This is the beginning of a series of posts I want to write on the subject of Christianity and Gender as it pertains to ministry within the local church. Much ink and energy has been devoted to this issue, so one might wonder what more could‑or should‑ be said. Well, let me explain a bit.
I have, with pleasure, spent the last twelve years of my life preaching and ministering in the Churches of Christ (CoC). As a whole, we in the CoC have sought a restoration of Apostolic Christianity by attempting to strictly adhering to scripture and the pattern of church believed to be prescribed in the New Testament. While such a hermeneutical approach is certainly not without questions, as I certainly have raised such questions (see here for example), one of the outcomes of this restoration goal has been a male-hierarchal understanding of gender as it pertains to ministry in the local church.
In times past, this issue was often addressed as the “Women’s Role” issue, which perhaps sounds a bit archaic as if a bunch of men just stepped out of their cave with their Bibles in hand. Yet that is not entirely the case. Earlier leaders and preachers may not have been concerned with how politically correct (or lack there of) their language might one day sound but they were concerned with taking the Bible seriously. Their reading of the Bible has, with few exceptions, led to the understanding that only baptized males could serve as preachers/ministers, elders/shepherds, deacons/ministry-leaders. Women, on the other hand were given such roles as preparing potluck meals and teaching Sunday-School classes, which they did unto the Lord (with excellence, I might add). When it came to worship gatherings, only men took part in the public leading of worship while the women were to remain silent.
As it will become clear, I disagree with the traditional reading of scripture that has led to such practice. However, since the convictions advocated in the past were held as an honest understanding of the Bible, any attempt to reconsider such positions must do so with a serious engagement of scripture. Perhaps the two most prominent passages that have shaped the CoC have been 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 and 1 Timothy 2.11-12ff and I will try to deal fairly with both passages. In my estimation, there are other passages that must be considered such as Acts 2.17-18, Romans 16, and Galatians 3.27-28 and so I will try to deal with these passages as well.
In the last twenty or so years, there has been some change among the Churches of Christ. I happen to serve in one such congregation, the Columbia Church of Christ, which has made some changes, for instance, we do have women who do things such as read prayers and read scripture during worship as well as serving as a ministry leader. Such changes have come as some within the CoC have put forth positions questioning the traditional understanding and practice. Yet, I think it is safe to say that for the most part the traditional view is still the norm in most churches. For that reason, if it can be shown that the traditional view is in fact more unbiblical than biblical and the CoC is still a fellowship concerned with being biblical then there is ample justification for discussing this issue.
As you probably know, this issue can be volatile. So feel free to leave any questions of comments you may have but please remember to be courteous and Christianly.
After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity
Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spu
Jesus and the Victory of God
The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story
The Mission of God's People: A Biblical Theology of the Church's Mission
Rex,
I am thrilled you are addressing this issue, can’t wait to hear what you have to say. Would you please address also Luke 10:38-42. I believe this to be a common misinterpretation among women as to what Jesus is saying about Mary having “chosen the better”. From my understanding of N.T. Wright’s commentary Mary has placed herself (at Jesus”s feet) in a man’s role as a disciple. (It was very scandalous for her to be there, this was not the place for a woman.) She has taken the place of a would be teacher and preacher of the kingdom of God. And Jesus affirms her right to do so.
How does this lend itself to the role of women today? Thanks!
Amy,
Thanks for your reply. I will try to address that passage, as I try to tie the discussion into the redemptive mission of God that Jesus came to fulfill as the Messiah.
First, im loving the new layout! Very clean and slick. And secondly, I, like amy up there, am thrilled that you are tackling this issue. While a member of a traditional CoC congregation, this was the main issue that didnt sit well for me. And youre right, for a community of believers particularly concerned with doing things biblically, the traditional role (or lack thereof) of women in the church (many, not just the CoC), keeps them largely out of ministry, relegated to a small, unbiblical caretaker-quiet-cook role, and thus hurts the church. Women in the church learn this is their place from an early age. Young men see it as well and are brought up believing, yet rarely studying for themselves, that this is the place, the role, the only box for women. Ive done a good bit of study on this topic and can’t wait to hear your thoughts! (and… Good luck and prayers to you with the commentary…)
Thanks Jen. A couple of years ago, I had a woman approach me and ask me how to teach other women to pray because, in her estimation, few women knew how. I felt sad but wasn’t surprised…not when most Christian gatherings are co-gender and yet only one of those genders are allowed to pray.
I would just say I’m not sure a person needs to reinterpret scripture to have women leading areas of the church or pray and read scripture. I have a concern with any interpretation that tries to make us gender neutral because it misses reality. Poor male leadership shouldn’t require a biblical rewrite, it should cause repentance and redirection.
