I haven't let off some steam lately and thought I would this morning.
I was interviewing a dear friend's daughter the other day and I asked her about what it was like to be the daughter of a mom who was a pastor. And she said that she hadn't thought about it until she came this year to the christian university where she is a student. I asked her to explain.
She said that when she was a kid growing up, her mom was well liked by her friends and the adults in the church really respected her and would talk with her about their lives. She was proud of her mom, but didn't think it was a big deal that she was a pastor she was just a working mom. Her dad is highly respected in his line of business.
But when she got to this university, a place of great minds and thinking, she encountered people who said her mother was doing things that were against God and scripture. This was really confusing for her and she was looking for scripture to back up her mom in this argument and asked if I knew of any.
I told her a story...
Not too many years ago, I wrote a memo to the staff stating that their dogs could not be brought to worship anymore because they were causing a lot of problems. They were barking in the middle of my preaching, howling during praise singing (off key), scratching and licking themselves in places only Michael Jackson and Madonna grabbed while performing on stage, and the kicker, they were lifting a leg on the pews. The dogs were not allowed to be in worship anymore!
One of the staff members with one of the dogs, Sophia, was unhappy with my decision. She came and talked to me. I told her that her dog was the worst. This hurt her feelings and said that she loved this dog and said it wasn't fair. I said, it is not about being fair but about being able to behave in worship. I said that she was not able to control her dog and that the dog was not adding to the service but distracting everyone from the reason we were there. The dog needed to be training to behave wherever he was.
She thought about this and she decided would take her dog to obedience school. She looked in the yellow pages and found a school nearby, Mrs. Huppotasso's Canine School, and placed a phone call to the school. Mrs. Huppotasso answered the phone. Sophia asked if she had any openings for her dog to begin classes.
The woman said yes they were starting a class on Mondays and Wednesdays next week. Then she asked Sophia a question, "What do you want to accomplish by taking the dog to my school?"
"Well, I would like to get him to behave and do some tricks and not crap in church." Sophia said.
Mrs. Huppotasso laughed and said, "Alright, then bring the dog on Monday. What is the dog's name?"
"Hendrix" she said.
"Great, see you next Monday. Drop Hendrix off at 5:30p sharp and pick him up at 7:00p."
"Pick him up? Don't I get to be a part of the training?" asked Sophia.
"Yes you do, but this class Hendrix will be trained, and the next class you will be." the instructor said.
"Oh..., alright, see you then." the staff member said a little confused.
Monday arrives and Sophia drives up to the front of the school, which is really a small home with a small yard on the side. She is prompt to drop the dog off at the school at 5:28p, where Mrs. Huppotasso is waiting expectantly in the driveway to meet her. Sophia gets out of the car, opens the hatch, puts the leash on Hendrix, and lets him out of the back of the Subaru. Introduces Hendrix and herself to Mrs. Huppotasso and said she would see her in an hour and a half. Mrs. Huppotasso turns and says, "Remember, 7:00p, sharp."
She drives back home to get her dinner ready and then when it was time to go, she put the food in the oven on low and drives off to the school. Sophia is thinking she hopes this works, Hendrix has been a good companion for her and it would be great for him be obedient so that she could take him everywhere with her.
She arrives promptly at 7:00p and as she drives up, Mrs. Huppotasso and Hendrix are in the driveway waiting for her. But this time there wasn't a leash on the dog.
"You won't be needing this any more." as she hands her the leash.
"Wow, you are good."
"Well, yes but your dog is really smart."
"Um, thanks, see you Wednesday." the staff member says.
"Be prompt, 5:30p," the instructor says as she heads in the house.
"I will."
On the drive home, Sophia looked back at him in the rearview mirror and noticed that Hendrix was looking out the window and not doing anything but staring. He didn't do the usual hyper behavior of running back and forth between both side window, but just sitting and staring. It was as if he was thinking. She asked out loud, "Did you have a good time, boy?" and Hendrix turned and formed a smile and appeared to nod and then looked out the window.
That was odd, she thought.
Wednesday came, and again, Sophia promptly dropped the dog off to the instructor who was waiting in the driveway. The staff member put the leash on Hendrix and took the dog to the instructor, who said, "I told you, he does not need this anymore." and gave the leash back to her and said, "Be back promptly at 7:00p!"
"But just in case." and tried to hand it back to her. Sophia couldn't believe that the dog could be trained that fast to not need the leash.
The teacher paid no attention and turned with Hendrix by her side, to go in the building. The dog was looking up at the instructor as they walked as if he was listening to her.
