Half the Church
From Carolyn Custis James’s Half the Church: Recapturing God’s Global Vision for Women
“What makes navigating life for women even more confusing is the fact that we don’t live in a patriarchal culture. The West is egalitarian. Women enjoy the same freedoms, education, career opportunities, and potential for success as men. Yet instead of wrestling with how to live out the gospel in the culture where God has stationed us, we’re supposed to wrestle with how to preserve at least some aspects of patriarchy at home and inside church doors although, for obvious reasons, only certain aspects of patriarchy are deemed worth preserving.
“We have thrown out polygamy and slavery. Fathers aren’t selling their daughters or arranging marriages. We’re as deliriously happy over the birth of a daughter as we are a son. . . . Christian women live a rather schizophrenic existence as we are constantly moving between two worlds, cultivating strengths, abilities, and experience we may need to set aside when we enter the church or head home. In one world our contributions and expertise are welcomed and valued. In the church we are a subject of debate, and our gifts can be problematic, unwelcome, or allowed only limited use.
Word of this ongoing battle (and other disputes in the church) is leaking out to a watching world. This makes an unappealing impression on women outside the church. Instead of being intrigued and drawn by a community where loving one another is the reigning distinctive, they are repelled by all the infighting and the expectation that the world will grow smaller for them when they step inside. The church seems out of touch and irrelevant at points to the normal lives of Western women. A Christian businessman felt the predicament when he was witnessing to a capable female executive at work and finding her remarkably open to the gospel. The dilemma weighing on his mind was, ‘When do I break the news to her about submission?’”
Taken from Half the Church by Carolyn Custis James. Copyright © 2010 by Carolyn Custis James. Used by permission of Zondervan, www.zondervan.com.
Anne ,
Thank you for your convictions. This is not about culture. Paul made it very clear that what is being discussed goes all the way back to creation, and if not then Paul was being unfair in I Cor . And even there he said ,” as in all the churches “. And like you it is too bad some want to connect all this to man made slavery . It is not . It is the God- given design.And in Christ we are free to live in obedince to His word. I for one will not allow words like submit , obedience , etc. to be considered oppressive but very liberating. Again , we are all slaves of Christ. And yes slaves , not just servants. The English translators have been afraid to use the right word. The glory of it all is that those who will submit to being the slaves of righteousness have the greatest freedom and peace to serve.
Ray, I sometimes do not make my thoughts clear and struggle with putting them down on paper, but you summed it up in a few words what I was trying to say. Yes I agree Paul was linking it back to creation and that is what I meant in my post on why then did God create male and female. That is why I take exception to trying to paint the creation as a myth, which seems to be the current trend. I have more to add to this in reply, but my brain is not working at the moment–I think I need caffeine! Maybe I can unscramble my thoughts later.
qb, I do have to agree with you on one thing that answer was a bit pompous! I do enjoy discussing things with someone who can at least poke fun of themselves.
How are we to base belief on anything then if nothing can be truth?
I’d like to underscore the point Q & others have made regarding the issue of “unity” here. One of the most hurtful things that both unnecessarily and inevitably comes out of these discussions is the sentiment that those people who want to rock the boat of comfortable orthodoxy are doing something wrong and divisive. The plea for unity comes framed as “it’s more important to stay together than anything else so please stop endangering that.”
What gets missed is that often, the people seeking dialogue, or even openly advocating change!, are doing so with an active concern for unity. Otherwise, believe me, we’d all have been outta here years ago. (NB: This is not to disparage those who have left. It’s not an easy path, either, and leaving is its own faithful witness.)
The plea for unity seems to come loudest from those who are most resistant to even listen and dialogue. And so the overt message is “unity above all” but the subtext is, “I don’t want to hear it” and even worse “why don’t you just leave.” That’s jarring, y’all, and inconsistent. And it makes the effort to keep this dialogue open, in the interest of unity, much more difficult.
It is hard work to maintain fellowship with and identity within a tradition that has made it plain it no longer welcomes you, wants you, intends to employ your services, respect you, treat you politely when you speak or offer the basic minimal courtesy of listening to you seriously. To keep talking in the face of all that is, in itself, is a determined stance of unity and an expression of “brotherly love”–and it is received as the exact opposite. I find this bewildering and demoralizing.
Do we need total consensus on this?, someone asked. No. And frankly, doctrinal consensus is not my expectation and certainly not my goal. But it does seem to be the presumptive requirement of CofC orthodoxy. And while I will grant that there are probably decent historical/theological explanations for this, given our tradition’s philosophical heritage, this is something that needs to change–not just for the purposes of this specific discussion, but because it’s not a concept of unity that works–biblically, theologically, or ecclesially.
Anne, I’m glad you can at least chuckle at it. After all, pomposity is not qb’s intent; it’s getting the most written in the fewest words.
But then you said: “How are we to base belief on anything then if nothing can be truth?” And that question is tantamount to saying qb is an epistemological nihilist (here we go again). And I assure you, qb is not a nihilist.