Darin, thanks for coming by and commenting. I’m not sure I would use the word “reinterpretation” as that sounds to me like someone trying to force the scriptures to say something other than what it does say. Instead, I hope to share my understanding (which has changed/grown over the years) and why I believe such is biblically sound over and against the traditional view (which has been a very male-hiearchial position) which I believe is a misinterpretation of scripture.
Of course, I am fully aware that there will be people who still disagree and that is fine too.
Thank you for sharing your studies on this issue. I look forward to them.
I understand Rex. I guess for me I just worry at times that we try to correct problems by creating some authority to do things differently. The idea of sola scripture came about because of abuses and so the Bible became the authority to fix those problems. You and I both know how that went.
Yes, that is an ever danger…hence, the book “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea” written by Alister McGrath (a good book, by the way).
Rex:
As you look at the relevant Scriptures here, I will highlight the study which has been at the root of some recent egalitarian conclusions reached by some voices in churches of Christ and also Evangelical groups. Phyllis Trible’s God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality has probably been the most influential egalitarian statement of the past 30 years — but gets rarely mentioned (perhaps because Dr. Trible clashes directly with 1 Timothy 2:13).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Bruce, thanks for stopping by and commenting. I have a few books on my shelf that I’ve read, from both the egalitarian and complimentarian perspective but I’ve never read anything from Phyllis Trible. Unfortunately, this is one of those topics where, for better or worse, it is impossible to read all of the relevant literature unless one can devote themselves full-time to research on the subject.
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Creation or Fall? | Kingdom Seeking
Hi Rex,
I am glad you reached the egalitarian vs. complementarian issue so quickly because that is the crux of the matter. The question ultimately traces back to the nature of the Trinity itself. Is the Trinity egalitarian or complementarian? Or in more popular terms, is the subordination of the Son to the Father a mutual subordination or is it immutably grounded in the very nature of the persons within the Trinity?
If it is the former, then the Son could have sent the Father just as easily as the Father sent the Son.
If the notion of the Son sending the Father rings false, then you can start to understand why egalitarianism rings false as well.
Truth is hierarchies come in good and evil varieties. Paul illustrates three kinds in Eph 5:21ff: (1) wives/husbands, (3) children/fathers, and (3) slaves/masters. Each of these is qualitatively different, the first being rooted in willingness, the second in nature, and the third in compulsion. (Note that the preceding categories are identical to the three types of eunuchs in Mt 19.)
There is much that could be said from a biblical standpoint.
In dealing with outsiders though, I would take a prudential, sociologically based approach. For example . . .
Egalitarian complaints that traditional Western culture oppresses females ring hollow in light of objective data.
Women in the United States exceed males in almost every quality of life indicator; e.g., victimization by crime, participation in crime, physical health, mental health, suicide, longevity, alcoholism, other drug use, and education. Christian women do better in these areas than women in general. (Although this was true before feminism came along, it is threatened by the continued advance of egalitarian ideas as described below.)
The facts of female advantage go unacknowledged and unappreciated because egalitarians successfully obscure the broad inequities experienced by men by focusing on the narrow inequities experienced by women. The result is a popular, but false perception of widespread female disadvantage.
The irony of egalitarianism is that it flourishes precisely because its basic claim is false. Western society is more likely to indulge females than oppress them.
The demographic shift in favor of women is so severe that most women have difficulty in finding mates of equal or better status. Lower status men are increasingly the only heterosexual option for many women. The resultant widespread pairing of low-status males with higher status females is a major cause of rising domestic violence. The egalitarian solution is greater empowerment of women, thereby making the demographic imbalance more skewed, male disinvestment even greater, and associated violence even worse.
The challenge of civilization is investment of males in the welfare of women and children. Stated provocatively, the labor and loyalty of women toward that end can be taken for granted. The labor and loyalty of men cannot.
Gender distinctions are key tools for investing males in society. The fact of gender distinctions is therefore more important than their specific content. The egalitarian focus on the injustice of particular gender distinctions masks a thoroughgoing ideological hatred toward any distinctions.
Scripture is intentionally gender conscious because it recognizes the ordering of men’s lives takes precedence over the ordering of women’s lives. Attempts to order the lives of women without concern for the lives of men will be overwhelmed by the disordered lives of men. Most women have few problems that are not associated with misbehaving men.
