The CBE Scroll

Comment by Hubert Edgar

May 13, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

This is a fine discussion! I think it pretty well highlights what the main issues are. I am brought to mind of a niece of mine who is a full-time teacher of Christian women. However, she will not teach men because that would be unscriptural. Her mother is a minister and this is a bit of a problem between them, since my niece feels her mother sins everytime she gets behind the pulpit. I’m not sure how to approach the situation, if I even can, as a peacemaker because both women are good Christians who truly are trying to serve the Lord as He has called them to do. I really don’t know the niece very well, so I don’t know if I can even approach the issue at all, but I’d be interested in suggestions on how to help heal such a rift.

Comment by jlp

May 13, 2008 @ 3:15 pm

Hubert,

I can relate to what you are saying. When I was a comp, I was criticizing every woman who didn’t fall within my comp world view, even those in my own family. I think my beliefs may have even turned off some people to Christ. I’m glad the period I was a comp was not a long time in my life or it may have done more damage than it did.

Comment by faith

May 13, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

re Ashleigh’s thoughts about difference and evangelical: I always wonder why we focus on differences when barring women in ministry. Certainly men and women must have some common aspects of being human. Second, even if the differences are there why would being different mean exclusion or incompetency? Lots of people are different and have different personalities who might do the same job or vocation but in accordance with their uniqueness. Difference does not mean incapable.

Why also does no one talk about what women might contribute to ministry because of their femininity?

Re feminists: I have also wondered at the seeming hatred of feminists. It is as if feminists have already been condemned and are irredeemable unless they accept a particular role first. Such would be an addition to a gospel of salvation through faith. kind of like the Galatian heresy in which something is added to the gospel.

Re disputable matters. I too think that is a side step of the issue of women in ministry. for whatever reason I hear it plenty. When I hear it, I have an internal scream that says… you are calling my full personhood a disputable matter–something not at the core of faith? Sorry but I don’t buy it. It may be a cultural matter and it may be a challening matter for the church to deal with but it is certainly not unimportant. I would prefer that a church or denomination would take a position, then at least I would know if there really is support.

Interesting post, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I share them.

Comment by madame

May 15, 2008 @ 4:10 am

Thanks for that post!
I just posted a link to a very interesting article on the post about “translation”.
The article deals with faulty hermeneutics used by both sides, (complementarian/patriarchal and egalitarian)

I’d like to add one even more confusing interpretation of the trouble scriptures regarding women teaching.
There are teachers who believe the word gyne has been mistranslated in the KJV and subsequent translations, as woman instead of wife. ( This interpretation is found in “The Woman Question” by Kenneth Hagin)

Now, if they translate wife instead of woman, they allow single women, widows and divorced women to preach. BUT some still believe that EVERY woman should be under authority. Before she marries, her father. Then she is under her husband, and if he dies, she should either marry again or be under the authority of the church elders, so essentially, she’d be usurping authority too!

To me, this whole topic needs consideration.

Comment by Lin

May 15, 2008 @ 7:31 am

The reason why this issue is important?

1. Because it effectively shuts up half of all true believers from proclaiming the Gospel to half of all unbelievers. This pleases Satan.

2. Because the entire issue is based on faulty translations of ONE or two verses and a totally wrong understanding of the Creation account. We have allowed men for 2 thousand years to IMPLEMENT Gen 3:16 as a command instead of it being a consequence of sin we should overcome.

3. Can anyone explain why there is NO clear prohibition on women teaching men in the OT but many believe there IS in the NT? How can that be?

4. We cannot ignore the obvious contradictions in the NT if we really think women are prohibited from teaching men. God is not the author of chaos and confusion. We have clear examples of women prophesying (preaching) to and around men in the NT. How can this be if it is clear they are not to teach men?

5. Why would Jesus Christ tear the temple veil in two on the Cross only to leave women with an earthly priest or mediator? How is it that only women are to serve two masters?

6. This entire issue is really not about women we are just the natural recipients. It is about a wrong view of hierarchies within the Body. Greco-Roman worldly structures were allowed to invade the Body of Christ early on. Even though Jesus Christ turned all that on its head. He said, you are NOT to lord it over others as the Gentiles do. The Body is made up of functions. Not “offices”.

7. The comp view ignores the fact that up until a few hundred years ago, women were NOT considered equal in society OR the Protestant or Catholic churches. It was taught they were inferior and easily deceived. Then, when that no longer made sense, around the 60’s, they changed it to ‘women are EQUAL but have different roles which are subordinate to men’. The comps literally changed what had been taught to make it more culturally relative and acceptable. If they had continued to teach that women are not equal as it was taught for 2000 years, then I think MORE people would have flocked to study Greek and seen the faulty translations and would now be egalitarians.

Funny now so many eventually changed their view of scripture when it came to slavery not being acceptable even though there is more of a case to condone slavery in scripture that there is for subordinating women in the Body. But, we all know that slavery is heinous and is NOT God’s best. It was a result of sin. Just as it is for trying to shut up half of all Christians from proclaiming the Gospel and sharing spiritual truths to men.

Comment by Larry

May 15, 2008 @ 12:30 pm

thanks for your post Lynn,

when i 1st read #1. Because it effectively shuts up half of all true believers from proclaiming the Gospel to half of all unbelievers. This pleases Satan.

it thot u were overstating things. and thot that the other side would say, that they only restrict women in the church.

that got me thinking. would the comp/hier side say that when a Christian female shares the messgage of Jesus to an unbelieving male in a secular setting – she is somehow “in spiritual authority” over that male and, therefore, acting in a manner outside her “God given role”?

i have never thought of this before – except when female single missionaries go to the “foriegn fields” but the other side says that she should be replaced by a Christian male asap.

but what about in our everyday life here in our Western context?

Comment by faith

May 15, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

Thanks LIN for pointing out the descrepencies. It think it is also at the heart of the gospel. have women been fully redeemed or not? If we must still be ruled or governed by our husbands, then we have not been fully redeemed and are incapable of being personally led by the Holy Spirit.

Re Larry’s comment about single missionaries being replaced. I have a complimentarian friend who said to me that God was allowing me to pastor a small rural church because he could not find any men to do it. It is the same silly rationalle… women can go do the work that is not prestigious. Funny, Jesus did that too. What a strange system we have.

Comment by madame

May 15, 2008 @ 1:08 pm

I just read a few quotes from MacArthur on women teaching. Apparently he allows women to “share” in an informal Bible study setting, but not to teach in a formal “church” setting.
Now, isn’t preaching akin to sharing one’s own interpretation (guided by the Holy Spirit, we hope!) of Scripture? During a Bible study, aren’t we all just putting our heads together and sharing what we understand from Scripture? It could happen that a woman ends up teaching a group of men during a Bible study. Would MacArthur pipe in and tell her to shut up if he felt she was doing more than just “sharing” some anecdote?

What type of churches was Paul writing to? I think they probably resembled more our Bible studies, with reading of Scripture and sharing what God is telling them, rather than our formal church setting.

Comment by Lin

May 15, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

Actually, I was thinking of McArthur when I wrote about women teaching men in any setting. Phil Johnson, McArthur’s editor and a minster at his church, made a comment on his blog a while back in passing that if his wife or Mrs. McArthur were asked a doctrinal question by a man they would not answer it. That is even if they were assured of having the right answer because that would be a woman teaching a man. He really did say that! I read it three times to make sure!

It has become so silly that CBMW even talked about how a woman could give a man directions without appearing to ‘teach’ him.

But, I think we have to ask ourselves exactly ‘how’ the teacher or preacher has ‘authority’ over another? Isn’t it the truth of the Word that has authority? Maybe it goes back to our worldly hierarchiacl thinking within the Body. (Somebody HAS to be in charge of us) And, how we tend to look toward man instead of Christ.

Comment by Lin

May 15, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

“it thot u were overstating things. and thot that the other side would say, that they only restrict women in the church.”

Do we think Lydia never spoke in the church that met in her home? Or Phoebe did not teach what Paul taught her on her return to the Body in her city? What about Romans 16? How can so many ignore so much?

I just can’t read the NT and see that we do ‘church’ much like the early Christians at all. Where are the formal institutional structures? The special buildings? The pulpit with one paid guy speaking and the others just facing him in pews as spectators? This has become so normal to us we don’t even question it anymore.

Just my 2cents!

Comment by Mike

May 15, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

“Another inconsistency is allowing women to serve as missionaries to “natives” but not to teach men in the U.S. Historically, the practice of allowing white women to teach abroad yet not at home to white men sounds awful suspect of racism.”

I know of no mission board that 1) believes that it is unbiblical for a woman to teach men which also 2) allows women to teach “natives”. And the insinuation of racism is absurd!

Comment by Mary

May 16, 2008 @ 7:23 am

Historically? (Notice that word!) Absolutely, it was racist. It WAS considered OK for women to go “abroad” to evangelize the “heathen,” while all the domestic anglo heathen had to be served religiously by men, because women must “remain silent” and “not teach a man.” So what were the “foreign” male “heathens,” if not men? Historically (there’s that word again), we have an undeniable answer: they were considered less than human. It was considered OK for anglo women to “have authority” over them. It was like teaching children, or animals. Historically speaking, that is.

