Dr. Albert Mohler has an excellent article on President Jimmy Carter's "exit" from the Southern Baptist Convention. Why is the ex-president severing his ties with the Southern Baptists? Because they prefer to use the Bible as their rule of faith and practice rather than the U.N.'s "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (1948). Losers! How is it remotely possible that a Christian denomination would choose the Bible over the U.N. declaration? Are they crazy?? Don't get me started! Okay, anyway, Dr. Mohler's article is clear (and timely some might say). I'll leave you to peruse his article and come to your own conclusions.
One thing, though, that struck me in the article was a quote from President Carter. He complains that "the carefully selected verses found in the holy scriptures to justify the superiority of men owe more to time and place - and the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence - than eternal truths." Now, there are a variety of things that could be said about this. The suggestion is that the Church for all time has been built around "the determination of male leaders to hold onto their influence", something the Church has never been free of until, fortunately, here in the late 20th and early 21st century we figured out they have always been wrong. One wonders about the magnitude of arrogance required for such a position. Another thought is that it is freely admitted that the Bible holds this position on issues of gender roles. It's not like it's not there. It's not as if it's hard to fathom or difficult to figure out. No one is saying, "That's not what it says." It is biblically clear. The argument is "It's no longer applicable", not "It's not in there." Why is it no longer applicable? Well, of course, because the U.N. figured out how it should be! (Yes, that was sarcasm, in case anyone was wondering.) One very important (and rarely heard) truth about this is that the entire system of genders and roles (set up, by the way, by God) is designed as protection, not oppression. That never seems to be understood by its detractors.
There is an issue here, though, that I want to address that seems to be a constant theme ... and is totally wrong. President Carter (and the folks who agree with him) see this phrase as inherent in the biblical concept of gender roles: "the superiority of men". You see, if wives are supposed to submit to husbands and women are not allowed to be pastors and (that oh, so vicious claim that) Eve was created second to Adam, well, then, it's all about male superiority, isn't it? And that's what I'd like to address. The very clear and (should be) obvious answer to that question is "No!"
The confusion is over "Who is in charge?" If, as the Bible suggests, husbands are in charge of the marriage (and family) and men are in charge of the church (and so on), there is nothing you can read into this position that requires the conclusion, "Men are superior." It's just not reasonable. Look, we all live this every day, don't we? We all have bosses. We have governments. We have policemen that enforce the laws. We all answer to a variety of folk. Even CEOs have to answer to ... us, the stock holders. (How's that for a circle?) Everyone answers to a variety of people. Does that mean that the variety of people to whom we answer are superior to us? I think you can see the obvious answer: "No!" It means they have a position of authority, not superiority. There is nothing about "authority" that requires superiority. I, for instance, (among other things) manage a group of engineers. I am not an engineer. I am not expected to have their level of expertise in their particular fields. They were hired to do the job because they were deemed better than anyone else to do their job. I simply manage their jobs; I don't do them. I'm not superior. No one thinks I am or even should be. I don't decide how they'll do their designs or processes. I manage them and nothing more. You see, in my case it is (painfully) obvious that authority doesn't require superiority. And so it is in the vast majority of cases.
Look, it's very simple. We can talk opinion here, but let's look at an irrefutable example. Jesus repeatedly claimed that He was in submission to His Father. If those who argue that "submission equals inferiority" are right, then we have a collision of reality here. This would require that God the Son was inferior to God the Father ... except that both are God, equal in essence. See the problem?
Yeah, yeah, I know, "The argument is that those ideas are outdated, cultural, not for today." I know. "We have other things in Scripture that are cultural and outdated; why not these?" The Bible is actually pretty clear on what is cultural and outdated. Do we follow the Old Testament dietary laws? Not so much. Why? Well, God said that this was changed (e.g., Acts 10:9-16). Are we required to observe the Sabbath on Saturday? Most of us are pretty sure that's not key. Why? Well, Jesus said it (Matt 12:8; Mark 2:27). Why is it that circumcision is no longer an issue? Well, the New Testament Church decided it was an Old Testament issue, not applicable to Gentiles (Acts 15:1-21). And why aren't we still sacrificing for sin? Well, Jesus fulfilled that, didn't He? You see, God in the New Testament has declared certain laws from the Old Covenant as either satisfied in Christ or part of a culture that doesn't extend to the Church. Gender roles are not on that list. Gender roles, instead, are declared and affirmed in the New Testament. So my question would be, "At what point do we declare, based on modern ideas, that God's Word is no longer applicable?" I'd be very, very cautious answering that question with anything beyond "Never!"