Rather, qb is a scientist/engineer/researcher. That means very little in the grand scheme of things, but what it DOES mean is that epistemology – how do we know what we know? – is a big, big deal. And in the 15 years qb has been engaged in vocational research, and in the 10 years qb has been an avocational devotee of theological literature, it has become increasingly evident that much that we say we “know” simply ain’t so. Certitude, in other words, is a poor substitute for certainty.
Epistemologically, the safer, more defensible route is often to state a conclusion with some idea of the degree of confidence one has in stating it. And this: many “truths” are contingent precisely because of the unique, or at least the controlled, conditions in which the data were collected. So we are less confident when we EXTRApolate than when we INTERpolate. Further, we formulate our hypotheses and our experimental approaches from a particular perspective, and that perspective often rules out, tacitly, certain outcomes that might in fact be more weighty and consequential than the ones we ruled IN with our problem statement.
Funny thing? All of those considerations are true whether we are engaging in microbiology or scriptural exegesis.
So qb’s inclined, certainly much more so today than 15 years ago (as a CoCer raised in the strictest sect of the conservative wing), to tread more lightly with conclusions that carry a significant load of assumptions, both the stated and the tacit kind. That’s not nihilism; that’s epistemological humility, I think.
Therefore, one of the great functions that blogs like this serve is to illuminate and expose precisely those cascades of assumptions that narrow the field of possible outcomes, and then to cross-examine those assumptions afresh to see if the narrowing is necessary or gratuitous. And the more qb ponders many of these matters, the more of those assumptions (i. e., about the nature of Scripture, among many other things) that appear to be contingent rather than fundamental.
qb
BTW, Ray B., feel free to thank qb for HIS convictions, too, assuming you’re really grateful for those others and not just thrilled that they coincide with your own.
qb
okay qb, when I figure out what you said maybe I can reply.
Yea, JTB! You rock.
Thanks, annie!
And qb, I would loooooooooooove to talk philosophy of science with you sometime…
JTB: I know I would enjoy that, but you’d be wasting your time. You need to find someone in the physics department who actually knows what the h3ll she’s talking about.
Cheerfully,
qb
Jen, qb — if you two do get together for that philosophy of science talk, can I just sit and listen? ^_^
I enjoy watching fine minds engage.
OK, Anne, I’m sorry. Let me try again.
Occasionally I go to a feedyard and measure dust concentrations, wind speed/direction, solar radiation, humidity, and a couple other things, all of which gives me a chance to estimate the rate at which the feedyard is emitting dust. I bring all those data back to the office, load ‘em into my computer, and run them through a model that relates what I measured – the dust concentrations and weather data – to the feedyard’s emission rate. Let’s say, for example, that on one particular day, this whole enterprise yields an emission rate of 100.
Is 100 “true?”
Well, probably not, not in any strict sense, anyway. Every single quantity I measured, in fact, was only approximately accurate, and even then, much of what I measured is based on some arbitrary standard that someone set somewhere. (For example, just this week we learned that the little cylinder of metal alloy that the National Institute of Standards and Technology keeps in an air-tight vessel somewhere in the bowels of the earth as a standard kilogram is actually losing mass over time.) My thermometer, my wind vane, my anemometer, and my dust monitors all measure those quantities in an approximate sense. Every temperature I measure is an estimate of the “actual” temperature, whatever that means.
These measurements are analogous to our biblical text. We “know” what “Paul” “said,” but we are less certain what “Paul” “meant.” Some of what is attributed to Paul appears to have been inserted by a later editor; but even if we’re not prepared to concede that piont, we can say with some assurance that we do not have access to what “Paul” actually wrote…after all, most of our raw material is dated (by scientific procedures whose methods are also subject to error) no earlier than the second or third century CE, a couple hundred years after “Paul” lived, according to “Luke.” The same is true of all of the biblical authors, to a lesser or greater degree. That does not mean, of course, that we cannot know anything; it just means that if we are wise, we will admit that our data are only estimates of the real quantities we’re interested in. Our certainty is not 100% in any case.
Back to feedyard dust. I now take my data and run them through my model, a mathematical model I’ve built to predict how a given emission rate at point A translates to a dust concentration at point B somewhere downwind. That model, itself, requires a great deal of sophisticated approximation at many levels, and it involves all of the quantities I “measured” in the first step. All those measurements were estimates, as we saw, which means they’ve all got some errors associated with them. But then, so does my model; the math I use to translate emission rate to downwind concentration is an approximation of the underlying reality, a reality so complex that I’ve had to make a series of enormously consequential assumptions just to come up with an equation simple enough that I can actually solve it. So I’m running a bunch of error-prone estimates through an error-prone model to generate the estimate I’m really interested in. Result: after I compute how all those many uncertainties add up and make their ways through my model, my “100″ is actually “100 plus or minus 84.”
That model I’m talking about is analogous to our individual world views, which we build from our perceptions of reality, refine with our capacity to reason, and use with our somewhat stunted ability to interpret what our model spits out. I, for example, do not have the range of experience that you have, Anne, to process and understand events that (say) brought your female-ness to the surface as a primary piece of data in some local context. So my model for understanding a particular event at your church is inevitably going to yield a different conclusion than YOUR model would yield under otherwise similar conditions.
