The story was about how these nuns, the frontline of the battle against poverty and health issues and education issues and on and on, are working to change the Church's perspective on women. So they meet annually to try to work for change.
But the Vatican says good works aren't the issue -- it's annual meetings like these that the group holds for its members where sisters have given speeches promoting what the Vatican calls "radical feminist themes" that are quote, "incompatible with the Catholic faith."Oddly enough, neither CBS nor the nuns that were interviewed seemed to see a contradiction in this. "We're not radical feminists" they claim and then throw Scripture, God, and tradition all under the bus. Because, you see, the Bible is entirely patriarchal and God calls Himself "Father" because of His patriarchal approach and the Church has always been patriarchal, so, if their argument is correct, all three have always relegated women to second-class status. Shame on God! But it isn't "radical feminism", right?
[Elizabeth Johnson: The Church itself continues to live by patriarchal values that by any objective measure relegate women to second-class status.]
There is, in the minds of these nuns, only one real reason for the Bible, God, and tradition's history of patriarchy.
Pat Farrell: I don't know, but it feels to me like fear, "What would happen if women really were given a place of equality in the Church?That's right. The only reason that God is patriarchal is because He's afraid of giving women a place of equality in the Church. Oh, no, that's not what they said. But it isn't an illogical conclusion.
Nor is it a Roman Catholic issue alone. At a website called "Youngmormonfeminsts.org" they make the same assersions about the Church of the Latter-day Saints.
Of all the things that embarrass me about my country, my church, and humanity, high on the list is the awful chauvinist mess we've created and perpetuated for a few dozen centuries. I have no interest in a broken system that mechanically oppresses and demotes half of the world for no legitimate, defensible reason.I suppose in a Mormon world where your religion has only been around since the 1800's it might be possible to suggest that patriarchy has been "perpetuated for a few dozen centuries", but not in a real-world examination. Nor can it be suggested that the Church did it, since all of that structure was ordained by God. Nor can it be suggested that the aim of the Church has always been to make women equal to men, even though that might be the suggestion of this particular author.
Nor is it simply a problem of the Catholics or the Mormons. Today we're ordaining females as pastors in the Protestant churches as well and even conservative Christian circles are offended when the more conservative types (like me) suggest that the Bible isn't unclear on the subject. And yet, the Bible isn't unclear on the subject.
Yes, men and women are of equal value to God (Gen 9:6). Of that we are quite sure. Yes, men and women are both saved by the same means -- faith in Christ (Gal 3:28). And let's not beat around the bush. The Bible is abundantly clear that men have mistreated women over the course of time. Thus husbands are chastised for faithlessness (Mal 2:14-15), commanded to love because we've failed to do so as we ought (Eph 5:25-30), and for failing to treat her with honor as an equal heir in Christ (1 Peter 3:7). Women are to be taken care of, not abused. We're all agreed on that.
But the Bible isn't unclear that God has arranged a heirarchy.
I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3).That's not a matter of interpretation, a problem with tradition, or a product of Church history. It's plain Scripture with plain meaning.
Nor did Paul stutter when he wrote:
I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works. Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Tim 2:8-14).Notice that there's nothing in there that hints that women are somehow "less" -- less valuable, less useful, less honorable. Nor is there a suggestion that this all changes when women get a better education (as some contend). The basis offered by Paul is in the Order of Creation and in the Fall. And when Paul writes about church leadership, he mandates "the husband of one wife" without any equivocation (such as "or the wife of one husband") (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6). And the Bible is quite clear that the husband has the responsibility to take care of his wife and the father has the responsibility to take care of his household. It isn't vague.
Biblically, then, women are highly respected and, when not, it is an evil. However, the biblical structure is a patriarchy, beginning with God the Father. Some consider this offensive somehow, but doing so puts them in conflict not merely with me or with tradition or with Scripture or even the Church, but with God Himself. So when the Vatican is concerned about "radical feminist themes" that are "incompatible with the Catholic faith", they aren't being alarmist. They're being biblical. Nor is patriarchy a failure of equality unless you wish to consider God just such a failure. Perhaps the accusation of such is a failure to comprehend genuine equality. Now that's something to think about. And if you're pushing to change your church's position on the subject (or have, perhaps, already succeeded at doing so), you're not merely seeking "equality" for women, but pushing an accusation against the Bible in general and God in particular, a much larger issue than "equal rights".
19 comments:
I've always had a problem with these aspects of Scripture, and for all the reasons you list. The problem being how best to articulate the message. I generally recuse myself from debates that try to suggest misogyny in Scripture because of my inability to say more than suggesting they aren't understanding what Scripture is saying.
In any case, I've heard a few female preachers on the radio that I thought were very good in their ability to teach and feel they have great value to the church. How do you think such women should be employed by the church?
First, assuming at the outset that the Bible is true and right and that which God does in it and anywhere else is good, I have to start my worldview there. If that means that it collides in places with my own feelings or perspectives, it is apparent that I have to adjust my own feelings and perspectives, not Scripture.