27 comments:
Good Post, Stan.
Do you mind if I copy/paste/comment on my blog?
Feel free to copy/paste/comment on your blog.
I think the problem stems from the idea that the only way for us to save those around us is to be a part of their culture, which over time finds its way into changing the church culture. 20 years ago, the thought of a gay pastor holding that position was repugnant to all of Christendom. Now, some denominations uphold gay pastors. Hello cultural influence. 50 years ago, I doubt there were very many (if any) women desiring to become pastors, but now you're thought of as backwards and Medieval if you suggest women can't be pastors. I think for a long time, the church was able to keep its cultural identity separate from the culture in which it lived, but post-modern thinking and universalism has invaded our culture.
David:I think the problem stems from the idea that the only way for us to save those around us is to be a part of their culture, which over time finds its way into changing the church culture. 20 years ago, the thought of a gay pastor holding that position was repugnant to all of Christendom. Now, some denominations uphold gay pastors. Hello cultural influence. 50 years ago, I doubt there were very many (if any) women desiring to become pastors, but now you're thought of as backwards and Medieval if you suggest women can't be pastors. I think for a long time, the church was able to keep its cultural identity separate from the culture in which it lived, but post-modern thinking and universalism has invaded our culture.
Is the "woman can't be pastors" a model of Jesus (which my reading of the Gospel is authoritative on the matter, and especially if one studies the 1st century church) or is it a cultural relic, exacerbated by prejudicial male church leadership, which permeated after the first centur(y|ies) church?
/agree with the author point on "submission".
But regarding OT, if you are honest, you must recognize that it's words are draped in misogynist tones — women were treated as bounty or property.
Naum, would you argue that Paul's commands were "a cultural relic, exacerbated by prejudicial male church leadership", or God-breathed? Do you know of someplace (I don't, so I'd like to see it) where Jesus said women could be pastors? (Note: Along with "Male Superiority NOT", there is a whole lot of other stuff that "women can't be pastors" does not say, but seems to be assumed. For instance, nowhere does this require "women can't be in ministry at all" or "women have no role in the church" or ...)
On the OT references to women, I suppose I see it somewhat difference. I understand that it is often viewed as misogynistic, but I see the biblical commands in that regard as intended for protection, not hate. But, hey, that's just me, right? God's commands along those lines were likely pretty much mistaken, eh? :)
David said...
50 years ago, I doubt there were very many (if any) women desiring to become pastors, but now you're thought of as backwards and Medieval if you suggest women can't be pastors.
Just a fact check: Women pastors have been around for much longer than 50 years. Hundreds of years, to be sure, and many of us would suggest up to two thousand years.
See here, here and here, for starters.
In my anabaptist tradition, women were preaching and ministering in the 1500s, some (such as Madelyn Wens) even being burned at the stake for their faith - although, first they SCREWED her tongue to her jaw to silence her from preaching on her way to the stake. [ source]
The Quakers, the Baptists/anabaptists, many charismatic churches, the Salvation Army and others have long had women pastors.
I have a woman pastor now who is hands down the best preacher/pastor I have ever been blessed to know or hear. It's not even a contest. God moves through her mightily.
Just a point of fact.
First, Dan (and please don't take this the wrong way), aren't you being a bit schizophrenic? "The stuff written in the Bible was cultural, so we don't take that part as literally applicable today ... oh, except when we can find parts that agree with our cultural view." Isn't it a bit of a stretch to say, "Yeah, the Bible forbids it, but we think that's a culture thing" followed by "here's where the Bible agrees with our view"?
At the first site, they list groups who have allowed women pastors ... since 1800. Now, if you can, please tell me what occurred in 1800 that had not occurred prior to 1800 that finally enlightened the Church to the fact that they had been wrong for 1800 years. Why is it that the Church failed to get this in all this time? What did God do wrong that He couldn't get this very important fact across that they had always been wrong? The third site you reference tells me that some Baptist churches ordained women ... in the 1800's and following. Same question. The Evangelical movement started because there were those in the Church who believed that the American church in many sectors was slipping away from biblical theology and doctrine, and these two articles would just be useful as evidence this was true, not as evidence that the Church has always been wrong.