All of this, again, is not to say we cannot know anything. It just means we need to be attentive always to the uncertainties that lurk in every move we make. qb will always balance his checkbook on the basis that 2+2=4 and 4-2=2; the uncertainties there are almost imperceptible. On the other hand, qb will tread lightly on the insistence that you and Q cover your heads whenever you enter the “church building,” because there are a lot of moving parts in the machinery that yields such a doctrine, many of which are subject to individual uncertainties, and all of which work together in a model structure that itself is fraught with uncertainty, bias, all kinds of error.
Look, maybe we can boil it down to this: the more uncertainty there is in each of the data pionts we use, and the more moving parts there are in an argument that links those data pionts together in a narrative model, the humbler we ought to be about the conclusions we reach through that narrative. So when Ray B. spouts off about how self-evident it is that “genders” have self-evident “roles” within the “church,” I throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Yes, I know about Genesis 1:26; and yes, I know about Paul’s epistles. I’ve studied and pondered all of it. It’s just that a lot of uncertainty lies behind each of those data pionts, whether we acknowledge it publicly or not. I’ve also backed up from the Scriptures and tried to consider what sort of model is implied by the macro-scale trajectories that we observe in the canon as a whole, and I can’t ignore those, either, as trends that might need to be factored into my model for understanding how Genesis 1:26 and Paul’s epistles fit together.
That’s what I meant. Hopefully that gets past the jargon and hypersyllabic pomposity.
Affectionately,
qb
qb, in my humble opinion this is your finest post, and most helpful.
Anne and Ray,
I love your submission to scripture and I need to be reminded sometimes that what I want the Bible to say may not be what it actually does say. However, I am still struggling with what submission means to a modern woman in a Bible loving chruch. Can I lead a prayer or teach a class to males over the age of 10? Can I pass the communion tray from aisle to aisle? Can I make a public announcement? Can I baptize a convert?
If not, can I write the announcement, develop the lesson, greet visitors, sing, greet visitors and usher them to a seat?
If a deacon is a servant, can I be a deacon? Is it likely that I am more of a servant to the needs of the fellowship than anyone who wears the title Deacon? So is submission doing the work of a deacon but not taking the title knowing that titles are not important to God?
Given ths submission is a command, what can I do in the assemble and still be submissive?
Maybe God did not want women to rule because He knew we saw too many nuances.
If this sounds sarcastic or provocative, I do not intend it to be. I love both of you and honor your devotion to pleasing God.
I love it, Linda. It just occurred to me that all those questions are of precisely the same kind that second-temple rabbis were asking one another in the pursuit of how to live well as Jews under their Mosaic law. And it ought to give us pause; by the time we get to Jesus, it sounds as though they had gotten a bit, uh, fine-grained in their zeal to get it right.
qb
If a group of believers , say 100 decide to plant a new church and then begin to plan. Will there be any leadership ( if that word can be used , I tried to stay away from using gender and role because those seem to be bad words to some ) ? Will there be decisisons about how to go about evangelizing, how will they worship , etc. And if there are some who have the qualities to be considered elders , will there be both men and women who will be the elders, pastors , shepherds and will they lead or just be good examples ? Whatever decisions have to be made will it be everyone decide , or will it be a one man or one woman pastor rule , leadership, guidiance( I am sorry if I have not used the correct word or words, include the one you like ). Will it be a plurality made up of both men and women ? And will the rest follow , submit , obey ( again pick your word , you like ) ? Or is it just a toss- up and everyone has the say – so about all decisions ? Or maybe decisions do not have to be made. Will this group just meet and then spontaneously begin to have a worship assembly ? And no will decide where and when ? But then maybe there will not be any kind of an assembly . Each person just gets up each day and just serves but there will never be any organized efforts together but if one does accidentally happen , no one decides when or where or how ? Is this how the egalatarian view works , flows , happens ( again add the word that does not offend ) ? I only ask this to say is there some kind of differences, distinctions and is is now going to be a horrible , terrifying experience to assume that there may be some gender differences, some guidelines , a pattern , ( I know some dislike pattern , even though it is used by the apostle of grace ) , leadership guidelines in scripture , and that to submit is just too ugly for anybody in this modern day of just do your thing, because it really does not matter about any doctrinal teaching ; throw out sound docrine, healthy teaching because it might offend .
Ray, have you ever visited an egalitarian church? If no, and if it won’t offend you, I’d like to invite you sometime to visit with us if you’re ever in Jonesboro, AR. It’s the Highland Drive Christian Church on West Highland Drive. I can give you a link to the Web site and directions if you like.
This is not tongue-in-cheek; I have no idea where you live. But before you start characterizing all egalitarian groups as barely contained chaos or an odd sort of hypocrisy, perhaps do us the honour of visiting with us, or with a more local church to you, and see for yourself how things are done. Each church is different, regardless of the name on the building. Come see for yourself and if it doesn’t make sense to you, ask. Questions asked validly and with respect are honoured. Jabs will be gently turned away. But I do encourage you to visit, to observe the things that make no sense to you and I hope that in doing so, you will be clearer on what it means for men, women and children to share fully in the work and worship of the body of Christ.