So now, certain quarters of the church have made WOMEN the “less than” and restricted them from ALL teaching EXCEPT to true children (that is, well under the teen years–just how far under is one of the myriad inconsistencies inherent in pro-patriarchy teachings), even on the mission field. Instead of correcting its errors, the patriarchalists are multiplying them. And proud of it, if their writings are any indication.

If the Holy Spirit were ever to be trusted to call, equip, and deploy ALL the people God chooses as teachers and preachers, the patriarchalists would find that their profits would evaporate and they’d no longer be in charge. And I’ll grant them this: they appear to sincerely believe that God “demands” that the males among them be in charge. It’s all about who’s in charge. And if GOD is, then where does that leave them, except in the same boat as their women: to submit humbly to their authority (in that case, it would be God).

Comment by LMcC

May 16, 2008 @ 10:56 am

I’m backing up Mary (86480). Double standards on the mission field do happen, and they’re undeniably racist.

My former roommate has a real heart for Kenya. She has been there on multiple mission trips sponsored by a denomination which shall remain nameless, but I live near the headquarters and its attitudes toward women have gone to pot over the last 20 years. She has preached in Kenya (under the “not enough men” excuse), but there’s no way she would ever have been allowed to give the same sermon to our former congregation.

First, if women aren’t supposed to preach, there should be no exceptions. “Not enough men” shouldn’t fly. Better the Gospel should come from “God’s man” than from any woman if sexual hierarchy is God’s way. Never mind that she may have the gifts and the calling, or that the truth does not become a lie when it comes from a woman’s mouth, or whatever. If sexual hierarchy is so important that it should ideally overrule getting out the Gospel message to as many people as possible, so be it. Personally, I believe sexual hierarchy works against the Great Commission when it restricts and silences half the church’s workforce, but that’s for another post.

Second, the racism issue is definitely there. Aren’t men men (and women women) regardless of their skin color? Why then should these men in another land have had to “endure” a “second-rate” or “un-Biblical” teacher when their “brothers” in America would not stand for the same? (I should add that my FR works for a Christian organization and has multiple doses of the gift of evangelism, hardly “second-rate” or “un-Biblical”, so please excuse all the quotes).

Lin: (86477)
“It has become so silly that CBMW even talked about how a woman could give a man directions without appearing to ‘teach’ him.”

Ah, one of my favorite contradictions of complementarianism! These men believe they are supposed to be the strong, mighty, God-ordained leaders of women; but let me use one wrong word or tone of voice when I tell them how to get to Auto Zone, and I’m teaching them and threatening their masculinity. Say what? Speaking as a female, I know that my femininity is not nearly so easily threatened. There’s not a thing I can do to weaken or destroy it. It just is, and it’s not going anywhere. Unless there’s some inherent weakness in men I don’t know about, I can’t imagine that masculinity is really so much more fragile and easily harmed. I see complementarian attitudes of this type to be far more insulting to men and more likely to weaken them than anything a Godly woman could preach from a pulpit.

Comment by faith

May 16, 2008 @ 7:57 pm

Can’t they see, that the whole complimetarian viewpoint is rules upon rules upon rules… I am sure women would not even dare to speak because of fear of violating some rule about their role. It reminds me of the Pharisees who were so concerned about breaking the law that they would create even more laws so they would not break the law of God. Somehow that does not seem like deliverence or salvation for either men or women. We are saved not by the flesh but by the Spirit. I think that is what Paul’s primary teaching is. To carve up ways and means of abiding by the headship laws, we only revert to legalism.

Comment by Mike

May 18, 2008 @ 10:38 am

Mary,

It would be great to see some documented examples – maybe just a few references to the materials & historical documents that convinced you of the racism in a missions context in connection with positions held about a woman’s place in the local church. If it was, as you say, “absolutely racist” – then there must be something written about it.

Comment by Mary

May 18, 2008 @ 9:25 pm

What do you find unconvincing about history itself, Mike? Do you not know about the hundreds of women who were sent to the mission field to preach the gospel, yet told that they were unqualified to preach the gospel at home because they were women?

Do you not know about the many documents that “proved” the alleged inferiority of non-white people, endorsed by churches, and the historical practice of segregation within churches?

These are serious questions. The proof is overwhelming, and it’s readily available. The problem is that there is so much of it, I need to know what direction to tackle first, if it’s really true that you’re this ignorant of history. I don’t wish to waste my time or yours showing you examples of this historical fact if you have no intention of believing the truth of them. It seems clear enough to me that simply mentioning the names of the more prominent of these women will ring few bells for you. It seems you want to believe that there has been no racism involved in the history of missions, which honestly blows my mind.

So please, start by telling me what you DO know of the history of foreign missions and the history of female foreign missionaries. That will give me an idea where to start filling in the gaps in your awareness of the subject.

Comment by Mike

May 18, 2008 @ 10:15 pm

I am very much looking forward to seeing your overwhelming proof, Mary. But lets be intellectually honest, just naming a missionary who 1) was a woman, and 2) went to the mission field would seem a little insufficient to prove the charge that the decision was racially motivated. Of course, I am aware of segregation in churches and racism within the church itself. However, I am not aware of racially motivated church planting strategies especially concerning women.

It is strange to me to think that you would be “wasting your time” if these materials are readily available, and if you are so convinced.

And yes, I am rather ignorant (thanks for pointing that out). There is much that I do not know, but I am eager to learn. But as far as what I do know, my undergraduate studies were in missions (i.e., inter cultural studies) and I’ve written several graduate and a few post-graduate papers on the history of missions, especially 19th century missions history.

Comment by Suzanne

May 19, 2008 @ 12:32 am

Mike,

Surely you know that CBMW has made much of Eta Linnemann and approves of the changes made in her life,

“Eta Linnemann taught New Testament at Philipps University, Marburg, West Germany until her personal spiritual crisis and conversion. Later she became a missionary teacher of native pastors at a Bible institute in Batu, Indonesia.”

CBMW has held her up as an example of a “learned and holy” woman for this sacrificial act of giving up teaching men of her own race, presumably, and going elsewhere to teach.

Comment by Mike

May 19, 2008 @ 3:30 am

Suzanne, Maybe I’ve missed something, but I have never read anything about Dr. Linnemann going to teach in Asia for reasons that had anything to do with race. And I think the phrase “learned and holy” was applied to her after she came forward announcing her conversion in 1985, and radically recanting her previous works in historical criticism on that basis.

Maybe a link or journal reference?

Comment by Mary

May 19, 2008 @ 7:06 am

Mike, I *would* be wasting my time posting links that you have no intention of either believing or, as you did with Suzanne’s information, dismissing.

There are two phenomena that are patently obvious: HISTORICALLY (please note the word, Mike) women of European heritage (from Europe and North America) were permitted and even encouraged to leave their own countries to serve as missionaries, preaching the gospel to what were termed at the time as “savages” and “heathens.” (Do you deny that there was pervasive racism in the attitudes toward non-Europeans? Is THAT the history you’re ignorant of and want examples to prove?) And HISTORICALLY, in the same religious traditions, women of European heritage (in Europe and North America) were told that they were not fit to preach the gospel in their own countries, but must remain “silent.” (Is that the history you’re ignorant of and want examples to prove?)

History has rightly put these two phenomena together and observed that religious traditions that muzzled women from preaching the gospel to their fellow human beings of European heritage, saw nothing wrong with sending women to preach the gospel to non-Europeans, whom they openly judged to be lesser human beings. You may choose to ignore the history and connect these very obviously related dots, but that doesn’t change history.

Again, which of these phenomena do you not know about and will you actually consider without dismissing it? When and if you narrow your question sufficiently, I will be glad to provide links to the information that will show you the truth, should you be interested in it. Your statements thus far do not show that you are serious about wanting actual evidence of historical fact, since you have categorically denied such historical fact and called it “absurd.” Your fallacy is that you claim that you know of no missions board NOW that both permits women to go out on the foreign mission field and prohibits women from preaching in their own countries, thus somehow (in your mind?) negating historical racism. That, too, can be shown to be incorrect, but that wasn’t even the issue in this discussion. Again, “historically” is a very key word.

So, are you actually willing to consider the evidence before I go to the trouble of researching the obvious for you? Have YOU done any research of your own? I already know the history. I’ll do your work for you, but I’d like some assurance that you’re not just demanding more evidence to dismiss as “absurd.”

There are some things that are obvious. History is one of them. People could of course deny that the American Revolutionary War occurred, and loudly demand proof from those who reasonably refer to it in their discourse, but is it necessary to provide extensive documentation to someone ignorant enough of history to make the demand in the first place?

Comment by Lin

May 19, 2008 @ 7:06 am

Mike, I doubt you will find a journal reference admitting that one is a racist:o). But, real life examples abound. Many comp churches have Elisabeth Elliot into speak about her mission career yet never say anything negative about her teaching native men in the SA jungle for so many years.

Two things always strike me as strange. 1. Elisabeth Elliot is an outspoken comp. 2. She is not only speaking/teaching to mixed audiences but taught men in the SA jungle for many years.

Perhaps ‘racist’ is too strong a word. “Double Standard” may fit better.

Comment by Suzanne

May 19, 2008 @ 10:13 am

Mike,

She did not go because she was racist. She went for her own very good reasons. But she was praised by the manhood and womanhood group as learned and holy. Check out the editorial of JBMW about a year ago.

