« Submission in Ephesians 5 |
Main
| Christian Women in the Academy, part 2 »
Do We Change Or Do They Change?
Because of the comments, I wanted to view the choices for women in the Church against the historical background and present circumstance.
Atlantic, commenting on the stance of the Catholic Church said this,"the issue of women priests: for the Church’s faithful, the case is completely closed," and "the Church is the only body that has been given the authority to determine who may be ordained a bishop at all." Logically, this is the correct stance to take when one considers themselves Catholic, in my view. I'll tell you why I think that Atlantic has articulated the proper stance for a Roman Catholic woman. The Church has already gone through one Reformation time, on points much more essential than whether women should hold particular positions of leadership. Bloody wars have been fought because at that time the temporal powers and the determination of the Church were united. It was similar to Shari'a law in my estimation. The theology could rule whether you lived or died in this earthly existance. This is no longer the case in Christian-majority countries.
I find myself distanced from some of the dispute because in my Church milieu women are given full access and free rein to participate in Church life and leadership. Officially. The de facto situation is that none of us are truly separate from one another in the body of Christ, and prevailing attitude will ripple against the shores of our own situation.
Yet, in the Protestant experience, there is a wide range of choices in bodies that have already worked through the questions on whether women may preach and teach or have input in the decision process.
So in our convictions, if we have settled that our specific Church policy is scripturally mistaken, what is the right pathway to take? Do we stay and protest, seeking change, or do we move to a congregation that has already settled on this issue? Our motivations will have to undergo critical review if we decide we take issue with our Church's conviction.
I am reminded of the book of Esther in this question. There are two women paramount in this book, Vashti and Esther. Both had situations which brought them at odds with a despot. But the actions of the two have established their female reputations in our collective conscience.
- Vashti: protest for selfish reason | Esther: protest for selfless reason
- Vashti: arrogant disregard for protocol | Esther: careful use of protocol
- Vashti: exhibited rash unconsidered choice | Esther: exercised patience and focused on the higher good
- Vashti: surrounded by those who catered to her | Esther: called upon those who would fast and pray for her
- Vashti: had a poor outcome and garnered disrespect | Esther: had a door to success and an example of good character
- Vashti: fades into a secondary place in history | Esther: a name of honor, the grateful remembrance of her people, and admiration wherever her story is read.
Both these women lived in a society which was not ideal for women, and of the two it was Esther who had the lesser expected outcome. She had none of the usual assets with which women in those societies gained social standing. Time and chance happens to us all, but what we do with these things depends squarely upon our character and choices.
If you are a woman, and you are dissatisfied within the Church with the opportunities afforded to you, I would say the first question you will have to settle in the matter of policy and of theology is how essential and to what greater good is your pursuit of the goal? Essentials for Christians are the the essentials of the faith. If we have no more than our own ambitions and desire for prestige we are not congruent with our own stated commitment to the teaching of Jesus Christ. I realize this is a dissatisfactory place for many women to remain.
But this is the pivot point of whether we change or our Church changes. It is easy to fool the crowds with the right word choices and the right manipulation techniques, it is impossible to fool in the spiritual realm, where God sees through such flimsy illusions. At once, when we say spiritual realm we throw these matters to the individualized calling and conscience, that is why it is difficult to do more than generalize in principle. If a teaching in the Church is overbearing and stifling of spiritual growth, it seems that patient presentation and a willingness to move off and "shake the dust" may be the answer for today's woman.
One major caveat here. In what direction are we moving? In true Christianity, while the individual is preserved, there is a unifying move of the person with God, yes, but not only God. An important direction to take is harmony and unity with one another. Are women disassociating from each other, from men, from their families and their fellowship in the Church? Is the great Me overwhelmingly of importance? Then we have no answer, and are only a subset echo of the prevailing American culture which is undergoing pressures, change, and threat to its ability to survive and reproduce itself. And this largely because it has moved away from the very roots that women in the Church and culture are moving from, with the same result of an inability to see the individuals place within the common destiny and the common good.
As Paul said, are we given freedom and rights? then we should use them. Do we find ourselves limited? This should not keep us from finding ways of service that are meaningful and fulfilling of our potential.