I would like to gently insist that differently interpreting scripture on a point is not equivalent to disregarding “leadership guidelines in scripture,” claiming that doctrinal teaching does not matter, or to “throwing out sound doctrine, healthy teaching because it might offend.” What’s at issue here is precisely what constitutes sound doctrine and healthy teaching.
I don’t find that it’s sound doctrine or healthy practice to silence women.
That is not everyone’s conclusion, I’m well aware. And so I’m happy to recognize that out of everyone’s struggle to read and understand a complicated and ancient bunch of texts, we come out differently on this topic that I find to be extremely important–and therefore worth wrestling over again and again and again. But get this: I recognize that practicing the silence of women in Churches of Christ is the result of a sincere wish to “get it right” when it comes to reading the Bible. It seems a simple thing to request that the same recognition be granted to those of us who dissent.
Linda:
Yes to all. I find it abhorrent and insulting that churches don’t let women carry communion trays. The only reason we have teams of people carrying them around is so the people in the pews won’t have to awkwardly turn around and pass the trays to the row in front or behind them. It’s maddening that churches don’t let women do this. We need helpers to pass plates; if you’ve got two hands, I say you’re in. If not, what’s next? Can a woman pass me a communion tray if she’s sitting next to me, or should I ask her to place it on the ground and slide it toward me with a stick? We get so horribly caught up in these perversions of faith that we turn worship into a ritual that misses the point and joy of assembling to praise a living God.
Ray B.:
Of course there will be leadership. I think you think that the ascendance of women to leadership roles means that everyone will have an equal vote in the group’s direction. I’m pretty confident that no one here is saying that. They’re merely saying that excluding women from leadership roles simply because of their gender — and allowing men to hold those roles regardless of skill because of their gender — is a dangerous and ineffective way to run a railroad.
I’m also exhausted at having to repeat what I feel is a remarkably clear point. I cannot say this more simply than I already have: I am not comparing women to slaves. I am asking why we endeavor to encourage literal and fierce adherence to passages about “submission” (whatever that even means) while ignoring adjacent passages that respect and endorse slave ownership. I’m not analogizing the two; I’m questioning why, in a piece of scripture that addresses both, we ignore the slave stuff but not the women stuff.
Everyone:
I’m worn out having to repeat myself. The skill and determination with which people willfully miss my point is maddening.
Someone else on here talked about “leaving” the C of C. I feel grateful that I long ago stopped feeling any kind of institutional loyalty. The last one I attended, I chose simply because I knew I could easily navigate the craziness. I only went long enough to make a few friends and get plugged into the social circle of similarly bored twentysomethings. After that I stopped going. I knew my time there was done when a guy my age questioned a teacher’s decision to have us read a C.S. Lewis book in our young adult class, since he thought we should only ever read the Bible and nothing else.
I could never raise a daughter in the C of C. I could never say to her, “It doesn’t matter how much you love God, or study his word, or want to tell others about him. You can never do it, and in fact you’re wrong to want it. God would never give you that gift or call you to do that. You say it’s from him, but you’re just being greedy.” I could never tell a daughter of mine that God loved her just as she is but that she could never tell me what to do on spiritual matters.
I know some older people might be comfortable with it. But I find my faith getting so much stronger when I avail myself of God’s grace. I want unity, yes; but I don’t want it at the expense of common sense, love, and honesty.
Q ,
Yes I have. And thank you for the invitation. If I am ever in Jonesboro I will attend. And I am not terrified about anything. God is in control. I have expressed my convictions after more than 40 years of full time ministry and study of the scriptures. Thanks for the dialog.
Dan , Like you I am weary of people missing the point. I have written several times similar posts like my last one and the main questions are never answered.
JTB , I am not sure that what you wrote is the dissenting voice anymore. We will just have to disagree on what is sound doctrine. As far as people leaving the church of Christ , they are also leaving other churches as well for all kinds of reasons . People have left where I worship and some are coming to us from various religious backgrounds and some not religious at all.
Every week we have a number of community visitors. The dropping out and changing churches has gone on since the beinning and it will be that way until Jesus returns.
QB , I am sorry that you cosider me just spoutung off, but they may be the best description of what my posts are to others as well And I would say something about your convictions but I canot figure out what your convictions are for all the language you use. You are an incredible writer but hard to understand. But at this point , it seems like what I hear you saying , is that we cannot understand what scripture means. For me , and again for me, the scriptures are very clear on the issue we are discussing.
The main point anyway is the gospel. Tell it again and again . Keep the ideas and discussion going.
Ray, in these discussions my reference point is Church of Christ practice. In that context silencing women is typical, and I am indeed one (of many) dissenting voices. That, however, was not my point. My point was that your wording in the previous comment made it clear that dissenting=disregard for “sound doctrine,” and it would be nice if we could at least get past the rhetorical sleight of hand and mischaracterization, and acknowledge that defining sound doctrine here is the actual issue under discussion.