This was the routine for the next few months. Each Monday and Wednesday Sophia would take Hendrix to Mrs. Huppo's (as she began to call her) promptly at 5:30 and just as promptly pick him up at 7:00. Hendrix was not peeing on the furniture anymore but was still not allowed to come to church. He even learned some great tricks. At first it was the usual, rolling over, sit up, walk on his hind feet, play frisbee,
One Wednesday, the staffer dropped her dog off to Mrs. Huppo, drove home concerned that Hendrix was liking the instructor more than her. She went home and again, prepared dinner and drove back to the school promptly at 7. Only this time, the instructor was not there to meet her, only Hendrix. He was sitting patiently in front of the school and walked over to the car as Sophia opened the rear car door to let him in. Only this time he didn't jump in but walked up to the front passenger door and waited there.
Sophia held the door up and called Hendrix over to her, "Come on boy, get in the car." Hendrix just looked at her. He had never done that before.
"Do you want to sit up front with me, boy?" she says as she walks toward him.
"Yes, please." Hendrix says quietly.
Sophia's jaw dropped and she stops dead in her tracks. "What did you say?"
"Yes, please. I would prefer to sit up front with you."
"Your a dog, you can't talk!"
"Well, yes and no. I am a dog, but I can talk. In fact, I can think, I can express my thoughts and even change my mind. I can be trained but even more wonderful, I can be taught as well as teach.
"Let's go home and we can talk about it over dinner."
That night over dinner, which instead of eating the dogfood, he asked for what she was eating. Sophia wasn't too happy with this idea but ended up giving Hendrix that which she had made for herself. Hendrix started telling her his perspective on some of the issues that he was concerned with such as what life was like for him, how violent people are to their pets and to each other. He told her things that went against some of the things she thought. Sophia didn't say much, except, "Dogs can't talk." Hendrix disagreed repeatedly, but was seeing something in Sophia's eyes. She needed him to be a dog, just a dog. It was going to affect who she was in her own house. Her identity, her place, her control. Later in the evening, she changed her words to "Dogs shouldn't talk."
Sophia didn't take him back to Mrs. Huppo's, she never took the second semester herself and ended up being a bit intimidated by Hendrix. She thought once about taking him to a talent scout because she thought she could make some money off of this trick but ended up just kind of keeping him at home. She quit taking him with her places. And after a while, Hendrix became less talkative, and eventually started barking... and ended up peeing on the furniture again.
25 comments:
I like your parable Tony.
Hi Tony. It has been a long time. Jessica and I are doing well and trust the Biasell family is too.
Interesting story. If I understand it right, in response to a young woman seeking scriptural support for her mother's pastoral ministry you told her a story likening women pastors to talking dogs. The point being that women pastors have gifts to offer the church (the talking dog), but are marginalized and held back because some people feel threatened (Sophia).
It seems like a subtle way of avoiding a difficult situation and trying to justify a viewpoint that has no scriptural support. I think I would have responded by asking this person if she wanted my help studying what the Bible says about men's and women's roles.
Actually Michael, I am not likening them to talking dogs, I think I am equating those who still hold to that view point as seeing women as nothing more than talking dogs.
It may encourage you to know that as one who understands Scripture to teach that women are not to be pastors I do not in anyway think less of women. I certainly do not think of them as talking dogs (or any such idea). Women have indispensable spiritual gifts necessary for the growth and life of the church (1 Cor 12:7-26; 1 Pet 4:10). And their role as a wife and mother are invaluable and critical, something our culture undervalues. When men and women function in their complementary roles at home and at church it beautifully portrays God’s design. The church, therefore, needs to celebrate and appreciate the way God has made women. BTW: the issue is not that women are inferior (they most certainly are not) or if they have leadership and teaching skills, abilities, and gifts (many do), the bottom-line issue is determining what God’s Word teaches. God in his wisdom has designed family and church-life to function a certain way, albeit counter-cultural.
michael
then what do you do with a woman who is barren and single for life? are they functioning in a lesser capacity or are they not functioning in their designed way? i think your word choice of "their role" is rather exclusive for this is not "their" one and only role nor is it the pinnacle. also as one who "understands scripture" where in the gospels is this taught by Christ or what would a parallel be? i ask this question in sincerity as this is a topic i have been praying over hard now for a good year. and it still has a sour taste in my mouth. because i am done with this topic being as divisive as it is and ready for more kingdom!
