Is “What Does the Bible Say?” the Only Question?
I continue to think through the implications of Luke Timothy Johnson’s claim that our experience of the gospel is one way that we interpret scripture. Those implications are huge. (Scripture & Discernment: Decision Making in the Church
Those who opposed the mission to the Gentiles on the terms being offered were, strictly speaking, right. They had scripture on their side. But Peter (Acts 11) and Paul (Acts 15) argued that they had experienced the grace of God among the Gentiles — beyond all the familiar boundary markers.
Those who said that the Messiah couldn’t have been crucified on a tree had scripture on their side. Such a person was deemed to be accursed. But the early church had experienced the truth of the unimaginable.
Those who argued against abolition had scripture after scripture to help make their case: scripture seemed to regulate the practice of slavery but not abolish it. However, Christ-followers who opposed slavery argued from their experience of the good news of Jesus that it was morally wrong. Thankfully, they won the day.
In an issue like the ministry of women, one question is: How do we interpret the relevant scriptures? But another hermeneutical question (that follows the former one) is: What is our experience of the gospel here? What are we observing about women, gifts, ministry, and leadership?
“What does the Bible say?” is a wonderful question. It is not, however, the ONLY question. There are also the questions and observations that arise from community discernment!
“What does Jesus say?” is the question within “What does the Bible say?” that we too often ignore. Jesus – who entrusted the first gospel of His resurrection with women, who did not forbid the woman of Sychar from fetching all her neighbors with good news of Him – has a lot to say on the subject of women and ministry.
If we’re willing to listen.
Thank you for such a thought-provoking post, Mike! I have found that too often, we tend to focus on only the passages of scripture that say what supports our side of a theological issue and completely ignore other scriptures that might offer a challenge to those notions. In doing so, I think we cheat ourselves out of the full experience of wrestling with the Word to really find out if it could be saying something different from what tradition has taught us to read there.
On the issue of women, I have often wondered which statement of Paul’s trumps the other:
“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.” (I Timothy 2:12)
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)
I’ve heard countless preachers rail on I Timothy to justify why women cannot hold leadership positions, and almost in the same breath hail Galatians for its recognition of salvation being extended to those outside the Jewish nation (and thus, enabling their own saving grace) — yet they fail to see the inconsistency between the two.
Rather than just ignoring the full implications of the passage of Galatians, I think we owe it to ourselves to acknowledge it and consider it fully. After all (to enlist a trusty old cliché, and only slightly tongue-in-cheek) – isn’t that what Jesus would do?
Gal. 3 : 28. When Paul wrote there were Christians who were still slaves and some were free , even within a congregation. There were those who were Jews and those who were Greeks and each congregation had both men and women. They were equal concerning salvation. It makes no difference concerning sex, race , etc. Anyone who obeys the gospel is ” in Christ . ” Gal. 3 : 28 is not about the issue of women and leadership.
With all due respect, Roy B., if Paul was speaking to the social situation in which the Galatian church was situated with regards to nationality and social status, is it not also possible that he was also speaking to the social situation surrounding Timothy’s church with regard to women?
If you are married, do you forbid your wife to wear her hair braided, or gold earrings, or pearls? And if women are truly to keep silent during the assembly, do you forbid your wife to sing aloud, or to utter an “Amen” at the end of a prayer during the service? If not, why not – except that perhaps you accept that when Paul spoke against those things, he was speaking within a specific social context? Why, then, should that principal be applied in certain instances but not in others?
If there is no difference between Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female because we are all one “in Christ,” and Christ is the head of the church, is it not at least possible that God could view women on equal footing as men? That’s all I was trying to raise with my previous post – that we should at least consider possibilities different from the ones that we have always been taught. In the end, we may come right back to where we started, but do we not have the responsibility to try to grow in our faith by asking God to open our eyes in new ways en route?
A major portion of my doctoral dissertation was concerned with the rhetorical development of the portrayal of Eve through the early Church fathers and through the centuries of developing Western thought. My special focus was the manner in which this evolving portrayal of her character and the rhetoric that grew up surrounding the Genesis account of man’s fall came to influence the political landscape of Western Europe until it came to a head in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I actually began the study NOT from the point of view of a feminist as I did not (and do not) consider myself as such. However, as my study progressed, I found my eyes being opened in new ways to the cultural implications that surround and inform this perpetual debate within the Christian church. To use the term that Mike applied in his post, one could say that my experience with the scriptures changed and I discovered a new way of understanding the infinitely complex Word of God.