I want wise leadership that is responsive to both God and people.
I want respectful leadership that considers both God and people.
I want hope-filled leadership that seeks out God’s redemptive moving in people’s lives.
I want kind leadership that touches people with God’s kindness.
I want courageous leadership that loves a person right through their sin (not avoids them because of their sin)
I want generous leadership that has time for people.
I want modeling leadership that were I to imitate them I would be closer to imitating Christ.
I want honest leadership that admits when it has made a mistake.
Am I to believe that God has placed these charcteristics only in men? Who can even make a case for that? It seems more likely that God was putting up with a patriarchical system in the old and new testaments, but hinting toward its demise in a few places as well.
Following on JTB, Ray, the emphasis in my epithet was centrally directed not at your “spouting off” but at the implication that the rectitude of your doctrine is self-evident to all who are truly in search of Jesus. The reason is twofold: first, such an implication wilfully ignores the uncertainties latent in both the text and our appropriation of it; and second, it insists that those who disagree with you must not be serious about their pursuit of Christ.
It is at least possible that the “pursuit of Christ” is defined better by an active, animated desire to reconcile unbelievers to their God than by the absolute rectitude of one’s doctrine. Possible. And if that’s true, perhaps a bit of humility is in order in place of obnoxious certitude about narrow doctrinal pionts.
qb
QB,
I know you are a bright guy and I DO appreciate your vocabulary. I, myself, have often complained that every topic of conversation from football to politics has its own vocabulary and we don’t have much of a theological vocabulary in the CofC. I appreciate your vocabulary. However, I am sure you realize your vocabulary exceeds that of many ordinary people that read and comment on this blog day to day.
In your most recent comment you used several terms that some may or may not understand, even in context. I understand, but I spent a career in a profession that emphasizes writing well – and I have to pause and consider at times. Most of us do not write professionally. I recognize you made an effort to tone things down from your normal vocabulary in your last comment. I believe you want to be understood and wonder if you could maybe find more common synonyms for a few of the words and phrases such as the following:
epithet
rectitude
uncertainties latent
our appropriation of it
active, animated desire to reconcile
absolute rectitude
obnoxious certitude
Granted the words are not that BIG and a dictionary is almost always nearby, but one could facilitate (did I just use a big word?) communication by writing for those that want to understand, but have limited time to spend here.
I appreciate all that you have to contribute here.
Hesed,
Randall
In defense of qb, epistemology ( = the branch of philosophy that asks questions like, “what is knowledge?” and “how do we know stuff?”) is just not that easy to talk about. And once it gets tangled up in the theological issue of revelation, the stakes are so high that sheer anxiety often prevents any sort of constructive dialogue.
This happens all the time in theology & science discussions. And that kind of anxiety is at least covertly present in this context, too, which is why qb’s direct address of it is helpful, even though (frankly) too much epistemological musing makes my brain go all ouchie after awhile.
Also in defense of qb, sometimes there are simple words for a concept and sometimes there is a right word. I believe qb is striving to find words that match as nearly as possible the exact meaning he intends to convey. Oftentimes this is not something easily accomplished with “easy” words.
Also in defense of qb, this is free: http://www.merriam-webster.com/
*chuckle*
Today is one of those stay-at-home-with-a-sick-young’un days. So let’s have some fun with this.
—–
First, my apologies to Mike…I had not intended the thread to get commenter-centered rather than topic-centered. If you delete this whole thing, I won’t blame you for a sec.
—–
Second, my thanks to those of you who have extended a kind defense on my behalf. Your take on my intent has been squarely on the mark, and your kindness is gratefully noted.
—–
Third: I think some of you are sandbagging your own intelligence. You’re smarter than you’re letting on. And my guess is that it allows you to make qb the issue rather than making the issue the issue. Maybe it’s not an overt motive, but it is a convenient dodge. After all, if you have “limited time to spend” – and who doesn’t? – why not just skip over qb’s posts if you can’t get in sync with the language? It’s not going to hurt anyone’s feelings, noone will ever know, and you’ll probably feel liberated as never before!
—–
Now, for those who are left and who are interested in alternatives, or at least some imprecise, stream-of-consciousness explanations, of the following terms listed by The Geez, our friendly Ombudsman-in-Residence:
epithet – well, qb wasn’t cursing our ol’ buddy Ray B., so “epithet” seemed like the kinder, gentler, more appropriate word. qb admits that “spouting off” was a polemical (oops!), if grammatically suspect, verb. But that was intentional. The alternative “holding forth,” in retrospect, was probably better, but it didn’t come to mind at the time…but that still would have been polemical. In the interest of charity, perhaps qb should have said that Ray B. “spoke” instead of “spouted off.” But the image qb was hoping to evoke…well, see below. Conclusion: guilty of poor word choice in the original; “held forth” would have been better. But that still would have been an epithet, a polemic element, a gentrified insult.