Hi Cosby,
Please understand I do not wish to be divisive and I resonate with your desire for more kingdom. I just wanted to engage in a respectful conversation among friends. Also, I did not mean to imply that I “understand Scripture” while others do not. I was meaning to say that my understanding of Scripture is such and such. In other words, I have come to believe that the Bible teaches certain things and recognize that others may disagree.
My comments about about God’s design for women and “their role” were not intended to be exclusive, but to give an example of an indispensable role God has given exclusively to women (notice God’s purpose for Eve in Gen 2). Sure not all women marry, but only women can be mothers. Thus, being a wife and a mother is one aspect of God’s design for women. Just as being a husband and a father is one aspect of God’s design for men. This, however, does not mean that a barren, single woman is functioning in a “lesser capacity,” because (as you know) marriage and our roles within marriage are not required to fulfill our fundamental purpose in life to glorify God. Some men and women are meant to glorify God in singleness (1 Cor 7:7) and all people are created in the image of God with the ultimate purpose of worshipping Him (married or single). Marriage, then, is not ultimate (Mk 12:25), but it is common. For those who do marry, God has designed it beautifully and intentionally. For those who do not marry (e.g. Jesus and Paul) God has an equally wonderful and intentional purpose for them. Nevertheless, singleness does not negate men’s and women’s roles nor obscure God design for men to be masculine and women to be feminine (Deut 22:5; 1 Kings 2:2; 1 Cor 11:3; 16:13; 1 Tim 2:9:15).
Regarding Jesus’ teachings from the gospels, it is evident that Jesus had a high view of women that was counter-culture during His day. He respected and valued women knowing they are created in the image of God (Matt 19:4; Jhn 4:7-26). We also observe that Jesus recognized role distinctions for men and women, primarily with regards to his selecting only men for the role of an apostle. You may object and say, “but Jesus lived in a male-dominated social structure.” True as that may be, Jesus was not averse to breaking social customs (criticizing the Pharisees, healing on the Sabbath, eating with tax-collectors and prostitutes, etc). Certainly if the Maker of heaven and earth wanted women as part of His leadership team, then He would have selected women apostles. If we were to include Acts and the Epistles we’d notice that those whom Jesus trained and appointed as leaders thought it best to preserve male leadership.
Finally, there is no reason to give Jesus’ teachings primacy over the rest of Scripture. After all, He is the author of all of Scripture (Jhn 16:12-15; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:21). So, even if there were not clear teachings on women’s roles in the gospels the truths written in the epistles are equally Jesus’ words and equally authoritative.
You were concern that I didn't use scripture to give an answer, I was only using a method that was taught to me long ago by my favorite teacher. He never wrote a book, never received an ordination, and basically got run out of town on a rail and was nailed to it.
It is call teaching in parables. Or stories that the common person could understand. Understanding the culture, the rules of the day and giving current application, is the proper use, I think, of parables.
I did notice on the date and time of your comment that you were typing on the sabbath...
Tony,
I like your parable. Perhaps some day you would be willing to write a few more, as seems fit -- I would enjoy reading them.
Argh, I was hoping no one would notice that I was typing on the Sabbath :) Toshae on the teaching in parables. I also want to be like Jesus. But I think as the Son of God He may have had one up on us, since when He taught in parables they were simultaneously Scripture (the revealed will of God). And He may not have physically written a book, but no doubt He inspired the writing of Genesis – Revelation. Plus, while He was not ordained (although trained in Hebrew Scriptures as a Jewish boy) it is handy to be all-wise and all-knowing.
When you say that teaching in modern day parables is a way for the common person to understand, am I to think you mean that the common person cannot understand God’s Word? Do people need culturally updated stories to understand the Bible? To avoid misunderstanding, I do believe stories help us understand Scripture, but the stories ought to illustrate Scripture not replace it. My concern, Tony, was not that you told a story. Rather that you said this young woman “was looking for scripture to back up her mom” and instead of Scripture you gave a made-up parable. The parable itself is creative and makes your point very well, but at the end of the day if it does not reflect what Jesus Himself taught us in Scripture then it is only a creative story.
P.S. I engage in this conversation as one among brothers in the Lord, hoping that our friendly discussion will be as iron sharpening iron.
“Dear God, Are boys better than girls? I know you are one, but try to be fair.”
- Children’s Letters to God.
Dear brothers in the Lord,
How easy, and not at all uncommon, it is, to have a lengthy discussion on the roles of women in the church, without a woman's voice being present.
