immediatley dismissed as the above and worse.
This is all so pointless. No ones mind is changed.
I thought I wasn’t going to post again, but Daniel’s response gets back to one of my original questions. The Bible does raise an interesting point in Galatians 3:28, but it deals with salvation rather than a worship context.
The examples Keith listed do show that God has used women in His service in powerful ways. Jesus showed women a respect during his ministry that was counter-cultural. I’m thinking specifically about leadership in worship. Deborah was a powerful leader in the Old Testament, but she wasn’t a priest. I’ve read Osburn’s book, and I have a great deal of respect for his level of scholarship. Yet, it just seems to me like we are using examples that are less clear and fleshed out (Phoebe, Nympha, Junia) to re-interpret passages that are more straightforward and a principle of male spiritual leadership that stretches through scripture.
Again, this principle has been abused in unscriptural ways over the years, but that doesn’t mean the text has changed. Again, if we use terms like “spineless” and “doors of heaven closed,” we’re not really making much progress in the discussion. As with any conversation, seasoning with grace is important.
Andrew, I agree. Continue to give your insights. Just because I believe in strong male spirutal leadership should not close the doors of heaven to me or anyone else that beleives the same. Yes, some men have abused women and some women have also been abusive and have rejected and resented male leadership. Neither extreme nor the voices of culture should crowd out the clear teaching of scripture. Strong male spiritual leadership will be gentle , kind and loving . And the gifts of women can still be used and not oppressed. There is a divine design and when it is obeyed , it works to help everyone grow in the Lord and to be free in Christ. Real love is expressed .This is not just 1950′s thinking ; it goes all the way back to creation.
Advance the discussion? What discussion? I’m wrong. You’re right. What’s to talk about? That broad-brush Biblical theory that women should be subordinate to men is a popular justification for overlooking a multitude of crimes:
25% of women in the US are victims of domestic abuse
The leading cause of death among pregnant women in the US is homicide
1 in 7 women in Sierra Leone die in childbirth, because they don’t receive the same quality medical care as men
Men look away when girls and women are sold as sex slaves
Men look away when women are forced to cover their entire bodies in public
Men look away when young girls are refused an education
Men look away when women are raped and then stoned to death because of it
Men look away when girls are mutilated
Men look away when women don’t have rights to refuse intercourse with their husbands who have contracted HIV
How’s that “gentle , kind and loving” leadership working out for you? Tell you what, why don’t you guys who insist on reminding me of my place, spend more time with your male counterparts reminding them of theirs.
KCL – The atrocities you mention are terrible, and I can’t think of anything more opposed to the will of God than for men to allow those things to happen. You are absolutely right that there are men everywhere who are doing terrible things, often claiming that they have that right as leaders. That is a truly awful thing, and they will have to answer for those actions.
My intention was not to put people in “their place,” and I apologize if my comments came across that way. I was thinking more specifically of how this plays itself out in a worship setting, and how we can understand the New Testament texts that deal with that. Thanks for your understanding.
Andrew , Right again. The men who participate in those kinds of crimes are not the men who are following the biblical pattern. When the biblical pattern is followed then men and women both have freedom and there is a mutual respect. When it is not followed then yes, all kinds of crimes, corruption and immoral behavior , all over the world , is committed. When the biblical pattern is obeyed then yes, there is love , kindness and consideration.
Ray, Andrew, Royce—well, you are trying your best to be clear! It sounds like you are endorsing equality, utilization of gifts by all, NO subordination tactics, and biblically sound male leadership delivered through love and servanthood.
You would think that would receive a rousing “Amen!”. Especially in light of the past methods of many churches. Unfortunate that the seeds of oppression have created barriers for many to understand your position.
I am writing in response to Andrew’s questions and his request for some response. I am taking time to do this (though I fear I have too little time to do the subject full justice) because I do hear, respect and appreciate your tone, Andrew.
So here are some thoughts, I hope, to advance the discussion.
