Zondervan has an interesting series of books called the Counterpoint Series. One of the books is on my reading list, Two Views on Women in Ministry. However, I just read an excellent article by Loren Cunningham, the founder of Youth With A Mission (YWAM), in which he discusses how Yoido Full Gospel Church in Soeul, KOREA went from 6,000 to 760,000 members, in part, due to allowing Women in Ministry. Cool.
26 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Other than Catholics, are there seriously two views on women in ministry? Is there really a debate about whether or not women are capable ministers? I mean, not a serious debate, right? Haven't we reached the point where women are equal to men?
It's not about capability, but about spiritual authority.
So men have more spiritual authority than women? This is exactly the sort of thing I want Christians broadcasting, because women love hearing how they're inferior to men. It goes over like gangbusters. So please, by all means, continue to discuss women's inferiorities.
In the Mormon Church, women aren't allowed to be priests (or pastors, or whatever they call their leadership) because leadership taints women. Women are above that sort of thing. Still sexist crap, but at least its dressed up in flowery language.
Sam, there is a debate over it, not because women are viewed as inferior but merely designed for different purposes.
And actually when explained properly, it goes over pretty well with women. My wife does not mind it all and is more strict about it than I am.
Take <a href="http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Ephesians+5%3A22-33&version1=31" rel="nofollow">Ephesians 5:22-33, the feminists scream and yell about the phrase: "wives submit to your husbands." That is sexist, it forces women down, makes them like servants, blah, blah, blah.
They forget to read the instructions to husbands – "love your wife, just as Christ loved the church." How did Christ love the church? Well he became a servant. He even gave His life for the church. If someone is loving their wife like Christ loved the church, in service and humility, no wife is going to have a problem submitting to her husband. He will only have her best interest in mind.
Aaron, you're just making excusese for blatent sexism. The history of our species is a story that is unquestionably full of discrimination. Why, when you see the all-too-familiar marks of this discrimination in the Bible, do you call it something else? It's not sexism, it's "spiritual authority". It's not racism, it's a misunderstanding. It's not homophobia, it's castigation of sin.
Isn't it remarkable how, in a world full of hatred and bigotry, the Bible — a book written and edited by regular people — managed to end up without any hint of those painful elements? It's even more remarkable, when you think about it, how the Bible is so full of things that look like hatred and bigotry, but are really, as you explain, just misunderstood by screaming, yelling feminists.
Of course, if the screaming, yelling feminists misunderstand that passage, we should probably forgive them. After all, virtually every Christian culture in the past 2000 years has "misunderstood" it too. But since you say it's all better now, I guess that's all water under the bridge, huh? Silly feminists…
Yes, of course you know the racist, sexist Christians…
Let's ignore the fact that Jesus spoke to a Samaritan woman and ministered to her.
Let's ignore Jesus' minstry to the woman caught in adultery.
Let's ignore that the Bible records women as being the first ones to witness the resurected Jesus.
Let's ignore that the resurection was first testified by women, who testimony would count as worthless in a court of the day.
Let's ignore how Paul ministered to Gentiles and did so against the prevailing Jewish culture.
Let's ignore Paul's passage that there is neither Jew nor Greer, slave nor free, male nor female.
Let's ignore Paul's repeated references to women and people from difficult cultures as people who helped him in his ministry.
Let's ignore the passage in Revelation that talks about people from every tribe and toungue and nation all being in Heaven worshipping God.
Of course the Bible is racist and sexist, silly me.
(I am ignoring the homophobia comment because I have said numerous times that the Bible and I view any sex outside of marriage as sinful and equally wrong, but that is ignored. How can it be homophobia (which is a silly word any way, "fear of the same?") when it regards sex by a heterosexual couple outside of marriage, the same way it does homosexual sex?)
How can you look at a command that tells husbands to love their wives in the same manner as Jesus and say that it is sexist? Even if someone doesn't understand Christianity they know what Jesus did and his humble, servant leadership.
Yes, my view is biased, but so is yours. You read into your own ideas and conceptions of what it shoud say and how it must be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Any explanation I offer is simply dismissed as wrong off the cuff.
Don't misunderstand me. I have a great deal of a respect for a lot of the work that Jesus is portrayed doing in the Bible. But I don't think that makes the Bible exempt from criticism of racism, sexism, or homophobia. It's a pretty large book, after all, and its contents span hundreds and hundreds of years.