She was recognized as someone who taught “native” pastors. Why not just “pastors?” Why “native” pastors? I did my MA on a certain “native” situation myself so I know that people do not have to openly declare themselves to be racist in order to be racist. But they tuck the word “native” in where they want it very nicely.

Why was she not criticized for teaching “male” pastors? Why all of a sudden do these pastors, who presumably were male, become “native” and therefore acceptable recipients of her learning. She, although a teacher of pastors, is still “holy.” But a woman who teaches pastors in her own country would not be called “holy” by the gender folks.

Yes, a total double standard. Its so embarrassing that Christians are so unreflective of how they treat other people.

JBMW did make a point of discussing Linnemann’s thoughts on womanhood. They praised her for her new attitude. They praised her for the changes in her life. They did not explicitly praise her for teachng “native” pastors, but you cannot think that they did not know that that is what she did.

Do they praise other women like Catherine Booth for her stance on raising the age of consent and working against prostitution? Oh no. Booth preached to men of her own race.

Comment by faith

May 19, 2008 @ 10:43 am

I actually know women who were able to preach and teach men on the mission field but were not allowed to preach in pulpits in the US even to share what was happening on the mission field. But I guess it doesn’t count unless it is in the JBMW or documented in a history book. Who would document that anyway?

Comment by Mike

May 19, 2008 @ 11:47 am

Suzanne, I have read an article in JBMW by Schemm. At least from his observations about Linnemann and those around her, I am not sure I see as clearly as you do the racism connection, but you make some good points. Thanks.

Mary, I suspect that you are blowing smoke. My question was sufficiently narrow to warrant a normal response – not the verbose rants you have offered. The charge you made was that women were permitted to preach in foreign contexts to men (but not to men in their culture) on the basis of racism, that those involved did not regard the foreign men as truly human (less than human as you put it). That, to me, was an interesting charge and I simply requested that you to substantiate that in some way. It would seem to be more respectable to just say that you don’t really have any support other than the stories that you have heard and your learned.

I will leave it at that and stop bothering you kind people here. I meant no ill to anyone.

Comment by Suzanne

May 19, 2008 @ 1:29 pm

Mike,

It is not only men of other races, but also the blind, lame, hearing impaired and retarded to whom a woman can minister. No, such men are not considered subhuman, but definitely subwoman, since they are on Piper’s list.

Think of how a hearing impaired man must feel finding himself on Piper’s list. But Piper is clear that he would not let a female missionary step over the bounds of his list. At least he is consistent in that, but then the CBMW is not consistent with Linnemann, since they did not criticize her ministry.

Comment by Suzanne

May 19, 2008 @ 1:32 pm

What about a lame man? How does he get on Piper’s list? Oh, don’t get me started. Men who write like that ought to be filled with shame. We are back in the OT where a physical impairment keeps a man from priesthood. The male must be intact.

Comment by Lin

May 19, 2008 @ 2:31 pm

Suzanne, What list of Piper’s are you referring to?

Mike, If being praised for teaching SA tribes men but condemned for teaching Western men is not racist, then what is it?

Comment by Rob

May 19, 2008 @ 3:05 pm

Hey everyone, Rob here. Let’s keep the discussion civil. We can have heated debate without resorting to throwing stones.

Comment by Suzanne

May 19, 2008 @ 4:44 pm

I don’t think Piper’s list is throwing stones. From Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. For Women.

——

Ministries to the handicapped

Hearing impaired
Blind
Lame
Retarded

Ministries to the sick

Nursing
Physician
Hospice care-cancer, AIDS, etc.
Community health

Ministries to the socially estranged

Emotionally impaired
Recovering alcoholics
Recovering drug-users
Escaping prostitutes
Abused children, women
Runaways, problem children
Orphans

Prison ministries

Women’s prisons
Families of prisoners
Rehabilitation to society

Ministries to youth

Teaching
Sponsoring
Open houses and recreation
Outings and trips
Counseling
Academic assistance

Sports ministries

Neighborhood teams
Church teams

Therapeutic counseling

Independent
Church-based
Institutional

Audiovisual ministries

Composition
Design
Production
Distribution

Writing ministries

Free-lance
Curriculum development
Fiction
Non-fiction
Editing
Institutional communications
Journalistic skills for publications

Teaching ministries

Sunday school: children, youth, students, women
Grade school
High school
College

Music ministries

Composition
Training
Performance
Voice
Choir
Instrumentalist

Evangelistic ministries

Personal witnessing
Parachurch groups
Home Bible studies
Outreach to children
Visitation teams
Counseling at meetings
Telephone counseling

Radio and television ministries

Technical assistance
Writing
Announcing
Producing

Theater and drama ministries

Acting
Directing
Writing
Scheduling

Social ministries

Literacy
Pro-life
Pro-decency
Housing
Safety
Beautification
Drug rehabilitation

Pastoral care assistance

Visitation
Newcomer welcoming and assistance
Hospitality
Food and clothing and transportation

Prayer ministries

Praying
Mobilizing for prayer events
Helping with small groups of prayer
Coordinating prayer chains
Promoting prayer days and weeks and vigils

Missions

All of the above across cultures

Comment by jlp

May 19, 2008 @ 4:51 pm

Thankfully as the years go on fewer and fewer churches are limiting women’s ministry like John Piper does.

For Mike –

When I was young the female missionaries went out into the mission field and taught both men and women the gospel. But when they came back home they either were not allowed to speak to the congregation, or they were allowed to speak only if they didn’t teach. So it was accepted that women could teach on the mission field, but not in the home churches. I didn’t like it, but that’s how it was in those days. And still is in some more conservative churches.

Comment by jlp

May 19, 2008 @ 6:29 pm

Women should start leaving churches that limit their ministry for churches that don’t limit their ministry.

Comment by Mary

May 19, 2008 @ 9:01 pm

I certainly do have evidence that the church has practiced racism, Mike, just as there is plenty of evidence that women were encouraged to preach the gospel to the non-white “heathen” but forbidden to do so at home. I merely asked you to clarify just what your very vague, dismissive demand was actually asking for. I also asked for some indication that if I went to the trouble, you would take the evidence seriously. I still don’t see any such indication, just a rant about my verbosity and final pot shots before promising to leave. I suppose that’s not surprising, since you have offered no support for your belief that racism is an “absurd” charge and that I was “blowing smoke” for declaring that racism in the church is historical fact. I guess that leaving before waiting for the demanded evidence is one sure way to never have to deal with the evidence.

Just how serious could you have been, I wonder. My questions weren’t especially difficult; I do apologize for using more words than you apparently believe I ought to use as I tried to get you to specify just what it was you found incredible and didn’t want to look up for yourself. I honestly couldn’t tell from your vague demand just what you were expecting. Now you have settled on demanding to know how the allegely “absurd” charge of racism can be proved. You may have intended to be that narrow in your demand from the first, but until you stated so, I couldn’t read your mind. As I suspected, you aren’t willing to do any of your own research. However, since you’ve finally clarified what your demand was for, here is a very small tip of the iceberg concerning racism in the history of Christian missions.

http://www.ntnu.no/gemini/2001-06E/13.htm

http://www.nah.uiuc.edu/faculty/treaty/ncintroduction.html

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1978/v34-4-article4.htm

(Please note that since I already knew the major points of this topic, I’m not going to spend money to buy subscriptions to the most scholarly of the available articles on this topic; one can’t read or link to the texts without subscriptions. Given your claim that you are leaving, I think it would be doubly foolish for me to spend the money. I think I’ve spent sufficient time to locate a very small sampling of the many free online articles.)

I’m still blown away that you deny that racism is historical fact. Or do you simply deny any embarrassing, painful episodes and trends in church history because we acknowledge them to be sinful in the present day?

Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of showing documentation of your apparent belief that the church has historically never been racist. If racism is such an “absurd” charge and I’m just “blowing smoke” by daring to point to its obvious historicity, I think you ought to be willing to prove your own denial of it.

Comment by Mary

May 19, 2008 @ 9:07 pm

For the record, Mike, in case you come back, I’ve tried twice now to provide a few links to show the historical fact of racism, once you finally got specific about what information you were demanding from me. I suspect that since there were several links involved, my comments would not go through immediately.

It’s probably moot anyway, since you have claimed to be leaving and no one else here seems to be unaware that the Western church has a long history of racism and that women were indeed encouraged in the past to evangelize the foreign “heathen” while they were (and many still are) forbidden to preach at home.

But between my needing you to get specific in your demand, my spending the day at a job where I could neither research nor post comments, and just generally having a few other things to do today, I am disappointed that you couldn’t be bothered to wait even 24 hours for information you yourself demanded. Or maybe leaving in a wake of false accusations is one sure way to avoid dealing with evidence that you’re wrong about this.

Comment by Mary

May 19, 2008 @ 9:12 pm

Suzanne,

The CBMW writers’ long, complicated lists are actually amusing to me, in a sad sort of way. That illogic and complexity is a sure sign of humans mucking things up.

Listening to and obeying the call of God is so much simpler. But it’s also a lot harder to codify into pink and blue lists, probably because God doesn’t give gifts and issue callings on the basis of whether one is male or female. (In Christ, there is no such distinction of status, God being no respecter of persons and all.)