First, I believe you are correct to think that Galatians 3:28 refers in its immediate context primarily to salvation, but I wonder if this necessarily excludes implications for roles in worship. Likely you are right that no mandate for worship roles can be based on this text, certainly on this text alone, but as we turn our attention to salvation and heaven, I recall Jesus’ prayer that “God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). There is to be, it seems, a correspondence between things done in heaven and things done on earth. I would venture a guess that you do not suppose that women will be silenced and subordinated in heavenly worship forever and ever. They are not, as you wisely observe, second-class citizens in the kingdom of God, and as gender equality becomes fully possible in more and more societies might it not be wise to implement God’s will on earth as it is in heaven?
As for Paul linking this subject back to creation in both 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, I believe that in 1 Timothy he is specifically contesting rather than making an argument from creation. There were those in Ephesus, and apparently in the church there as well, who believed that women were created first (a more widespread belief in the ancient world than most suppose) and that women had special insight. Paul observes that the biblical creation account offers no support for such views. For more on this, perhaps you could check out again my essay that Mike was kind enough to cite earlier in this discussion. As for 1 Corinthians 11, the first ten verses do make some kind of argument from creation, though scholars differ widely in their understanding of what headship in this text mean, and in any case, this text does not preclude women praying and prophesying. With verse 11, however, Paul makes an always important transition, “In the Lord, however … .” How does our thinking with regard to all these things align itself with the Jesus’ teachings that we are not to be concerned about who is the greatest but we, as his followers, are to be servants of all?
As for male spiritual leadership (which I suppose means many things to many people), why could not a man be strong, joyfully decisive, courageous and protective without women being submissive and subordinate? Why would strong men need women to be subservient? Does it really require women to assume subordinate roles for men to succeed at leadership?
As for “husband of one wife”, I suppose that many would resist replacing this with “spouse of one spouse.” But this resistance, it seems to me, is based on understanding Scripture as a law code, an understanding that Paul himself emphatically rejects, teaching instead that we are not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14), that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Romans 7:6), that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:1-6); see also the entire point of his letter to the Galatians. So Scripture remains the light by which we live. We study it seriously seeking always to understand its original intent in the light of its historical context as we make responsible and loving application to our circumstances today, but not yielding to a letter-of-the-law approach to Scripture. I have often observed that we all recognize the importance of historical context except when on some particular matter, usually connected to women, we don’t want to!
Well, much more could be said but perhaps this moves the discussion forward a bit. And again, Andrew, I appreciate the Spirit of Christ evident in you.
Dale,
I appreciate both the tone and the specificity of your post. Even with the constraints of a blog comment, you were able to share alot of imformation. I know you probably have a busy schedule, so thank you for taking the time to share such a well thought-out reply. It is definitely the most cogent response to these questions that I have ever heard/read.
After reading both your article and your post, I will definitely need to do more reading about the belief in the ancient world that women were created first. I hadn’t heard that before, and I’ll have to read up on it. You posed the question, “Why would a truly strong man need a woman to be subservient?” That poignant question points to the experience that often prompts this discussion – spiritually mature women around men who either abuse the leadership principle or don’t step up into spiritual leadership at all. It seems similar to Paul’s discussion of the husband and wife role in Ephesians 5, when He tells husbands that the kind of love they should show their wives is the love Christ showed for the church. If a man shows that kind of sacrificial love, it will be much easier for his wife to respond to his leadership. I think we both agree there are men everywhere who are not showing that kind of godly love/leadership.
In thinking specifically of worship roles, I appreciated you addressing each of the questions I had. The first was interesting, although I am reluctant to say we should readjust our understanding of this principle based on the fact that things might be different in Heaven. I don’t take the silence to indicate that women cannot participate in singing, congregational reciting of scripture, etc. in our worship services, and I don’t think any of us will be “silenced” in Heaven as we worship.