To be fair, let me introduce my self, because I entered this conversation a little late. I would like to be upfront in those things that have had doubtless influence on what I believe and those experiences (academic and personal) that have shaped the way I view scripture. I am a woman, a follower of Christ, a director of Children’s ministry at a local church, and a practicing feminist.
Where to start in a tired discussion, where all the wrong questions are asked? (Though, aside from Cosby’s input, I recall only few, if any, questions put forth).
Thank you, Michael, and those of you who nodded your ‘masculine’ godheads in agreement, for your repository of scattered scriptural verses to back up the fallen world’s cultural view of women (& men’s!) roles. But I am afraid we are going to have to do much better than that.
Piecing together scriptures, such as (Deut 22:5; 1 Kings 2:2; 1 Cor 11:3; 16:13; 1 Tim 2:9:15) we are to understand that God has created man to rule, women to obey (of course in the most loveliest way). That is the beautiful story of men and women in relationship, when lived fully in God’s will. This is God’s intent in sex, as well, we are to assume. For sexiness is, according to this view: when one has power, and the other doesn’t. But what if we follow that line of understanding and follow it through to its destructive completion? What sorts of practices and sufferings play out from such a deeply embedded understanding of human gender roles and sexuality? Ask this question, my brothers. And then: Is this a truly counter-cultural, redemptive view of gender roles? Or have we merely borrowed from the world around us, and called it something else in the Church?
For I believe, that if we engage with the scriptures as the Story of God, as a narrative of God’s love and grace to humanity, fullfilled in Jesus Christ, then we will see a different story all together. It will be a story of God’s redemption and reconciliation for all of humanity, to God and to one another, and this most certainly includes the gender roles through which women and men relate to each other and birth families into. Let us start with beginning of our story, in Genesis, for this is where the ‘rub’ begins in determining just what it means to be ‘woman’/’man’. We see that in Genesis 3, a division of labor (written in terms of a curse) occurred only after sin entered the world. After, not before. A wonderful detail upon which the whole story hangs. From which, truly, all of our stories continue. So as a people of God, reconciled and redeemed in Jesus Christ, seeking to live fully in the Kingdom of God, we cannot and should not continue to enforce these gender roles as God's static will for humankind. And yet we do. Or at least some of us still do. It is hard to let go of that power that we wielded in the fall of humankind and used to abuse each other for so long. What would it look like if we, the people of God, begin to truly love each other as men and women in the church in view of Christ’s love, mercy, and reconciliation to the world?
Or, How this deeply embedded world view of men and women’s roles kept us from truly loving each other and being reconciled to each other? Who holds the power in this world, and what does that mean for those who are power-less?
These are the questions we need to be asking. There are stories, biblical and parabolic that we need to be listening to if we truly desire to see the kingdom of God in our midst. There are women: your wives, your sisters, your mothers, your friends, that you need to invite into this conversation. And then listen.
Lildra juanita,
I thank you for your comments here. I think far too often and far too long discussion like this one rage without pause or thought ever being taken to consider who is sitting across the table. If in the strange absence of all those foreign and alien, we find ourselves, here, also, we have discovered not the reign of a living God, but an idol made of wood and stone, our very own conceptions served. So, again, I want to thank you for your comment, insight, heart, and mind. Thank you for following Jesus wherever that leads. May the Church continue to learn form you and those like you, just what it means to serve a living God, who is bigger than our individual cultural baggage, who in his mysterious providence calls forth all our most dearly held beliefs and subjects them to Her good and perfect will. I believe the questions lily has posed are a vital and necessary starting point. The church needs to think and reflect on how it speaks and conceives of God. We cannot continue the domestication of the gospel, which does take priority over those parts of scripture that do not reflect the gospel's intention and design for redeemed and reconciled human relations with one another and with God.
How easy it is for me to view something strongly without ever knowing anyone that is experiencing those issues first hand.
We must involve those with and without voices into these conversations to hear what God has said to them, to us through them.
I couldn't care less about being conservative, feminist, counter-cultural, culturally stinted, or whatever as long as whatever it is persuades me the most that it's the hope for us that God has.
That's why I think Michael's approach is refreshing wether I agree with his conclusions or not. At least he's trying to look at the ways the Bible thinks through the subject and to be revised by them.
Thinking conceptually is certainly an important way to approach things, but wouldn't it be nice to say, "Hey, but Michael, look at what's going on over in this passage. I think it adds a different flavor to what's going on in the scriptures. Maybe we should think about this some more."