At this point it becomes a question of "equality" and "value" and even "useful" that appear to be, in our society, almost randomly placed on things like "leadership" and "those up front". That is, if I can't be "the leader" or "the one up front" and others can, then we're not "equal" and I'm not "valuable" and I'm not "useful". Which, of course, when you think that out loud, becomes clearly really, really stupid.
The Bible (God) commands great honor and care for women. This is more surprising in view of the demeaning view that many societies had of women in biblical times. But it doesn't demand that men and women have the same roles. Oddly enough, the one in my history that most clearly saw this was an unbeliever, an instructor in the Air Force. She asked me about these rules in the Bible about women leading men in the church. I said, "Well, look, it's not my idea, but what Paul said was that Eve was deceived." "Yeah, so?" "Well, let me ask you. In your experience, who is more gullible? Women? Or men?" She thought about it and you could actually see it dawn on her. "Oh, yeah! You're right! Women do tend to be more gullible." She got it. Few others do.
What, then, can women teachers do in the church? They can teach. The Bible says that they are supposed to teach women, young women, and children. And Paul's concern wasn't so much that they not teach, but that they not be out from under the authority of the church leadership. So they can teach under the authority of the men. I should note that this is also my personal experience. My own mother is an excellent teacher who travels around and teaches in various places around the country ... but because the Bible says she must not usurp authority over men, she teaches women.
And the question, then, is this. Is that somehow "less"? Less valuable? Less worthwhile? Less equal? (Note, by the way, that Jesus was in submission to the Father. Did that make Him less valuable, less worthwhile, less equal?) I think we have our own set of false perspectives, largely foisted on us by decades of radical (and unbiblical) feminism, that are hard to see our way through without relying on the certain footing of God's Word.
Like all other anti-God agendas, there never seems to be a point at which one arrives at accomplishment; or a point at which it can be said of the goal that it has been achieved. Nothing can satiate because in the end hatred of God is the real problem; and He and his ways aren't going away or changing.
"His ways aren't going away or changing."
Well, apparently, if we vote on it His ways will change or go away. Seriously, I can't figure out this concept. You're right, but I can't figure out why so many can't see it.
In regard to Marshall Art's comment, what is a man to do if he happens upon a female teaching on TV or radio? Should he not listen to her and change the channel or station? Only women and children should listen to her? How is she usurping the authority of men if she is teaching the same things a Holy Spirit-filled man would teach?
Well, now, I may not be entirely "mainstream" in this, but ...
1) If a man wants to listen to a female teacher (say, he walks into a woman's Bible study or something) and wants to learn from it, I don't see it as "usurping authority" as she didn't set out to teach a man. For a male to learn from a female is not the same as the authority a female (any teacher) assumes when she/he sets out to teach a particular group.
2) Even if the woman on the radio is in error for doing what she's doing, it is possible to learn from someone even if what they're doing is wrong.
3) I am of the opinion that usurping authority is the key issue. If a woman is teaching on her own authority (and I'm not going to listen to "Well, the Holy Spirit told me to"), that's a problem. If she is teaching under the authority of a man, I don't see that as a problem. The issue is authority, not content.
But I need to point out, both in Marshall Art's and your comment, that the questions appear to be coming from a "it doesn't feel right" perspective and I'm not talking about whether or not it fits with modern society, the "sense of it", or how we feel about it. I'm talking about what the Bible says. To dance around "Paul says, 'I do not allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man'" with something like "It doesn't feel right" (or, in other cases, "Well, it doesn't apply anymore") won't cut it. So I'm suggesting that we be careful not to come to conclusions on the issue that "feel better" but don't align with Scripture. (Which, by the way, is why I'm not buying anyone's "The Holy Spirit told me to." That would require the Holy Spirit contradicting the Word of God. Problem.)
That's one of the ways we can should be able to tell the difference between worshiping an idol in the form of a mirror, or if we are worshipping the one true God. What we create, we can change to reflect the whims of our desires and times. So if in our heart, our God can be re-molded to fit our times, our desires, our sensibilities, or what we think ought to be right today... we might want to consider that we are not worshipping God at all, but are in actuality committing idolatry.
History continues to prove that when women take over spiritual leadership, the church goes liberal, if not cultic.
Every church denomination with women "pastors" is far left wing. Look at the PCUSA, Episcopal, and ELCA Lutheran, let alone the UMC and the UCC.
Word of Faith has a lot of background in emotionalism originated by women such as Jesse Penn-Lewis and Aimee Semple McPherson. The Shakers were led by a woman, as were the Christian Scientists.
This isn't to say men don't make cults or lead liberal churches, rather it is to say that when a church which used to be solid takes on women as leaders, they always go liberal.
As Paul said, Eve was deceived - Adam wasn't (he knew better).
Good ol' Glenn, telling it like it is, even if it doesn't score any points with the culture. :)
I'm not even thinking in terms of what "feels right" or such. It's just that some women are not only not gullible, but pretty darned smart.
