The CBE Scroll

Comment by PS

October 28, 2008 @ 7:12 am

I became e-friends with a woman AG pastor. Through that contact, I learned that they had female pastors since they started, about 100 years ago. The percent has fallen, unfortunately. Their scriptural defense of woman pastors on their website is very good.

Comment by Lolly

October 29, 2008 @ 5:45 am

The way the Religious Right sucked up to Sarah Palin–who could become the leader of the free world in a hypothetical situation–is just disgusting. I guess patriarchy takes a backseat when you make the right noises about abortion and gay marriage. No wonder Christianity is declining in the US.

Comment by Lin

October 29, 2008 @ 9:57 am

CBMW has been writing lots about why it is ok for a woman to run for office but has specific ‘roles’ when it comes to the home and church. It makes no sense. Palin is a professing Christian who is not at home carrying out her ‘role’ but that is ok in this instance.

My guess is that they have painted themselves in a corner and lots of comp women are going to start running for office. :o)

Comment by Lin

October 29, 2008 @ 9:59 am

One more thing…by CBMW standards, Palin can be VP but cannot lead her staff in a Bible study if males are on staff.

Comment by Lolly

October 29, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

As usual, you see the comps twisting themselves like laundry in the breeze trying to justify themselves. I read an article on Slate.com about this issue. It was saying that comps are willing to set aside their patriarchal preferences for women like Palin because they feel that the greater good will be served by having women like her in office. So much for bedrock beliefs. The author of the article was not religious, so she didn’t pursue the implications of that statement. If it will serve the good of the country to have somebody in office advocating against abortion, then–where are the male policticans who should be doing this? Shouldn’t comp males feel ashamed that they’re not stepping up to the plate but are allowing a woman to do it for them?

Comment by Hubert Edgar

October 31, 2008 @ 1:00 pm

My father, a Fundamentalist preacher, used to teach about Deborah. He taught that God put her into office to shame the men of Israel because they were not doing what men were supposed to do. Sigh!

Comment by Don

November 1, 2008 @ 8:09 am

The egal/non-egal models can be divided into 3 realms: home, church, and society. It is possible to be egal in 1 and non-egal in another. Some are non-egal in all 3, some are egal in all 3, like me.

In order for CBMW to be “big tent” when they were first formed, they simply did not talk about society at first; we can see now that this is because there was a significant minority (who have since left) that believed that society should be non-egal, in addition to home and church.

The incredibly ironic thing is that CBMW accuses its opponents of caving in to society’s morals, but this is exactly what they did with Palin. They looked at the 2 main tickets and tried to allay any possible concerns with their adherents voting for McCain/Palin. They could not actually endorse anyone due to tax rules, but they could discuss why it would be consistent with their beliefs to vote Rep. in this case.

The funny thing is that almost everyone outside of their system of belief sees that the Emperor has no clothes; but I guess for their followers they do not see it.

Comment by Kathy

November 1, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

I end with questions from a quote on CBMW’s web site:

“Government has been instituted since the Fall, whereas manhood and womanhood, marriage and family, and the fellowship of all true believers are part of the design of creation.”

If manhood and womanhood was instituted before government was instituted because male and female are a “part of the design of the original creation”, then wouldn’t government have to be subject to the “rules” of manhood and womanhood since creation order came before government? How does a secondary institution circumvent creation? And lastly how come the discussion of “manhood and womanhood” overlooks the fact that in the original creation God created the male and female and gave them the exact same rulership over creation?’
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/09/30/three-spheres-of-subordination-shrinks-to-two/

I would recommend this article. It points out inconsistencies in holding to non-egal and egal spheres of life. Can one be consistent while practicing a non-egal system of belifs in the home and church, and yet an egal system in society?

Comment by Tulip

November 5, 2008 @ 5:25 am

Regarding Hubert Edgars’s comment.
These kind of excuses for succesful women in ministry are probably as common in the US as they are here in Australia. I also remember hearing them in Sweden where i grew up. Kathryn Khulman, a woman with an amazing international healing ministry “excused” her ministry in the same manner. There was, according to her, no man willing to make the sacrifices that came with the calling. To me it was just a girl from the south trying make some sense of the apparent contradictions. We all come from somewhere and Kathryn was a Southern baptist woman staying faithful to her christian heritige. The beautiful thing in all this is that God choses whoever he wants, and in doing so disregards all the luggage we carry around . After pondering this for a while my initial dismay faded away. I now find it inspiring.
But the main problem about statements similar to this and the one of your father is what kind of picture of God’s character they are (unknowingly) painting. Is our almighty, omnipotent God finding himself resorting to compromising his divine eternal and rightious principles because of our personal sin? That doesn’t sound very almighty to me at all. He did use Balaam’s donkey, though. But he must not use weak and cowardly men. Istead he must sacrifice his divine principles and use women. I’m sorry, but it is not my God they are talking about.

Comment by Lani Rae

November 5, 2008 @ 6:05 pm

Ok, I know this statement will be pretty controversial, but the arguments against women in ministry when compared side by side, are identical to those used by Southern Slave Owners to justify slavery.