Lildra Juanit',
Thank you for your balancing perspective. Your critique of my comments is welcomed and appreciated. Although, I am puzzled by your casual dismissal of the verses cited in the above post. Did you read the verses? You suggest that by citing them I think “God has created man to rule, women to obey.” That is not at all what I believe (or wrote). Only God rules and both men and women are to obey Him. Those verses support the idea that God created masculinity and femininity. In other words, men and women are not the same. My wife is 19 weeks pregnant and Thursday we will find out if the baby is a boy or a girl. We’re very excited to find out because it makes a difference; a baby girl is not a baby boy. Certainly men and women are physically different and I venture to say emotionally and socially different as well (ask anyone who is married). The question, then, is not if men and women are different (no doubt they are), but if God purposefully created them to be different and if He did what is the significance?
So I ask, Is masculinity and femininity part of God’s design? Can we agree that the answer is “yes”? After all, in Genesis 1:27 we are told, God created us “male and female.” Now the obvious emphasis in Gen 1:26-28 is the equality of men and women. Both are created in the image of God and as God’s image-bears both are given the divine responsibility to be fruitful, subdue the earth, and rule over creation as God’s representatives (1:28). At this point I must stress my belief that men and women are equally created in the image of God, equally valuable to God, and neither male nor female is a superior gender (Gal 3:28). Male domination is unbiblical and disgraceful! But that does not mean there is undifferentiated sameness. Genesis 2 teaches God’s pre-fall design for men and women.
I must disagree with your suggestion that the division of labor occurred after (as a result of) the Fall and label it patently false. Notice that Adam was created first (2:7) and while woman (Eve) was yet uncreated Adam was given his responsibility to cultivate the earth (2:15). And notice also that Adam alone was commanded to abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (2:16-17), a bit of information he would have had to pass on to Eve later (leadership implication?). The most telling verses are Gen 2:18-25. So that Adam would keenly recognize his aloneness, God had him name the animals. Of course Adam found no suitable helper, so God fashioned Eve. Only Eve, Adam’s equal counterpart, could fulfill Adam’s need for companionship (a cloned Adam would not do). How are we to understand Eve as Adam’s “helper suitable (i.e. corresponding) to him”? Paradoxically, Eve was Adam’s spiritual equal while also his helper. She was made FROM the man (similar essence) and FOR the man (dissimilar purpose). Lastly, observe the statement in v. 24. Based on the manner of creating Eve man shall be the one to leave his mother and father so they can enjoy a one flesh relationship. This suggests that the man initiates the marriage relationship, he takes the lead. The reason for this implication is because Adam did not have a mother and father to leave! Thus, God was establishing a principle for future generations. Should we not conclude that Gen 2 is more than a beautiful retelling of the narrative? If it is not, then the creation account in Gen 1 would have sufficed. It is best to see Gen 2 not as rerecorded creation of man and woman (that was plainly accomplished in Gen 1), but teaching on the implications therein.
Now regarding Genesis 3. In my view Satan purposeful tempted Eve. Not because she was inferior but because she was more vulnerable than Adam who was the spiritually leader and the original recipient of God’s command. Satan, therefore, tempts Eve to usurp Adam’s leadership and disobey God. In the end, Eve was deceived, but it was Adam who abandoned his responsibility to spiritually lead. Both were wrong and both sinned, but Adam’s sin is more detrimental. That is why scripturally (cf. Rom 5:12-21) and historically Adam is the one blamed. Sure Eve initiated the disobedience, but Adam allowed it to happen. Notice that it is not until after Adam joins the rebellion that the effects set in (3:7), it is Adam alone who God summons (3:9), and Adam’s sin is not eating the fruit but listening to his wife (3:17). When he should have provided spiritual guidance, Adam instead followed his wife into disobedience.
Finally a word about the curses and relevant NT passages and I will be finished. All three curses (serpent, Eve, Adam) include God’s mercy. The serpent is restricted to slithering, but God’s mercy is seen in provision for a Savior (for people, not Satan), making Gen 3:15 the first gospel verse. Eve’s curse is increased pains in childbearing and a desire for her husband. The latter means her desire will be to usurp Adam’s leadership as she did in the temptation (“desire” has the same general meaning in Gen 4:7). God’s mercy is that Adam will still rule (provide godly leadership; cf. Gen 1:18; 4:7; 15:2) over her. In other words, the creative order is not destroyed. This is mercy because the way God originally designed relationships it most fulfilling for both parties. Adam’s curse is the need for painful labor to produce even a meager crop. God’s mercy is that he (and all people) will die, thus preventing a perpetually state of immortal sinfulness. Your argument that male domination is the essence of the curse is foreign to the context and would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. On the contrary, the disgusting male domination that exists in our world is the result of sin, not God’s curse. God is not responsible for the sinful perversion of His own design, sinful people are.