I think the problem is if we trust God to be in charge of who gets called to do what, then that means we humans don’t get the last word on it. And isn’t that a large part of what patriarchy revolves around: the patriarch having the last word?

Comment by Suzanne

May 19, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

I think these llsts are tragic. Aren’t blind and lame men real men? These lists make me feel ill for the men involved not so much for the women. We can laugh it off.

Comment by Lin

May 20, 2008 @ 6:52 am

Suzanne, I had not seen that list. Incredible. I can hardly believe they, mere men, would dare publish a list of approved ministries for women. If that is not ‘popery’ then what is?

Amazing how they could glean such specific women-ministry approved groups from scripture. (Sarcasm intended)

Comment by Lin

May 20, 2008 @ 6:55 am

Rob, I was not aware I ‘threw a stone’ at someone by asking questions. But, if I did, please be specific and accept my apologies.

Comment by faith

May 20, 2008 @ 7:22 am

Yes, Lin, that begs a question, where does Piper find such a list in scripture.

and, It appears from the list that women can only teach children. period.

It appears again, that many rules must be made so that the RULE that women should not teach or have authority will not be broken… I don’t believe that is what Paul intended at all. It is so outside of the kingdom vision.

Comment by jlp

May 20, 2008 @ 8:56 am

I don’t think that it has occurred to John Piper that even among comps there is disagreement as to what they allow a woman to do and not to do. So even though this is the list he has approved of for women, it may not be the same list as another comp group has agreed on. It was one of the deficiencies of the comp belief that I caught onto when I was a comp myself.

Comment by Rob

May 20, 2008 @ 9:22 am

Lin, I was not addressing anyone in particular. One of my jobs is to monitor the tone of comments (hard to do without the benefit of the spoken word). As all of you regulars know, we want to keep the Scroll a place of active interest and respectfulness.

Comment by Sarah

May 20, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

Re: piper’s list – as i read it as posted here, i don’t think he is suggesting that women teach men with disabilities (as he clearly lists “approved” teaching ministries later), but perhaps more of a comfort or practical service ministry. I still think the presumption of such a list without any biblical mandate is astounding, but i think we’ve got to be careful not to level the same kind of less – than – careful charges against complementarians that have been common in their accusations against us. “investigate twice, speak once” (what can i say, my lack of proper gender perspective revealed in an interest in – gasp – woodworking)

Comment by Sarah

May 20, 2008 @ 5:18 pm

For the record, i remember a discussion with a rep from a well-known missions agency during my Bible college days. Seems a female missionary was charged with translating and teaching the Bible in an isolated culture overseas. She was apparently working with a local male leader, teaching and guiding him as she went. All was going well until they reached 1 timothy, which was apparently translated along traditional lines. Suffice to say the man noticed the discrepancy, and both he and the missionary (who i have no reason to believe was egalitarian) were put in a confusing situation. A new interpretation: maybe women are authorized to teach all Scripture before 1 timothy, but nothing after that point…. ;-)

Comment by Sarah

May 20, 2008 @ 5:28 pm

And finally … I have always considered elizabeth elliot to be almost tragically ironic … A gifted missionary and teacher, one of the heroes of the faith … Staunchly convinced that women should not teach or hold authority over men … Effectively teaching and leading women and men for years on the missions field … And powerfully teaching both men and women at home that…women should not teach men.

Comment by Ashleigh

May 20, 2008 @ 7:25 pm

Wow! This is my first time getting to read through all the comments to this post! I had no idea the racism allegations would cause so much controversy, but I’m glad it’s been an energetic discussion so far.

I’d be really interested in hearing from some of you on the broader topic of the post, as well: I originally wrote the post from which this was adapted after leading a seminar on women in ministry for my college fellowship a couple years ago. In my own life I was finding a lot of my friends and fellow leaders within the fellowship didn’t feel this issue was very important, regardless of where they stood on it. They wanted to pursue peace and unity– not something so controversial.

I’d love to hear what your own experiences with this tension have been and how you’ve responded to them in your daily lives, especially when in community with believers that just don’t see this as as important as some of us do. Any thoughts?

Comment by Ashleigh

May 20, 2008 @ 7:27 pm

(“this tension” being the tension between pursuing unity in the body and discussion such a conflict-prone topic)

Comment by jlp

May 20, 2008 @ 8:20 pm

This is a terribly important issue. But issues that affect women generally have not been considered too important by the Christian community because women were seen mainly as servants to men. Men were seen as the main players and thus worthy of more attention than women.

Comment by Liz

May 21, 2008 @ 6:58 am

Our experience has mostly been that Christians don’t see this as a critical issue. This is most frustrating for those of us who see all the ramifications of gender discriminations and have the ‘good news’ to remedy it.
I think it has become this way because of all the books etc. which suggest that any discussion or looking into the issue is questioning scripture and long-held beliefs.
People are afraid to examine something which has been held up as ‘worldly’ or ‘of satan’ Somehow we need to encourage people to listen to their hearts and trust that God will look after them and lead them into truth.

Comment by faith

May 21, 2008 @ 7:25 am

The tension for me did not begin until I choose to College with a degree in Christian Ministry, then semiary. As long as I taught children or other women, no tension existed even in my denomination that supports women in ministry.

But when i chose to pursue formal ministry, lots of tension emerged. While the church staff was initially supportive a whole host of issues emerged for them as well. Such as mentoring women comfortably. Mentoring women posed discomfort for male pastors and provoked jealousy in the congregation among other women. Also broaching the women in ministry issue from the pulpit fostered controversy and many staff persons feared that controversy so would not address it from the pulpit. Furthermore, many of my friends in the congregation were uncomfortable with my choice, some voiced that I could not pursue formal ministry as a woman. My pain was mis-understood with many saying that if I would just remain in my former role, i would not experience the hurt. One pastor said I was being attacked by the devil because I was not under my husband’s authority by pursuing ministry.

I was also assigned motives I did not have… usurping, having an attraction for the pastor… selfishness… using the church for my own benefit… (when I needed to teach for an school assignment in the church) then there are the covert things.

I was told before I even had a conversation with a church leader…and who did not know me. “we don’t want any angry feminists around here. If I was not angry before, I sure was then.

Then there are the assumptions… if one pursues ministry as a woman, well then I must be a liberal or favor abortion or homosexuality or not take the scripture seriously or not believe the bible. One person even asked how my husband could be married to me and me be in ministry, “wasn’t he then under my authority?”

The fence sitting is the most annoying because I am not allowed to be angry or speak up when being charged with so many untrue charges. I feel that for sake of unity, I cannot speak up or to do so would compromise my ability to get a job. No one wants controversy or discomfort and hiring a woman in a non-traditional role confronts the powers that be making it uncomfortable for churches venturing into new territory.

I am very grateful for denominations, like my own venturing into the waters of change, controversy, discomfort and ambiguity and charting a new course. I see that it is very difficult for them. I also have great compassion for women choosing a ministry path because she will experience both the overt challenges and the covert ones that are harder to respond to. It’s hard on all sides because supportive pastors get it from opponents as well as myself.

And spouses are also challenged in the crossfire and placed in unique positions. They are affected by the emotional upheaval when their wives face discrimination and discounting of their gifts, low pay, rejection by friends and more. (get a good therapist)

I do believe that ultimatly God is at work and venturing out for churches and women confronts the system in fruitful ways that stretch the church. I also believe that God will open doors with much prayer and seeking of his face.

For me this began as a career choice, sense of calling and at some point began to involve spiritual warfare. Prayer and gospel are the only weapons. And become as emotionally healthy as possible, learn familiy systems theory.

I also needed much support and needed to find supportive friends, therapists, spiritual directors to walk with me. It can be crazy making to the enth degree.

Comment by jlp

May 21, 2008 @ 7:35 am

I heard one woman say that the glass ceiling in lower in the Christian community than it is in the outside world.

The Christian community has deeply disappointed me in its treatment of women, especially those who believe in gender based hierarchy. They don’t take women’s issues seriously enough because it challenges their beliefs in gender based hierarchay.

Comment by faith

May 21, 2008 @ 8:40 am

JLP, I agree. I am also disappointed. there has been much grief in the journey. I agree that churches do not always support concerns for women because it does upset their system. Women entering ministry in congregations also challenges the world system in a way because with her comes a greater awareness of systems that perpetuate abuse and discounting and other forms of marginalization.

I shared the other day with one of my friends that just being who you are as God made and called you confronts and challenges the prevailing systems in the world and church. Amazing isnt it.

I think I have crossed a line spiritually/emotionally where I no longer feel defensive. I just feel the saddness over how truly silly and absurd the gender essentialisms and role restrictions realy are. There is so much anxiety and fear to protect the status quo. Too bad that energy cannot go to meeting the needs of abused and suffering women in our society.

Comment by jlp

May 21, 2008 @ 9:20 am

Faith,

I’m sorry for the experiences you have had in pursuing seminary. You wouldn’t have had those experiences if you were a man.

I knew a lady who constantly being harassed for being the Director of Adult Christian Education at a church. The pastor and elders were all male, and never harassed her. In fact, they were very supportive. But new people coming into the church constantly gave her grief over it. I think that by harassing her they thought they were doing God’s will, because they thought because she was a woman she should not be in that position. But all’s they did was cause her grief. And in my opinion, they hindered God’s will in her life.

