Those damn women
I had been up for over an hour this morning before it registered with me that it is International Womens’ Day, but some people are not so lax, and I had an email from commenter Alan in my inbox by the time that I got to work. I am sure that Alan wouldn’t mind me quoting a couple of excerpts:
Well, there’s a most peculiar development going on in the churches at the moment.Archbishops and ethics lecturers are mounting a new campaign to get men into church.The argument runs like this:men hate the church(that of course will be news to women who look around and find its men who run the place),for five reasons:
*church meeting styles are feminine
*church leadership model is weak
*church is boring and safe:no risk
*church doesn’t relate to a man’s world
*blokes like to get their hands dirty
(”Five reasons why men hate the church”,Jeremy Halcrow,29.1.07 Syd Anglican website)
But maybe there’s another reason.
Perhaps men look around the church and don’t like the way other men are treating women.Maybe there’s too many men now comfortably and easily working with, working for,being directed by,in partnership with, women, that they are uneasy about the kind of blokey culture about in too many of our churches, and dont want to be a part of it!
I don’t know whether I agree with the latter commentary, but I find that there is a real paradox about the church/gender debate. First it seems clear that there are many more men in formal leadership in churches than women. If anything this is even more true of church plants and alternative model churches. As much as I embrace the “emerging” discussion, the movement does seem to have a more than usual affliction with the “angry young man” syndrome. No offence intended to any angry young men in the audience.
However, at the same time, there is a concern about the fact that men as a demographic are under-represented among church attenders. The NCLS says that only about 39% of church attenders in Australia are male and suggests a number of theories as to why. Part of this imbalance is almost certainly due to the fact that the elderly are over-represented in churches and women on average live longer than men. But what of the rest of the difference?
Increasingly, as Alan has pointed out, I have heard people discuss the idea that men are less likely to be involved with the church because church culture is somehow uncomfortable or anti-male. These are the arguments for people who endorse or at least condone a “bloke”inisation of leadership and culture in the church to “correct the balance”. I find these positions to raise some logical conflicts. I think we can point to the following facts that seem to be fairly well established.
- More women than men are regular church attenders
- More men than women are in formal leadership in the church
Which raises a whole bunch of questions. If the culture of the church is anti-church, then who creates the culture? If the leaders create the culture, then why are a group of predominantly male leaders creating such a “feminine” culture so as to be anathema to men? What about the culture of the church is feminine? The worship? The openness? The confessional? The singing? What?
In response to that, if the culture of the church is too female, then what changes will make the place more attractive to men? Surely most men are more sophisiticated than to respond to an increase on the ‘bloke’iness dial? So I have a couple of simple questions I would like an answer to, and I think that the commenters at signposts on this day are well qualified to give me those answers:
- Why are there more men than women in formal leadership in the church?
- What can be done to encourage more women into formal leadership in the church?
- Why are there more women than men amongst regular church attenders?
- What can be done to encourage more men to be in regular church attendance?
March 15th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Hey Janet - thanks for sharing the Wolfgang Simson reflections. Sounds like it resonates with Neil Cole. Hamo also shares a little about his wife and the fact that she knew what they were doing even without reading all those ministry/mission books Hamo lent her.
Sorry I did not get to meet you at DS2 - I was the guy running around Maria and the team! Glad you enjoyed it! I am looking forward to checking out the DVD’s etc from Dave and Waz at Lampstand.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Interesting points all
To Toddy first - damned if I have an opinion, damned if I don’t. Janet put the challenge and I responded. How would you have responded? Doubtless if my opinion was the same as yours it would have been OK. You seem to be implying that I should have had a go at Dan. I stand by my position not to, because what good would it have done? There are plenty of examples in Scripture where something “wrong” is done but it is not wrong - some examples where “the Law” was broken and it was OK because it resulted in “good’ or God instructed someone to go against the law because it achieved reconciliation (Hosea) and healing (healing the cripple on the Sabbath) - The message being if good comes out of something I don’t see that I can push it that hard.
Bluth’s point about women missionaries in previous centuries is a case in point. At the end of the day, they went and they did good. Might it have been better if men and women went out together? Probably, maybe, I don’t know - they did good and I can’t argue with that - I see that as part of the stewardship equation. And no I don’t see that as resigning my views on headship.
I know a number of people with similar views about church as we know it, and who hanker after that relational house church style. I think the circuit breaker about that is church is to me for believers for corporate worship, not for evangelism. My experience is when we confuse the two it gets very messy - not to say the church doesn’t undertake corporate evangelical activites - but if the informal relational element is missing then we miss out on a lot that I think God wants us to have that would grow us and others. I don’t see the women centred-ness and around the kitchen at odds with headship at all.