In Western culture women have a wide range of choice. Christian women can move within this to give a distinctive picture of indiviuals within collective community. The label of Christian is going to carry a vocabulary with the word 'submission' prominately defined. We need to become comfortable with that, and work towards defining it properly. Standing upon established premises of individual responsibility before God, as Samantha iterated, will be an important step in the definition:
"while authority structures are real in God's hierarchy, they do not have unlimited authority, and not being in a position of authority
does not mean that a person's position is a lesser one in God's economy."
We see two streams at this juncture, the historical change in the church from within has been along the lines seen in the Charismatic movement, or revival. People within Churches began to awaken to God and produced pressure from the reality of their experience and resulting lifestyle changes, which further gave rise to social change. The second is the type of separation seen from the Reformation movement. Large scale change which resulted in a completely new branch of history and experience. The Emergents are following the second route, and it remains to be seen how lasting it is, or whether the changes will meld into something not yet on the horizon of our ability to now describe and categorize. Part of the difference for them is the lack of real consequences in their choice of change, it being easier and less costly in our secular environment. That will delay assessing the sincerity of those involved in the changes. But we will come down to this: are we working towards changing 'them' or changing us? Either way, we do not have complete control over the final outcomes. We are working out these things in our own experience, but let it be with eye to what God has revealed historically and in our scriptures. That is the guiding principle for us in a world of imperfect choices. It is the one guarantee to keep the balance for all parts of society, I think. As it is said, let us build but be careful how we build.
God invites "Come,let us reason" and I see no limitations of gender in that invitation.
Apologies for the short (and probably abrupt-sounding) comments tonight.
The reason I hold that stance is because as a Catholic, I believe that the Magisterium does have the God-given, Holy-Spirit-protected authority to make final judgements on certain matters.
Aside from that, however, I am finally going to attempt to make one short comment directly about the topic at hand! (Although I've been thinking a lot about the topic and since the issue at hand and magisterial issues have authority as a key concept, maybe I will have some fruitful thoughts that tie them together.)
Anyway. as has been pointed out, the qualities of authority and superiority can often be conflated. I was thinking about this in connection with the Holy Family. In the spiritual order, there is no question that Jesus was superior to both Joseph and Mary, and Catholics also believe that Mary was superior to Joseph. However, while Jesus was a child, the authority in that family was Joseph, Mary, Jesus.
The rest will have to wait until Sunday or Monday!
In rereading I see I didn't follow out the thought process on Catholicism.
I feel that since the Reformation has already taken place, and there are two well defined streams, that if one considers themselves Catholic it would make sense to follow Catholic rule on matters. Otherwise, theoretically, there are different Christian choices to make. ( I already know your remonstrance on this... but that is ok)
But having many Catholic friends and relatives I know it is rarely that simple. People don't follow logic always, and other things such as those reasons you've given are a basis for Catholics, who disagree on points of judgement, to have a big investment in seeing the Catholic church issue different judgements.
This is super simplified, I realize, but the innards of Catholicism are intricate indeed. It is enough to look at the profile for the purposes at hand.
I simply agree that as a Catholic it would follow that you believe and state the stance that you have. It is consistant within itself, and I recognize that; it is one choice that women have.
Excellent, Ilona. My own thoughts followed the same path after reading Chong's comments. Excellent, well-articulated points.
There is much value in waiting -- waiting for opportunity, waiting for change. This is the way of gentleness. Forcing things, or leaving in a huff, are not the way to go. (And I'm never tempted to do either of those things ;-) ).
Hi everyone,
My only point was that it is more honest to say that a woman’s role in ministry is “lesser” to the role of men. I’m not advocating that women should usurp authority or teach over men. I’ve never had a problem submitting to authority.
Maybe the word “lesser” is offensive because it is tied too closely with inherent value. But I meant it in terms of position. To me, “under” and “lesser” are the same is the same in this context. Where women are under the authority of a man, to say that their positions are equal (at the same level) is illogical to me.
Some may be assuming that my line of argument is: (1) the role of women is “lesser” in comparison to the role of men; (2) the role of women should be equal to the role of men; (3) therefore, women should be entitled to the roles occupied by men.
I strongly disagree with (2) and (3). My point was (1) only. It was a comment concerning language. That the language we use in dialogue doesn’t seem to be consistent with our experience. I apologize if I was not clear before.
My comments may have reflected my own unsettled feelings on the subject. So I may have been trying to say one thing, but my words conveyed another. So please know that I'm just throwing out suggestings and working through these things in my own life...and learning along the way.