Comment by faith

May 22, 2008 @ 6:55 am

JLP , I know, think how much we could get done if we did not have to fight the gender stuff. What if it was about working together according the gifts of the Spirit? I think the Spirit is capable of providing order to the people of God through gifts, talents and passions. We don’t need to order by gender, race or class. I think that is what Paul meant.

Comment by Lin

May 22, 2008 @ 10:09 am

I hate to be the voice of doom but I think it is a huge waste of time to fight this issue in the institutional church setting. I am delighted at the rise of bi-vocational ministers and think we are going to see a major change in how we do church over the next 20 years in the Western Church. Because, let’s admit it, how we do church now resembles little we see in the NT early church.

We only need permission to exercise our gifts in the institutional setting. We need no such permission except that of the Holy Spirit to exercise the gift of preaching/teaching in our every day lives.

Being a ‘Christian’ was never really a career choice in scripture. Paul made tents so as not to be a burden on the Body. We are the ones who have made it a ‘profession’ when it is really a ‘lifestyle’ and who we are. There are no professional Christians and no caste system of Christians. There are just different gifts/functions and all true believers have ‘anointing’ (1 John) and are gifted as part of the Holy Priesthood. There are no ’spectator’ Christians.

Blessings!

Comment by jlp

May 22, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

Lin,

Please explain this change in the church you are talking about in more depth. Thanks.

Comment by Frank Geis

May 22, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

I believe this discussion about seeking Chrisitan unity without compromising truth, rightousness and justice is very important. One thing I’ve learned on my spiritual journey, not as soon as I would have wished, is that “Truth without love kills, but love without truth is a lie.” In debates about the Law and the Gospel, Evolution and Creation, let alone about Women in Leadership and Ministry, Christians have often been so harsh and pugalistic that they may have won the debate but lost the person. And I’m very glad that everyone in this discussion is seeking to speak and do the truth in love.
About twenty-five years ago, I was involved in international student ministry, which was led by a couple who were not only Calvinists like myself, but also egalitarians. There came a time when as I questioned their view, they in a loving and respectful way justified their view from Scripture and Christian history. Then they challenged me to investigate the matter myself, which I did. And discovered, of course, that the traditional view I held about men and women in leadership and ministry, was unScriptural, illogical, and unjust. If I could be to a more correct understanding, then there is hope that others can be persuaded of the truth as well. So dear friends, don’t give up; contiue to speak and do the truth in love.

Comment by Mike

May 23, 2008 @ 10:28 am

Just wanted to respond to Mary again, since you went to the trouble to write so much in response to my challenge. Thanks for posting those links. None of them show what you were really saying, though. I do think that in a rare occasion, racism might have played a role in the double standard of women being allowed to preach in a foreign context but not in their own culture – but there are other contributing factors, which are more likely to blame; such as a faulty understanding of the roles women missionaries engage in, etc..

Your posts about this are quite worked up, and I found the comments at me a little offensive. And you sure twist things up too. I never denied racism in the church as a historical fact (or even racism within missions in general) – if you reread my comments I actually affirmed that. I merely asked you to support your specific claim, the claim made by the OP. One which I still consider absurd, and one which is obviously based on occasional evidence and a lot of presumption.

Comment by Lin

May 23, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

Frank, I totally agree with your view. Love without truth is a lie just as truth without Love is meaningless.

“Please explain this change in the church you are talking about in more depth. Thanks”

Please keep in mind that I cannot point you to any glaring stats to prove my point. My background in Org Dev meant that I had to be scanning the horizon for trends early on so I tend to be looking at everything that way.

We have seen (and are seeing) more of a flattening of hierarchical structures in society. Some of it is just talk with pithy terms such as “Servant Leadership” and facilitator, etc. Some of it is quite real. Many churches adopted the business model to soften the appearance of hierarchies: Elder boards function as Board of Directors, etc. There is a huge push on right now for churches to become elder led in the SBC, a denomination known for Priesthood of Believer!(and other non denoms)…. Why? To gain control. It is an easy sell biblically. Most people still believe that ‘elder’ is an official ‘office’. They do not understand it is simply a function within the body of mature servants who care for others. The powers want it to remain ‘hierarchical’ as oral tradition taught. These ‘elder boards’ do nothing but increase the gap between pew sitter ’spectator’ Christian and the leadership. These elder boards become somewhat incestual over time with a group think mentality.

Little by little we are seeing a backlash to this just as we have seen in other areas of society…. Thanks to the dissemination of information. We see the emergent church emerging (I like their search for authenticity but think they need to stop having a conversation and admit there are absolute truths in scripture). We are seeing a rise in the home church movement to include more mainstream people who are not the fringe kooks like Papa Pilgrim. :o)

The home church is gaining credibility just as the home office did over time. I can remember when having a home office was considered ‘mom and pop’ and had no credibility. Now it is the norm.

We have been witnessing the constant decline of mainstream denominations over the last 30 years and the mega’s that popped up in the late 80’s and 90’s have peaked and are losing members rapidly. (Never believe their numbers. Never.) They are resorting to satelite churchs and taking over smaller churches to grow.

People are questioning how their money is being spent. They want value for their offerings. And as the economy tightens, you will see more questioning of how it is spent. Why pay for a huge building and lots of high salaries when it could all go to the Great Commission and caring for the truly needy or helping the single mom? Why pay ONE person to speak to us when we are all studying and can share while the others judge (see 1 Corin). This gets everyone into scripture. Even new believers who we encourage.

People are not being fed meat and many know it. More and more are sick of ‘formula sermons’ pastors are buying off the internet at Pastors.com and WCA are sick of ‘bash the culture’ sermons. (Have you ever wondered why a pastor has to preach that homosexuality is wrong to a Body of professing believers? Or why evolution is not true? Sheesh.)

Let’s clean up ourselves (Judgement begins at the house of the Lord) and witness to the culture. (1 Corin 5…we are NOT to judge the outside…we are to witness to it) Paul did not write about the church trying for a more ‘moral Galatia’. He did not write about the importance of maintaining the Judeo-Christian values of Rome. We have become down right silly. We can make society more moral through our lobbying and programs but they will still go to hell if they are not saved.

More and more people want the community of an early NT church. Encouragement, love, rebukes, admonishments, etc. A real FAMILY in Christ. A real Body of equals. Many are trying for this within small groups in larger churches. And as they build real community, they wonder why they are staying in the large church. Why not plant other communities of the Body?

We have too many free tools for Bible study now. People can check the Greek for themselves for free and do not have to depend on ONE paid guy to teach them truth. I have never seen more bi-vocational pastors than I am seeing now. Most are seminary educated and following in the steps of Paul as tent makers as to not be a burden. They see their lives as a ministry…at work…etc.

I am seeing trends that have not come to climax yet but are there…hidden away because they do not include celebrity Christians except maybe Frank Barna ;O).

More and more realize that ministry is NOT a career choice. There are NO professional Christians. It is a life. We are all ministers in the Holy Priesthood.

Just my 2 cents. I can prove none of it. It is all anecdotal based upon what I have seen. We are living in exciting times for the cause of Christ. Blessings!

Comment by Can Dance

May 24, 2008 @ 1:13 am

Right. disregard hysterical woman. check.

Comment by Mary

May 24, 2008 @ 8:12 am

Mike, I am, sadly, unsurprised that you not only failed to comprehend what the articles showed (again, a mere sampling of the overwhelming evidence that is out there), but presumed to (false) judgements about me personally. Further, you have reversed your own demand, claiming that you affirmed what you very clearly, in your own words, previously denied.

I’m not worked up, and I most certainly did read what you wrote and how you’ve now claimed the opposite of what you wrote. I simply remain incredulous that you can deny historical fact, and am amazed at the lengths to which you’ve gone to justify your denial. I wish my efforts to provide what you demanded had not been wasted, but I’m not surprised at your dismissal both of the demanded evidence and the historical truth it illustrates.

But I’m glad to see that you did come back after all. I hope the number of words I’ve used here are not too offensive to you.

Comment by Mary

May 24, 2008 @ 8:12 am

Can Dance, it’s a familiar deflective tactic, is it not?

Comment by Frank

May 24, 2008 @ 12:41 pm

The 7 reasons that Lin (86470) gave for why this topic must be discussed remain true. When I did my own investigations in these related areas of biblical interpretation, Church history, and the history of Christian missions, I came to the conclusion the traditional way was not the true way of Christ. But I think there is an eighth reason which is fundamental to Paul’s view of Christ’s redemptive work and a key pillar in the doctrine of God’s present and yet future kingdom: The Universalism of the Adoption to Sonship he sets forth in Gal. 3:28-4:7, and then further developes in Romans. I think this a crucial issue that the complementarians need to be faced with: Denying women their full adoption as co-heirs with Christ strikes at the very heart of both the Gospel of Christ and the Kingdom of God. And if you look at the struggles of the Abolitionists with those Christian who argued for the preservation of slavery, you see what I mean.

Comment by Lin

May 25, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

Amen Frank! That is actually the most crucial reason. So how does one deal with the typical comp response that woman ARE full co-heirs… they just have different ‘roles’.