This article is really odd. Mary was the pastor in Acts 12:12? Chloe was a pastor in 1 Cor 1:11? Because Lydia was a wealthy woman and because her household followed her conversion and was baptized, apparently that means she was a pastor? In Col 4:15, Paul references the church in Nympha's house. That makes her the pastor? What do these passages actually indicate? They indicate that women have a role in church and in ministry, that they are not to be marginalized, that they are important ... you know, like "joint heirs in grace". None of it requires or even suggests that the women were the leaders. One of the women most indicated in these discussions is Prisca (or Priscilla). She ministered with her husband, Aquila. There is no doubt. But she ministered with her husband. In other words, she didn't represent the authority figure. If Prisca was true to Paul's commands, she was under her husband. In that position she could minister without violating the authority command. You see, this is never addressed in this article. If women were allowed to be in authority over men ... and even commended for such by Paul, what kind of lunatic was Paul? What kind of crazy guy would commend women as pastors and then say, "I do not permit women to be pastors"? We're not talking about a time lapse. We're not talking about "Well, that was then." Paul was in his own culture, no matter what the situation. In his own culture, the argument must be, he both allowed and denied women as pastors. And we're supposed to listen to this guy as "God-breathed"? Or could it be that none of these women were in authority over men in the Church in direct violation to Paul's words on women in authority?
By the way, the story you offered about Madelyn Wens (apparently her actual name was Maeyken Wens ... no big deal) is very touching indeed. I would have to note that there are a couple problems with your account. It appears that she wasn't a pastor, but the wife of a pastor. She wasn't arrested, tortured, and executed because she was a woman or a pastor, but because she was in defiance of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a fine story of martyrdom and a wonderful story to show the faithful that sticking to the faith amidst persecution is glorious and a horrible story about religious persecution ... but not a story about a woman pastor.
Oh, and statements like "others have long had women pastors" and "I have a great woman pastor" are considered anecdotal evidence. They don't address the primary biblical arguments.
A basic question, Dan. I have yet to understand what went wrong. Why is it that the entire Church for ... what ... 1800 years was wrong?! The suggestion (at least by some) is that the leadership of the Church (males) were power hungry and refused to obey God. That would not bode well for the Church expecting God's blessing. Nor would it explain what took God so long in straightening it out ... or why people of modern times are so much better Christians than they were. This seems like a big hurdle to me. Since it's not the slightest impediment to you, how do you explain it?
David made the comment about women pastors and 50 years. I was clearing up the confusion that at the very least, we are talking about hundreds of years that women have been pastors. I think that when the Bible references prophetesses and women church leaders, there is support for the notion in the bible of women being in leadership roles within the church.
And as to the anectdotal evidence, it IS indeed anectdotal evidence when I say that my pastor is a woman. When I point out that she is a fiery, Godly, God-inspired wonderful pastor, though, that is evidence. She DOES preach and does it better than any man I've ever heard (and I've heard some good preachers).
She DOES move us and inspire us with her words from God. That is more evidence. Now, you can suggest that it is your opinion that women should not be pastors/preachers, but you can't dispute that she is one and you can't reasonably dispute (since you don't know here and have never heard her) that she is a Spirit-filled, God-used inspirational and challenging preacher or that she is a magnificent pastor, tending to the people of her congregation. A fact is a fact and she IS a magnificent pastor, you can disagree with the work of God if you wish, but the work shall continue. I'd suggest it is a bad place to be in, though (ie, standing opposed to the work of God).
But at any rate, I was just correcting David's misstatement about women preachers. (I took your email as an invitation to return and comment, was I mistaken?)
A basic question, Dan. I have yet to understand what went wrong. Why is it that the entire Church for ... what ... 1800 years was wrong?!
No, not the entire church. There have always (or at least frequently) been parts of the church who had women preachers.
Here's a book on the topic, if you're interested.
And yes, believe it or not, sometimes some in the church can be wrong. Sometimes even MANY in the church can be wrong. Slavery was supported by good church folk for hundreds of years (although there were always those opposed to it, too). Treating women as second-class (or non-) citizens has happened within the church forever (although there were always those opposed to that, too).