Shalom,
Chong
Chong, thanks for your comments, and I agree with you. Ilona, thanks for again bringing the issue back to Christ. I think the main problem with this issue is that we all too often take our directives from the culture rather than from the unchanging, infallible and inerrant word of God. Also, we tend to focus so much less on the good news of Jesus Christ to all people -- both men and women, rich and poor, "sinners" and "righteous" -- and instead get so hung up on issues of power within the church. In an age that is so focused on the individual, we polarise the sexes rather than seeing the freedom for both men and women to be found 'in Christ'. This of course isn't to say we neglect to investigate such issues, but they do need to be rooted in Jesus and the Bible first. Thanks for the good discussion, all.
Hi Chong,
It is difficult, I agree, to both come to understanding and to articulate it sometimes! I still think that your statement needs to be qualified, though, or perhaps further specified. "Ministry" is a broad term.
I myself am uncomfortable with women being pastors, but there are men (pastors) I greatly respect who see a place for a properly gifted woman pastor. I haven't spoken with them about their rationale, however.
I have to say, too, that I do not see the term "lesser" as being applicable to the woman's role. I don't see "under" (i.e., submitting, being subjected) as being equal to "lesser." I wouldn’t make a big deal about it except that it’s such a bone of contention, and rightly so, within both the church and the culture-at-large.
To me, it’s not about inherent value, worth, or power. Nor do I believe that a Christian understanding of servanthood includes the concept of "level" in position or role, as in the structure of employees in a corporation. Even in a hierarchy, I think it's a wordly understanding that imputes a sense of level rather than of authority.
Issues of leadership and submission are about right understanding, respect, honor, dignity, authority, role, and a right order of things. The one to whom is given power, control, or influence over another must use it honorably; it’s not about the power, control, or influence in and of itself, objectified. Its purpose is the right order of things, which does not include any type of power struggle such as domination, coercion, or groveling.
To usurp authority is to do the one in position of authority a great disservice, i.e., to show him (or her) lack of respect, honor, and dignity. Likewise, the one in the submitted role gains honor, respect, and dignity by submitting, as when Jesus washed the disciple’s feet.
I might rewrite your bullet points this way: (1) The role of the woman in marriage is one of submission to the husband; the role of the woman in the church may or may not be one of submission, depending on what role she is serving compared to the other roles being served in the church. (2) The roles of men and women are equal but different in terms of authority given the role and the context. (3) The woman may sometimes qualify for the same role that a man may fill but not always, and never in marriage.
Boy, am I sticking my neck out! Call me apostate :-). I'm certainly open for correction. I appreciate this discussion.
Thanks everyone.
I'm going to rethink my terminology.
In my first comment here, I quoted the very last part of my post. I wrote four pages on biblical womanhood--a very conservative view. And, at the very end, I suggested that we speak of our roles in a way that was more true to our experience. I actually didn't expect this suggestion to be received with such opposition. So, honestly, I will rethink my position and maybe articulate it differently.
In my post, I looked at some of the relevant passages, urged a literal interpretation, and discussed their application. I also discussed what it means to think biblically about the subject. My suggestion at the end in no way sums up my view of biblical womanhood. To give you a better idea, here's another part of my post:
"The man is the head of the home and the woman must submit to his authority. Similarly, the man is to have the ultimate authority and teaching role in the church and women are to submit to his leadership. A woman who fears God and obeys His word will live accordingly.
"If that doesn’t sit well with you, let me offer a few points to provide some perspective.
"First, some may find this teaching on women to be arbitrary, unfair, and unjust (and, I must admit, I often find that it certainly seems to be this way). But, as Christians, we submit to God above all. He does not establish principles arbitrarily, but always has some purpose in mind. In this instance, one purpose seems fairly obvious. Some hierarchy of leadership is necessary for the proper functioning of any social unit, including the family and the church. Without designating a leader, there is potential for disorder and disunity. We know that God is a God of order and His desire is that we would be united in love and, particularly within the church, united in purpose to accomplish kingdom objectives.
"Another point is that we need to be mindful that God’s value system is different from the world’s value system. According to the Bible, the first shall be last and the greatest shall be the servant of all. Jesus Himself came not to be served, but to serve and to give His life as a ransom for many. What we may consider as the lower place may be highly valued in the sight of God.
