The CBE Scroll

Comment by ShawnaRenee

November 12, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

I voted on that poll. I was in the 20% that said it is unacceptable behavior even if it is based on a male pastor’s understanding of Scripture. I’m not amazed at the result, which is kind of sad.

Comment by Janet

November 13, 2007 @ 10:26 am

Good morning everyone, I am not suprised at the results of this poll because it correlates with two things.

1. Christianity Today’s poll which is poorly written using worldly connotations, doesn’t include Scriptural reference upon which any thinking Christian could provide a well reasoned answer.

2. I suspect most (but not all for those that answered and do study Scripture) people who answered the poll fit the Barna demographics of Christians who do not read their Bible at all. (37% of believers read the Bible (314 people out of 850 claiming to be Christian 2001). Read more about it here.

Let me say something about the wording of this poll which uses worldly connotations of the secular legal and ethical world. The mixing of biblical language with underlying worldly philosophy is quite apparent in this poll. If a person agreed with any of the following statements, then that person is also agreeing with the underlying philosophy/way of thinking about the handling and resolution of such disagreements, perhaps without knowing it.

1. 45% agreed that convictions dictate whether corresponding behavior is deemed unfair: here the emphasis is on ‘his convictions.’ This is a worldly understanding of how ethically, a male pastor if convicted about his belief despite the truth, has the right to follow what he wants - if he is convicted enough.

2. 25% agreed that only the legal structure of a organization can dictate whether behavior is deemed unfair: here the emphasis is on the legality of a church having a structure of operation which allows for women pastors. It is only ‘unfair discrimination’ since the legal structure of that particular church ordains women. Therefore the male pastor’s behavior is only deplorable because ordaining women pastors is legalized.

3. 20% agreed that you can deem ‘church actions’ unfair without referring to the Scriptures: here the emphasis is on the the male pastor’s understanding of Scripture, implying indirectly that the male pastor may have a correct understanding, yet it is still unfair discrimination. This is a tricky one, very subtle. It separates our understanding of unfair discrimination from scriptural reference. Because if the pastor did base his action toward women pastors based on his understanding of Scripture, then we would know he had a wrong understanding of Scripture. Yet the way the question is phrased suggests that the pastor might have a correct understanding and we the voters would still consider it unfair.

4. 10% agreed that male pastors having wrong beliefs is okay: this church does it this way and that church does it that way, and its all okay; who cares what the biblical truth is. Isn’t this what the world doing right now: ‘its all okay; to each their own; as long as it isn’t harming anyone else,’ etc., etc.

The problem with such a poll is it shows a lack of biblical knowledge and understanding on the part of the poll creator.

The way we will change a lack of knowledge is to teach what the scriptures have to say about women in our church homes. Also, we must be on our guard. It is the mind that is attacked in this world; if our beliefs and understandings can be altered, then we could be led away from Jesus. Be alert to the language, tone and underlying philosophies that are being presented in these polls or any other articles. We must learn to read with our armour on!

However, that being said, I think it is important to ask oneself several questions before engaging in such a poll.

Participation: does it make sense to participate in such a poll? Are you lending credibility to wrong focus by participating in it? Is this a good use of your God-given time? Ultimately, by participating, what are you hoping to teach and edify to fellow believers?

Christianity Today’s purpose: what does Christianity Today do with such information from this poll? How come Christianity Today didn’t ask what the woman pastor should do?

Thus ends my rant.

‘Don’t become partners with those who reject God. How can you make a partnership out of right and wrong? That’s not partnership; that’s war. Is light best friends with dark? Does Christ go strolling with the devil? Do trust and mistrust hold hands? Who would think of setting up pagan idols in God’s holy temple? But that is exactly what we are, each of us a temple in whom God lives. God himself put it this way:

“I’ll live in them, move into them; I’ll be their God and they’ll be my people. So leave the corruption and compromise; leave it for good,” says God. “Don’t link up with those who will pollute you. I want you all for myself. I’ll be a Father to you; you’ll be sons and daughters to me.” The Word of the Master, God.’ (2 Corinthians 6:14-18, The Message)

‘If God did not intend I should think, why did he give me a thinker?’ - Robert G. Ingersoll

Comment by tiro

November 15, 2007 @ 12:37 pm

The fact that so many Christians don’t regularly read their Bibles is horrible. Add to that, those who do read their Bibles have no clue how to properly study. Most people helicopter verses out of context with no clue they are doing it.