The thing is, the Church has never been one monolith with One Voice on every topic. We have disagreed with one another since the days of Peter and Paul. It's my opinion that we are imperfect humans and not always right on every topic, thus we have disagreements. You disagree?
@Stan
No, cannot reference directly a passage where Jesus says women can be pastors (nor can you show one where he confines the role to males only). In fact, everything Jesus modeled illustrates exactly the opposite. And indeed, if you study early church history, women played prominent leadership roles, and it was major factor in the rapid spread of Christ followers — see Rodney Stark or any other historical research on the matter. It was post 2nd century where cultural legacy of male dominance assimilated and permeated the church.
On OT, perhaps "misogynist" tag is unjustly extreme but it's hard to deny that women were not viewed as commodities / bounty (Deut 20) / properties — polygamy was sanctioned (the "law" stipulated harsh penalties for "adultery", homosexuality, but multiple wives, concubines, etc.… were considered the norm in the culture)… …there is a presumption of inequality.
Regarding Maeyken Wens (I've seen both names for her, but Maeyken does seem to be the better name - perhaps Madelyn was a typo or an anglicization of her name), her husband was indeed a preacher, but she had her mouth screwed shut in order to keep her from preaching on her way to her death. See here for more info. I wasn't suggesting she was executed for being a preacher, as you will note in what I said.
I know you were trying to clear up David's 50-year reference. Fine. I'm just pointing out that "I have a great female pastor" doesn't prove "It's biblically sound."
Dan Trabue: "It's my opinion that we are imperfect humans and not always right on every topic, thus we have disagreements. You disagree?"
No, I don't disagree. What I would hold, however, is that the truth has always been in effect somewhere in the Church. The Church has not had a history of women in authority. Women who teach, preach, prophesy, sure. I'm not sure of the point of that argument. I don't remember suggesting "women cannot teach, preach, or prophesy." The question in 1 Tim 2 is about authority, not whether or not they can teach.
But a second question. If Paul denied women (something) in 1 Tim 2 and commended them for it elsewhere, isn't that crazy? Why would anyone listen to Paul?
Dan Trabue: "she had her mouth screwed shut in order to keep her from preaching on her way to her death."
What the historical accounts give us is that she had her mouth screwed shut. What the historians guess is the reason why because there is no record given of why. (In other words, to be accurate you would need to say "... presumably to keep her from preaching ...").
But the question remains, what does this have to do with ordaining women? Did you read me somewhere suggesting that women shouldn't be allowed to teach or minister in any sense? I believe that the 1 Tim 2 passage is talking about authority. You keep talking about preaching. We don't seem to be talking about the same thing.
Naum, I have yet to find any biblical references to women playing "prominent leadership roles". Prominent roles? Yes indeed! Important to the Church! Absolutely! But I'm not finding "leadership" in any of the resumés. Churches met in their homes. Perhaps there were deaconnesses. (Some debate it; I don't.) Prisca with her husband taught Apollos. But I'm not finding authority. Nor can anyone explain to me how Paul could be such a total lunatic to both deny and commend the practice.
Here you can read an excerpt from that book I referenced, pointing to evidence of women preachers, liturgical prayers, prophets throughout the centuries.
Saint Brigid (circa 450 AD) would rightly be called an evangelist.
The Waldensians began in ~1175 and had women preachers.
"The Church" has not had ONE position on this topic throughout history. The MAJORITY opinion throughout history has tended to side against women preachers, but being in the majority and being right, as I'm sure you can agree, are not one in the same.
Nor can anyone explain to me how Paul could be such a total lunatic to both deny and commend the practice.
Cultural limitations? If women being in a leadership position was causing too much strife at that time, then I can see Paul saying, "Women should not be in leadership positions... HERE, NOW," but clearly, women have had leadership positions throughout the Bible and throughout history.
Cultural rules would explain Paul's position quite easily. Just like it was a cultural rule that allowed polygamy, although we today tend to agree that it's not a good thing. Cultural rules explains why they could and couldn't eat certain foods. Could and couldn't wear certain clothes or cut their hair in certain ways.
Context, context, context.