Comment by joanne

November 8, 2008 @ 11:11 am

i am disheartened by the blame that somare placing on Sarah Palin for the loss of the election. I think that regardless of political ideology there was a lot of sexism in the discussions about her. Over-focus on her clothes and making her out to be a dumb, fluffy, shallow woman was more than obvious. While she was perhaps uninformed about many things and perhaps not ready to be president, the way she was presented as a bimbo in news, comedy and post-election blame was over the top. Just last night, I heard Leno making comments about her meeting reporters in a towel… bad sexist joke. And the stuff McCain staffers were saying is really about sour grapes.

I felt from the first moment McCain chose her, she was being used to counter Obama and capture the Hilary vote. And now she is being scapegoated – that is really low.

Comment by Liz

November 10, 2008 @ 8:03 am

Yes, I would agree that whatever our political persuasion there is never any call for ridicule. I didn’t actually hear Obama say anything derogatory about Sarah Palin in the news coverage we had in Australia which I thought was commendable but then again..maybe we don’t get all the news here.

Comment by joanne

November 10, 2008 @ 10:08 am

Liz, I did not say that obama said anything unkind or sexist. Only that McCain’s choice was to counter the fact that Obama would get the African American vote. And McCain hoped to get the Hilary vote.

Obama has been amazingly calm, respectful and self-defined in a postive way through out the whole campaign. while i might not agree with his positions, i think he is a good leader and respectful of diversity.

I was just stating that the comedy and news seemed to focus on Palin’s wardrobe expenses, her looks, her figure and her sex appeal. Often she was depicted as a dumb bimbo type person. While she has growth to do in many political areas, she is not a bimbo.

Comment by Liz

November 10, 2008 @ 5:36 pm

I agree with you, Joanne, and didn’t assume you were talking about Obama when you mentioned the ridicule. I was just pointing out the fact that here was one person in a prominent position who didn’t seem to stoop to such tactics.

It is amazing that the media and others will still resort to comments about a person’s gender and what they are wearing to define them. It just shows how ingrained is the concept of ‘empty-headed women’. I suppose Hilary Clinton and Condaleeza (spelling?) Rice got similar comments when they started out.

In Australia, we have a deputy Prime MInister which is the ‘top’ postition in the Australian political scene and this lady has come in for a lot of criticism over the years too. Mind you…the men are criticised as well….how much they pay for a haircut, how they dress, how much money they have, what their wives do/own/wear…..anything to sell newspapers and put suspicion in people’s minds.

Comment by jlp

November 10, 2008 @ 10:32 pm

I was disappointed by the way the press and public handled Palin also. Someone photoshopped her head over the head of someone wearing a bikini. In her run for Miss Alaska she didn’t wear a bikini. But for some reason someone pictured her in a bikini. They wanted to make her into a sex object. And the press rattled on about the $150,000 spent for her clothes. I’m sure that amount or more has been spent on other political candiates also, but no one is making a fuss about it.

I also felt that at times Hillary got a tough time from the press also.

I don’t know why these 2 women were singled out. Other women have run for high office and been treated better.

Comment by jlp

November 10, 2008 @ 10:41 pm

Lani Rae,

Can you give an example of an argument of Southern Slave owners to justify slavery that are similar to the arguments against women in ministry? I believe you, I want to hear more of what you have to say on this issue.

Comment by joanne

November 11, 2008 @ 8:03 pm

i know one argument used to justify slavery.

It’s the design one…

God ordained the order of humanity
slaves were designed to be subordinate
they fulfill God’s design by being slaves

I hear that one for women all the time. God ordained the order between men and women,
Women were not designed to lead but to be subordinate.
They fulfill God’s design by being subordinate.

I read the book, Slavery, Wives, Women and War

The author, which i can’t remember, draws several parallells… reading it is chilling.

Comment by jlp

November 11, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

Thanks Joanne. I will put Slaves, Wives, Women and War on my to read list.

Comment by joanne

November 11, 2008 @ 10:27 pm

exact title… slavery sabbath war and women, case issues in biblical interpretation by Willard M Swartly and Albert J Meyer

Comment by Lolly

November 12, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

Philip Yancy also gives an excellent demonstration of this in his book [em]Soul Survivor[/em]. In the first chapter, he talks about growing up in the segregated South and quotes from a sermon his pastor preached one Sunday:

“God created black people to fill certain roles [i.e. waiters, nannies, and other subservient positions]. In order to do this, God gave them distinctive physical characteristics. For instance, black people have a natural sense of balance, which helps them with those trays piled with dishes when they’re a waiter. Why did God make black people this way? The answer can be found in the book of Genesis, which describes how, after the Flood, Noah cursed his son Canaan for seeing him naked. This son would be subservient to the others, Noah said. ‘Canaan’ means ‘dark’ so Noah was, essentially, cursing black people and telling them they would be subservient to their white brethren.”

So Lani Rae, you are hardly the first person to notice the similarites between the two–white patriarchalists were saying it themselves long ago. (After all, the racists who believed black people were inferior also believed Southern women should be helpless and swooning most of the time.) It’s just that since racism is no longer acceptable, modern comps can’t bring themselves to admit the similariaties.

Along the same lines, when The Scroll first started, they had an entry that was somewhat related to this issue. They quoted from a blogger who talked about Ephesians 5. This guy pointed out how, right after he talks about women, Paul tells slaves to obey their masters. If slavery is no longer acceptable, then why is the subordination of women? this blogger asked. Pose that question to a modern comp and you’ll probably get a lot of jargon about essences and the Trinity. It sounds as suspicious now as it did when Yancy’s pastor was saying it.