Actually, the woman I had in mind preaches in conjunction with (or possibly under the authority of) her husband. That particular radio show will feature either of them, as well as their son. I don't listen to any radio preacher with great regularity, but when I have heard this woman, I haven't heard anything that raises any red flags.
It just seems to me more than just a bit likely that, as with any preacher, some women might have a really good handle on Biblical principles and their understanding and ability to relate that understanding is, or can be, of great value to the church. I get the role and authority bit and am in agreement.
I guess my concern is that if I was listening for years to some dude, and found his ability to teach and preach was less than compelling or informative, and then a woman showed up and was a better teacher, I'd be willing to lend my vote to have her take over in that role and let the pastor oversee.
I also just thought of this question: if you were to have to move, and the only church around was led by a woman, who was good at her job as preacher, teacher and spiritual leader, would you attend? I'm just curious. I'd probably keep looking, or like to believe I would, but would make do for the time being.
What you said (what I was referring to by "feels") is "I've always had a problem with these aspects of Scripture." And what you've indicated above and here is that your experience violates what the Scripture seems to say. Women can teach well. Women are smart. That sort of thing. So what you've set up for yourself is a tension between God's Word and your experience, and that's causing a problem. So, for you, you're willing to go with the better experience -- the better teacher, the more compelling and informative, that sort of thing -- than the command of Scripture.
No, I couldn't go to a church run by a woman. That would require an initial denial of the sufficiency and accuracy of Scripture, which seems to me quite obviously a bad start to a church experience. Until someone can come up with a reasonable explanation of why Scripture says what it says on the subject and doesn't mean what it says and why it is that the Church has always been wrong on the subject and never figured it out until the feminists came along, I'm stuck with it.
I'd have to agree with Stan. I'd not go to church at all if the only church available was led by a woman. In order for it to be led by a woman, it would be immediately violating Scripture. And once you start down that road, it ends up very badly.
I would add to that list of church's I'd never join a church that sports a husband and wife pastor and co-pastor team. While it might be said that the "co-pastor" is under the authority of her husband, it is still a bad situation. One of the problems, from a church government perspective, is that the real elder's board don't just share in leadership, they also share a bed.
Yep, Dan that is also good to remember. Think about it - if the pastor has his wife as a co-pastor he has already violated the Bible.
I've never actually seen a church with a "husband and wife co-pastor" arrangement where the wife indicated she was in submission to her husband. The arrangement always seemed to be that they were "co-pastors" because they were "co-equals" -- equal in authority. I would suggest that a breakdown of the biblical marriage authority structure already occurred before the breakdown in the "co-pastor" structure.
Stan,
I believe I stated that my "problem" was in how to articulate the message of gender roles in Scripture. When asked why the Bible or Paul is so misogynistic, I simply don't have the ready answer to explain that they misunderstand the verses or lessons to which they refer. "I" don't have any problem with the notion of what are roles are? None, whatsoever.
I also don't believe I indicated the husband/wife "team" are co-pastors at all. I'm not sure that's the case (though I could be wrong). I only said that the two of them, along with their son, are preachers. For all I know, the husband runs the show completely, but acknowledges the wife's ability to teach.
I guess my wonder here is whether or not you'd ever even give a woman preacher the time of day, simply because she's a woman. I wouldn't go to a church run by a woman, either. But I wouldn't plug my ears and yell "LA LA LA LA!" just because a woman is speaking about what Scripture says. A good teacher is invaluable and a man who is a poor teacher can be quite harmful.
Sorry. I was going off of what you said.
"I've heard a few female preachers on the radio that I thought were very good in their ability to teach and feel they have great value to the church."
"It's just that some women are not only not gullible, but pretty darned smart."
"I haven't heard anything that raises any red flags."
"I guess my concern is that if I was listening for years to some dude, and found his ability to teach and preach was less than compelling or informative, and then a woman showed up and was a better teacher, I'd be willing to lend my vote to have her take over in that role and let the pastor oversee."
None of these seem to have any bearing on "This is what the Bible says on the subject, so I'm going to go with what the Bible says on the subject."
As I've indicated, my mother is an excellent teacher. She has a better grasp on theology than many preachers I've known. I've listened to her teach and learned much from her messages. But they were to women. She believes that women shouldn't teach men because, well, that's what the Bible says.
Can I learn from a woman? I have. That isn't -- never was -- the question.
Unlike the Catholic priests, I don't hear of too many female leaders committing sexual predation on children.
Tamara, Thanks for the comment.
I will point out that the post was that Scripture (you know ... God's Word) makes patriarchy the standard. Not me. Not men. Scripture.
I will also point out that the failure of some Catholic priests to abide by biblical standards does not invalidate biblical standards.
I will also point out that women are not less sinners than men.
If your only argument against "God has ordained patriarchy in Scripture" is what you offered here, perhaps you need to revisit your line of thinking. It doesn't answer any of the points, arguments, or Scriptures from the post.
Post a Comment