And so now I ask you (and again, I do so respectfully and humbly as you are my brother in Christ), is it not possible that your experience and my experience could be vastly different owing to the fact that you are allowed full rights within our fellowship and I am still considered by many to be a second-class member?
I have endured Sunday School classes where men have repeatedly presented incorrect facts – not merely interpretations of scripture with which I did not agree – but basic factual information that was not correct. And yet I am under their full authority for no other reason than because I am a woman. I was once invited to teach a lesson based on my professional research in early Christian writings to a small group of young couples from our church who were meeting in the private home of one member; but the invitation was rescinded when someone pointed out that my husband was deployed in the Middle East and therefore would not be present when I was speaking. Were he to call and be present by speaker phone, however, the lesson would be okay. I am happy to say that the vast majority of people attended the talk anyway, despite my husband’s absence, and were edified by it.
I do not try to force my views on people whose faith is not compatible with them. I respect that we all have different issues that bind us to the Lord and that we hold as unshakable tenants of our faith. But I do ask you, sir, if you would agree with me that there is something at least slightly upsetting about the fact that I have more freedom to talk freely about my relationship with Christ in my secular college classroom than I do within the walls of my own church building? And if you are not troubled by that then, again, I would point to the different experiences that we have had with the gospel and I would simply ask you to allow me to celebrate the freedom and joy I have found in a God who sees me as a beloved, redeemed soul – and not merely as a gender.
On Galatians 3:28, see 2 Corinthians 5:17 — “If anyone is in Christ, [there is] a new creation. The old has passed away. Look! The new has come.”
“In Christ” we are no longer to be known “according to the flesh.” “Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we do not know him that way any longer.” This is God’s “ministry of reconciliation.” The boundaries of the old creation, captive to sin and “the flesh” — race, class, and sex — have been erased “in Christ.” We may think that this promise is “eschatological,” that it does not apply to the comfortable world of our privilege in this world. To that i say, “If reconciliation does not happen now, it will never happen at all.”
Those who would found the doctrine of ministry for the church on human genitalia are always with us. As Paul writes in Romans 8, “Those who live according to flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.” When we set our minds on the things of the Spirit, we shall discern the reconciling work of God in his new creation — in all who are “in Christ.”
God’s Peace to you.
d
Must have been several post’s without many comments for Mike to break out the issue of Women’s Roles in the Church…
This is really bringing out unity isn’t it? I for one, am totally sick of it. Intellegent people can disagree, we don’t have to fight it out over a blog. This sucks.
Chris,
If we can’t talk about tricky but important issues like this, can we ever build true community with one another?
We don’t have to fight to about it. Grace filled dialogue for deeper understanding is possible.
The experiences of Tiffany are unfortunately common, rather than uncommon. D’Esta Love wrote eloquently about this in Gal328.org many years ago – and it still holds true today.
Just wondering if any of this discussion ever comes to fruition in the cofC? It sounds good on a message board, but does it every really get anywhere in the Elder boardroom?
Ah, Chris. I have to do posts like this once in awhile because it’s the only way we hear from you. The previous post has 45 comments so far. I didn’t write this for comments; I wrote it because I find it compelling.
One topic is the ministry of women. But that’s an example. The larger issue (of the post) is congregational experience and discernment. In a tradition that has been tempted to believe that “What does the Bible say?” is the only relevant question, this strikes me as rather significant.
Chris: I wonder if unity is/should be our primary aim.
This semester, I am in a course that has as its topic the History of the Restoration Movement. In part, this week’s readings were about the issue of slavery in the mid-nineteenth century, and the views/actions of the founders of our movement on it. While Campbell originally opposed slavery, freeing his slaves, he soon realized that such a revolutionary change caused division in the church. So he scaled back his previous response to the evil of slavery, saying that the Bible did not condemn slavery, so while he did not think it was an ideal institution, he would no longer take a stand on it.
While I’m not knocking the movement (as I am a part of it and intend to stay that way), it seems to me that their preoccupation with maintaining unity actually prevented them from carrying out racial/social justice. Maybe there are some things that are more important (as goals) than unity.
It occurs to qb that trying to formulate a static list of priorities (e. g., 1-unity, 2-justice, 3-polishing the cherubim to an adequate gloss, etc., or rearrangements of that rubric, or any other) is a fool’s errand. Mike’s original post asked us to consider *discretion* and how we inform it, which means – if it means anything – understanding how priorities have to be juggled, shuffled, and occasionally swapped in order to achieve broader Kingdom aims. So much of what we fight (!) about seems to arise because once we’ve decided what order our priorities ought to be, along comes a circumstance that doesn’t quite fit that ordering, but having painted ourselves into our corner, we instinctively extend the claws and defend our _a prioris_ to the death. It need not be that way.
qb
Thank you for this post, Mike, & thanks to Tiffany for her thoughtful comments.