Comment by Jason

November 15, 2007 @ 10:07 pm

Hey, did anyone read Albert Mohler’s post on the ordination of women in the Church of England? Why do complementarians believe that the ordination of women leads to the ordination of homosexuals? This seems like intellectual dishonesty on their part.

Comment by tiro

November 16, 2007 @ 11:03 am

See comment 73557.

Well, it’s scare tactics for one. It scares the men into keeping women down and then scares the women that they could be part of bring homosexuals into leadership. And yes, it’s dishonest.

I’m not sure who started the rumor whether it was Grudem or one of his inner gang. If we knew who started it, because it’s not scriptural, then we might know more about the theory behind it.

An offshoot from this scare tactic is that it discourages Christians from witnessing to homosexuals. And for the few churches that do encourage it my guess is they would tend to grossly limit any sort of ministry envolvment of saved homosexuals for fear, thus not really trusting that God can heal and deliver.

Comment by Jason

November 16, 2007 @ 12:36 pm

See comment 73605.

I hear you. I guess it is convenient to use historical particularity (women’s liberation or gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transsexual movements) to scare people into submission. It seems these rhetorical games feed both the left and the right. It’s not faith that drives them. The Scripture expressly says that anything which is not of faith is sin. How said for so-called Bible-believing Christians. It’s not enough to believe Scripture, we must obey.

Comment by fjs

November 16, 2007 @ 3:30 pm

I think fear is a common motivator for the status quo. I have been reading a bit of Rene Girard and he talks about how when the ‘order’ is threatened the reaction is fear which leads to scapegoating, then expulsion or a death of the scape goat(s).

I guess I would add restriction to expulsion and death… (of course expulsion could be linked with restriction) because when women are out of their proper place, the ‘order’ is upset. Then anxiety ensues.

I just see all kinds of fear and anxiety at work linking women with homosexuals. I think that responding out of fear and anxiety is a thoughtless, reactive response. It does not come from the peace of Christ. Perhaps we trust in our own order rather than Christ… perhaps it is another way of thinking about alliegence to Ceasar instead of alliegence to Christ.

Fear is a powerful, manipulative force that keeps folks in line. I have even seen this fear surface in the ‘Why Men Hate Church’ discussion too… pastors are impuned as being feminized - kind of gay - if they have attended seminary and thoughtfully studied. They have become feminized. It hits at the fear - social acceptance. And it becomes another motivator for keeping women in their place - silent and unseen.

Comment by Jester

November 17, 2007 @ 10:24 am

I think that it’s important to take into account the current church and biblical culture prevelant in Western Christianity at this time.

Correct Bible study requires a number of factors.

1. All text must be interpreted within context of the book as a whole and surrounding text.

2. All text must be interpreted within the context of the culture of the time.

3. All text must be interpreted within the principals laid out by God… i.e. if this passage seems to contradict the Word of God as established, is something meant here other than the literal (i.e. if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off…).

Much of mainline American Christianity is affected or given to proof-texting, which is building your message, and then extracting the individual verses that support that message from the Bible. This is extremely poor interpretation or exploration of the Bible, but the general opinion seems to be that people are either too stupid, or have too short an attention span, to bear having large portions of Scripture read to them. I would venture this is also why, when large passages of Scripture are read, little work is put into reading them in such a manner that it is actually interesting to listen to, which is a skill any professional reader or orator puts effort into.

Much of Western confessional Christianity actually is relatively anti-intellectual, and the underlying theme of most Western churches seems to contain at least a seed of ‘God put this pastor here for a reason, you need to take what he says as part of the extended Gospel, and not question him or what he says.’ This flies directly in the face of the Word of God, but is accepted culturally. Though as George Hunter III says in Church for the Unchurched, much of the American church is actually what we might call the American folk church, which at the end worships American folklore and patriotism rather than the actual living God.

Elements clearly identified by Dallas Willard within his writings show how most of the Western church puts little stock in discipleship or life in the kingdom of heaven, which is in fact what the majority of Christ’s sermons were about, and instead focuses on the small percentage of Christ’s work concerning salvation and sin management, with an effort toward making sure that people can go to heaven.

But if, culturally, it is accepted that the only point to being a Christian is to engage is positive sin management (behaviour protocol toward positive balance with God) to achieve, through retaining salvation through good behaviour, having achieved it initially through a faith crisis moment, and to create faith crisis moments regarding in salvation for other people, followed by more sin management training, then life as a disciple has no meaning to the average Christian.

It’s just a name.

If ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ’ equals ’salvation and positive sin management’ then reading the Bible, while certainly a positive thing, is a strange venture that only the truly spiritual devout have time or emphasis for. One might suspect that for many Christians, Christ is only encountered in church, or in prayer when there is a need… actual lifestyle is unimpeded or affected by Christ, overall.

If these things are true, then the questions asked in this poll falls into place. The pastor is the source of Christian understanding and scriptural correctness, rather than an overall awareness of Christ through a living relationship and study of his Word and lifestyle.

In fact, much of mainstream Western Christianity is based on knowing the unknowable, so that it may be confessed with our mouths to the unbelieving masses. The mystic, the unknowable, the imponderable, is thus the enemy, an aspect of new age thinking, rather than the proper aspect of Christianity as an Eastern religion that it truly is.

But then, the measure of a disciple in the first century was how well his life reflected his master, not how well he could quote verses and discourses on the words of the master.

As for the teachings of the English church regarding women teaching leading to homosexual teaching… so much of politics today runs on a slippery-slope mentality. We have to take and hold onto as much as we can, no matter how extreme it is, because if we give up anything, it will give others ground. They can say ‘Hey, you changed your mind about this, you let them into the club, so legally, you have to let us in too.’ This is creating a false analogy of reason, but is the generally running principal of most of our culture.

If we let the women in, we’ll have to let everybody else in too, at some point. This is how they are actually thinking, in many cases. It’s seen as an attack on the overall brick wall of their theology.

After all, an attack on the man as leader is an attack on God, who he reflects, right?

Comment by fjs

November 17, 2007 @ 10:48 pm

Gee, how do I reflect God then? I think reflecting God is about being like Christ in character - the character displayed in Christ. I don’t think it is gender-specific. All are called to reflect God. I hope you are being facetious.

Regarding homosexuals… funny, being a woman is never taught as a sinful behavior. I just cannot grasp how acceptance of homosexual ministers and acceptance of women as leaders have anything in common.

I agree with you about proof-texts and bad interpretation skills. The church needs work on this. There is a very shallow understanding of the Bible and indeed a great deal of dependence on other knowers to simply tell them what to believe and give it the stamp of a proof-text. We can do better.

I agree with you on discipleship… more than sin-management. Takes courage and stamina.

Comment by Jester

November 18, 2007 @ 8:19 am

My last comment was sarcastic, by the way, just in case that wasn’t clear.

What I was trying to say, regarding women and homosexuals, is that both of them are elements of the traditional Western Christian agenda, and that trying to attack any part of that is seen as attacking the whole thing. The people who support that position are quite closed minded, there is no discussion, no opening, no vantage. They have put God in a box, with a nice gold bow on top, and they’re praying as hard as they can for the end of the world to get here so that they can claim their reward.

Comment by tiro

November 18, 2007 @ 12:10 pm

See comment 73733.

You might like to know that there is a fairly new group, called the ‘Five Aspects,’ which teaches that men reflect God more than women do. This is part of the reasons behind their claim of male leaders/female followers teachings. Because they believe that God is male or masculine, men therefore have a knowledge of God that women cannot.

I consider these teachings very close to being cultic if not in fact.

Comment by fjs

November 18, 2007 @ 10:47 pm

Thanks, Jester, I feel better.

Tiro, I have not heard of this group. I have heard about the teaching that men are more like God but thought this was so antiquated that no one really believed that anymore.

I am appalled that it is re-surfacing. What do they do with Scriptures that speak of God being Spirit and that those who worship him worship him in Spirit and truth… (not gender)?

Who was it that said if God is male then man is god? Sounds like the temptation in the garden all over again.

Comment by fjs

November 18, 2007 @ 10:57 pm

I found the link, here.

Weird… Scripture is pretty explicit, man and woman were created in the image of God. Nowhere is there a breakdown of just what the woman has of God’s image and what the man has of God’s image.

Five Aspects claim a theology of maleness and femaleness that is from Genesis to Revelation.

To me it seems as if they have studied the cultures of the times from Genesis to Revelation that existed at the time the Bible was written. Nowhere do I see God validating or commanding the patriarchical definitions of women and men. More often I see the biblical authors seeking to transform them. I see Jesus challenging them.

Comment by tiro

November 19, 2007 @ 10:46 am

Patriarchy is interesting in that it is humanity dividing itself. This is a result of the fall, in my opinion. God’s ‘order’ is that humans were to guide and shepherd the earth and it’s creatures. Sin brought in an element where we turned in upon ourselves (Cain killed his brother) and stood against each other instead of seeking unity and working together for common goals. The sin required that we then shepherd each other and protect each other from ourselves…. sinful humanity. Sin being such that everything it touches is tainted, even the attempts to shepherd each other became tainted into harmful shepherding. And that is the birth of patriarchy - a necessary evil.