"The final point is that we need to resist the urge to apply the world’s view of hierarchy to God’s established order. In the world, the person in the higher position usually lords it over the person in the lower position. But Jesus' admonition should echo in our minds, this should not be so among us. In the home, the husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her. Similarly, in the church, the pastor is to tend his sheep, like the good shepherd who willingly lays down his life for his sheep. Both the husband and the pastor bear greater responsibility and, hence, the stricter judgment.
"Sometimes this doesn’t sit well with us because we are seeing things from the world’s perspective. If we, however, fear God and obey His commands, our effort would be to think biblically. And that is true even if the circumstances don’t reflect these biblical perspectives and no one else is thinking biblically. As Christians, we are not to conform to the world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds."
Sorry for taking up so much space. But I too agree that we must think biblically. I don't agree with women being pastors. I'm less sure, however, about women teaching at seminaries (most seminaries allow women to teach, at least some subjects)--interestingly, my seminary is one of the most restrictive. God seems to be leading me toward philosophical theology--in which case, I likely will end up at a secular university. So it may not matter much anyway. (Although I may have come to this conclusion partly because I thought that women should not be teaching at seminaries--at least not any of the subjects that I was interested in.) As I've said before, this is not hypothetical speculation for me, this is my life.
Shalom,
Chong
I like the spiritual contrast you make Ilona. I disagree on some of your summary of Vashti though. I've been planning something on that for a while now so might wait and explore it later. I don't see the book of Esther as being about male/female roles in the sense we are discussing them here. I think because it is a book in which a woman features prominently we have latched onto that in the church - but in doing so I think we have missed some of the context (it would be a huge commnent if I explained that so I'll come back to it a little later).
I do very much agree with the contrast itself - I think you very nicely show the difference between self-seeking and humility.
I don't see why women can't teach in seminaries (I'm not saying teach everything but possibly some things). Seminary is not a church - it's parachurch really. Given that students would ideally critique their seminary teachers and be comparative I don't see a problem. I guess I'm not as conservative as you Chong.
Catez,
I don't think it is true to the holistic view of life that Christianity has to make category designations such as "seminary" "parachurch", etc. Personally I find it muddies things more than clarifies. It needs to come down to what circumstances, if any, women may be given a teaching capacity that includes teaching men. One thing about your example is to highlight the difficulties and inconsistancies in making a rule that women cannot teach.
The book of Esther, with Vashti as a sub element, seemed to be full of society's views of women- how women influence each other and how men view the idea of women as role models. How women deal with a strongly dominant male society, what choices are given them, etc. I find it a rich resource for a view of what is valued as a woman who is informed by the Jewish tradition and scriptures, IOW, God's view of what makes a worthy female character.
But I would be very interested in what you have to say about the book.
Chong, It is great to hear your take on this, and it is a very different view in the sense of stripping off the cultural niceties (speaking in such a way to not make waves in the prevailing popular opinions around us).
But as I said to Catez, isn't the category of 'seminary' an artificial one? How is this different from teaching men in a church...especially if seminary is considered the training of leadership in the church? I don't get the usefulness of the distinction on any grounds. I don't think it is one that logically stands up to review on the main question.
I tend to view semantics ( terminology) as being very important. Not the least reason being that the connotation carried can speak volumes, and there are some baggage laden connotations that you really do not want to buy into. Using the word "lesser" is one...not unless you are willing to support the idea that God views women as lesser beings...which no one is saying, including you.
I am not sure what you are saying, as it seems a cultural value to say women are in a lesser position. The closest things, theologically, in the way of this type of positional authority are Christ as head of the church and the Church; and God the Father in Trinity having but one thing He reserves from the Son, and that the Father also gives the positions ( sitting on the right hand and left hand of Jesus). There is positional order, but we don't speak of "lesser" in these points. It wouldn't be an appropriate use of the term, not in the way we now interpret the word. It seems to intrude on the idea of "Oneness".
I just would avoid using the word especially without a full outline of the teaching on the subject.
===returning to topic====
I get back to the example of Deborah, she held a very high position in both authority and in spiritual guidance. She ended up with even more authority after the man who was to lead militarily failed to take full responsibility. If we say we can't approve of women in leadership, even when God called them and placed them .... what are we really saying?