Tiffany, Amen, sister. Do you blog? You have a voice which needs to be heard.
I struggled with “the role of women” in my previous church but am now a member of congregation in Australia where women are full participants – and it blesses everyone.
I am encouraged when I read how Jesus treated women. He would be horrified how we have been treated in the church over the ages.
Interesting discussion. While I won’t repeat much of what has been said in other posts, there a few things for us to consider.
1. I understand that we need to consider our context when applying the text to our lives. But, when we discuss community discernment (questions like what are we experiencing, etc.), are we willing to elevate our experience to the same level as the text inspired by God? If so, then we are headed in the direction where our own experiences determine what we believe. That is not to say our experiences aren’t valuable, but should they be equal to the text? I realize that those who only knew the Old Testament texts experienced something new once Jesus was crucified, and I know that in Acts 15, they were dealing with the new experience of the gospel being open to the Gentiles. Yet, in those cases, the Holy Spirit descended in a miraculous way (Pentecost and Cornelius) to say that the message preached was from God. So, the experience was important, but it was important because it confirmed the message of God. The message was what drove the change in perspective. Corinth had several “mystery religions” that met and practiced the ecstatic utterances of tongue-speaking. But God told the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14 that God was not a God of confusion. I’m sure that the Corinthians that those experiences were powerful, but they did not overrule God’s guidance.
2. As far as the slavery issue is concerned, we can probably all think of subjects about which scripture has been tragically misinterpreted. Yet, I don’t know that experience was what overruled those misinterpretations, as much as correctly understanding what needed to be done and having the courage to follow through in a difficult situation.
3. ereinetheou, I think I understand your perspective, yet I would be reluctant to use a statement like some are trying “to found a doctrine of ministry based on genitalia.” I am doing my best to form a doctrine on relevant texts. Plus, God is clear that men and women are created differently, with characteristics and strengths which balance each other out and extend far beyond anatomy.
As always, thanks for letting me participate, and I appreciate the open, considerate discussion!
Tiffany,
Thanks for your comments. I also would like to know more about your writings/research, specifically your dissertation.
I taught a class last year titled “Mighty Women” that looked at strong female leadership throughout the Bible. I think it hard to maintain most if not all of the restrictions we put on women when we look at the big picture of how God has called women into leadership for thousands of years. In researching for my class I was shocked at how often Eve is misrepresented in a negative way. Most people don’t even realize that Adam was present during the whole conversation with the serpent. Eve didn’t trick Adam into anything.
Please let me know where I can find some of your material.
Thanks!
Tiffany ,
I was saying that the context of GAL 3 :28 , 3 : 26 – 28 and the whole theology of Galatians was not about the issues you raise. It is about equality in salvation. I find it rather amusing that those who criticize what they call proof texting sure like to use Gal. 3 : 28 when writing or speaking about women and the issues .
No , my wife would not wear gold in her hair because the context you write about has to do with the issue of modesty.
She can sing because it is allowed by all members She will have to decide about saying Amen out loud. She never has but that is because she has no such desire , not because she has been oppressed.
And that is not the issue that the Holy Spirit has revealed about silence. The Spirit said the limitation was creational and not cultural. The limitation in I Cor. was to all the churches .
Thanks for the discussion.
whew. Tiffany, thanks for putting it all out there. and if you haven’t found it yet I’d love for you to hop over to my little blog and write a guest post for me.
[promotion, over]
Don’t want to re-write what’s already been so eloquently stated, but it seems to me that Tiffany’s question is an elegant restatement of precisely what the original question is getting at. “Is ‘what the Bible says’ the only question?” leads directly (or should) to Tiffany’s question: “is it not possible that your experience and my experience could be vastly different owing to the fact that you are allowed full rights within our fellowship and I am still considered by many to be a second-class member?” That’s exactly what is getting left out in our hermeneutical/liturgical/ecclesiological discussions…unsurprisingly, because when you’re not invited or allowed to voice your experience, people continue on in ignorance of it. That’s why these blog discussions are important–not because they invite a rehashing of the arguments everyone has already heard, but because they provide a forum for sharing the experiences everyone hasn’t.
In my usual oversimplification way, there is an expression in constant use that expresses clearly what I’ve called “the spiritual slavery of women in the church.”
“The role of women in the church”
This put down saying expresses what is tacitly being taught – that men are the church and they give women a role in their church.