Perhaps the key point is there are a number of different ways to “do” Church? My oldest son is wrestling with that now and quite dissatisfied with “Church”. As long as the assembling together is not forsaken then that’s OK.
But it seems that the whole idea of the woman being chained to the kitchen is an automatic assumption which does not necessarily follow. I think it is a dead argument which isn’t a problem unless it is in your household - then it is alive and kicking - I know lazy men AND women.
Also I absolutely reject the concept of being artistic as being feminine - with respect to Bluth and Toddy may I as a long time musician say that is crap? In reality that is very much a culturally based statement - what about all those trumpet players and drummers who have led countless armies into battle? David was a musician, a warrior, a sinner and still a man after God’s own heart. Where it comes from I think is our culture’s determination to deny that men feel anything, unless our arm has been ripped off - ah that’s OK its only a scratch! And music and art is an expression of feeling and emotion etc. What I think it does say is apart from the obvious physical differences there are other differences between men and women which we try and find convenient labels for.
Janet I think you’re a bit hard on young blokes, but I understand where you’re coming from and the idea of mentorship any person will always be critical. Ask yourself what sort of mentoring each person has received throughout their lives either actively or passively, and you go a long way to explaining who people are, and why they do the things they do. I agree it a critical part of relationship and a key component in facilitating change.
Cheers
MN
March 16th, 2007 at 5:49 am
from http://thedeepend.squarespace.com/display/ShowJournal?moduleId=57227¤tPage=4
a quote from Tim Keller:
Hebrews 11.35: “Women received back their dead, raised to life again”.
“Women? It says women? Shouldn’t that be “men and women”? No, it’s women. There are six resurrection stories in the Bible (not including Jesus’), and in five cases out of six the recipients are women. Just like the first witnesses at THE resurrection - Jesus’ resurrection - were women as well. Just like according to non-Christian writers the early church was full of women more than of men. Just like your church has more women in than men. Why is this? Is it because the synagogue was feminised, or because Christian men weren’t being real men or something?
“No! And I’ll tell you the reason why. It’s simply that the people who received back their dead were the powerless. People with power and people in power generally don’t want the gospel, they don’t want God in their life. Women especially then but also now, and especially widows, and in general the poor, are pushed to the edges and excluded from power. They see through the sham of power, they notice the illusory nature of worldly power. They looked to the One who triumphed through defeat. In general, the more powerful you are, the more secure you are, the nearer you are to the center of worldly power, the less likely you are to experience resurrection power.”
March 16th, 2007 at 8:34 am
I actually am really enjoying this conversation as I look in on it. And I want to throw one more thing into the mix.
It seems to me that some of the arguments about “headship” and leadership on gender lines are examples of arguing for positional authority, rather than relational authority. If someone has to assert that they have leadership or headship in a relationship (whatever that means) because they are male and because the bible says so, then it is normally pretty good evidence that they haven’t in fact lived out that role or been granted the trust to do so.
I think that relational authority happens with men or women - the “how can I keep from singing” approach. If you have a woman or man who has clear gifts in leadership and teaching or whatever, most of the time they can’t help but let those gifts show and would have to consciously keep themselves from doing so if they believed that was not proper for their biblical role.
In my own relationship I am happy to recognise that my husband is the head of me, but that I am also the head of him. This is not something that has come about because of an assertion of entitlement, but as part of us growing together in marriage. But I know that there is nothing that irks me more than sitting in a meeting or an organisation where someone says “I get to make the decision because I am the leader and you have to accept that” when they have not developed or earned by trust and respect in them as a leader.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Yes, Dan I totally agree. When my husband and I were talking about the whole “submission to authority” in terms of leadership I asked him, “Have you ever thought to yourself, `Emma’s not submitting’? And he said he hadn’t, because our relationship is simply not about someone being “in charge”. It’s a partnership, and we submit to one another…in my experience the people that bang on about submission are the ones who don’t seem to have very happy marriages. And the leadership that always bangs on about the congregation submitting usally have a very dissatisfied church…probably because they don’t spend the same amount of time learning about how leaders are to serve their followers. It seems to me if we just do what God asks of us, without worryting so much about what God has asked of someone else, we’d be much happier and more fulfilled, we’d be doing what God wants and this would reflect in the church.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:15 am
“damned if I have an opinion, damned if I don’t.” No, not damned, I was trying to suggest however that you were trying to hedge. Ie, having an opinion on a principle, but not on a practical situation.