I agree with those teachers who believe admonition for a woman not to teach refers more to usurpation of position and authority. And I can't help but see how prominant the ministry of women were throughout the entire gospel account of the life of Jesus. Women under complete subjugation doesn't jive with that.
But they weren't numbered among the twelve, so that seems to place a boundary, and I wouldn't discount that women do have restrictions.
Paul goes back to Genesis, and it does seem that there are different roles for women. Perhaps this is the pivot of the contention. Maybe the Cosmos wants to say women ought to take over men's role and displace them, or say that they are interchangeable?
Here is one unanswered question for me. In taking a literal view of Genesis and Paul's comments on it ...are women more prone to be deceived? If so, what is the situation on that? That would certainly impact decision making. And in this view of women not caring for women pastors- isn't this something we see throughout the experience of women? Don't they tend to distrust and not co-operate with each other? Is there grounds for that? If not, why does it happen so regularly?
ok, now I've stepped into it;) But what do you ppl think?
I don't think parachurch muddles things at all Ilona. If we are going to look biblically then we have to take context - and Paul's context is the local assembly of believers. If not then this blog is church - and as such how do we define "teaching" - we are back to your example of women and blogging (and we don't want to go there). You seem to be equating universal believers with what Paul directs to local assemblies/congregations. Seminaries are collections of people from local assemblies (churches). Paul specifically is referring to a church (local assembly) context.
So yes, I think parachurch is a helpful distinction, otherwise we run into another problem - conflicting authority lines between parachurch and church. And then who do we go with?
This discussion is very helpful. Interestingly, we rarely discuss these things at school--so it's good to have a forum where we can discuss them.
I know blogging was a subject of a previous post, but I wanted to mention that even Dr. Wayne Grudem (member of the council of biblical manhood and womanhood, that promulgates the Danvers Statement--a conservative evangelical view) said that he would read something written by a woman because it is like having a conversation with her. Whether in person or in writing, he has no problems with receiving input from women. (And Dr. Grudem is as conservative as they come--I can't agree with everything he says).
In regards to seminaries, even in that setting, there is a hierarchy of leadership--dean, chairs of departments, and ordinary professors. So I wonder if women can hold ordinary professor positions.
Many conservative evangelicals think not. Last year in a class on ecclesiology (church), I asked my professor, Dr. Henry Holloman about this very topic (female seminary professors). He indicated that it would be difficult to distinguish between the body of Christ that meets at church and the body of Christ that meets in a classroom. He and others at my school believe that women should not be seminary professors teaching subjects involving the ministry of the word.
As I said, I'm still not sure about this. But, along with the counsel of God's word, I believe we also must consider the counsel of godly men and women. So, out of respect for Dr. Holloman (who is such a wise and humble man of God), I'm inclined to accept their position.
Another thing to consider is the practical concerns. It may be weird and (maybe inappropriate) for a woman (and, in my case, a single and relatively young woman) to teach a class of mostly men. I'm the only woman in my Hebrew class. This will vary from school to school. There are some seminaries that don't admit any female students.
There are so many nuances to this very complicated topic of women in ministry. The "eve was deceived" issue is an entirely different can of worms. Would love to discuss it...but have to translate some passages in Genesis for Hebrew class tomorrow.
Shalom,
Chong
What great discussion!
But they weren't numbered among the twelve, so that seems to place a boundary, and I wouldn't discount that women do have restrictions.
This brings up a most interesting topic – that of co-ed leadership relations. What would the dynamics have been among the group of disciples if some of them were women?
Also, these men were directly, um, “under” Jesus. Perhaps, in the realm of authority, there are certain “levels” in regards to positions. In the Christian hierarchy it would go: God, Jesus, the disciples, and then teachers/evangelists/missionaries, etc. (This is just a sketch, of course, off the top of my head.) I would need to dig more deeply into what makes a leader a leader (as well as male/female differences) to come up with foundational criterion for various leadership roles.
And in this view of women not caring for women pastors- isn't this something we see throughout the experience of women? Don't they tend to distrust and not co-operate with each other? Is there grounds for that? If not, why does it happen so regularly?
Since I iterated that first part in my comment, I’ll respond. But first, I’ll comment on the second part. I can only speak from my own observations and opinions, of course, but I think that distrust and lack of co-operation with anybody, not just a person of one’s own sex, stems from a competitive spirit, which stems from pride. That spirit will play out differently depending on whom the competitive person is relating to. It's certainly not limited to womens' relations, either.