If we consider all the unpleasant facets of this statement I’d be surprised if it didn’t send us into deeper study, supported by prayer in search of the solutions to these man-made tenets.
Another thing we might consider is one my pastor in San Diego shocked me with the first time I heard it.
Just as there are no male nor female in Christ, and since under God’s law to Israel all inheritances went to the sons, we are not sons & daughters of God, we are all sons of God – joint heirs with Christ.
Tiffany – thank you for your excellent words. I too would like very much to read your dissertation and if you have a blog, to visit same. Blessings to you for your deep study of this prickly subject in our fellowship.
Ray B. –
“The Spirit said the limitation was creational and not cultural. The limitation in I Cor. was to all the churches.”
The rationale given for the head covering in chapter 11 is also based on creational arguments, not cultural, and is also given for all the churches. So, in the same context, some choose to bind one (chapter 14) but not the other (chapter 11). Seems like perhaps we have let our experiences/community discernment help us interpret one, but not the other. Hmmm.
Many faith communities have discerned that 1 Cor. 14:29-35 is an instruction to a particular church at a particular time, addressing a particular problem (v. 35) – like Paul’s advice to Timothy to use a little wine for the problem of his stomach and frequent illnesses (1 Tim. 5:23). None of us would say that all instructions in the New Testament are meant for all of us for all time … so how can we discern which are and aren’t without earnest prayer for the Spirit’s guidance, prayer and fasting, and the consensus of the community?
That seems to be the procedure in Acts 13 and 15.
Picking up on the main topic of Mike’s post…discernment and human experience.
Whenever God reveals himself to humans he has to do so in ways that are comprehensible, culturally and morally, to humanity. Otherwise, God would be incomprehensible. A total blank or fuzz of confusion.
In short, inherent in any notion of revelation–direct, testimonial, or written/scriptural–is the aspect of accommodation and condescension. Thus, any revelation of God, now or in the past, is inherently partial, fragmentary and, in a sense, false. The struggle for the faithful community is the task of teasing apart the eternal and transcendent aspects of revelation from the aspects that were accommodations and condescensions on God’s part to communicate with a finite creature localized in time and space.
It’s like if your child asks, “Does God live in the sky?” As a parent I have to find ways to condescend to my child, to kneel down, cognitively speaking, to explain a truth that she (and I) can’t really comprehend because we are humans and God is God. Maybe “God lives in the sky” is the best I can do at that moment in her life (as humanity was at a point in its life during the first century) to articulate the truth that God is not of this earth. God is above and beyond, transcendent.
The entire Bible is just like that conversation between child and parent. And it explains a bit about the differences between the OT and the NT and the tensions between our era and Paul’s.
My two cents.
‘It is not, however, the ONLY question.’ Thank you for having the guts to say this. Spot on.
Dallas Willard made precisely this point in _The Divine Conspiracy_, except he put it in epistemological terms. We seek knowledge. But where do we get it? By revelation alone? If so, then “what the Bible says” is the end of the matter. But Willard says knowledge requires revelation by authority, experience, and reason, the last one equipping us to extend our knowledge to indefinite lengths. Thus, “taste and see” is on par with both “it is written” and “come, let us reason together.”
heretical, I know. qb
When Paul writes, in Galatians 3:28, that “[there is] no male and female,” his context is Genesis 1:27 — “Male and female he created them.” This is the “old creation” that — so Paul tells the Corinthians — is “passed away.” Those who are “in Christ” are a “new creation.” They are no longer to be known “according to the flesh.” Those who seek to bind them to the old creation by differentiating them “according to the flesh” will have a ministry founded on “the flesh” — on genitalia.
i do not speak of the “role of women” — we have enough play-actors in the churches without adding any more. Women who are in “in Christ” may have a “work” or “ministry” according to the gifts that God has given them (see all those women whom Paul salutes in Romans 16). When we walk “according to the Spirit” rather than “according to the flesh,” we shall discern the gifts of our sisters and brothers “in Christ” without reference to “the flesh.” Discernment is itself a spiritual gift (1 Corinthians 12:10).
God’s Peace to you.
d
That single question “What does the Bible say” is loaded with hermeneutical assumptions, some of which are highly suspicious and questionable.
Grace and peace,
Rex
The notion that the Bible disapproves of slavery in any way is absurd on its face. Slavery is repeatedly endorsed in both Old and New Testaments. Hardly any Christians objected to slavery until the Enlightment of the 18th century. Then, Christians suddenly discovered that the Bible was opposed to slavery.