As far as the 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2 passages are concerned, I understand there is a wide array of opinions on the headcovering issue. He does compare male headship to God’s headship over Christ. I doubt any of us would say that Christ is somehow less important than God, just as the male spiritual leadership principle should never imply that men are somehow more important than women. We know that there were prophetesses in the New Testament (Philip’s daughters, for example). What we don’t know is exactly how those prophecies took place. I tend to agree with Ferguson (whose book I mentioned earlier), when he locates a shift in verses 17 and 18 as Paul repeats the phrase “when you come together.” It seems that whatever happened in the first part of the chapter (praying and prophesying) was happening outside of a public worship assembly. It might have been similar to the prophesying Anna was doing in Luke 2. I know that is probably a minority opinion, but I think it is consistant with the scriptures that are more straightforward on the subject in dealing with the worship assembly. If the praying and prophesying were taking place in the worship assembly, then why would Paul contradict himself in chapter 14?
You also mentioned several passages that mean we should not look at the Bible as a law code (including the entire book of Galatians). From my understanding, Galatians was not written because Christians were taking a law-code approach to God’s Word, but because they were binding the Old Law on Gentile Christians. Paul’s concern seems to be with what they were saying was God’s command rather than how they were interpreting it. The message is not that they shouldn’t treat the New Covenant like a law code, but that they should understand that the New Covenant meant they didn’t have to keep the Old Law. We know we shouldn’t be legalistic, but I don’t think viewing the quality “husband of one wife” in its literal translation is being legalistic.
Well, that was longer than I intended, but I am grateful for the discussion. Your post gave me some new information and incentive to study aspects of this topic further (and add to the ever-growing pile of “things I need to read about”)! Again, I appreciate so much the spirit of your post. I am always stretched by these discussions, and that is a good thing.
How very interesting and enlightening!
I think any fair minded high school student who read both of my earlier comments would agree that I have been fair to women and to the biblical text.
Here is the problem in my view. First, some of the commenters, (and Mr. Carter), have little regard for what the Bible teaches, except when it agrees with their presuppositions and preferences. Secondly, in my 45 plus years as a Christian, my 30 plus years as a preacher/teacher, not once have I been accused of being unkind or unfair to women.
As a young man and still today I have gone against the grain, pointing to deaconesses, women teachers, preachers, etc. all in the New Testament. I have also been consistant that males should lead the home, and the church. I see no point in repeating what I said in the first two comments, I was very clear.
Popular culture is never to shape the people of God, rather we are to shape the culture. Please don’t accuse me of being unfair to women and untrue to my God while at the same time you ignore what His word clearly teaches.
Royce
Hey Mike!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!
May your day be filled with the blessing of loving family and friends around you to celebrate this day! Glad you got home in time for this most auspicious day!!
In Him
Kathy
I thought this was ironic and humorous: Several years ago I was attending a Sunday School bible study at a CofC. We were studying the pastoral epistles and the topic at hand was the public/visible role of women in the church. The teacher (male) and several men in the class were putting forth the point of view that women could do almost anything a man could do in the church. A female could be a deacon – indeed she was one if she was a servant of the church – no matter whether she had the title or not. A female could pray and read scripture in the assembly; express their ideas and thoughts on a matter same as a male, etc. However, most of the men affirmed the concept of male headship in accordance with the Genesis account of creation and other scripture. So they thought men were obligated to fill the role of elder and pastor/preacher as the latter position was really just a convenience as the preacher was more or less a surrogate elder. As the federal head the man had the responsibility to lead the church and family. It was also the man’s responsibility to lay down his life (place the good of the wife/family ahead of himself) for his family just as Jesus did for his bride. It was acknowledged that men deserve rather poor marks vis a vis their headship role.
A couple of women in the class (an adult woman and her mother) took serious issue with this. They proclaimed loud and long that women must keep silent in the church as it was improper for a woman to speak or exercise authority. It was OK for them to teach Sunday School for women and children if they were no baptized boys present, but they could not teach in an adult Sunday School class. They never made the connection that they were in the church telling men they were wrong and insisting it be done their way which was directly contradictory to the position they were advocating. When this was pointed out they made a distinction between Sunday School and “church” again w/o recognizing they had already said women could only teach if there were no baptized boys present.