As to why I personally have doubts about women pastors, it’s because of leadership issues. I don’t have a problem with female deacons/elders or Sunday School teachers, but the idea of having a woman be head of a church does make me wonder (I guess it’s also a matter of jurisdiction). The other part of it is that I can much more easily accept an older woman pastor, one whose children are grown or who is single, than I can a younger one. I can view a pastor as a father-figure of sorts and accept his authority, but a woman pastor (at least the ones I’ve known), while I may very much appreciate her wisdom and teaching, just doesn’t command the same authority, to me. I see her more as a mother. Maybe that’s got more to do with my own familial experiences and psychology, though.
(We need a guy to chime in here!!) :-D
Actually, Catez, I do want to go there. I want a clear delineation of what is faith and what is sin. I don't want halfway euphemistic Christianity.
As a woman, can I teach, or am I proscribed from teaching because of my gender? I am tired of quibbling petty Christianity that cannot speak the truth. I don't call that Christianity at all.
This is a general and not personally pointed remark.
While it is important to get the right dividing of the Word... I very much want to then apply it to life, all of life. No Christian lives a secular life. We live a religious life that functions in a secular world.
so, yes, I do want to go there... especially as this discussion tacks towards a viewpoint that is no longer so much Protestant with its high view of the position and contribution of women to what can only in my mind look an awful lot like fundamental Islam.
Even the Catholics have teaching nuns. And they have clear outlines on women not holding the highest decision making positions of the priesthood.
Bonnie,
I have no argument with what you have said, I could build my own similar case of opinion and it would look alot like what you've said, but we still aren't honing in how much leeway is in the scriptures ...we are starting to veer towards subjective ( albeit valid) opinions.
"What would the dynamics have been among the group of disciples if some of them were women?"
Some were, but they were not of the twelve. The book of Revelation gives particular importance to that twelve. It would weigh on the side of the final authority resting in men.
But as this discussion develops I am wondering how much of a reactionary backlash to feminism is there amongst fundamental and conservative Christians of today? Is this enough to explain veiled suggestions that women be seen but not heard, and to stay within the confines of their homes rather than
ministry in public? Really, I'm asking.
======
Everything I do is church. I am the Church... as is each member. It is not a building and it is not a corporation. It is a body and we live in it as daily functioning parts. My own theology is to not recognize the idea of "parachurch" except as a limited formality of speech, which describes the business side of what we do.
Are there conflicting authority lines? I find trouble in that thought. Is any authority outside that of God over all, for us? We obey the lines of authority within our obedience of God. That is how I see it, and I realize that for those in the mainstream churches I am very simple in my thinking and ecclesiological vocabulary. But so far, I still find the semantical divisions to be meaningless at worst, and confusing at best.
So women can teach in secular schools but not in Churches? They can teach children, but not grown-ups? They can teach university, but not seminary? What? Then we are back to blogging, and journalism, and magazine editors, because where is the magical boundary line in women not teaching men?
I find all this impossibly complicated, whereas the idea of women not usurping place and authority on their own I find elegantly simple and able to implement. Delegation falls into place easily within the historical account of scripture and the Church. It gives great leeway to the ministry functions of women; this seems very harmonious with the fact that we see women acting in this way in the early church account.
But as this discussion develops I am wondering how much of a reactionary backlash to feminism is there amongst fundamental and conservative Christians of today? Is this enough to explain veiled suggestions that women be seen but not heard, and to stay within the confines of their homes rather than
ministry in public? Really, I'm asking.
Sure, Ilona, I'm not afraid to say it. I'm quite sure there is a huge overreaction to feminism among fun/con Christians. I was raised in it. My parents homeschooled me K-12, and even though I regularly scored in the top 1 or 2% of all American kids academically, they tried to discourage me from going to first to college and then to grad school. They didn't seem to see it as necessary, especially for a women. Perhaps it isn't necessary for everyone, but anyone who spends 10 minutes with me would know that I am highly inclined towards academics. I was reading at an adult level before I got out of elementary school.
Similarly, the church I was raised in didn't allow women to do anything in the service other than play the piano/organ. They couldn't speak or pray, couldn't read the announcements, couldn't even hold the baskets to take the offering. All this while the NT clearly speaks of women praying and prophesying in church.