Mark Twain put it best:
“The Christian’s Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes…. The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession — and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.
“Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry…. There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.”
Most of you are extremely fortunate to live where quite a few men even view church-going and a faith in Christ as priorities for living. Sadly, and with respect, the Restoration Movement, which only has relevance within the borders and historical context of the American religious journey, has strangled many who experience the gospel from a different, yet God-blessed, perspective. I grew up in the traditions of the Restoration Movement so I understand the implications here. I am of an age where being in the ministry did not come easy, and I had to go outside my church tradition to attend a seminary that would accept women in ministry studies.
Wherever I and my husband have lived and worshipped here in the UK, my husband is part of the very small minority of males who are active in church, be it Anglican, Methodist or evangelical free church. In our present church he is usually only one of maybe eight men, including the vicar, who actively attend our church of 30 to 35 members. As he and a couple of others do not sing in our little choir (very little), on most Sundays they are the only gentlemen sitting and singing in the congregation. Our vicar is single and the rector for four village churches, which means he has time to drive to and serve only two church fellowships/services per Sunday. There is much work to do for the cause of Christ whether we have a Sunday where he presides or not. We are blessed though to have four Readers (licensed laity). Amongst their many roles of leadership in the church are those of preaching and teaching. One of our Readers is female – her day job is chaplain for HM prison system. She has the pleasure of living with the inmate population three days a week. What she brings to her sermons is absolutely phenomenal and God-ordained!
Thankfully, the leadership of women in the church has not been such a huge issue here as it was in the C0fC tradition of my youth. That said, the subject of female bishops is a hot button, although we have had female vicars, priests, rural deans, etc, for a long time. Historically these roles hold varying degrees of power and in a few cases, material wealth. Men as a general rule truly dislike women being equals with them in worldly wealth and power. I have been surprised to find that those in the church who object to female Readers the most are…women! In spite of all this, most will acknowledge that if we women did not assume leadership roles in the church, whether our husbands are active Christ-followers (to borrow an American term) or not, then many of our nation’s church doors would be closed: Anglican, Methodist, free churches, etc.
The trend is telling us that in 10 to 15 years there will hardly be any men in the church. This is of great concern. To get to know more men in our village and across our benefice of four village churches, our vicar began a fun ‘outreach’ once a month. Every Wednesday night one of the two pubs in our little village (pop 1500) has ‘a pint and a curry for £6!’ so he’s there to meet with any gents who would join him, and basically to show the non-churched men that men who go to church are normal and not cult-crazy. All men in the four benefice churches are encouraged to join him in this effort to get to know others. Several times my husband would be the only one to show up and support him. It’s growing, very slowly. Our diocese will do a training session on ‘Evangelizing Men’ which my husband will attend next week. Should be interesting.
Why is any of this relevant to the discussion here? I suppose because as an American who has lived in other countries and now lives permanently outside the US, my experience of the gospel keeps changing and I have had to learn how others view the gospel and understand where, exactly, their interpretation of the scriptures comes from. The British experience of the gospel is viewed through a different prism than the American experience, and one is not necessarily better than the other, because God created both.
As I have never technically been a ‘missionary’ there have never been the benefits of spiritual support from any churches back home in the US. I don’t cost anything to support, no mission board has to worry about supplying my medical insurance. When I am home on visits, I ask for prayers but the missionary label is not evident to the folks back home so they do not see the need or seem interested to lend encouragement or pray for our work here on a regular basis. Our experience of the gospel is nowhere near their radar, although we are well aware of theirs. I guess I have figured it out – it is still the ‘female thing’. So be it. Christ gave me his Great Commission a long time ago, and that trumps the Great Demotion handed me by rude church leaders, sisters in Christ, and some professors I had at the Christian university I attended.
Each of us walks with God our Creator, it is inevitable that we will experience the gospel in our own way and that individual journey will lead us to interpret and reinterpret the scriptures as God nurtures us, cultivates our faith and we develop our trust in him. How our experience with the gospel begins will look completely different at the end of our journey. And we must remember that as we get to know and love our neighbours and those in our community who have yet to know the Jesus we know exists.
Thanks, Mike, this WAS an encouraging post, and it has been good to read and digest some of the comments. I do get homesick. Pax!
ex-preacher,
To equate slavery mentioned in the Bible with American Slavery is a mistake. Although both terms have the root word “slave” in them, the differences are huge. For starters, one is based on racism, bigotry, and owning people as chattel. There is nothing godly about acting in these ways. If your interpretation of the Bible says acting like this is godly, then your interpretation is flawed.