During the same time frame there were church wide meeting with the elders on a number of issues including the role of women. On multiple occasions women sitting next to their (silent) husbands told the elders how wrong it was for women to speck in the church and that they had no intention to tolerate such “unscriptural” behavior.
Just an anecdote – take it for what it is worth.
KCL, We all look away at all the atrocities women face? Seems to me this country just took on entire governments in Iraq and Afgianistan in part because of these things. Young men and women died fighting for them. I am sorry for what you experienced, and this issue bears more study, but your anger and resentment at this group is unfounded. Noone here was unkind, degrading, or aweful to you. We are disagreeing and discussing. I am really surprised…
How is the anger KCL expresses unfounded? It seems to me that she is describing her experience of precisely the doctrine being defended.
No one here was unkind, or degrading or awful to her? Except that even here, on the actual topic of discussion, when a woman’s actual experience of enforced silence within her own church is alluded to, she is brushed aside and told that her anger is unfounded and misdirected. Seriously? Who should she direct it to, then?
When women’s experience is invoked in the very same discussion as evidence that most women in the CofC are perfectly happy being silent in the pews and have no problem, etc., (an experience, I’ll note, invoked second-hand through the voice of a representative male!), how is a woman’s voicing of her own experience so easily brushed aside as atypical and not relevant? Are only the experiences you wish we were having, and say for us that we are having, relevant?
When “women’s silence in the assembly” extends so far that even the disembodied voices of women in the blogosphere can be disregarded…I think even the most, let’s say, “hermeneutically orthodox” in our churches ought to be able to see that something is awry.
Can’t we even hear women’s voices when we are NOT in church, NOT faced with an actual embodied female presence, NOT being preached to but simply required to listen?
Doesn’t anyone have the balls and the honesty to just say to this woman, “I’m sorry”? I’m sorry that you feel this hurt, I’m sorry that you carry this anger, I’m sorry that you had to leave our denomination in order to find a place in the body of Christ that welcomes you, I’m sorry? I’m sorry that your experience of what we keep telling you is God’s truth has wounded you?
I guess I’m the only one with the balls to do that.
P.S. amendment: I was thinking of another discussion thread when I wrote that women’s experiences in church had been invoked by a male representative–that’s a discussion on a different post. Sorry, guys. So skip that paragraph.
Kudos to KCL, JTB, Mike, and Jimmy. And, in case no one has taken the time to say it, I’m sorry. I stayed in the CoC too long past the time that I disagreed with them on gender equality, hoping that they might come around, but mostly wanting to avoid conflict. I understand that there are those who sincerely read the biblical text as prohibiting female leadership, and we will have to agree to disagree. But those of us who never read the text that way should have practiced the same kind of walk out we would have over discrimination on race. Too many of us stayed around too quiet for too long. It makes us complicit. It makes me complicit. And I’m sorry.
We are all complicit. Kester, you wrote beautifully.
Blessings to each of you in your journey and struggle. Being open and honest about my own struggle in conversation with others who have also struggled/are struggling has been a doorway to freedom. The freedom to see myself as a full participant in the body of Christ, free to worship and praise our risen Lord. May God be glorified in women and men’s voices and service in every way that He has called us. And I believe He has called us to more than any one of us can comprehend.
It’s very difficult not to become defensive in my struggle, especially when I feel that some people can not fathom that I have been hurt in it. It’s also very difficult when I feel that God has called me to something and people believe that I couldn’t possibly have heard that calling correctly because I am a woman. God calls to us all. I pray for each of us to have the faith and strength in His calling.
Grace and peace.
Ahh. I see. Jimmy Carter, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mohammed, and other founders of GREAT religions…
I think I’ll side with the Bible on this one.
It’s like Cornelius Fudge’s words to the Muggle Prime Minister: “my dear sir, the other side has magic too.” My dear sir, we have the Bible too. Just because we read it differently doesn’t mean that we are not, just like you, doing our sincere best to read it and live by it. It is that very sincere effort to take the Bible seriously that has landed me where I am, and will guide wherever it is I end up. I trust that is true of you. Please trust it is true of your sisters who believe differently as well.