I used to think a lot like you, mn. I simply got tired of trying to justify what women could do this week that they couldn’t do last week, all the while realising that they were cleverer than me, often more compassionate than me, yada & yada & yada. I’m in a leadership role because relationally, I tend to be able to motivate people to realise their dreams. Part of that is helping women to lead in the way that they seem wired to be able to do, but have been told that they are ‘no allowed’.
The curse of male headship was given in the garden, and man - did we make them pay!
BUT! Jesus broke the curse.
Oh - I’m also a long time muso. I don’t look like one (people usually ask me where I’ve parked my hog) but I am. Can’t shift it. Don’t want to.
Music, in the way that it’s done now is quite femanine (not female, feminine! There’s a very distinct difference!). I wasn’t asking if it is, I said ‘it is’.
Biblically, you’re right - they blew their trumpets long & loud. They banged their drums mighty hard. At the same time, we must also recognise that David worshipped God wholeheartedly while doing ‘manly’ things like looking after sheep, but then came and artisically penned songs & psalms, often using language that reflects the ‘feminine’ side of his personality.
I observe that we spend a lot of time in contemporary churches focusing on ‘feminine’ worship, without either recognising or embracing the masculine (for men & women!) within our church services.
The feminine/artistic is ok. I would like to see some wise heads look at how we correct the balance.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I guess one of the theories that we follow at NCCC is that people connect in a whole range of ways and what fits for one does not fit for another. There are some people that get a tremendous amount out of eyes front hymn sandwich with a sermon worship (whether traditional or contemporary) but some people just don’t. Whether male or female jew or gentile, slave or free, it just doesn’t lead them to a connection with God.
I think that creating more diversity in our modes of engagement with church, worship etc can only help in reaching people who just don’t connect with the narrow range of models that we connect with traditionally.
I have heard it say that one difference between males and females is that women speak face to face while men speak side to side (ie while their hands are occupied with doing some activity together). And so it may be that you experience a greater willingness from men to be a part of a church community through volunteering to move furniture for the op shop (as is our experience) rather than to engage in a talk fest. Of course, then we open the hoary chestnut of whether or not this is worship….
March 16th, 2007 at 11:32 am
“a bit hard on young blokes”
Yes… there are plenty of wonderful men around, it was harsh! But your starting allegation referred to men who are ” deaf, dumb… stupid and proud.” I think if you are looking for evidence of masculine irresponsibility and immaturity it’s not too hard to find.
“But it seems that the whole idea of the woman being chained to the kitchen is an automatic assumption which does not necessarily follow.”
Truly MN, I don’t see you saying that at all… you do not strike me as a misogynist or as someone wanting to confine women only to traditional roles… the discussion as I’ve understood it is about “headship”. That women in the church can exercise their leadership and other spiritual gifts provided they are under a male “head”… otherwise they can do anything except for preaching. Is that correct?
I want you to know I’m not some kind of reactionary militant “he-woman” railing against the oppression of the past… sounds to me like a dead end likely to make one bitter, so it’s just not my thing… my experience of dealing with men in the church has been mostly very positive… I don’t think I’m carrying some kind of reactionary agenda. I’m fairly “traditional” in some ways… my family is really important to me, my working hours revolve around my kids (not the other way around), I’m sitting here typing in a dress, most people think I’m nice!
However… I suppose my association with Alan Hirsch and others and reading some of the emerging church materials have made me “radical” in the original sense of the word… someone who tries to get to the root of things. I’m wrestling with the question: what did the primitive (therefore likely to be the most authentic) expression of church look like?
I’m coming to think that it was in fact a house church movement with radical equality and mutual submission… not a formal heirachy with male authority figures. In that sense, there was no need for positional “heads”. There were however, people of both genders who exercised what we would call leadership gifts… apostolic / missionary, prophetic, evangelistic, pastoral and teaching gifts… plus other spiritual gifts both “supernatural” (tongues, interpretation) and serving gifts (administration, mercy) in the relational web between house churches. The epistles were written into this rather chaotic context.
However, we have developed a “church” based more on secular governance patterns and it’s hard for us to see the scriptures with fresh eyes. We are very likely to use the scriptures to confirm what we already believe about life and the church. (I think everyone does this).
I believe this is why geniune and godly people have ideas about the importance of male “headship” in the church… they have grown up in a church dominated by men, this “feels right” to them, they are alienated by radical feminists denouncing men as oppressors, they value the tradition of the church, they have been nurtured by the church, they have been taught about the importance of wives submitting and women learning in silence and it’s absorbed almost into their bones.