Slave trading, by the way, is alive and well in many parts of the world. Are you telling me, as a Christian, you are okay with this practice? Are you still okay with it if the slave is your daughter?
As my boss once told me, “Come on now, we need do this one with our brains.”
Wow…whatever our view is regarding women and ministry/church leadership, that is not the issue. It’s only an example. The issue is how do we discern the will of God. Just how we do that impacts many issues, some of which are even bigger than the role women play in the church…for as Acts 11 reminds us, how we discern the will of God has an impact (positive or negative) on the question of salvation and mission.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Tiffany-
If I understand correctly, you have a fundamental disagreement with the men that you have willingly placed yourself under their authority. You have to endure their false teaching and be subject to their restrictions with regard to your teaching. Worse yet…you are placing your freedom to travel your spiritual journey, the way you have been led, at their mercy.
Why don’t you simply leave? Is it really about the role of women in the church? Can’t any woman start a church and run it any way they desire? Of course they can. Yet, that is really not the goal. The goal is not equality but Social Justice. The kind of justice where not only women share in roles of authority, but that the church is put in it’s place and shamed, if not destroyed.
Your story is not unlike dozens I have read from this blog over the past few years. Women speak of having leadership roles, while in the same breath play the victim. You can’t have it both ways.
**I say this with all the gentleness and grace of a brother in Christ. For those who will dimiss these comments as harsh, they are mistaken. I just believe, with all of my heart, that when you disparage the church, you are not only indicting individuals who are not there to defend themselves, but those who have been freed from the bonds of this life by the blood of Jesus.
“Why don’t you simply leave?”
Ah, such a “simple” solution! Just shut up and go away! We’re not interested in justice and mercy, and certainly not in “walking humbly.” We’re interested in preserving our privilege and our “authority.” We have our canon of prooftexts, and we’re not interested in their contexts or in any text that calls into question our way of doing things. Just go away, and leave us alone, so that we can be the Church, the pure, unstained Bride of Christ.
We should remember how Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, infuriated by the words of Amos, a mere herder and groundskeeper, came to Amos and ordered him off the property. “O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, and eat bread there, and prophesy there; but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom.”
Yet Amos was not a member of the sanctioned prophetic guild, under the control of priest and king. He answered to higher authority. God had called Amos to speak, and so he spoke. We can read what the Lord had to say, through Amos, to Amaziah and his king, and to the people Israel who followed them. We should take those words to heart. “Go and learn what the text means. . . .”
As we grapple with the texts beyond the familiar prooftexts, we shall find meaning and hope. “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call. . . .” As we, the members of that one body, each with the gifts that God has given us, are called to speak of the hope that is in us, let us speak without fear, knowing that if God be for us, then nothing in all creation can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord.
God’s Peace to you.
d
eirenetheou-
The problem with this format is that it is one dimensional. When I asked, “Why don’t you simply leave?” I was not presenting an ultimatum, but posing a rhetorical question. We all know that leaving would solve the problem. However, solving the problem is not the goal. There are some, who for various reasons, would rather stay in a church that they are at odds with. Some would rather moan, groan, and complain, than rid themselves of such an oppression leadership by leaving. Some stay and complain for the personal attention. Some stay and complain out of habit and security. And some stay and complain to get their little jabs in, at every opportunity, out of a quest for Social Justice.
If women really want to lead the church, they cannot continually harp on the great injustices of the past, but blaze a new course that agrees with their understanding of Scripture. My guess is…they really don’t want leadership roles, they just don’t want men to have them either.
**When I say “women”, I am referring to the discontent minority.
I better clarify my disclaimer: …discontent minority of women.
Troy,
A quick response about your suggestion for women to either shut up or move out. One problem with that view is that it displays such a thin and impoverished view of salvation. Participating in the Reign of God–the church–isn’t about finding, starting or moving to a church that agrees with me. Nor does it mean putting up with or shutting up about ways the Kingdom fails to move into God’s plans and future.
In short, salvation is all about staying with the church, a local, particular and broken manifestation of God’s incoming Reign and doing the hard work of seeking, communally, His Face. That is the path of salvation. That is the church. The “church” isn’t a protest group who splinters off to form a club of likemindedness.
In our time one of the central issues in this process is the view of human persons. What is the Kingdom to look like regarding gender relations? And if people disagree on this point the way forward isn’t to shut up or leave. That recommendation leads us closer to hell, not to heaven. To participate in the Kingdom we need to journey together, declaring as one holy and catholic church that the Kingdom has come and is yet to come. We celebrate the former and struggle, together, toward the latter.