Comment by Jason

November 19, 2007 @ 11:20 am

Tiro, I find sometimes that even feminists, whether conservative, liberal, radical, whatever, tend to compare the patriarchy of the ancient Hebrews with construct of patriarchy of Western society. I don’t think these are the same. Yes, complementarians have a sense of nostalgia for the ancient government rule of the father. However, if Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, and Solomon were live to today they would have a few words for them…and us.

Within ancient Hebrew society, women were honored and had leadership roles (Deborah, Miriam, Huldah, Esther, Bathsheba (queen mother, and so forth)).

God never said anything negative about patriarchy of that time, He just used the system to establish His covenant with Israel via the patriarch Abraham. He did say something about the mistreatment of their wives, children, and slaves in the Old and New Testaments. To whom much is given, much is expected. The tendency of complementarianism is to re-envision the ancient government and try to apply it in a liberal democratic context - it just won’t work.

God, the Father Almighty, did establish a new government, the kingdom of His only-begotten Son. Yet, in his kingdom there is no hierarchy. All God’s children are kings and priests and all are co-heirs with Christ.

It just seems that complementarians can confess this in theory, but won’t apply in their male-female relationships and theologies. How tragic.

Comment by diane

November 21, 2007 @ 8:27 pm

Just wondering what an uproar there would be if the genders in the survey were reversed…

Comment by Mary

November 22, 2007 @ 5:14 pm

Yet, if we were to look at the instances of wrongdoing by male pastors, we could conclude that men should not be pastors because of it. (I know… that’s completely unfair to the many wonderful male pastors. And that’s actually my point.)

That’s still done, often, about women who are pastors. Even if it’s just a vague feeling of ‘I don’t like it,’ there are Christians who believe themselves completely justfied in saying that because of their own perceptions of wrongness or occasional wrongdoing, no woman should ever be a pastor.

That’s over and above the many who proof-text the Bible into forbidding women from being pastors, something the Bible in no way ever teaches. They conveniently overlook the shortcomings of many of the men who are pastors, shortcomings that the same proof-texting defines if they’d apply the same principles to men that they do to women (must be married, must have more than one child living at home, must manage their households - this presupposes they are wealthy enough to have household staff - and so forth). No, they stop at the presumption that the list of desirable character traits after it says ‘man’ and never bother to consider that it offers principles that apply to all Christians of obviously good, trustworthy character. They make it out to be a checklist: man? Check. Okay, he’s good to be a pastor (and they equate ‘elder/presbyter/bishop’ with pastor, which may or may not be a sound interpretation, but many haven’t even weighed that question. In other words, they don’t dig in and study it, they just assume it says something that tradition has also assumed it says and don’t study it further).

Comment by Liz

November 23, 2007 @ 12:47 am

And that is so true! We have had people insist that women shouldn’t preach, etc. because ‘isn’t that what the Bible says’ Often these folks have little Bible knowledge, personal issues that haven’t been dealt with, etc. and yet they have this doctrine ‘down pat’ (is that an expression you have in the States?).

Some prohibitions just seem to take people’s fancy and they are most insistent about it.

Comment by fjs

November 23, 2007 @ 9:37 am

I think we also have very little experience of hearing from women…

I remember hearing a woman preach for the very first time. I was all for it, did the scriptural work around it and was fully embracing it… it felt odd and unusual. But it was not because it was wrong, only because I hadn’t had the experience of hearing a woman preach. It took a couple of minutes for me to move beyond the voice tones to what she was saying. As I heard the wisdom and solid biblical content applied… it began to feel more normal.

Sometimes I think folks impose that experience on their interpretation of Scripture. Not being self-aware, they attribute their discomfort to the fact that the speaker is a woman and out of line… instead of their own lack of experience with women in the pulpit. If they would just hear the content instead of get anxious about the gender… I think a lot of this anti-woman stuff would just go away.

Comment by Mary

November 23, 2007 @ 10:32 am

In my opinion, it’s no different than here in the United States when Barbara Walters began reporting and then anchoring the news. Many people were in an uproar, merely because they were used to male voices reading their news to them. I even remember a few Christians saying how Walters was upsetting ‘God’s order!’