My allegation is that “headship” is a bit of a beat up developed because a male heirachy already existed in the church. I do not believe there is a clear connection between the Trinity and the relationships between men and women in the church: the bible does not allege this. Headship is only mentioned once in the scriptures in relation to men and women in the church… (I Cor 11)… which is a very difficult passage and most of us ignore most of its recommendations. (eg we don’t ask women to put on a veil when they are praying or prophesying in church… shock, horror, a public speaking ministry!!!) Many think this passage makes sense in the light of the fact married women wore veils and temple prostitutes did not… the veil was the symbol of the authority of the husband… it appears some women weren’t bothering with the veil… which might put the church in disrepute.
But I would actually love to engage with other arguments around “male headship” because I haven’t really studied this concept… and if I continue in ministry I’m bound to hit these arguments. So, hit me with it (MN and others)… I promise I’ll even change my mind if you can give a good argument based in scripture showing “male headship” is a binding principle for the church for all time.
March 16th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Wow
there’s a lot of interesting stuff there.
Firstly to Andy Gr - I don’t read much in gender terms about who was resurrected and who got the benefit. Agree with your observations about those who feel they have power and the powerless and marginalised.
To Dan
Is sometimes relational and positional authority are the same thing? I think I understand the difference although I wouldn’t mind if you explained further what you mean - do you mean the merit principle? But as I would understand it I don’t necessarily see that there has to be a distinction, but see that sometimes there is - ultimately will depend on the individual circumstances concerned. Also to me you either have authority or you don’t. But I would like further explanation from you on th what you see as the difference between relational and positional authority. I don’t necessarily agree with your statement that asserting ones authority means the person has lost it, although it can be evidence of that. The Bible is filled from one to the other with God re-stating and re-establishing his authority. Does that mean He has lost it, or even worse failed?
Your comments re “mutual headship” I think are close to the mark, although I still believe in the headship role for men. I think God’s plan was that type of indissoluble, indivisible unity - 1 Cor 7 makes it clear that husband and wife have mutual ownership. However I still think there differences in the authority, role or functions that God delegates. I see it in creation in the relatioships/paradigms that God sets up - in things like where the female redback spider eats the male after mating, where penguins share egg minding duties, how salmon plough upstream to their death, how the lion is the king of the jungle but the lioness does all the work, why barramindi have a midlife crisis and sex change.
What I think is true is that either way means we need to be very careful and respectful of one another, because ultimately this is what God expects of us. I think Emma’s statement of approach sums it up well. The other options of being singly matriarchal/patriarchal society doesn’t cut it - I don’t see the concept of male headship as being patriarchal, but the delegation of responsibility to exercised either in matrimony or church for the good of all. Emma’s statement seems to be a fair summary of how it works in practice.
To Toddy
Authority, role or function is not necessarily about who is better than who, who’s smarter or what gifts people have got. Clearly Scripture teaches that if you have a gift, it is for the purpose of being exercised. However I also think Scripture teaches it is about what you have been delegated or given to do whether you have the gifts or not. If I understand Dan correctly I think that means there is both the positional and relational exercise of authority - perhaps “responsibility”, “role” or “accountability” are better words and less confronting word than authority. (I see this whole issue is one of God’s little wheels within wheels within wheels jobs). Also the curse wasn’t about male headship, it was about the failure to exercise headship when it should have been - Adam should have stepped in, sent Satan packing, and protected his wife, instead of using her to do what he probably wanted to do himself, but lacked the guts. What Adam needed to show was sacrificial love for his wife, and righteous anger toward the Devil. Re feminine worship I think you’re talking about what my son calls “Jesus loves my girlfriend” music - if we’re talking about the same thing I think it actually is often very me-centric - leaves me cold both musically and as worship.
To Janet
you have read me pretty right re headship, preaching etc. I am still have not worked this thru to my satisfaction - what I would like to do at some point is just go thru Scripture from beginning to end and look at it in macro and micro - I believe the evidence or argument is there, but haven’t put it together yet.
Have a lot of sympathy for your comments re church etc - goes back to what Dan said - there are different ways to skin cats, horses for courses etc. In a lot of ways the issues with church are like a lot of others - formal “church” can be a way of genuinely worshippng - it can also be a way of ticking the boxes which I think almost always works against relationship especially with God. There is an attraction to small church approach which appeals to me which at the same time I am wary of because of the lack of accountability - have seen that first hand.
I understand your difficulties with my contention about headship. This idea has its roots in part I suppose because of the churches I have been to. I haven’ t been a slave to them though because I couldn’t deny in my face Scripture about things like spiritual gifts, predestination, the sovereignty of God etc.