I see all this as reaction against feminism and a very clear failure to recognize the spiritual and natural gifts of women. I have tried to keep my own posts and comments here objective, but I do take this issue seriously and feel it personally. Every time I hear a homeschooling family say that they are raising their daughter to be a homemaker and teaching her home skills rather than academic skills, well, I weep and knash my teeth. I was that daughter, and hardly a day goes by that I don't regret the opportunities that I missed.
I find all this impossibly complicated, whereas the idea of women not usurping place and authority on their own I find elegantly simple and able to implement. Delegation falls into place easily within the historical account of scripture and the Church. It gives great leeway to the ministry functions of women; this seems very harmonious with the fact that we see women acting in this way in the early church account.
I like this, Ilona. I'll have to mull it over. Do you think that people are simply looking for rules that don't exist? That is, looking for the exact boundaries of what all women can ever do anywhere and at all times, when the answer is really that each person and each congregation has to seek God's will for themselves and follow it.
Now, I'll stick out my neck here--perhaps the NT accounts weren't written to give specific guidelines for what women can do. I'm leaning towards that conclusion.
Here is one unanswered question for me. In taking a literal view of Genesis and Paul's comments on it ...are women more prone to be deceived? If so, what is the situation on that? That would certainly impact decision making. And in this view of women not caring for women pastors- isn't this something we see throughout the experience of women? Don't they tend to distrust and not co-operate with each other? Is there grounds for that? If not, why does it happen so regularly?
I recently read an article by NT Wright in which he suggests that Paul is saying that women ought to be instructed fully so that they would not be easily deceived like Eve. Eve was not well-instructed and thus she was deceived--I don't think it was Eve's nature that led her astray. Then, we would be saying that God created women (even before the fall) to be intrinsically deceivable, and thus flawed. No, I truly don't think that women are any more prone to be deceived that men, and I don't think that women tend to distrust each other anymore than men do. Perhaps less, IMHO. I would love to have a women pastor/teacher over me, if she were well-trained and mature. I've never heard of women who really object to following another woman, as long as she is well-qualified. Perhaps such women exist--I just don't know them personally.
Do you think that people are simply looking for rules that don't exist?
Hannah, you asked this question of Ilona but I would like to jump in and answer, "yes," and I think this is true in all areas, not just woman's place in society or the church. To me it ties in with the debate over how we live out the gospel -- do we "make rules," or do we take each situation for what it is and apply the gospel to it, rather than just "Christian rules?"
So much of "rule-making" is most definitely reactionary -- even our theologies are reactionary -- especially reformational ones. I am not saying that reform is never necessary; of course it is. But the reform ought represent a return to the Truth rather a reaction against error.
That said, I do think that there are some rules and principles that we need to follow; the 10 commandments, for example, which boil down to the 2 commandments, which boil down to love, basically. So, the Rule to rule all rules ought to be love. In order to love, though, one must also know the truth about things, the truth about Who God is and how He made the world and how we may serve Him. So then, I guess perfect rule is love and truth. Sheesh, this is a ramble, but I'm trying to get to the root of the matter. I guess rule must be subject to both truth and love.
As to what you said about NT accounts, I do think that Paul's directives are pretty specific, but I qualify them because I think there are cultural factors, the main one being the educational level of women, that differ from those in Paul's historical context. Some things change, but some stay the same. Human nature doesn't change, but some circumstances do.
On Eve, I haven't read NT Wright but I don't understand that Eve wasn't instructed well-- she was instructed by God (through Adam, probably, since he was told before she was made) not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Did God err in not telling her (or Adam) about the serpent? God can't err, so the answer to that question must be "no." She simply listened to the serpent and obeyed him rather than God.
But I agree that women are not any more deceived or less trusting than men. I don't know that a biblical case can be made for the greater deceivability of women. I mean, Adam ate of the fruit too, for heaven's sakes!
(I have a lot of questions myself about the created nature of man and why he and she chose to eat the fruit and how that nature changed as result of the Fall. But I won't digress now :-) )
Ilona you have misunderstood me. When I put in brackets "(we don't want to go there)" I was specifically referring the blogging thing that arose over Sproul's post. I suppose I should have phrased it as a question - do we really want to revisit that particular debate when a consensus was already reached and Sproul aquiesced anyway and qualified his statements in response to women bloggers replies? That's all. You've read way more into my small aside than it contained. If you want to go there that's fine - I'm not objecting. I was making an analagy with it regarding parachurch which was the more important point in my comment.