rectitude – “essential rightness” was a waste of letters…and qb liked the image that “rect-” based words call forth, the image of a stern RECTor standing eRECT at the pulpit and issuing the fatwa – oops! the “religious edict” – oops! the corRECT teaching for all sect members, perhaps for all times but certainly (!) in the case at hand. Right angles and straight lines abound here, and that’s the desired image qb wished to evoke as we consider the “straight and narrow” doctrine about the roles womyn are permitted (!) to play in the Christian assembly and the life of the local congregation. Few there be who find it!
uncertainties latent – wow, this is a toughie. “Latent” – lurking within, almost structural, not coming to the surface until and unless specifically called forth or properly illuminated. (“Uncertainties” – really? Is that word a problem?) Look, it’s not fashionable in CoC circles to speak of “uncertainty” about our sacred text, or about our traditional doctrines, or whatever. So anyone who harbors doubt about why certain doctrines are the way they are, or where they came from in that text, is tacitly – oops! without the authorities or the community actually saying so – expected to keep his or her mouth shut lest we betray ourselves as a lawless, relativist people.
our appropriation of it – another toughie. Perhaps “our ability to make it our own” would, in fact, have been better, though at the cost of a lot of extra letters.
active, animated desire to reconcile – not sure what the problem is here. It is possible to be active without being animated, and vice versa. I had in mind both the getting-the-hands-dirty work of reconciliation (is that word “reconciliation” OK? “Paul” uses it a lot) – thus, “active” – and the cheerful enthusiasm for reconciliation borne of a missional sensibility (oops! outward-looking, thoughtful orientation of the self) – thus, “animated.” As opposed to, say, a passive enthusiasm that does nothing, or an active but reluctant duty-bound-ness that does what is right vis-a-vis reconciliation but bleeds it of passion.
absolute rectitude – see above, only more so.
obnoxious certitude – anyone who has had a brother or sister knows the word “obnoxious,” so the problem here must be either the word “certitude” or the pairing of that word with “obnoxious.” Certitude exists wherever Certainty is afraid to have her sources examined. It’s the idea that “I know it’s true because it is self-evident in any plain reading of the text, and I’ll be d@mn3d if I’ll dignify any of my critics with a patient detailing of my reasoning (lest I accidentally turn broadside and expose the vital organs of my argument).” And, yes, that is terribly obnoxious, wouldn’t you agree? So maybe “obnoxious” was unnecessarily repetitive and redundant.
Cheerfully from the home office in Amarillo, TX,
obnoxious qb
Incidentally but related to the original post, the excerpt from _Half the Church_:
At the suggestion of Dr. Richard Beck, Grand Poobah of Psychological Theology and Theological Psychology at ACU, qb picked up a copy of S. Mark Heim’s _Saved from Sacrifice_. Just finished. And among all of the interesting features of that book is Heim’s explanation of the conspiracy of silence that condemns us to unhealthy doctrinal postures.
Those who are scapegoated, as is true of those who are oppressed, are denied a public voice to the injustice at hand; in fact, denying that public voice is a central and necessary tactic in the scapegoating strategy. If the injustice is invisible or inaudible, there can be no public urgency to contest it. So it is in the interest of the oppressor to keep the injustice out of sight and out of mind.
In many cases it is precisely the function of the prophet to give voice to the voiceless, not just to “speak for God” in the sense of an oracle-from-Mt. Olympus. The incarnation of God will not allow us to confine the prophet’s role to that of a porter bringing the stone tablets down the trail. The prophet speaks of an engaged God who is decisively on the side of the voiceless.
Haven’t yet read Ms. James’ work, but Heim’s extensive treatment of the conspiracy of silence is surely a helpful (or at least interesting) complement to it.
qb
I’m anxious to weigh in on a few of these topics, but just haven’t had the time yet.
qb, I hate to turn the thread in a different direction, but I guess it is still in the same vein of how to interpret a text– how do you reconcile Eph 5:4 with your french?
OK, i’m still rotfl. It is a rather different position for me to suggest that someone dumb down their language as in many discussion with CofCers I am accused of using “big” words like trinitarian and soteriology and even sovereignty – one would think we would all be familiar with these. I have usually argued that people that claim a high degree of interest in biblical matters ought to know the basic vocabulary that goes with the subject matter. And, as I suggested people do know how to use dictionaries so they are w/o excuse if they are willing to devote the time. — You wouldn’t believe the complaints I get if I give someone a few sentences written by Thomas or Alexander Campbell.
QB may write anyway he wants to, but be aware that there will be those that will struggle to understand his intent, or worse, simply give up. Personally, I find QB’s writing to be creative and even entertaining, but I was operating under the impression that first and foremost, he wanted to be understood.
Cheers,
Geezer
No, no, no, a thousand times, NO, Geez-babes. My personal motto is taken straight from Watterson’s Calvin: “I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!”
qb
Anne, help me out here. What particular “french” did you have in mind, and is the implied indictment in the form of “obscenity,” “coarse talk,” or “empty jesting?” Or all three, or just one or two of the three?
qb
qb, you should know better than to bring words to a discussion.