What underpins my thoughts on this is I am convinced that God operates on a thousand different scales and more all at the same time, in wild diversity, but with a consistency of approach all the way thru - He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. I believe that the image we have been made in with all our capabilities, gifts, talents, the way in which we relate, and creative potential must have a consistency with God’s character and person(s), and how He relates, creates etc. We are fallen, corrupted and depraved, and yet every person no matter how low they fall never completely escape the image with which they were originally made and intended to be. The Trinity is the template from which we have been cast - always an image, creature and not creator. The way in which we are designed to relate will therefore be an image of how the Trinity relates. There are passages e.g. John 14 etc which gives us a window into that. If we marry that with other instructions, illustrations, stories etc we should be able to get a better idea of how we should be relating in Christ - we are a new creation (falling short til the resurrection of course). I also have recourse to the creation itself which we are told testifies to us, and he has even put the truth in our hearts apart from Scripture. In the end I can only go on Scripture and try and marry up what I see in life, trying to separate that which is the image of God from that which is corrupt - this is the difficult and lifelong exercise that we all face.
As such I think the concept of headship is throughout the Bible with only glimpses of clarity and directness. I think the creation story speaks of it, an 1 Cor 11 certainly does - I hadn’t noticed v3 before - it’s always the headcovering that gets the limelight. To me the headcoverings issue is a sideshow - real story is v3 - I do not read this as a cultural statement in any way, but as a statement of how God has ordained things to be.
Having got this far, here is I think the thing. In the practical outworking of headship - in marriage, in church (subject how we interpret specific instructions about that) and in life, I think that if it works the way I think God intended, the thrust of the position you are putting WILL apply - because there will be a functional unity in the relational and the positional (if I understand Dan’s distinction between the relational and positional correctly). It is the same as free will and predestination/sovereignty - these things appear to work against each other and Christians have massacred each other over these issues- but they are still both there in Scripture- His ways are not our ways - and God has reconciled them because He is God and we are not.
I don’t expect anyone to change their minds in this conversation. And if you or I don’t, but serve the Lord with all our hearts, mind and strength what more can be done? Praise God and we’ll chat over a coffee or whatever in Heaven - I live in WA - which may as well be on Mars.
Cheers
MN
March 17th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Re 1 Cor 11:3 - am not a Greek scholar - can anyone say what the direct translation is?
Cheers
MN
March 17th, 2007 at 7:22 am
mn, the literal translation from the Greek of 1 Cor 11:3 goes like this:
“But you to know, that of every man the head Christ is; head and of a woman, the man; (the) head and of Christ, God.”
There, you did ask.
A translation of the translation:
“But I want you to know that Christ is the Head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.”
Does that help?
March 17th, 2007 at 8:03 am
Young’s literal version is: (thanks to biblegateway.com)
3and I wish you to know that of every man the head is the Christ, and the head of a woman is the husband, and the head of Christ is God.
This is virtually identical to the amplified version.
At which point I have to recant, having alleged there is no connection with the relationship between men and women and the trinity… there is one verse after all! Although I’d be a bit cagey about constructing a theology around the analogies Paul uses when he’s trying to make a point… he does a few strange analogies in his letters.
I would still argue the probable context (given the comments I suggested earlier about married women wearing veils and prostitutes not doing so) is the marriage relationship, rather than ALL men and ALL women in the church. Women were to wear the symbol they were under married authority while engaging in a speaking ministry in the church, and the sensibilities of those around them were probably an important factor in Paul’s advice.
Anyway MN, I appreciate that your views are nuanced and that you are wrestling with a geniune question about God’s plan for the church. I also recognise a humility that doesn’t set views in stone… when we read the epistles we are in a sense reading other people’s mail, and we do not fully understand the context into which they were addressed… although archeology and historical research and language study hopefully get us a little closer to understanding what it really meant, and not just what we think it says.
As I’ve alleged, I don’t think a complex theology of “male headship” made much sense in a small interlinked set of house churches where women fully participated for the most part, and it’s likely to have developed much later when the church was far more structured and hierachical… but that’s just my hunch which can’t be set in stone either!
In terms of “preaching”, this was thrashed out somewhat in the “coming out of the closet” thread, so you can track that down if you’re interested in the “fors” and “againsts” from a Signposts persective. You might want to resurrect this thread and put in your own two bob’s worth.
A bit of an aside in terms of denominations… there’s a huge crop of ministers who will retire in the next 10 - 15 years and there’s a shortfall of new ministerial candidates… this is an impending crisis for the institutional church (which the Catholics have had for a long time now… most Protestant denominations will feel the pinch soon). So my hunch is that denominations and local congregations will rework their theology out of expediency, and that women will be more likely to pick up pastoral positions. Others will rediscover lay ministry with much greater intentionality. Still others may in fact develop more of a cell / home church structure. Interesting times ahead for the institutional church!