Anybody who believes that other religions that have been founded since the Bible are great (including Mohammed) hasn’t been reading the same Bible I have.
But…point taken PTB. Thanks!
JTB,
Amen and amen.
I have been a CofC member for most of my adult life and I love so much about my church. One morning about a year ago, I was attending, with my 3 little girls, a Kids’ Praise time before the Sunday service. At the close, the leader for the service asked if there was a “young man” who would like to pray. There was more than a bit of silence while he waited for a volunteer and my 9 year old daughter looked at me and said, “Mommy, I’d like to pray. Why did he only say a boy?” All of you discuss theology on a level I can only admire but not participate at, but, in that moment, I had to answer that question for myself in a way I had avoided for years. Could I tell my daughter that even though her Dad and I have taught her that there is nothing she isn’t “good enough” to strive for, that there are no boundaries on what she can achieve that the God we have taught her to love loves her fully but doesn’t want to hear her voice in our church?
I truly understand the complexity of this issue and that many are certain that their view here is Bible based and solid but I will be honest and say my heart has been broken by this.
An amazing weekend has reinforced my conviction that many churches are just on the wrong side of this issue. For the sake of scripture — and much more for the sake of the gospel and of the world! — we need to change. Now.
Paul lived in a world that had views of women like we’ve seen in Afghanistan. For the sake of the tiny Christian movement, he sought to avoid scandals (just as CNN has in the past insisted that their female reporters wear burkas in Afghanistan). But to hold to those restrictions in our culture today is to do just the opposite: throw up an unnecessary barrier.
Again . . . I look forward to the time when men and women are serving in all areas — based on passion and giftedness rather than on gender. I trust that this time is very soon. If it’s not, we’ll continue to see the rapid departure of many young women (and men).
Amen. I left the CofC five years ago and took my husband and two sons with me for exactly this reason. More to the point after forty years I was a shadow of the person I once knew. I will complete my MDiv next Spring, but sadly there still remains no place for me in the fellowship I once loved.
Mike [and others too]
K. Beck’s response begs the question …. how does ACU and other Christian [read CofC in this case] universities advise young women that have completed their MDiv as far as exercising their gifts and their training is concerned?
Do you send them out with no idea where they’ll have a chance to exercise that degree, or is the University mute when they graduate? How do you address this oxymoron …. accepting women into the program and sending them out to the CofC fellowship, where more than likely, they will not be able to use that credential to its fullest?
This isn’t one of my bratty questions, rather a serious concern for these young women and for the congregations where they will arrive, ready to serve. Can you help us understand this concern?
JJ-
With 2 young daughters, I understand the heartbreak. It is a gut-wrenching moment.
May God bless your moments and your teaching.
I appreciate the fact that many of you strongly disagree with me, and I hope that any further posting on my part doesn’t seem like I am trying to perpetuate an argument or deny the fact that those with whom I disagree value the Bible. Neither of those is true – I am simply trying to better understand this issue from both sides. I also don’t wish to minimize any of the pain and frustration that has been described in this thread. Just exploring the topic and explaining my perspective.
I guess my challenge is trying to determine how much of the Bible we can say is culturally driven and what our standard is for making those statements. Mike mentioned the “taliban-like” views of women, and I am sure that is true. Jesus’ valued women in a way that would have been revolutionary, and Paul would have followed his lead. But it seems a leap to assume Paul’s motives behind giving these instructions for leadership, especially when he connects it to both the Trinity (God’s headship of Christ) and creation. I’m not saying that I can fully explain the complexities of these passages (headcoverings, etc.), I’m just saying it seems like the principle is anchored to something more than culture, which might indicate why it is covered more than once in the epistles. I am reluctant to explain away those passages by claiming motives for Paul that are not explicitly stated in scripture. Though there are definitely many women of faith in the Bible, it does seem like the principle of male spiritual leadership stretches through both the Old and New Testaments.