It is noteworthy that Paul utilizes the Genesis account. In 1 Tim 2:12-13 he instructs women not to teach or have authority of a man (within the local church setting). What does he use to support his instruction? Genesis 2-3. “Adam was created first, then Eve,” and it was the woman who was deceived (originally usurped Adam’s leadership). The same logic is used in 1 Cor 11. Paul appeals to God’s original creation design BEFORE the fall and the events surrounding the fall as evidence supporting his teaching on men’s and women’s roles!
For what its worth, those are some of my thoughts on Genesis, which Lildra rightfully brought into the discussion. What do you make of this interpretation? By that I mean, what are your thoughts on its reasonableness more than the conclusion?
BTW: Lildra, your advice to interact with women on this subject is well-received, but my main concern is what the Bible teaches. I realize my perspective is limited (and even unavoidably biased), but I am open to having my viewpoint challenged and critiqued. My preference is to discuss relevant scriptural passages and wrestle with pertinent practical questions.
I appreciate this conversation. As a woman and Christ follower this is an emotional one for me. I went to college during the "Faith Bible" area, which was seen by many (including myself) as harsh, devicive and judgmental (I was told by my fellow Christian bother that I was not a Christian for my interpretation of Scripture, which we had never really discussed- how confusing and alarming for an 18 year old that deeply wanted to please God!).
It is good to marry
Scripture references and the heart of Christ. One without the other leaves a destructive wake, with scar-tissue that has yet to be healed. A sad and negative legacy to leave behind.
Love this discussion..... and love the good spirit it is being discussed in. I had the opportunity to speak about this topic at LIFE Bible college in L.A. a while ago (http://www.lifepacific.edu/chapel/files/07%2008/11-7-07%20Dave%20Chummley.wma)...... hour long talk if you're interested :) I believe that in Christ there is no male or female, no barrier to living for or being used by God. Are we spiritually gendered? Is God male or female? I appreciate the scriptures that Michael referred to, but I also disagree with the conclusions from some of those scripture. The gender verses in the Word are notoriously difficult to interpret.. and there are brilliant scholars that come down on different sides of this issue (F.F.Bruce? Gordon Fee? etc.) I truly believe that gender equality in the church is that last great struggle we are in: 1st century church dealt with the jew/gentile issue, it took about 1800 years to get thru the slave/free issue, and now its the most fundamental of all..... male/female.
Anonymous,
A few observations and honest questions. You brought up an important passage by alluding to Galatians 3:28, which affirms that “in Christ there is neither male nor female.” You are absolutely right. In Christ there is equality for all people, but not unqualified equality. The context of that verse is clearly related to salvation. In Christ all people are equally redeemed and equally children of God. There are no favorites in God’s kingdom. Paul, however, did not and could not have meant that in Christ there is no such thing as male or female. According to your interpretation of Gal 3:28 how could the same author write 1 Cor 11:2-16; Eph 5:22-33; Col 3:18-21; 1 Tim 2:9-3:1; Titus 2:5? Isn’t he contradicting himself? After all Galatians is one of Paul’s earliest letters. I realize that explanations can be offered for all those passages, but it is still strange that Paul wrote all those other verses if he taught absolute gender equality.
What does gender equality mean anyway? Does it acknowledge gender distinctions? In Christ is there ANY differences between a man and a woman (besides the obvious anatomical)? Does a child need the influence of a man and a woman in his or her life? If so, why? One would think that gender equality means it makes no difference if a child is raised with or without male and female role models because there are no role distinctions to model.
Also, you asked, “Is God male of female?” Of course God is neither male or female; He is Spirit (John 4:24). BUT He created humans male and female! Why do you think God create us male and female? Why not genderless humans? Certainly God could have enabled procreation without genders.
Lastly, what about the above interpretation of Gen 1-3 do you disagree with? BTW: I was unable to get the link you posted to work.
Michael, I think that Anonymous was pointing to the line where you stated, "Adam’s sin is not eating the fruit but listening to his wife (3:17). "
Gen. 3:17 in NASB: "Because you have listened to your wife, and have eaten from the tree..."
Adam's sin was both eating from the tree and listening to his wife--they were the same inseparable action.
1 Timothy 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
Note that Paul uses "I", not "God". Is teaching not a greater form of servitude, concerning the enlightenment of the mind?