March 17th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Thanks Darryl
it seems to be what it is
Hi Janet
I understand your caginess about contructing a theology around a verse, and I hope that is not what I am doing. I do think however that there verses throughout the Bible that even when you take away context they stand on their own - What is the greatest commandment -Love the Lord your God, thou shalt not murder etc - if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck…..it’s a duck.
You may be right about the context - the issue is how do we take into account context and the much broader tapestry which I think for the most part is beyond us - we see through a darkened mirror etc.
Re the apparent contradictions between male headship and women exercising spiritual leadership, and the statement I made last night that perhaps they can actually co-exist - I am still unclear about this - still not sure how it should work and is contingent upon other things (which I think our society is in the process of throwing out or re-working in its own image). My increasing experience is that there are a few often apparently contrary ideas in which our tendency is to adopt a position which is fought to the death (this hasn’t happened here). In God’s economy however they are actually hand in glove enabling and supporting us to be the people that God designed us to be. As you point out there is in all of us the tendency to link or water down things that shouldn’t be.
You are spot on about the impending pastor/minister crisis and associated implications - I have actually seen that very recently first hand.
I might leave the “coming out of the closet” for a bit because I’ve ignored my guitar for over a week, and also need to spend some time with my better half. Still would like to hear something from Dan on relational and positional authority.
Cheers
MN
March 17th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“our tendency is to adopt a position which is fought to the death”
I think for women who believe God has called them into pastoral ministry this is an incredibly sensitive issue… for (say) an elder or deacon to argue they cannot fulfil this role is to tantamount to saying… “you cannot pursue the career into which you have invested huge amounts of time, energy, and money.” And it’s not only about career, it’s about personal identity…”Dearie, you cannot do that which you strongly feel God has called you to do and which you feel ‘wired’ to do, which you love doing… because, frankly dearie, you must be either deluded and disobedient. Look what Paul wrote! Women cannot speak in church!”
But they’re also in a bind because if they get cranky about this it only confirms prejudice: “See, it’s just as I always thought… women are just too emotional to be in ministry”.
People with no theological qualifications whatsoever who read scripture in the most superficial manner can get to make decisions about the career of women who have worked their butts off studying Greek and theology and near east history and exegesis etc. etc. I think it must be incredibly galling for a woman to have a ministry blocked by what she deeply believes are superficial (and incorrect) interpretations of scripture.
So I’d have to say I’m a bit sympathetic to “fight to the death” syndrome when it actually is to do with career survival. It’s a theological battle ground far more easily fought by men on behalf of women than by the women themselves.
I think in your reflections MN it’s important to sift out two separate issues: 1) are men and women the same? (I’d argue usually not… most men and most women are “wired” a somewhat differently to one another) and 2) is “male headship” an important organisational principle for the church? (I’d argue no)
Anyway… best wishes in your future reflections.
March 17th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
I’ve just re-read a fair proportion of “Coming Out Of The Closet” thread, as it has been a long time since I’ve read it. Actually, I was impressed in a way with how much “healthier” this conversation has been than “Coming Out Of The Closet” thread… Dan was lobbed all the grenades of “you clearly don’t believe the bible” and “Joseph Smith felt he was called by God and was obviously deluded” etc. etc. It does reinforce MN’s comment about a “battle to the death”… I’m not quite sure why some of the “women can’t exercise teaching or leadership” camp appear to get so emotional / vehement about this.
Anyway, I thought I’d post the comments I made there in this thread because the whole “out of the closet” thread is a rather long and torturous journey, and I don’t want to keep MN from his wife and his guitar for any longer than necessary!
Here tis:
One of the strong threads in evangelicalism is this: not only is the word of God authoritative, but it must be understood in its culture and in its context. For example, very few churches say that women must have their heads covered in church, because it is understood that in Corinth it was the norm for married women to have their heads covered, and for temple prostitutes to have their heads uncovered. So “extra biblical” evidence is important in deciding whether the advice is for a particular time or universal in intent. Likewise, kissing was an accepted form of social greeting in the 1st century… I know of no churches that make this a legalism that believers must greet each other with a kiss because of this “extra biblical evidence”.
The “extra biblical evidence” in relation to Ephesus is fascinating. Worship in this city centred around the goddess Artemis. This goddess was a dominant goddess. She came first, then she created her subservient male partner. The feminine was superior to the masculine. Artemis was the goddess to whom the women of Ephesus prayed to keep them alive during childbirth. It is thought that a group of domineering women in the church in Ephesus were promoting these pagan ideas and were disruptive in worship.