I know of many cases in which people who never heard a woman preach before gave female preachers a chance. In the case of those who were good preachers, everyone who did offer that initial benefit of the doubt, wondered after a few weeks just what the fuss was about. They gladly told those who still expressed doubt that the Gospel is the Gospel, and a good preacher is a good preacher. No different, really, than an exceptionally tall or large-bodied or high-pitched voice or bearded or any other distinguishing physical characteristic. The preacher brings the entire self to the preaching process. In fact, one person in my church (pastored by a woman) says it’s a whole lot bigger problem for him to see a guy in a slick suit and Rolex with a fancy stage to preach on than his pastor. She is modestly attired and focuses on the text, rather than the rich guy expounding about prosperity as though God owes him and his listeners. All the worldly trappings can’t disguise a godless sermon, and nothing can prevent the word of God from being preached by a preacher submitted to the will of God.

Comment by Liz

November 23, 2007 @ 6:20 pm

I had the same experience as FJS (see comment 74259) the frist time we were in a meeting where women distributed the elements for communion. It would have been well over thirty years ago as our children were quite small, but I distinctly remember feeling uncomfortable and asking myself if it was because it was unusual or because it was ‘wrong’ as far as God was concerned.

Fortunately, I decided it felt strange because it was uncommon and allowed God to open up a door of possibility so that years later I was not only able to help at the communion service but lead the event and had the privilege of preaching.

I had always wanted to preach and read my Bible with sermons in mind and notes in the margin but had no way of seeing that as a possibility at that time.

Comment by LMcC

November 23, 2007 @ 11:53 pm

Liz (see comment 74294), I had a totally different response when I first saw women doing the communion service. We weren’t at church, but at a home Bible study for my Sunday school class. That action made me see what the early church might have looked like for the first time in a way I could easily understand, and I’ve never forgotten it. I had been egalitarian for about two, maybe three years, and I knew it was okay for women to do communion; but when I actually saw it, that amazed and thrilled me. Too bad the church went in the other direction, but at least it happened once.

I have yet to hear a woman preach an official sermon from a pulpit. I can think of many Sunday school teachers who should be allowed to do so and would do an amazing job if they did, but they’ll never be allowed unless and until they discover biblical equality and change churches (sigh).

Comment by fjs

November 24, 2007 @ 5:20 pm

Liz, when I saw communion served by both a man and a woman for the first time, I wept.

Suddenly the meaning of Christ at the table welcoming both men and women popped out at me. I had a similar experience when sharing communion cross-culturally. The meaning of communion, being really one in Christ became for me, embodied as men and women, multi-ethnic persons served and participated at the table together.

It was visual theology.

Comment by June Love

January 24, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

I am a married mother of three sons aged between nine and twelve. I recently started to feel the call of God on my life and am feeling drawn towards teaching and preaching. My church has acknowledged my God-given gifting, but has refused to allow me access to the pulpit because ‘it will split the church, and Jesus didn’t come to cause conflict.’

I have also been told by others that they believe ‘what the Bible says’ about women in leadership - thereby implying that I am acting directly against the word of the Bible. However, God is absolutely astounding, and I am receiving invitation upon invitation from other churches to preach, in all kinds of services (Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings, seeker groups, ladies groups) My husband is totally supportive, and has said that God gave me a gift, not for my benefit but for the benefit of others so get out there and teach! How then do I remain under the authority of the church leaders and my husband - I have to defy one or the other?

I would absolutely value your comments.

Comment by Will

January 25, 2008 @ 8:47 am

My church has acknowledged my God-given gifting, but has refused to allow me access to the pulpit because ‘it will split the church, and Jesus didn’t come to cause conflict.’

‘Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—your enemies will be the members of your own household.”‘ (Matthew 10:34, TNIV)

Comment by fjs

January 25, 2008 @ 9:37 am

Will, June, that is the same verse I was thinking about when I read your post.

June, when I first stepped out of my assigned box, I also received a kind of beating from people I loved. I have a lot of bruises on my heart but God has been faithful and kind and provided a certain tenacity (like a gift of faith). He also has validated me in a variety of ways.

I believe we are part of a kingdom battle… and just being ourselves as God has created us and following his call to service invites a battle. It places us in a kind of war zone in which we are questioned often, accused often. Especially in the beginning. I think folks are getting used to me now and some of the accusation has subsided. It’s funny because even some former opponents have grudgingly given me support and even found rationalizations to do so. Humorous ones like… God’s best would have been a man but he could not find someone so he called you (a woman). It’s a rationalized support but support because they have reconized something larger than myself is at work. That cannot be explained by normal complementarian arguments.