Dan, it appears that we will continually talk past each other on this topic. I have stated (multiple times) that you're talking about preaching (or, in the case of Saint Brigid, evangelizing) and I'm not. I'm talking about leadership ... authority.
As for Pauline schizophrenia, I don't get it. He wrote in less than a 20-year period. The suggestion is that at some point in that time period something occurred that Paul had to address as a problem (women in authority) that was not a problem before that point. Now, if we follow that logic as valid (regardless of how far-fetched), what could it be? Well, apparently women were in rebellion, setting aside male leadership and usurping (the word he uses in 1 Tim 2) authority. You know ... like today. So if it was a cultural thing, it matches our culture. But I don't think that makes any sense at all ... and I have yet to find a biblical reference to women in leadership in the Church. Teaching? Yes. Prophesying? Sure. Ministering? Absolutely! In authority? Not one.
Now, if we follow that logic as valid (regardless of how far-fetched), what could it be?
I believe a much more reasonable conclusion is that, as Paul taught us, IN CHRIST, there is no male nor female. That Jesus came treating women as equals and letting them sit in on his teachings and have leadership roles.
In this patriarchal culture, that sort of behavior was crazy, radical! Dangerous. ("What does he think he's doing, talking with women, tax collectors, 'sinners' and other non-entities"???) It is not at all surprising that some people in that culture were not ready for full inclusion in God's Kingdom. Just like some people in the OT were not ready to suggest that polygamy ought not be accepted as good. Just like Paul did not demand an end to slavery.
These were ideas whose time had not yet come to this culture. The eternal truth is that we are all accountable to Christ. That we ALL are to share our gifts (as your next post points out). That in Christ there is no male nor female. But because not such radical views were not accepted wholly, even within the church, they had to make accomodations for the weaker brethren. Just like they made accommodations about eating meat for their weaker brethren. It wasn't the eating meat that was prohibited, but the offending the weaker brothers. The same conclusion seems entirely reasonable to me with women in leadership positions.
I would like to return to a question I previously asked you: What do you do with the cases where women ARE ministering in leadership positions, they ARE winning people to Christ through their leadership, they ARE doing what they are called to do - what of them?
If a woman has the gift of preaching and leading, are you suggesting that she should stifle that gift? God forbid!
Dan Trabue: "I believe a much more reasonable conclusion is that, as Paul taught us, IN CHRIST, there is no male nor female. That Jesus came treating women as equals and letting them sit in on his teachings and have leadership roles."
Let's see ... Paul taught that in Christ there are no genders ... and went on to make all sorts of commands regarding genders. Honestly, Dan, I don't understand how you can make any other argument but that he was quite insane. Here's what it appears you are saying. "Paul thought it was right to teach that there was no distinction in genders in the Church. However, since he knew it wouldn't be acceptable -- and even though he knew it was evil -- he taught them to make distinctions in genders. That's really crazy. "What you're doing is wrong and what you ought to be doing is something else, but since you won't, I'm going to command you to do more of what's wrong." Really crazy.
Now, Naum and you both made a claim that Jesus treated women as equals (obviously you totally missed the point of the post ... who ever said they weren't???!!!) and gave them leadership roles. I asked Naum and he admitted he couldn't do it. I'll ask you. Where is it that Jesus gave leadership roles to women? They had ministry roles. They had roles of service. They had roles, to be sure, but where are the leadership roles that Jesus gave to women?
(I feel the need to reiterate here the main point of my post that has actually brought you back out to commenting. "Submit" does not mean "inferior" or "unequal". I specifically referenced that Christ submitted to the Father, but was co-equal with the Father. Submission and either value or equality are not directly related. That was my point.)
Dan Trabue: "What do you do with the cases where women ARE ministering in leadership positions, they ARE winning people to Christ through their leadership, they ARE doing what they are called to do - what of them?"
Dan, did you see the movie, I, Robot? In the story the rule of robots is they could not harm humans. The ultimate robot figured out that humans were harming themselves, so the best way to prevent harm to humans was to enslave them. Logical, right? But, of course, wrong. So, here's what you're asking me. "What do you do with the cases where women are in violation of Scripture and doing what they are supposed to do?" Huh? It seems as if you've mixed things up here. You've figured out, I guess, that "We're supposed to win people to Christ" (for instance), so if they're "winning people to Christ" they've met the criterion of "doing what they're supposed to do". I would suggest that God can use a rock if He wants to, so people are coming to Christ are no indication that she's where she's supposed to be. So, you asked, "What of them?" I'd hope that they'd repent and return to God's design rather than being tools that God has to use the hard way.