I admit, I'm a bit confuzzled.
Frofroggy, you’re right about Gen 3:17. I did not choose my words carefully enough. The point remains, however, that Adam should not have listened to his wife. He failed as the spiritual leader, which resulted in his disobeying God’s command. Thus, Adam (not Eve) is primarily responsible for the Fall of humankind.
I am not sure what to make of your comment on 1 Tim 2:12. ALL Scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16), even those verses in which the author uses the first person. For example, the beloved promise of Rom 8:38 “For I am convinced that neither death…will be able to separate us from the love of God.” Confer also Gal 4:1; Eph 4:1; 1 Tim 5:21; 6:13; 1 John 5:13, etc.
I find this conversation interesting and at times hard to follow. I do wonder though the advantage we have in arguing one verse with another. I can easily find verses that back up what I think without understanding the context in which it was written. Taking one verse here and one verse there and trying to make a point doesn't make sense. I don't believe God's Word was meant to be a patch work quilt and we get to make our own. In order, I believe, to understand and interpret scripture we need to know the history, the author, and most importantly the character of God.
One aspect of this left out is the fact that God is God and can do whatever He wants. If He calls a woman to become a pastor do we tell Him that He is wrong and inconsistent with His Word? Are we really in a place to judge that calling?
Mary, your comment on the use of verses is well said. Just about anything can be argued with proof texts. Verses can be taken out of context, used without the proper study of the grammar and background, and applied without considering God’s character. Nevertheless, God has given us His Word as an authoritative guide for all of life, so we do well to study it and apply it.
Your statement that God can do whatever He wants is true enough. BUT God cannot contradict His revealed will (Scripture). For example, God will never make cold blooded murder acceptable. We cannot do whatever we want under the rubric “God called me.” Your logic, therefore, is flawed. One’s calling can be subjective and needs to be tested against the teaching of Scripture. If a practicing pedophile feels called to be a pastor (which really does happen) we have an obligation to judge that calling as unsatisfactory. If a woman feels called to be a pastor, then it is likely that she has leadership and teaching gifts which ought to be appropriately utilized in the church in accordance with God’s Word. You asked, “Are we really in a place to judge that calling?” We are in a place to allow Scripture to judge anything that is contrary to it.
Finally, since God can do whatever He wants doesn’t that mean He can create men and women with different roles?
I would venture to add one more wrinkle into what has hopefully been a fruitful discussion for everyone. At the very least, I would hope that everyone is utilizing the opportunity to take some perspective rather than simply digging a better foxhole.
Michael, you seem to be taking most of the shots here, and I don't intend this to be another. You speak about masculinity and femininity as pretty stark and distinct concepts; is that your conceptualization of humanity (exclusively male and female, in turn) or is that more a reflection of the rhetorical material?
Great conversation. Lildra, you are a phenom. Laura, thank you for sharing the pain with us. Michael, appreciate conversation.
The more I read my Bible, the more I sing His praises, the more I seek God, in prayer, in Love and Truth, the more I meet as Church, the more free my heart is.
I can check myself easily, reading all these scriptures, "does this loosen the chains my heart is bound in?"
If the answer is yes, then I know I read the Bible and understand. If the answer is no, then I am sure that I am misunderstanding the heart of my Father, and the words of my Brother.
I am no longer a slave, or free, man or woman, I am a child of God. This makes me free, it restores the brokenness in my heart.
It is my prayer that our hearts can be restored, that they can be free, so that we can be grace and peace, to women and to men.
Grace and Peace to you all....
My final comment. Let me begin by saying I realize this is a sensitive topic. I am grieved that so many have been hurt by unloving comments related to this issue. I hope I have not added injure to insult. More related to this blog, I have benefited tremendously from the discussion. I have wrestled with my beliefs and how best to articulate them; I have been challenged to consider the broader context; and I have struggled to communicate the love of Christ amid an emotionally charged topic. It has not been my desire (per se) to convert anyone to my view, but rather to challenge readers with what I believe Scripture teaches. I believe strongly in the sufficiency of God’s Word and the Bible as the only authoritative source of truth. Our experiences, subjective calling, theological background, and so on all must be examined in light of Scripture. No doubt God uses real life experiences to teach us and grow us. We learn from our peers, our enemies, trails and blessings. But Scripture is the final arbiter. At the very least, if your views differ from my own I sincerely hope that you disagree based on your convictions related to God’s Word.