It has been mentioned that we need to do this for the sake of scripture, yet the basis seems to be our own experience rather than scripture. Dale’s post was helpful for me in seeing the passages used and the approach taken to some of those, but it seems like we are taking passages like Gal. 3:28, which deals with salvation, and stretching it into roles in worship and leadership, then saying that should trump the “restrictive passages.” To me, it sounds as if we are trying to make the gospel message more palatable to the world around us at the expense of the text.
While it may be that we may have to agree to disagree, I appreciate the honest dialogue, and I appreciate Mike for providing a place for it to occur. Mike – God bless you in your new efforts with Heartbeat. Thanks!
I have not attended a CoC since we left Abilene (Highland) in 2006. We are now visiting a CoC. I struggle with were God is leading me. Our children are grown and on their own but if we had kids we would not go to most CoC because of this issue and others. Mike you bring up the issue that I struggle with. Will the CoC lose her “Lampstand” or wear “the crown of life?” Do I stay or do I go?
“If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”
Andrew,
You seem sincere in your attempt to understand this issue from all sides. Given that impression, let me offer this analysis.
The issue really boils down to what we might call the possibility of a naive hermeneutics, of achieving a “plain reading” of Scripture. I say “naive hermeneutics” because the CoC (and other religious groups) have tended to think that they don’t approach Scripture hermeneutically (i.e., use an apparatus of biblical interpretation). Rather, the CoC felt that they were engaging in a “plain reading” of the bible. That is, the plain, obvious meaning of Scripture is what the bible “meant.” If the bible says that a woman is not to teach, well, the plain reading says she’s not to teach. And so on.
I suspect that is what you are hung up on. You are reading the texts on women and see the “plain sense” as unavoidable. Given this view, the introduction of the cultural issues in Paul’s time into the reading of the text seems slippery and error-prone. Past the plain sense how can we be certain that any reading of Scripture is accurate and truthful? The notion is that once we introduce hermeneutics (e.g., What did Paul really mean in that culture relative to ours?) we get ambiguity and error. It’s best to eschew hermeneutics and stick with the plain sense. The bible says what it says.
Now here is the real rub of this debate: Is a plain reading of the bible even possible? Is it possible to approach the bible without hermeneutics?
On one side of the debate you’ll have those who say that, yes, a plain reading is possible. We can be objective and hermeneutics-less when we read the bible. This is the classic CoC position.
On the other side of the debate are those who say that a plain reading is not possible. Sure, any given text has a “plain sense” but the people who apply this approach to Scripture do so selectively and unevenly. That is, no one ever reads the whole bible in its plain sense. We always have background assumptions (like CoC dogma) that shape how we read Scripture. These background assumptions (e.g., how the Old Testament relates to the New, views of sin and salvation, views of human freedom, the relationship between the gospels and the epistles, etc.) create a hermeneutical strategy whether it is named or owned.
So when we approach the women’s role debate what we have is this situation. One group stands with the plain sense and claims that they are seeing those Scriptures as objective truths without the interference of a hermeneutical strategy. A second group knows they are reading the passages with an interpretive apparatus and, thus, seek to examine the biases inherent in their reading of Scripture (yours and theirs). They reject the claim that the plain sense should trump in this case as no one ever consistently reads Scripture plainly (in their opinion).
More simply, the issue is between those who think they don’t have a hermeneutic and those who insist that you must have a hermeneutic (consciously or not).
From there the debate follows some predictable paths. The “plain sense” group will insist on the obvious meaning of the texts on gender roles. Their conviction will grow when it seems that the hermeneutical camp seems to be trying to wiggle out of the obvious. By contrast, the hermeneutical camp will try to show to the plain text reader that he or she isn’t really consistently reading the whole bible objectively and plainly. They will show that the plain text reader only reads texts plainly when the plain sense suits their dogma. Conversely, when the plain sense doesn’t suit their dogma the ostensibly plain text reader brings in hermeneutical devices. The hermeneutical camp will try to show that the plain sense reader is only opportunistically using the plain sense. On women’s roles the plain sense reader looks to have a strong position. But only by happenstance. On other texts or topics the plain sense reader would squirm just like the hermeneutical reader does on the gender texts. Once the hermeneutical reader demonstrates this plain sense opportunism they feel justified in proceeding with their hermeneutical self-reflection.