I’ll hazard a guess that whatever qb has to say re Eph 5:4, he’ll be saying it with a sense of confidence rated at 100, with a recognized margin of error of +/- 84.
Anybody remember William F. Buckley and the Firing Line show on PBS? It didn’t matter whether one agreed with him or not, it was a pleasure just to hear him say it.
FWIW,
Geez
qb, yes the implied obscenity.
hmmm. If your referent is the word “d@mn3d,” please note that qb put the word in someone else’s mouth, specifically an apocryphal character engaged in a smug assertion of his doctrinal superiority. And he even put a couple of fig leaves in the word!
If Geezie had really been on his game, he would have pionted to form criticism as a vital tool in decoding qbisms. Affectionately, qb
QB ,
1. Went back and read my last comments and did not see anything about doubting the serious pursuit of Jesus .
2. Also wrote that these are my convicitons. And yes I am certain about what I believe. I know some do not agree with me but I do not consider it obnoxious to have a doctrinal belief and stand by it with certainty.
3. By all means we should all be in a constant pursuit of reconciling people with God. The ministry of reconciliation is for all of us. Proclaim whenever you can the gospel. But the gospel can be taught in docrtinal truths such as justification, redemption , adoption , etc. As well as the historical truths of the cross and the resurretion.
4. I agree that it may seem narrow in what I am writing in this current blog discussion. But they are what I believe .
Thanks for the discussion.
By the way . I am still asking , from anybody in this current discussion , in reference to the 100 people example , who is to provide the leadership in a local church ? Are we now saying that a man or a woman can now be an elder ? or do we just forget about it and just go serve and not even consider it an important subject that makes no difference ? Is it essential to be egalatarian in everything in the church and let’s not bother about any kind of gender issues ? And if that is true , then should the churches who have an all males serving as elders be willing to open that leadership responsiblity to women or is there an option just to tell them to all resign and let everyone provide the leadership ? Should the all male elder churches be considered as being too restrictive ? But then it gets confusing. If it is wrong for a local church to just have male leadership , all males as elders , then who decides ?
Ray, my church is egalitarian. We have male and female elders (often husband and wife) as well as male and female deacons. Our shut-ins are well cared for, our sick are visited, the hungry are fed (ours or not — though all the hungry are all of ours), the naked clothed and the cold given warmth and shelter. I don’t understand how one group being equipped with a Y chromosome and a penis and the other having 2 Xs and a vagina makes any difference in the way the needs of the congregation and community get met.
Because that’s what you’re saying: God is arbitrary and decided that a set of primary sexual characteristics determines who may and may not serve. I believe God is a bit more in control than that.
I am NOT trying to defend one person against another so much as I think ALL of us ought to try to be fair to one another.
I seriously doubt that Ray came up with his reasoning based on chromosomes or distinctive body parts. I have not been able to determine that based on his comments here. I don’t think it is fair to say that that is what Ray is saying. To the extent that one wants what one says to be considered fairly and reasonably they might afford the same degree of respect to one with whom they disagree, even (or especially) when they feel they have the high road.
FWIW,
Geezer
Geezer, I’ve tried that. But essentially that’s what this discussion boils down to. Person A may do X, Y, and/or Z because he has the XY set. Person B may do none of things X, Y, and/or Z because she does not. That is absolutely no different to saying that “Males may; females may not.” It just puts it in a bit more blunt language than it’s normally framed. But sometimes we have to strip the euphemisms to see what it is we’re actually saying. That was my intent.
Q ,
I was just asking questions. You answered what you do where you worship. Thanks for replying.
I stand with Q. We use the “fig leaves” of “hierarchical complementarianism” or “essential differences” to cover up the fact that there’s a basic claim being made which really is about the implications of anatomy. That is, the assumption is that a vagina and a womb makes you a certain kind of person; then built upon that assumption is the claim that God has decreed that either 1) this kind of person is unfit for spiritual leadership or 2) this kind of person might theoretically be fit but that’s irrelevant because God says no anyway. So there are multiple things at issue here! We can disagree on the assumption that vaginas/wombs make women essentially different kinds of persons than men. We can disagree that women are demonstrably unfit spiritual leaders. And we can disagree that God is the kind of God who would be arbitrary enough to decree that women shall not be spiritual leaders regardless of fitness (or giftedness, or call, or insert preferred language here.) ALL of these disagreements are happening in this discussion, simultaneously–one reason why everything gets so tangled up. (Sometimes it just helps to stop and answer the question, as one Princeton U philosophy seminar classmate used to put it, “where are we, dialectically?” which sounds ever so much better than “what is it we’re talking about, again?”)
So, who should provide leadership out of that 100 people? The leader that God raises up. How ’bout that? But how about, while we’re at it, we not place any preconceived notions on who that might actually turn out to be. Maybe it’s a 20-year-old that people 50 & over might think is just too young and clueless. Paul had some things to say about that. Maybe it’s a woman who some people think is just too, well, female for a man’s job. I’m sure Deborah had to face that down. Maybe it’s a mushmouthed Moses-type that doesn’t speak well in public and flat-out doesn’t want the gig….but who else is there. God’s picked a lot of unlikely candidates in the past. Our human restrictions on whom God may or may not pick don’t really seem to part of the divine criteria. Including, but not limited to, gender.