Keeping this in mind, it is fascinating to re-read I Tim 2:
10Women who claim to love God should do helpful things for others, 11and they should learn by being quiet and paying attention. 12They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to do. 13After all, Adam was created before Eve, 14and the man Adam wasn’t the one who was fooled. It was the woman Eve who was completely fooled and sinned. 15But women will be saved by having children, [a] if they stay faithful, loving, holy, and modest.
It is also worth noting that, in the 1st century, the word translated in other versions for “have authority” has negative connotations… usurping and domineering authority.
This is a really difficult passage to interpret without understanding this background… does anyone really think women must have children to be saved? Being faithful to the text involves thoughtful interpretive work, including the best “extra biblical” evidence we can lay our hands on.
One of the commentators on this thread suggested women could witness privately in their homes but not in the church. When does a gathering in one’s home become the church? When 4 people are present? 5, 6, 7? Perhaps it’s a home group up to size 12 and a church after that? I do not think this makes any sense in the house church context into which the epistles were written.
Priscilla and Aquilla taught Apollos in Acts 18 (it’s interesting her name comes first, reversing the normal custom for the husband’s name to come first… some scholars think this custom was overridden because of the custom to name the better teacher… or better known teacher… first.) When the gathering got to a certain size, was she supposed to stop teaching and sit and learn in silence? (I sometimes get the feeling that the naysay camp impose a contempory view of the church… a formal organisation that meets in dedicated buildings with formally ordained and qualified leaders in positions of power… on the dynamic, evolving lay house church movement that was the early church).
I studied this issue from a conservative evangelical perspective when I stayed at L’Abri in Switzerland… not a charged issue for me, I had no idea that later God would call me into ministry. I found the arguments in favour of the leadership of women much stronger than the arguments against… and these arguments were not liberal, post modern relativist ones!
For example I Corinthian 14 gets trotted out by the naysayers:
33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
But, in I Corinthians 11, Paul devotes a whole section to what women should be wearing on their heads when praying or prophesying in church: “4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head”
So if women were praying and prophesying in church… what kind of “silence” is referred to in chapter 14? Surely the context makes it obvious… they are not to disrupt proceedings by asking their husbands to explain something… some commentators think the Corinthian church followed the synagogue model and had women sitting in one area and men in another… so the yelling back and forth would have caused chaos.
On another matter… women may prophesy but not teach???? in the instructions about worship in the Corinthian church there appears to be no “hierachy” between prophesy and teaching:
” 26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. 27If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.
29Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”
If anything, you could make a case that prophesy is a higher function than teaching. At the start of chapter 14, Paul notes 1″Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, ESPECIALLY the gift of prophecy.”
Another clarification, which is really my main point in relation to Corinthians. We do not need to know exactly what prophesy looked like (whether prophesy still exists in the church seems to me a debate best left for another thread.) But we can safely assume it involved talking… speaking forth! Prophesy and silence are incompatible. Because the passage about head coverings while praying and prophesying (11:5) are in the same book as the directive that women be silent… if they have a question they should ask their husbands at home (14:34, 35) I think the two statements need to be kept side by side. This is why I personally think the “silence” in chapter 14 is best understood in its immediate context… it was addressing disruption to worship by women asking their husbands to explain something. There are other references to women and prophesy in the New Testament… how can someone prophesy and be silent at the same time? I think we can at least be confident that prophesy is a spiritual gift, it involved speaking forth, and that women were involved in this ministry in the early church; yes, public ministry.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Hi Janet
I don’t actually have time to reply properly may be not for a week or so, but with reference to your point about 1 Cor point look at this - I think it is hilarious - three different takes on the translation
New Living
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God’s holy people.[a]
34 Women should be silent during the church meetings. It is not proper for them to speak. They should be submissive, just as the law says. 35 If they have any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, for it is improper for women to speak in church meetings.[b]
New RSV
And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.
(As in all the churches of the saints, 34women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.* 36Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)
Message
When we worship the right way, God doesn’t stir us up into confusion; he brings us into harmony. This goes for all the churches—no exceptions.
34-36Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God’s Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking. Do you—both women and men—imagine that you’re a sacred oracle determining what’s right and wrong? Do you think everything revolves around you?
My head hurts!
My one question our of this is what is it in the Law that Paul is referring to?
I’ll leave it at that - its tooooooooo much!
Cheers
MN
March 19th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Would you like your head to spin just a bit more?
I Corinthians has a large section where Paul includes quotes from the letter the Corinthians wrote to him, and then writes his reply. This section begins in I Cor 7
I Cor 7: 1 Now for the matters you wrote about: etc. etc.