Troy, someone has to stay to keep the conversation going. Obviously, you don’t want to talk. So many things have changed in our world because people were willing to stay…stay when it was hard, stay when they were risking their life, stay when others were trying to push them out. So many of those things that changed seemed right at the time but now if we look back we can’t even imagine them being right…slavery, segregation, only white men voting…these are all forms of keeping people from power and I believe along the same lines as women being pushed aside in the church. I don’t know what it would accomplish if everyone left because there was something that they didn’t agree with…every church would be empty.
Richard & Julie-
Again, I will say that my question, “Why don’t you simply leave?”, was a rhetorical one. THE LAST THING I WANT IS FOR SOMEONE TO LEAVE A CHURCH, OR THE CHURCH! My point is that if women truely want to have a have a role of authority in the church, they have got to put the past behind them, stop playing the victim, and LEAD! That is why I said that this is not the goal of the vocal minority of discontent women. Their goal is not merely equality, but Social Justice.
I hesitate to draw this analogy, but take a look at our President. He has done nothing but complain about the circumstances he inherited and apologize for this county. Because of this, his effectiveness as a leader has been greatly diminished. (I’m trying to be as generous as possible)
What “problem” would leaving solve, and whose “problem” is it?
Those who “complain” may or may not be correct in what they say, but forcing them to “leave” will not “solve” their “problem.” If we are truly “one body, and individually members of it,” then we need to attend when any member of the body is in pain, and comfort that member as we can. “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ ” (That last example, given the image that many males have reserved for themselves, is particularly telling.)
Our brother Paul further counsels his readers that “we who are ‘strong’ ought to bear the failings of the ‘weak,” and not to please ourselves; let each of us please our neighbor for the good, in order to edify.” One way to begin is to listen to our neighbor, to hear what she is saying and take it seriously. If she be mistaken in her understanding, then we need to understand her reasons for her beliefs, and study Scripture with her that we may together learn the will of God. It may be that we may thereby find some “weakness” in our own learning and logic, for which we may duly repent with gladness. This is how we are to be reconciled to one another and to God, so that we, together, as the body of Christ may become the presence of Christ in our sinsick world.
i hold no brief for complaining and bellyaching as a political activity in the church. i am not in any way interested in “leadership roles” or in any other “roles” in the church. No more play-actors! i am interested in “work” and “ministry.” Let us serve one another with joy, and let us take our work and service into our stricken world, in this hellbent twenty-first century. Let us be what we are called to be, using the gifts that we have been given — disciples of our Lord Jesus, preachers, teachers, and healers.
God’s Peace to you.
d
Troy – do you have any specific suggestions of how women in churches that are not supportive of their leadership can stop complaining and just lead?
Deb – your comments are interesting about men and the church. Although my father has grudingly come round to understanding the strength of the text supporting female leadership, his theory is that if men weren’t expected to lead, they wouldn’t.
Tiffany was the one who had the problem with her church leadership. Ask her about the problem. You might also want to ask her how she resolved her differences with her leaders.
You continue to twist my words to suit your arguement. Nobody is forcing anyone out! I’ve said all I care to say on this topic.
Have a great day!
Sorry Little Light, I saw your post after my last comment.
To answer your question, leading is not a mystery. Just be positive, stop complaining, believe in what you’re doing, and do something for the greater good, and not personal gratification. Without the women leaders in my conservative church, the whole place would fold up and disapear. They just don’t have authority over men. That’s all.
Mike, you are begging to be called a “Hairy Tick” . Believe me I know.
Our Lord Jesus says, in the Gospel of Luke, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.”
Let us then say, following the instruction of our Lord, “We are without ‘authority.’ Women have no authority over men, and men have no authority over women. All of us, men and women, are under the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom all authority in heaven and on earth has been given. We are servants of the Lord Jesus, servants of one another, and servants of all humankind.”
Let us love one another. Let us love our enemies. Let us pray for those whom we perceive to abuse us. Let us do God’s healing work of reconciliation.
God’s Peace to you.
d
Troy,
I apologize. I had assumed that by calling women to lead in the church you really meant it. But you say, “They just don’t have authority over men.” I understand you clearly now. By “lead” you mean “submit.” Women, don’t “groan” or “whine.”
Just “lead.”
I think Mike has it figured out. Make something other than “what does the Bible say?” the question and you get what he has gotten more often than not – statements that show a total lack of respect for a phrase that when I use it will ignite a fire in many who read this site , Biblical authority. What does the Bible say may not be the only question but if it is not the first question and the most important question you have no guide at all for life, only the opinions of people who believe they are wiser, more mature, more insightful than those who do respect God’s inspired Word OR who believe God has revealed something to them that He did not to others. (Ok, I’m going to hit send now and expect a hurricane).