JTB ,
Thanks for answering .
To anyone out there who is reading this blog… then what do we do with I Tim. 3 and Titus 1 and elders and deacons. Since this all started I have gone back and read and reread . It seems like there is a a very heavy emphasis on men . Husband of one wife …He must manage his family…Deacons are to be men worthy of respect….etc. Am I reading the passage with an unclear understanding of the words , since words seem to be an important part of this discussion ? Was Paul just being cultural ? And I really want to know . And I am not being scarcastic when I ask , do the qualities ( some say qualifivations ) only have to do with the reproductive anatomy ? Some men or women wouild not meet the qualities . So was Paul , the Holy Spirit being restrictive based on gender or have we read these passages wrong all along until now ? Personally , I do not think that any restriction has anything to do with being spirtually unfit , attempts to oppress, etc. It goes back to creation and the fall . I Tim . 2 : 12 – 15. It is the divine design. It is His will , His word.
Well, and this is where we hit the bottom line. You read the Bible with the interpretive lens of “men and women are essentially different by divine design.” That is not the only way to faithfully read the creation narrative.
By “faithfully read” I just mean, reading with the intent to understand as best I can–because I’m with qb on the 100 +/- 84 margin of error thing.
I’m aware that in a very real sense, you are deriving your conclusions about the essential difference by divine design from your reading of the text. But it’s also true that you bring that expectation to the text in the interpretive act of reading it. This is why hermeneutics is dialectical–it’s a back and forth between text and expectation, and these things are not necessarily clearly separable.
It makes a difference, for instance, whether you read with “divine design” and complementarity in mind from the beginning of the narrative (creation of Eve from Adam’s rib as symbol of subordinate helper), or whether you read subordination of Eve to Adam (“he shall rule over you”) as the result of the Fall. And you can do both–see Eve as Woman as meant to be always subordinate but somehow in a good way, and then later cursed because after the Fall it’s bound to come out wrong in an expression of domination. But all through this process are interpretive choices not strictly dictated by the text–so they end up being guided by our expectations. If we already think of men and women as essentially different, then this will guide what sorts of interpretive choices make sense as we read the narrative. If we don’t, then this will guide what sorts of interpretive choices make sense as we read the narrative. And that will yield two very different, yet equally faithful, readings.
So we can have a discussion on texts, but what we keep getting pushed to is a broader conceptual level that dictates the expectations we bring to the text. We have to go to that level, because otherwise, it’s just wrangling over words with no end in sight.
Right. But note well: none of this egalitarianism *requires* a person to abandon the idea that men and womyn are “essentially different.” qb, for example, is persuaded that the differences between men and womyn go well beyond mere anatomy, having a spiritual dimension as well that includes, but is not limited to, a set of essential (as in, “pertaining to the essence of the person”) orientations and proclivities.
The problem, of course, is that to admit such a thing is to give rein to the misogynist. But that is not a failing of the admission; it is a failing of the misogynist, who finds opportunity to exploit the notion of “essential differences between the sexes” (a notion qb affirms) in the service of perpetuating what qb perceives to be a deeply patriarchal – and harmful – status quo.
qb
FTR, my quarrel is with the word “essentially,” not the word “different.” But I’ll resist the temptation to unload the details of my third-wave feminism on everyone here.
Ray, I have a question. (I have a lot, actually, but I’ll try to stick to one or two.)
Assuming it’s a creation thing, by design, etc. What is it about “being male” that makes one de facto born to leadership and what is it about “being female” that likewise bars one?
I’m talking about those “essential differences” qb referenced (though like Jen, my quarrel is with “essential” rather than “different”). What *are* those “essential differences”? You’re male and have evidently been in leadership positions in your church — a church which, I gather, doesn’t extend those positions to women. So what are the qualities that reside only in males that do not reside in females that makes them qualified and makes all women unqualified? If you like, you may phrase it “things God created in the male” that make him fit for leadership and things God evidently left out in the female model that makes her unfit.
Because otherwise, we are just arguing about anatomy.
Since qb’s late to the party, not a born-and-bred feminist, he has to ask: would substituting “intrinsic” for “essential” improve the idea, degrade it further, or have zero effect?
qb
You would have to define your intrinsic/essential differences – not only why they are, but what they are and how they relate to the discussion. At least from my point of view. Because my issue with your use of those terms is that they are, since I don’t know what you believe them to be, meaningless. There is not a compendium of qb’s essential/intrinsic differences between the sexes for me to reference.
In a nutshell, I’m asking you to defend their intrinsic/essential nature across the wide spectrum of traits that apply to either sex. For them to be “essential” or “intrinsic,” they must apply to all men and all women. Otherwise, they are trends, perhaps, but not intrinsic to the nature of being male or female.