It always comes back to scripture interpretation. The parallels are amazing using the same arguments for slavery when in FACT, there is more Biblical justification for slavery than there is for denying women a part in ALL spiritual gifts and as equal co-heirs. Giles made this case in his book very well

(NOTE: I am NOT condoning slavery which is heinous. I am using the exact same hermeneutic as the slavers did…that the comps now use to deny women in the Body. We all agree that slavery is reprehensible but an earthly priesthood for women is NOT? How can they be so blind?)

Comment by Mike

May 27, 2008 @ 3:16 am

Mary, hmmm. I reversed what I actually wrote?

I wrote(see comment 86487)”Of course, I am aware of segregation in churches and racism within the church itself.”

:-)

No reversals Mary. I only denied the OP charge – not the broader issue of racism. There is no evidence that there is a broad connection between a womans role on the mission field and racism.

None.

Comment by Mike

May 27, 2008 @ 9:48 am

And as to the charge that I failed to comprehend your three “sources”. Really, Mary, you have to be joking. Only the last one, by Gonzalez, even broaches the subject (did you notice that the first two did not have anything about women to say at all, let alone the subject we were discussing?) And Gonzalez only did what is being done here – he makes an unsupported presumption.

Comment by Frank

May 27, 2008 @ 12:40 pm

Lin, I wish to thank-you for your kind words regarding my comments. And I hope whatever future comments I may make will also be as well received. However, I have just started reading Kevin Giles’latest book on the Trinity, Jesus and the Father, and now have a ninth and even more vital reason for debating the complementarians: in order to give a theological grounding to their denial of Christian women’s kingdom inheritance and status, they have embraced Arianism! I studied biblical and historical theology in bible college, and made a point to study the Ante-Nicene Fathers and Post-Nicene Fathers. The eternal subordination of the Son to the Father in essence, authority, power and majesty is fully refuted and condemned by these theologians. And I am also familiar with Calvin, Edwards, Van Til and Warfield, worthy Reformed theologians of a later era, who also condemn this view as heretical. So you can imagine, as someone who has been working on a commentary on Jude, how alarming and disturbing I find the promotion of a heretical teaching by many in the Reformed tradition who ought to know better!

Comment by Frank

May 27, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

I am in contact with Jon Zenz, a leader in the house church movement and the editor of Searching Together magazine, who, because of earlier studies, has asked to reply to a recent artcile in the Trinity Journal that, foolishy, denies Paul really allowed women to prophesy, but was only addressing a hypothetical situation. I have agreed to do this, but have also asked that we produce an article or two exposing and refuting this “Neo-Arianism”. And I will do so out of necessity, rather than desirability; for Jude 3-4 and 2 Tim. 2:24-26 make clear that if I fail to take a stand for the truth all orthodox Christians have believed for at least 1500 yrs, and urgently call the erring ones back, I am not showing them true love. So please pray for me.

Comment by Mary

May 27, 2008 @ 8:57 pm

Mike, YOU were the one who backpedaled and said you were talking about racism, not about female missionaries. Since you did that, I provided what you asked for–proof of racism in the church. Now, in another turn-around, you say you were asking for sources about women–right back to your original vague demand. Strange how you’ve offered zero proof of your own that you’re justified in denying historical fact.

As I suspected, there is no evidence that you ever intended to take any offered proof seriously. You can believe whatever false motives on my part that you wish, but I simply have no desire to waste any more time providing you links for you to dismiss or deny that you demanded I provide for you. They’re out there, easily found, for anyone who actually wants to learn more about the historical racism and cultural double-standards imposed on female missionaries. As it has been pointed out, this was merely one point and has become a side-issue for the original topic.

As happens too often, side issues derail discussion. Ashleigh, I apologize for allowing myself to be drawn into a very obviously unprofitable argument on this particular side issue. I will try to be more discerning in the future when historical fact is so flatly denied.

Comment by Mike

May 28, 2008 @ 12:47 am

“YOU were the one who backpedaled and said you were talking about racism, not about female missionaries.”

Really? When did I do that?

And something is not historical fact because you say that it is. If you have nothing more to offer, why are you still ranting?

Comment by Mike

May 28, 2008 @ 4:13 am

Here are few real reasons for the double standard that has sometimes existed with people and groups who claimed to accept the Pauline prohibition against women teaching men, and yet allowed or did not object to them doing so on the mission field.

1. They viewed the Pauline prohibition as strictly ecclesiastical, and narrowly defined their mission (and the missions’ activities) as parachurch, and thus, not applicable. This is also why some seminaries in the 80’s and 90’s claimed to be complimentarian, and yet allowed women to teach men in their contexts – and why some parachuch orgs of the same conviction invited women into leadership roles.

2.They did not include evangelism in Paul’s prohibition to teach. That is, they defined “teaching” as “teaching believers” – and justified this because of the texts ecclesiastical context. Thus, teaching unbelievers was acceptable.

3.They viewed it is less than ideal, but necessary due to demographics. One major US-based mission board published a pamphlet in the 70’s entitled, “Here am I, Send My Sister.” It was a plea for more men to join the ranks and boasted statistics of 3 and 4 women going to the mission field for every 1 man. Those in field leadership therefore allowed teams – sometimes all women – to begin a church plant due to few available men.

Comment by Fern Winter

May 28, 2008 @ 5:40 am

Lin and Frank, I agree it is hugely disturbing that so many are happy embracing the heresy of the eternally subordinated Son to justify the permanent subordination of women. The argument that permanent so-called ‘role differentiation’ within the Trinity provides for the permanent subordination of women has no provenance before the 1960’s/1970’s and it most definitely is not, contrary to what Grudem et al teach, the historic position of the church. The passion for an eternally subordinated Son comes from those committed to the permanent ‘headship’ of men – and their definition of headship is not usually one of self-sacrificial service but rather who is the ultimate boss. The desire to subordinate women came first and then they shopped for a theological justification.

Mike, Mary is well able to fight her own corner but I have to say I find the tone of your posts discourteous. What are you seeking to achieve in the interchange with posters here?

Comment by Mary

May 28, 2008 @ 6:51 am

Mike, you’ve turned mostly around and conceded that historical fact is fact; it’s not fact because I say it is, it’s fact because it’s true. Saying so hardly constitutes “rants” on my part.

You have shifted your original dismissive denial that racism in missions policy was an “absurd” charge, and now claim that you’ve said all along that it has played a part in the history of missions, including “on rare occasions” affecting the practice of permitting women to preach the gospel in foreign missions but not at home. I’ve read over your comments here once again, including the gratuitous ad hominem in them, and I’m not mistaken about your changing claims. I’m also not mistaken about history, which is why I entered into this pointless back-and-forth in the first place. Again, I ask Ashleigh’s forgiveness for my playing into this particular deflection from discussion of the original topic.

Frankly, Mike, I’m tired of your continuing pejorative jabs at me personally. Until you can speak to me in a civil manner, I intend to have no further interaction with you.

Comment by Mike

May 28, 2008 @ 8:58 am

@ Fern, do you mean by that closing question that you would like me to go elsewhere? :-) And I am sorry that you found my tone discourteous.

@ Mary. I apologize for using the word ‘rant’… both times.

That said – and meant sincerely – I should mention that I found your tone equally pejorative.

Comment by Lin

May 28, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

“… in order to give a theological grounding to their denial of Christian women’s kingdom inheritance and status, they have embraced Arianism!”

It is chilling, isn’t it? These are folks who pride themselves on ‘correct doctrine’ with lots of initials behind their names. A friend of mine has been researching this and found that many of their quotes from early church fathers are not complete. They are editing. And they are using grand academic terms to hide their “Arianism”. It is so simple when one figures it out: The doctrine of subordinate women in the church is being refuted by sound hermeneutics. So, they are desparate and have revived an ancient heresy to try and prove natural inherent hierarchies.

Check out this quote from Russell Moore, Dean at SBTS at this link http://resources.christianity.com/details/mrki/20070501/d2de20cd-e931-4593-9ba8-71907cc50ce0.aspx

(Question)starting at 37:09

So Russ, I take it by your rejoicing the title “patriarchy” that you think hierarchy is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Moore:
I think that hierarchy is what Lordship means. I think that without hierarchy, you don’t have the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And so patriarchy is offensive in this culture – yes it is – but it’s offensive for all the right reasons. Because what we have is not a choice between patriarchy and gender egalitarianism, that doesn’t exist. What you see out there in the culture is a pagan patriarchy. You have men who are predatory who are abusing and mistreating women as sexual objects and in all kinds of other ways. You know, right now, on Fox Television, there’s the discussion of having a show with OJ Simpson saying “If I did it” meaning killing my ex-wife: “This is how I would have done it.” That’s a very brazen example of something we see all the time where you have, for instance, Sharon Stone, an actress, speaking to young girls saying that in order to prevent date rape, have oral sex with your boyfriends to prevent that kind of aggression.

Well, you have aggressive men, hyper-masculinity is dangerous. The Bible takes masculinity and channels it in this way. When you loose those channels, when you loose sexual differentiation, then you are going to have the hurt of women.