You have read my preliminary thoughts on this subject. It is possible that I overstated my case. If this is true, I’ve done so for two reasons: First, I am thoroughly convinced that men and women experience even more of God’s abundant blessings when they live in a way that reflects His design. Elizabeth Elliot expressed this well with her cry, “Let me be a woman!” She understands the blessings of embracing biblical femininity. Likewise, theologically trained (Th.M, D.Min) author, seminary professor, wife, and mother Dorothy Patterson astutely comments, “Women have been liberated right out of the genuine freedom they enjoyed for centuries to oversee the home, rear children, and pursue creativity; they have been brainwashed to believe that the absence of a titled, payroll occupation enslaves a woman to failure, boredom, and imprisonment within the confines of home. Though feminism speaks of liberation, self-fulfillment, personal rights, and breaking down barriers, these phrases inevitably mean the opposite.” Do not misunderstand. I do not think women should be FORCED to be state-at-home moms, rather when properly understood women will WANT to be state-at-home moms. What a great joy and privilege to be able to invest in the lives of your children. I am aware that some women need to work to support their family, particularly single moms. I have the highest respect for the single moms I know. But the need for a single mom to work to provide for her children is unfortunate. The man who left her (if that is the case) is fitting called a “deadbeat.” I am also aware than women may choose to work for a variety of good reasons. That’s great, there is nothing wrong with that. However she should also take seriously her responsibilities at home. Just as a husband should take seriously his responsibility to provide for, protect, and honor his wife. Husbands ought cherish their wives and show them unconditional, sacrificial love and respect (just as Christ gave His life for His bride the church; Eph 5:22-33). And it is true that some women are unmarried (cf. above comment). I am also not saying that women should be prevented from excelling in areas they are gifted in (inside or outside of the church). One of the best commentaries on 1 Peter is written by a woman (Karen Jobs). Several exceptional women have been missionaries (e.g. Amy Carmichael). Joni Erickson Tada has had a remarkable global ministry. There are numerous women I admire. In addition, I do not mean to suggest that women have lesser roles in the church. Women have indispensable gifts that need to be utilized in the body of Christ and there are hundreds of ways to do this.
Secondly, I have sought to state my convictions clearly somewhat as a reaction against the cultural denigration of the family and the increasing trend to obscure manhood and womanhood. It is alarming that people are being diagnosed with “gender identity disorder,” there are movements such as “transgenderism” (promotes the voluntary elimination of gender), same sex marriages are on the rise, laws are being passed for gender neutral bathrooms in public schools, and so on. These things are infiltrating the church! You may think those are extreme examples, but the effects are far reaching and the consequences are massive. I am not suggesting that everyone reading this blog is in favor of those extremes, nor that women in ministry is equally problematic. What I am saying is that maintaining masculinity and femininity is important. A woman functioning as a pastor may be a different issue, but (I believe, and suspect you disagree) it undermines God's Word and suggests a person’s willingness to prioritize personal convictions over biblical commands. I know once again I have strongly stated my belief. I have done so as a reflection of my conviction, not as a personal attack against anyone. The women pastors I know are honorable women who sincerely love the Lord and I have enjoyed attending churches on both ends of the spectrum.
Finally, I wish to stress my firm conviction that men and women are equally created in the image of God, equally recipients of God’s grace, equally deserving of love, respect, and grace, and equally gifted to serve in the church. This topic is not a matter of equality. Instead it is a matter of function. For some reason in God’s wisdom He desires men to carry the bulk of the leadership load in the church and women to shoulder much of the shepherding responsibilities at home. As such, it is a woman’s joyful privilege to be a worker at home and serve under male leadership. Her role is by no means less significant (raising children is vital! Cf. Deut 6:4-9; Prov 22:6, 15) and certainly not easier. Dorothy Morrison wrote, “Homemaking is not employment for slothful, unimaginative, incapable women. It has as much challenge and opportunity, success and failure, growth and expansion, perks and incentives, as any corporate career.” Indeed, a mother’s “job” is never done and she labors for her family without any incentive of a paycheck. Thus “she is worth far more than rubies” (Prov 31:10). If the roles were reversed I doubt very much that I could do all that God has called a wife and mother to do.
You may think my views are oppressive and unloving. If so, then I have failed to communicate accurately. It is my deepest desire to be loving, Christ-centered, and gracious. No doubt I fail at times in this respect, but God’s Word remains true.
There is much more I could say, but I fear I have already said too much. Thanks for the discussion.
BTW: the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (www.cbmw.org) is a great resource. Members include John Piper, Wayne Grudem, C. J. Mahaney, Mary Farrar and many others.
Post a Comment