Scripture therefore focuses on men as the primary audience. Thus we have the 144,000 elect gathered with the Lamb on Mt Zion described as “those who have not defiled themselves with women”– Rev 14:6. The issue for the Galatians was whether to be circumcised– Gal 5:3. Paul tells the Corinthians to “be men of courage”– 1 Cor 16:13. In the OT, Lady Wisdom is female because men are encouraged to love her in preference for wayward women. And on and on … .
The great “un-equalizer” of men and women is children. Equalizing males and females cannot be done except at the expense of children. A culture that shifts the burden of female inequality to children is a culture in deep trouble.
Males are “hard-wired” to escape dependency on females and to reconnect with them and community in a radically different relationship. Egalitarianism interferes with that developmental dynamic. The result is men who remain perpetually immature and disengaged.
Egalitarianism is a degenerative dynamic within prosperous societies that augurs their decline. It produces societies where men are the weaker sex. Societies that turn men into the weaker sex go against nature and cannot compete with other societies.
Matriarchal societies cannot compete with patriarchal ones. Matriarchal enclaves within Western culture (e.g., public housing projects) require a steady stream of ambulances, police cars, and welfare checks to survive. Take away those props and a brutal partiarchy would quickly emerge. Thus the question is not whether there will be patriarchy, but rather what kind of patriarchy will it be.
Males are the “hard cases.” Socialization to norms is more difficult for males than for females. Unequal resources are therefore required to socialize men to the same norms as women. Additional resources expended on the socialization of males rebound to the benefit of women. Egalitarianism denies society the extra resources needed to socialize men to the same norms as women. Individual women bear the consequences.
Since males are more difficult to socialize to norms, they will typically be in shorter supply and will therefore be perceived as more valuable than females.
Occupations perceived as masculine are usually perceived as higher status than those perceived as feminine. The higher prestige of masculine occupations makes them attractive to females who demand the dismantling of “gender barriers” that obstruct their entry. Moreover, egalitarians insist that girls be socialized to desire male-dominated occupations. Acquiescence to such demands eventually eliminates the affected occupations as a resource for socializing males. The gradual loss of male-only occupations within a society makes investment of males more and more difficult over time. Society as a whole becomes more and more effeminate and less and less viable.
The high status of women and children cannot be sustained by the reordering of society along egalitarian lines. THE major achievement of Western civilization has been its success in channeling male sexual energy to the benefit of women and children. The result has been to give both a higher status and a higher standard of living than at any time or place in history of the world. That achievement is especially remarkable considering the nature and intensity of male sexuality.
The mechanism for convincing men to set aside their sexual agenda to accommodate the needs of women and children is a remarkably simple. Women and children are valued highly in Western civilization because male sexual self-control requires high-value rewards. Wives and children have traditionally served that purpose. Society essentially makes a trade with men– “control yourself and you can have a family.” That trade, however, is fragile because the natural male desire for family is so easily distracted by less burdensome options. In a fallen creation, “wife and kids” are not inherently high-value. So the “deal” won’t work without a huge amount of effort at convincing males that women and children are worthy objects of sacrifice. The overlooked effect of that huge persuasive effort is promotion of a widely held belief in the worthiness of women and children across the larger society. It certainly has not been the case in most times and most places.
Egalitarianism undermines the preceding dynamic by mischaracterizing special attention to male socialization as some kind of injustice. Egalitarianism also encourages females to behave in ways that diminish their ability to inspire male sacrifice. The value of women and children as rewards for self-control is decreased on one hand while alternative sexual outlets are promoted on the other. In the first case, egalitarianism denies men “ownership” of wives and children. In the second, it endorses lifestyles that offer the kind of immediate and anonymous sexual gratification males prefer. (Nothing, by the way, threatens the status of women and children more than widespread acceptance of homosexuality. Thus the role of egalitarianism in fostering that acceptance is rich with irony.]
None of the societal regression implied in the preceding analysis is inevitable– but the way out does require major attention to unique, positive, and compelling definitions of what it means to be a man and what it means to be a woman. How do men and women commend themselves to each other AS men and women? Should they? Egalitarians says no, and in so saying, recast the most important and personal aspect of human life as meaningless.
The only difference between a gay marriage and the marriage of an egalitarian male and female is the former are of the same physical sex. Both couples are alike in their alienation from nature and nature’s God.
For a theological examination, see my post at
http://historeo.com/web/?p=977
Regards,
billb
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Headship? | Kingdom Seeking
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Jesus and Women | Kingdom Seeking
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Moving Towards Equality | Kingdom Seeking
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Regarding 1 Corinthians 14.34-35 | Kingdom Seeking
Pingback: Christianity and Gender: Regarding 1 Timothy 2.11-12 | Kingdom Seeking