(Question: So then, why is it that you don’t like word “complementarian”?) 38:25

Because complimentarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles. Everyone agrees that you have different roles, it’s just on what basis do you have those different roles? So an egalitarian would say “Yeah, I am a complementarian, too. It’s just on the basis of depths (or gifts? I cannot tell from the recording. — It sounds as if he said “GEPTHS.” )

I think that we need to say instead, “No you have headship.” That’s the key issue. It’s patriarchy. It’s a headship that reflects the headship, the Fatherhood of God, and this is what it looks like. You have to then define what headship looks like.

Me: See the twisting here? He is saying that Patriarchy is natural because of the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Does anyone else see what they are doing? They are equating men with God and setting up a priesthood for women. It is insidious. And we all know that ‘Christian Patriarchy’ is not saving women from abuse. That is a straw man if I ever saw one.

Frank, I agree we must all contend for the faith. And I also agree that this heresy of eternal subordination of our Lord, Jesus Christ must be refuted loudly and boldly. To me, this is much more important than the question of women’s roles. I also agree with Giles that eternal subordination of Jesus Christ is refuted within the ENTIRE scope of scritpure. This is NOT some debate we can have by simply presenting dueling bible verses. People need to immerse themselves in the whole of scripture.

May God Bless your work on this! I am praying for you!!

BTW: I have learned a lot from Jon Zens and I appreciate his articles on refuting some of the misunderstandings about church structure and clergy/laity myth.

Comment by Liz

May 28, 2008 @ 8:15 pm

In relation to the missions and racism discussion..I thought it would be a simple deduction that if a woman was permitted to teach men of another race and yet denied permission to teach the men in her own home country, then that would constitute ‘racism’. It suggests that the men in the mission culture where somehow not as significant as the men in the sending country.

I would also imagine that most of us in church life would have had experience of women missionaries returning to do deputation and not permitted to preach/teach but allowed to ’share’ (sometimes from a lower pulpit or in a hall rather than the main church building.

One reason this sort of discrimination has persisted is because the women concerned have been prepared to lay down their lives for the sake of the gospel and conceded to speak in whatever situation they were given so the message could be heard.

It has always been a dilemma for women to decide when to speak up for their ‘rights’ and when to remain silent so as not to cause confusion or seem to be promoting themselves.

Comment by faith

May 29, 2008 @ 12:07 pm

wow Lin, that is really crazy. they also said that egalitarians are in same sex marriages. That’s wierd.

Comment by LMcC

May 29, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

Faith (86551):

Egalitarians in same-sex marriages? Wouldn’t my husband be surprised about that one ;)

Fern Winter (86546):

I think that the whole “roles” business really only pulled together around 1977, although hierarchs were trying to work out the bugs in the theory in the 1960s. Do I want to believe any theological theory that is (a) younger than I am and (b) has more in common with Arianism than with orthodox theology? I don’t think so. I would like to see hierarchs honestly examine what the church traditionally taught about both women and the Trinity, and acknowledge the novelty of the “equal but with roles” theory as applied to both. It won’t happen, but it would be interesting if it did.

Comment by faith

May 29, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

LMCC, I have long suspected that the whole rigid role thing is more about preventing homosexuality than biblical roles.

Comment by Liz

May 29, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

It’s not just something you suspect, Faith, but it is recorded by groups such as Focus on the Family that this is their intention. Some believe that without rigid roles in the home (mum does the meals, dad does the mechanics etc.) that children will grow up confused about their gender. It’s been written in so many articles and books that it can sound like truth and therein lies the problem – say something loud enough and in enough places until it is believed as fact.

Comment by Lin

May 30, 2008 @ 6:50 am

Liz, I cannot tell you how many times I have had people tell me that if they allow women to be pastors, the next thing you know the same church will allow homosexual pastors. I always ask: When did being a woman become a sin?

This is a straw man. And you are right, it has been taught for so long that people just see it as truth. Beyond the obvious, there are no ordained pink and blue roles in scripture.

I did some research on Patriarchal societies a while back and was stunned to find homsexuality a big problem in those cultures. Even today in some extreme male dominated societies. it is just covered up real well.

Comment by faith

May 30, 2008 @ 7:59 am

Lin, I have asked the very same questions… telling isn’t it. It is not a belief based on trust in God but fear of homosexuality.

(not that I support homosexuality) It is that I notice the anxious abhorance to homosexuality that is driving the gender categories.

Comment by Frank

May 30, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

These books that talk about different brain sizes and subsequent mindsets, if I may put it that way, reminds me of the perinotological psychology (i.e,based on cranial shape and size) that certain scientists and sociologists in the early 19th century used to demonstrate how the Negroid race was less intelligent and socially developed than the Caucasian race, and how this was used by some to maintain Negroids could not advance to higher intellectual and social level. Thankfully, this racist psychology was soon discredited and so could no longer be used to keep blacks “in their proper place in society.” Need I say any more?

Comment by Frank

May 30, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

Opps! My comment on the significance of “brain size and shape” in God’s design for men and women was put under the wrong posting. Sorry about that. Having said that, I certainly agree that the idea that egalitarianism inevitably leads to homosexuality is absurd. And if I may ask would these people say that in situations, such as I experienced when I was in the military, that organizational hierarchy,i.e. a female officer having authority over a male non-com, may be ignored or resisted by the male non-com on the basis that the natural hierarchy,i.e.of males over female in the church and home, because of psychological confusion? I don’t think the military would countance such an attitude.

Comment by faith

May 30, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

Frank, see my response on other post.

Comment by Liz

May 30, 2008 @ 5:50 pm

No Frank…the military wouldn’t countenance such an attitude but hierarchalists would insist that women shouldn’t be in the military anyway and so the situation wouldn’t occur.

Comment by Liz

May 30, 2008 @ 6:13 pm

Frank..could you please write your comment (86564) on the God’s Design post as I think it could be missed here and is worth repeating there

Comment by Sarah

May 31, 2008 @ 5:17 am

Ironically, I think that some of the most extremely patriarchal societies have tolerated, and occasionally institutionalized, homosexual conduct on the grounds of male superiority and the “corrupting” nature of women. Ancient Greece comes to mind.

Comment by Sarah

May 31, 2008 @ 6:19 am

Examples of ritualized homosexual activity come from papua new guinea, where boys were traditionally “initiated” by older men in ceremonies designed to reinforce male solidarity and superiority, and to cleanse them from female corruption.

Comment by Mary

May 31, 2008 @ 9:46 am

Thank you for your apology, Mike.

I went back and found that I did, once, echo your “rant” accusation. For that, I apologize to you. I don’t find any other pejorative statements that I can apologize for, but if you will identify what you found pejorative, I will apologize for giving the appearance of it. I assure you, it wasn’t intentional.

Comment by Lin

May 31, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

My cousin was stunned to find all kinds of homosexual and pedophilia evidence in Afghanistan. She went there after the war as a missionary. It is considered quite normal especially in the villages.

And this was under the Taliban!

Comment by faith

May 31, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

Interesting, in light of what you siad, that homosexuality then would get blamed on women not fulfilling their role as subordinate in the home and church. Actually i find it fascinating that original sin is defined by comps as stepping outside of her God-given ordained role, out from under the headship of her husband. In their view, homosexuality is because woman does not accept headship.

i guess, then we are saved by headship and roles…i thought it was Jesus.

Comment by LMcC

May 31, 2008 @ 5:15 pm

I’m not at all surprised that homosexuality would happen under circumstances involving the emphasis of strict gender differences combined with the hierarchy of one sex over the other.

Humans want intimacy, we want closeness, we want to love someone like ourselves who wants to understand us. If men and women are just so radically different, then what need would there be for us to get together other than to reproduce? Even then, what use would there be for us to hang around together afterwards (or instead of doing anything)?

Worse, throw in hierarchy of one sex over the other. There would be no need or desire to show any love or empathy toward the sex with no power. If anything, there would be a need to keep those uppity “others” in their “proper place” through any means necessary — fewer rights, cumbersome dress, stricter laws, even violence. For both the sex in charge and the sex under domination, emotional intimacy would only be possible with an equal, and sexual intimacy wouldn’t necessarily be all that far behind, so homosexuality would actually make sense in such a context. Sex with an underling would only be desirable for reproduction, and sex with someone “in charge” would be a possible invitation to degradation and violence — if the sex were not an act of violence itself.

Within Biblical equality, the shared humanity of men and women is emphasized rather than the differences. We are more free to bring our total selves into opposite-sex relationships. We don’t have to play “roles”, deny or exaggerate abilities, or otherwise present something false. We can find our common ground and express our God-given sexuality. There is no need to go against Scripture and find intimacy in a homosexual relationship.

So I just can’t buy into the idea that Biblical equality must necessarily equal acceptance of homosexuality. The arguments hierarchs use to say such nonsense don’t hold up. For these same hierarchs to turn around and blame women for homosexuality makes my stomach turn. Christians should understand that with power comes responsibility. Christian sexual hierarchy is notorious for giving all of the power to men and dumping all of the responsibility onto women. If hierarchs are that disturbed over homosexuality, it’s time to stop pointing fingers at the ones who cannot fight back freely against the accusations. These men, these who have taken the power, must take responsibility and examine their own actions. Better yet, dump hierarchy, accept Biblical equality, and create truly intimate relationships within marriage. Oh wait, that’s too radical… but it works when tried!

Comment by faith

May 31, 2008 @ 5:45 pm

hear! hear! Radical is good. Jesus is radical.