Well, there you go, Troy. I don’t think our church has resolved the issue of “authority over men”. If a woman leads a beautiful prayer to God, some have defined this as authority over men(you), whereas many men who respect women do not feel as if this is showing authority over them.
Keith,
The argument that the slavery referenced in the Bible and practiced in ancient times was somehow “kinder and gentler” than slavery in the American South has been refuted repeatedly, but many Bible defenders still cling to it. Slavery in ancient times was often far more cruel than typical 19th century Southern slavery, and Southern slave owners were often kinder than typical slaveowners in ancient days. The fact is that slavery is slavery and the Bible endorses it over and over.
Southern pro-slavery apologists routinely used Genesis 9 (the condemnation of Ham’s descendants to slavery since he had seen Noah naked) to defend racialized slavery. Race-based slavery is clearly endorsed in Leviticus 25:44-46
44 ” ‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.”
For a moment, let’s suppose that the Bible did not endorse race-based slavery. Are you saying that you’re ok with non-race-based slavery? Is slavery fine with you as long as all races are enslaved on an equal basis?
You ask if I’m okay with my daughter being a slave. I’m not okay with slavery ever for anyone. Slavery is wrong now, was wrong in America from 1619 to 1865 and was wrong in biblical times. With regard to daughters, the Bible even provides a mechanism for Israelites to sell their daughters into slavery (see verse 7) in Exodus 21:
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
5 “But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. ”
7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.”
Regarding the main topic of this discussion – the role of women – it is incomprehensible to me that a modern woman would care to follow a God who has over and over demonstrated such a low regard for women. You can re-interpret and massage the texts all you want, but the God of the Bible is a blatant and unrepentent misogynist. Ponder this lovely text from God’s perfect law on the punishment of rapists as commanded in Deuteronomy 22:
28 “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”
ex-preacher,
I have a very different view of God than you do, and as such, I doubt we could ever agree on specifics like this. I believe God is love whereas you do not. I believe God makes concessions to his ideal reality for us in order to give us a chance to grow and mature. You see things in black and white, but reality is much more complex, which is a good thing for us. Which brings us right back to the point of this post by Mike; it’s not always as simple as just reading the Book.
Shane,
Yes , both apply to all the churches. One has to do with the woman and her hair and the other with her teaching over a man. Both are in scripture and not based on community/ experience.
I don’t know if it’s the only question…while I think it’s very important I think the Holy Spirit leads us and guides us and helps us reason out his word. I do not mean reason out and make it what we want to be. I mean it’s more than simple words. Words were so rich in that time and we simplistically minimize it down to English definitions. I think it all becomes more than what we read. It’s how we read it. How we study it out. How we pray about it and meditate on it and how the Holy Spirit defines it in our heart.
This method of interpretation has some serious problems. In each example, Mr. Cope indicated that an experience trumped the Scriptures. However, he set up each situation with a faulty interpretation of Scripture to begin with.
He wrote, “Those who opposed the mission to the Gentiles on the terms being offered were, strictly speaking, right. They had scripture on their side.” In fact, James pointed out that the Scriptures supported the mission to the Gentiles on the terms being offered when he said, “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written, ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ that have been known for ages” (Acts 15:15-18). James was referring to the words of Amos.
Mr. Cope also wrote, “Those who said that the Messiah couldn’t have been crucified on a tree had scripture on their side. Such a person was deemed to be accursed.” This is only partially true. They had a scripture, but they did not consider the ramifications of messianic passages such as Isaiah 53. They had not considered other relevant passages.
Finally, Mr. Cope wrote, “Those who argued against abolition had scripture after scripture to help make their case: scripture seemed to regulate the practice of slavery but not abolish it.” Again, this is partially true. Slavery in the New Testament was regulated. In fact, selling oneself into slavery was considered an honorable way of paying off one’s debts. However, kidnapping someone in order to sell him or her into slavery was considered contrary to sound doctrine and the gospel (1 Timothy 1:9-11). And that’s the type of slavery that was being opposed in the 19th century abolitionist movement.
It’s improper to allow our experiences to trump biblical principles. A man who is committing adultery may tell his pastors that he knows what the Bible teaches about adultery, but he feels so good about his relationship with the other woman that he knows he is experiencing the grace of God in his adultery. His experience is not the basis for properly interpreting Scriptures.