Chong,
Why wouldn't a women teach Hebrew to a class of men - it's a language. I was taught Classical Greek by a woman in a mixed class - she was brilliant. Hebrew is not in itself spiritual - it's a language with rules. If were were Quabbalists we might disagree - but we're not (grin). Logically, the reason to not teach Hebrew would be either because of the gender of the class or or the setting of the class (seminary). I can't find any biblical basis for a woman not teaching a subject (as opposed to teaching on spiritual matters with a position of church authority and responsibility) based on gender. What about the setting - I still hold that it's parachurch. I found your comment about Gruden very interesting too! I think it does come down to the difference between informing/conversing, and teaching as one with recognised spiritual authority in relation to others. The first can happen in many situations. The second occurs in the context of the local assembly/congregation, and I think that is the only place where the second should occur.
Ladies, all. I don't have time at the moment to properly give attention, but these comments are definitely gving some fine tuning to the topic. And the whole "rule" aspect is something that is dealt with throughout the Christian experience. A Galatians 5 topic if there ever was one.
Catez, I think I did misunderstand you, yet I would still be interested in revisiting some of the thoughts this raised for me.
This whole side issue of 'parachurch' is worth looking at. I came across some info which says that the whole idea of "parachurch" is recent- just the last century or so, and when listing some of the organizations... I started to think along two lines: one that they tend to be mavericks when it comes to accountability ( although not totally) and that there seems to be a utilization of Christian volunteers, support, monies... separated from the goal of sharing the gospel [unless the particular organization should so desire]. Is this your assessment? I think it could possibly merit its own thread at some point.
I Corinthians 11:3 establishes that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. In verses 8-10, Paul says that man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Vvs. 11-12: However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.
He is saying all this is regards to women covering their heads. He is also addressing division in the church (vvs. 18-19, as resulting from dispute over women praying and prophesying without their heads covered, apparently) and goes on to speak about abuse of the Lord’s supper.
This passage does seem to indicate an overall (spiritual) hierarchy of sorts: God, Christ, man, woman. In other words, a patriarchal society. But, seeing as how we do not live in a patriarchal society as much as Paul did, what do we make of this? Must we return to living as if we did? Many believe this. Women do not cover their heads in our culture; must we return to that? If not, then what symbol of authority must a woman have on her head? How do we manifest the man’s headship of the woman in a general sense?
There must be ultimate male authority somewhere. In marriage it is clear-cut to me, but in the church and in academic institutions it is less so, unless we say that ultimate authority of a church/academic institution must be a man, and same for every other Christian organization. In other words, every woman must ultimately answer to, and be accountable to, a man. Within this structure we must find our place as individuals gifted by God in many areas, including intellect.
If woman was created for the man’s sake, how can woman’s intellect be used for the man’s sake?
Hi Ilona,
I'm sorry I've taken so long to get back to this. In reply:
"one that they tend to be mavericks when it comes to accountability ( although not totally) and that there seems to be a utilization of Christian volunteers, support, monies... separated from the goal of sharing the gospel [unless the particular organization should so desire]. Is this your assessment? "
Yes! Not for every organisation of course (which is not what you said, I know). One rather large parachurch organisation immediately comes to mind - and although they say the members are supposed to be covered by their own local congregations the reality is that the parachurch becomes their church - it's really dissonant because on the one hand they take authority and form relationships and on the other they abrogate authority and lack accountability. Which is going into a different topic but it does impact on the male/female authority question. I think you summed up the problem well.
Another passage that I think is relevant to this discussion: I Corinthians 12 (on spiritual gifts). Salient portions: vs. 18 “But now God has placed the members, each one of them [including women], in the body, just as He desired. Vs. 21-24 And the eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you’; or again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you.’ On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our unseemly members come to have more abundant seemliness, whereas our seemly members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, that there should be no division in the body, but that the members should have the same care for one another.” (my emphases added)
Later in v. 28 he does list rank regarding greatness of the gifts: “And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.” He goes on to say that all don’t have the same gifts, but that we should “earnestly desire the greater gifts.” I think this means that apostleship, prophecy, and teaching are to be more desired than the “showier” gifts or functional gifts – wisdom and understanding are greater. Yet all are necessary to the Body.