And that, as they say, is the end of the story. Nothing more or less can be said about the matter. You either think a plain sense is possible or you don’t. From those positions everything else is fairly predictable, argumentatively speaking. We aren’t, in the end, talking about gender roles or those texts. We are talking about unspoken assumptions sitting inside our heads concerning what we think is or is not possible when reading the bible. That’s the deep debate. Until we discuss that issue, all else on this topic is heat without light. It’s like thinking a runny nose is the cause of the flu.
My life’s too busy now to follow the thread closely, but thanks for participating. Thanks, Andrew, for the good questions. Thanks, RB, for pointing out that this is a matter of whether one must interpret scripture — and what that means.
Kathy, it’s a problem. Many of the women being trained for ministry at ACU are going into areas where those gifts can currently be used in Churches of Christ: youth ministry, children’s ministry, counselor, etc. As you know, at Highland, five of the ten fulltime ministers are women (including the minister of adult faith formation). However, many of those training for teaching/preaching roles are leaving Churches of Christ. As one convinced that God has gifted both men and women for teaching/preaching/pastoring, I continue to hope that this will not continue to be the case in many of our churches.
Richard,
Thanks for that discussion of the issue.
Peace,
Geezer
Richard–your comment describes the reason why I personally would rather leave aside the hermeneutical wrangling and frame this as an issue of theological anthropology. But that’s an idiosyncrasy of mine directly attributable to my training–theology rather than biblical studies–and it doesn’t, I think, describe most of us in the CofC.
Thanks, Mike and AMEN to your prayerful hope!!!!!
I appreciate the discussion about how we interpret the text.
During my college years I realized I could either only read the opinions of the people with whom I agreed, or I could also read the opinions (books) of the people I KNEW I didn’t agree. But, read the dissenting opinions honestly, asking myself “is there anything good I can take away from this.” There were a number of books I read that i still walked away saying I didn’t agree on half of what they said, but then I found the other half shaking me to my core.
There are a lot a great books out there on women in the Bible and the church. I’ll throw out a few. Some of these are a little crazy, but like I said, if you read them honestly and vulnerably, you may find a nugget or two that is worth keeping (while you throw a larger chunk away).
Women and the Genesis of Christianity
- Ben Witherington III
In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins
- Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza
Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible says about a woman’s place in the church and the family
- Gilber Bilezikian
Paul, Women, and Wives: Marriage and Women’s Ministry in the Letters of Paul
- Craig Keener
Women in the Church: Reclaiming the Ideal
- Carroll Osburn
Families in the New Testament World
- David Balch and Carolyn Osiek
I would also include “I suffer not a woman” by the Kroegers, but Osburn really took them to task and made me feel their book was a waste of time.
Discovering Biblical Equality: Complimentarity without Heirarchy
- Gordon Fee edits, multiple contributors
If you just want to read one, I’d recommend Carroll Osburn as he’s one of the finest greek scholars from the church of Christ, but he’s also changed his mind over time. I recall hearing him tell an audience (paraphrased) – I did not like what the text showed me. But, I had to decide if I was going to stick with what I felt comfortable or be vulnerable to what my study of the text revealed.
I appreciated the honesty and vulnerability of a life-long CofCer, greek scholar, still open to changing his mind in his 60′s. I’m sure I’ll change my mind a time or twenty over the rest of my lifetime.
Shout out to Andrew! Long time since the Harding Academy days!
I am with you Andrew. Paul said this was true in all the churches. It is God’s perfect design. Culture cannot dictate a better way than the will of God.
Ray,
It’s often been easy for people to accept things as the clear and direct will of God — so long as it’s clearly in their favor.
Q ,
I consider God’s will to be good for every person who will submit to it, male and female. It is a perfect will and transcends all cultures.
My point, Ray, is not contraveining the sufficiency of the perfect will of God. It’s instead pointing out that it’s easy for people to believe that it is clear and plain and not at all complicated — when they’re the ones favored by their preferred interpretation.