Comment by Frank

June 5, 2008 @ 12:42 pm

Lin, in one your responses (86537), you asked how I would respond to the “old camp reply, “Oh yes, they are co-heirs with Christ, they just have different roles.” On one level, I would recognize the reality that “men or women, convinced against their will, are often of the same opinion still.” And so I would pray that the Holy Spirit would open their eyes. And then I would ask them, for argument’s sake, think wholistically and theologically about what it first means for Christ to be God’s heir and then for us to be co-heirs with Christ. At least, that’s where I would start. What do you think?

Comment by Frank

June 6, 2008 @ 11:42 am

Just a follow-up to my previous comment. In his book, Christian Doctrine,Dr Shirley J. Guthrie focuses on how the reality of the Risen Christ,the Lord of God’s present and future kingdom gives us hope and strength to victoriously live for Christ and continue to spread the truth, love, justice and righteousness in both a world and church where the conflict between good and evil, love and hatred, justice and injustice continues because we all tend towards sin, selfishness, and just plain stupidity. And as I face some of the challenges connected with contending for the Faith in these turblent days, his words inspire and challenge me, words which I hope will help others who may be discouraged by having to battle and battle again over some of the same issues: “The classical and contemporary emphasis on the significances of Jesus’ suffering and death are indispensable for a genuinely biblical and realistic understanding of the Christian faith. But the cross is an appropriate symbol for Christians only if it is an empty cross. The foundation, center, and goal of Christian faith is faith in a Suffering Servant who is and will be risen Lord. The God we meet in Christ is indeed a God of self-giving, suffering love; but also a God of powerful, liberating love. To be a Christian is not just to experience the forgiving grace of God for sinful people; it is to experience the renewing grace of God that empowers them to get up and move out of their sinfulness into active joyful service of God and fellow human beings. To be a Christian is not just to expect the presence of God in the depths of our own and others’ suffering; it is to expect the active work of God in our own individual lives, in the church, and in the world to create a new humanity in a new world in which the life, justice and peace of the kingdom of God will finally triumph over the powers of sin, evil, suffering, injustice and death. Why is this so? He is risen! That is the first and last word about what it means to believe and live as Christians. The resurrection of Christ is the one event in history that gives meaning to all of history, including our own.” And it is because Christ is the Risen Lord, and because he has given us the Holy Spirit, who fills us with divine wisdom, power, love, and holy determination that Paul concludes his exposition of the resurrection of Christ: “Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know your labor in the Lord is not in vain”(1 Cor. 15:58, TNIV). May these words continue to encourage and challenge us all to do what our Lord Jesus has called and gifted us to do, until he comes to judge and reward his faithful ones. Amen.

Comment by Christy

June 10, 2008 @ 8:43 am

God has appointed me to a Priscilla type calling. I teach pastors and church leaders the basics of the Gospel in missionary sponsored conferences. As such, like so many others, being myself is controversial. Where I teach, I am treated with love and respect, but in my own country I am painfully quenched.

People do acknowledge I have edifying insights (during Bible study discussions), but the idea of allowing me to exercise my full giftings is just too controversial to seriously consider. A woman with a preaching and teaching gifting belongs in a freak show, not behind the pulpit of a church. One person described me as having a man’s mind in a woman’s body. For many years I struggled with thinking I was a creational mistake. It grieves me to consider how many other Christians over the centuries have suffered because of patriarchy’s false doctrines. The whole church has been crippled.

God does not make mistakes. I have a woman’s mind, meant to embrace the same truths meant for all God’s children. We are all called to seek wisdom and grow up to full maturity in Christ for the purpose of ministering. As others have said, spiritual truth carries its own authority no matter who preaches it.

What bothers me the most is that patriarchy distorts the Good News. The message is loud and clear in many churches that the sacrifice of Jesus does not wash females as white as snow. Our femininity somehow makes us unsuitable vessels to proclaim God’s truths to every creature (including males.) We are viewed as stained, as second class citizens, and must therefore be lorded over by the men so we don’t somehow defile the church with our participation and influence.

Why isn’t the church having a greater impact on our own country? Maybe it’s because we have failed to understand the Gospel. We preach in both word and deed, and when we send contradictory messages, we diffuse the power of God innate in His Gospel. It is only through rightly grasping the Gospel and preaching it (in both word and deed) that the Church will ever be made whole and our witness become powerful and fruitful.

Lastly, I am concerned that getting the Gospel message right is not the top priority of every Christian (Phil 1:27). The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the foundation upon which every other truth and doctrine must rest. I believe in biblical equality with great passion. But that truth is still secondary to the Gospel message. It concerns me when certain churches are being endorsed by egalitarians solely because they preach egalitarianism but, upon closer examination, the gospel that these churches preach is seriously distorted. Such churches cause just as much serious harm to the body of Christ as the patriarchal churches. We should endorse truth wherever it is found, even in patriarchal churches, and challenge the rest. Get the Gospel right and egalitarianism will be its natural fruit.

Comment by faith

June 10, 2008 @ 9:29 am

Hey Christy, I so agree. I talked with a woman recently who was studying Hebrews in her bible study. While no one mentioned the role of women, it was foremost in her mind.

She felt the liberty of the gospel but that in her church at least, it could not be applied fully to women.

That is because it is taught that the sin of Eve was to disrespect her husband’s authority and the sin of the man was to listen to his wife instead of lead. Original sin was to violate God’s ordained roles; eating the forbidden fruit was the result of not following the role rules.

That perverts it right there with a warped and skewed understanding of original sin. Then redemption is based on law… following the role rules and not based in Christ and his amazing love for humanity. I think it is the Galatian heresy at its best. Salvation based on flesh (only men can be circumcised, only men can lead) and law (follow the role rules).

Comment by Sarah

June 10, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

Christy, I agree wholeheartedly. I have occasionally been dismayed by what appears to be an acceptance of aberrant theology on the part of some claiming biblical egalitarian allegiance. Granted, I would hope that doctrinal statements such as cbe’s would filter these folks out, but this isn’t always the case. Lest those opposing biblical equality be tempted to make too much of this, they should probably look to see who’s riding their coat tails – more than enough questionable folks to go around. Still, we might need to be extra careful to emphasize sound biblical doctrine to disarm “guilt by association” attacks.

Comment by hrht

June 11, 2008 @ 4:21 pm

http://hrht-revisingreform.blogspot.com is an interesting site on British Reform agenda and one woman’s experiences of a church that has a very particular slant on the role of women.

Comment by leigh

June 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm

Huh. Another reason it’s important to talk about “gender roles” and it is central to the faith is because…

One’s beliefs on the matter are often used as a litmus test of one’s orthodoxy, of whether one “accepts Scripture” or not, of whether (in point of fact) one is truly a Christian.

So while some of the complementarian persuasion may say that gender roles are “not a central issue”, “not central to the Gospel”, and that they’d rather avoid the issue for fear of dividing the church, their behavior illustrates how it is a central issue from their perspective, and thus the conversation a necessary one.

Comment by jlp

June 13, 2008 @ 9:59 pm

We also need to continue to discuss gender roles in order to understand the effects of gender hierarchy teaching. I think Christians have a hard time admitting when they have done something that has harmed the Christian community, and gender hierarchal teaching has caused great harm. We need to discuss it to help those who teach it understand the great damage they have done.

Comment by jlp

June 13, 2008 @ 11:20 pm

In addition, its time that complimentarian teachers be held responsible for the harm they have caused. If their teaching causes a marriage to come apart, the couple whose marriage was harmed should come and tell them. If they destroy an opportunity for a woman to use her gifts for the glory of God, that woman needs to confront them about what they did. It’s time that their actions be held up to the light of day and examined by the Christian community as a whole. Right now the results of their teaching are being swept away under the rug, and thus they are not in a place of accountability for what they have done.

Comment by faith

June 14, 2008 @ 9:57 am

good luck. the hardest thing is to speak about this with groups who view this as divisive. to me it is a side-stepping and unwillingness to face the issue with thoughtfulness and compassion. in my experience speaking about this has tagged me as having a chip on my shoulder–when i have only expressed my view.

the hard part is that when i speak of this, i am tender and hurt rises up. i feel exposed and vulnerable and inevitably re-wounded by the apathy. i seldom feel as if i have been heard or understood as to why this is a serious issue for me.

sooo. not only does the heirarchial position feel wounding to me, so does the side-stepping and anxiety the church has about thoughtfully engaging the issues around heirarachy and women in ministry and gender.

it is threatening to a church or ministry because folks leave over it. i want the church at large to have enough courage to speak about it in healthy ways. and to hear, hear, hear, hear, hear, hear, hear, HEAR… the stories of women caught in this communal dysfunction.

Comment by Eowyn

July 1, 2008 @ 6:03 pm

Great discussion!

One excellent resource I recently came across that may be helpful is: Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home, by Jonalyn Grace Fincher. Zondervan, 2007.

This fine, scholarly work celebrates Christian femininity and the unique way in which women reflect God’s glory.

For more info., check out: http://www.soulation.com

Comment by Liz

July 3, 2008 @ 6:50 pm

While I don’t doubt the integrity and sincerity of the Finchers I have a problem with the suggestion that women reflect God’s glory in an unique way (in other words, in a different way from men)

I don’t see anything in scripture to suggest such a notion.