Dan Trabue: "If a woman has the gift of preaching and leading, are you suggesting that she should stifle that gift?"
No, I'm suggesting she do it under biblical guidance ... male leadership.
Dan, you've made lots of arguments in the past few hours. You've argued that modern studies prove the Bible is wrong when it tells parents to use corporal punishment on their kids. You've argued that God's chastising (use of pain to teach) is "bad discipline". You've argued that the Bible is outdated in its gender-specific commands because you have a good female pastor and you know of more. What you haven't done is offered a single biblical argument for any of your positions. Here's a hint. If you want to get me to shift from my position, you have to argue from my position. I say, "The Bible says ____." You don't say, "No it doesn't." You say, "That's cultural" (without proof) or "Studies say otherwise" (without allowing the fact that other studies disagree). You tell me that "That's just what you see in the Bible" but you don't tell me "I see something different and here's what it is." If the best you can offer is anecdotal evidence and modern perspectives, then you have to know that I'm going to stand on God's Word every time.
Not so much. When the Bible says, "Woe to you who are rich," you side with your modern, non-literal interpretation. When the Bible forbids women to wear gold, you write that off as allegory.
You stand with your opinion. I disagree with your opinion and have offered logical, researched reasons why.
Again I ask: WHO IN THE WORLD would respond positively to somebody beating them into praying?
I would run away from that false religion as fast as possible.
Feel free to keep misrepresenting me, but please, please don't get on your self-righteous hobby horse and accuse me of being unChristian because you think I misrepresented someone (or you). I never suggested non-literal interpretations or allegory. You are either lying intentionally or perhaps never bothered to read the exegesis you are protesting.
I wrote that last comment before you corrected my misunderstanding. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Correctly, then, you write off the direct command as not even being an actual command. You just suggest it does not exist as a literal command.
You'll probably object to that portrayal of your position, too. But I guess I'm not seeing it. Paul does quite literally say, "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes..." THAT LITERALLY is what Paul is saying. It's not that you think it isn't there. You are saying that it ought not be taken literally. That Paul's point was something else (what follows that verse).
But that does not negate that the command isn't there. Paul says, Dress modestly, NOT with gold or pearls..." it IS a literal command. Now sometimes, we might have reason to set aside literal commands, but when we do so, we ARE setting aside the literal command and suggesting it ought to be taken as something other than literally.
Right?
What I said was that there was no command in the statement. Nothing to do with "literal". I'm not saying "Don't take it at face value." I'm saying, "At face value there is no command about wearing gold there." And I explained why.
But there IS a command there. "Dress modestly, don't wear gold or pearls..." That IS a literal command.
Now you take that literal command and suggest it ought not be taken literally because it is your hunch that the passage is talking about deeper matters than merely what we wear - and it IS - but it is also quite literally talking about what we wear.
Try to see it from my point of view. The Bible says, "Don't wear pearls," and you're saying it doesn't literally say that. At face value, literally, actually, in the real world when you read the Bible, there is a direct command from Paul, Don't wear gold.
It's not that the command isn't there literally, that's not your claim, is it? You're not saying that Paul doesn't actually say, "Dress modestly, don't wear gold..."? Isn't it the case that you're suggesting it ought not be taken literally because it is your hunch that it is exclusively a spiritual/inner message, not at all an outer message?
Last try and then I'm done.
Read what I said here.
The command is to adorn themselves with godliness. That is the command. The phrase, "not with braided hair ..." is not the command. I'm not saying it's figurative. I'm not saying it's not literal. I'm saying it is literally not a command. It is an explanation of what Paul meant when he said to adorn themselves "with proper clothing". I'm saying that the literal command is "adorn yourself with proper clothing" and that the verse explains "proper clothing" as "not some outward appearance, but godliness". The "not" phrase is not a command, but an explanation. I'm saying that it is a literal explanation of what he meant when he told them to adorn themselves with proper clothing.
Post a Comment