Because we do not have the original letter sent to Paul, scholars have simply had to guess which what are the quotes and what are instructions from Paul in response. But Merrill Kitchen (principal of CCTC) was recently sharing the work of a scholar who believes he has unlocked the literary cues that tell where the quotation marks are. (as you’re probably aware, ancient Greek had no punctuation marks so we look to literary cues to deduce where full stops etc. should be.) Guess where he thinks they should be in the passage you’ve quoted?
I Cor 14: 33 “As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”
36 DID THE WORD OF GOD ORIGINATE WITH YOU? OR ARE YOU THE ONLY PEOPLE IT HAS REACHED? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.[i]
39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.
Interpretation… the “law” they quote is in Paul’s opinion, a load of rubbish… hence his sarcastic response.
Yet another interesting “spin” on it.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Well, Toddy, since its confession time, I sing along in the car to JT. But alone. The Geneva convention made sure of that in the late 1990s (Passengers vs Bluth).
Can we start a poll? Who has been on a men’s camp and run naked as part of the official program?
I haven’t…Or do I not go to the right gatherings?
March 19th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
no mens camp but I have run naked - and no reall official program - more, well let’s just say that Mr Beam has a lot to answer for!
March 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Hey mn, just wanted to respond to expand on my shorthand of “positional” and “relational” authority as you requested (sorry it has been slow in coming).
It might be argued that leadership or authority over others comes as a result of appointment to a particular position, and in fact we often speak as if this were the case. When someone is appointed minister of a church, then that person has spiritual authority over the body of the church. That is, their authority to speak into people’s lives is more about the position that they hold than the person that they are.
However, we know that this is not in fact the way that it often works. Sometimes people have authority without position, sometimes people have the position but are unable to exercise the authority. We know for example that when a person in a position of authority proves themselves through their relationships, then they are often rewarded with a greater trust or respect and therefore a greater or freer authority. Relational authority is given to a leader by those that he or she leads. Positional authority is taken by a leader from an office or an institution.
Likewise there are many true leaders in our midst who are given authority and leadership have no formal office or position which would explain that.
Where I see this is applicable in this conversation is as follows. I think that in this situation, the distinction is nuanced but quite powerful. I react badly when people suggest that my husband has headship over me simply because he is a man and I am a woman - ie as a simple function of his gender. This is positional authority if you like. However, I have no problems with the idea that if my marriage is godly and my relationship is good then I will be willing to submit to my husband and he to me. This is relational authority - we have to earn this headship from each other, it is not automatic by virtue of testicles.
March 19th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Oh and I wanted to add something. As much as I appreciate Janet’s lovely compliments on my role, I don’t by any means hold myself out as the textbook example of a woman in leadership in the church or anyplace else.
March 20th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Hi Dan
thanks for further explaining what you mean by positional and relational authority/power etc - I take it as the authority you are appointed to and the authority you “earn” from respect.
Re your last comment not earning headship by virtue of whether one has testicles or not, and given another recent post by your good self and the need for a SOH in this environs, that explains penis envy.
Will look at a response to the wider issues in a few days time
Cheers
MN
March 20th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Penis Envy
.
.
.
.
.
(I’m leaving a space so it looks good in the sidebar)
Anyway,
I can’t believe that someone still exists in this world with the gall to use that completely debunked psychoanalytic rubbish.
For shame MN, for shame.
March 20th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Well Dan’s comment left something out! It’s only logical….
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Logical smogical - you obviously (by virtue of the way you purse your lips whilst typing MN) have vagina envy
March 23rd, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Greg
I have 4 kids and saw everyone of them born. I have also lived with outpouring of the symptoms and chemical imbalances that owning that piece of anatomy can bring. In short, my wife has been through her own version of hell courtesy of female plumbing over the years.
I’m a typical red blooded male in that regard, but vagina envy????
I don’t think so!!
Cheers
MN
March 26th, 2007 at 10:05 am
and yet Penus Envy for Dan is oh so logical?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I’ve found a proponent of “male headship”
But he has a non-traditional slant on what “headship” means.
http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/male_headship.shtml
Theoloogy is a complex business!
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Janet
It’s a good read. Broadly I agree with the thrust of what he’s saying. I think this is a significant part of where I’m at, although I think there is more.
I however think that working through this is a long term project for me… and my back is killing me so I’m going to have a Bex and a good lie down.
Cheers
MN
April 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 am
I agree… the more I look at it the more I appreciate the wide range of opinions and the theological skill required to tease it all out, alas.
I trust we hold to the principle that if our speculations block women from exercising the gifts and roles they exercised in the early church, then there’s something wrong with our speculations!