So let's not ignore your itemized list. Let's embrace the positive messages that it contains. Why not? They're good messages, for the most part. But let's also not ignore the messages in the Bible that incite or apologize for unethical behavior and discrimination. Let's not pretend that countless Biblical passages haven't been used to justify the enslavement and disenfranchisement of millions of people throughout the Christian era.
How can I look at that passge and think it's sexist? Because it draws a line between men and women where no line should exist. It says "Men are in charge of women", and not the other way around. Again, let's not ignore the part that says that men should love and respect their wives. That's a great message. But let's not pretend that it wipes out the degradation that the former phrase enacts. Men should most certainly not be in charge of women, either physically or spiritually. To say that this is fair, because the scripture further asks men to love their wives, is an absurdity. Are wives not supposed to love their husbands? How, exactly, is this a compromise?
So I think its sexist because it puts women on unequal footing with me. Once again, I think that the passages that ask husbands to love and serve their wives is great, but let's not pretend that the very same passage isn't asking a whole lot more of wives than it is of husbands. And let's also not pretend that the history of Christianity isn't chock-full of people who use that passage to make women a second-class gender. They did, and they still do.
I knew that many would misunderstand the phrase "spiritual authority" – as Aaron said, this is not a question of worth or superiority/inferiority, but of differences in abilities and functions.
Over- or mis-applying the principles involved most certainly is sexism, but we must be knowledgable of the physical, emotional, and spiritual differences between men and women, and then craft meaningful social structures around them in order to help both men and women be successful and happy.
The teachings around spiritual authority are not meant to keep women down or keep men in positions of power, but to show how they work as a team. There are some genralizations made about men and women in all three realms (physical, emotional, spiritual), and there are always exceptions to these genralizations. However, as I like to say, stereotypes are not evil, just the abuse of them. Actually, streotypes, or archetypes, are actually very useful in building social sructures that support healthy development of individuals. We just have to be sure to not be overly rigid so that those who are excpetions find a way to fit in and be happy.
but let's not pretend that the very same passage isn't asking a whole lot more of wives than it is of husbands
You right, it's asking a whole lot more of husbands.
The command is to love my wife like Jesus does. That is huge. Way more, way deeper… way harder than to simply "submit." It is not just love, it is love as Jesus did. Again you have to look at the concept through Christianity. How do Christians view Jesus and his love for the church? That determines how husbands are to love their wives. It is 100x more than simply loving my wife.
I think it is more a semantic argument, most people don't like the word submit. It uses respect later on, is that easier to take?
I'm sure it won't be more easy to take. I think the christian view of husband and wife is often lost on the unregenerate – all they can see are the abuses, not the beauty of living by the design of the Creator.
Fellas,
It's in the semantics. Or, to put this another way, how willing are you to submit to anything? Not very? Fantastic – women tend to feel the same way.
Actually, humans are loathe to submit to anything or anyone for fear of abuse. In fact, no one BUT god is worthy of unquestioning submission.
Scriptures also encourage husbands and wives to submit to one another, encourages us to submit to the authorities who rule over us, and for all of us to submit to God. Forced submission is tyranny, but loving submission, the healthy kind, only really occurs in an environment of love and trust.
Submission is a dirty word in secular circles, but in xian ones, submission doesn't mean subjugation, it means humility and maturity that is willing to submit to truth and love.
Actually, I am into the whole submission thing… oh wait, wrong blog…
Dammit Lonnie – I was just going to observe that for someone who loves submission, Seeker certainly doesn’t allow for others to enjoy submission. Dammit dammit dammit!
Yes, well, I am not talking about peurile fantasies about being dominated.
Here's my question Seeker:
1. If an adult enjoys submitting to another adult, and
2. If another adult enjoys being submitted to, and
3. If nobody else is hurt by said submission, and
4. Everybody involved enjoys themselves, then
5. What is the problem, and
6. No, seriously, what is the problem, and
7. What is puerile about these fantasies, and
7. Seriously, what's the problem with adults who express their sexuality in ways different than you do? What's wrong with adults who enjoy different releases than you do? Do you really believe that the consenting behavior of two adults behind closed doors really endangers society?
Even if no detectible harm came, the arguement would be that such activity is bad for the soul. A second position would be general social ill. A handful of people can do so without much threat, but cultural acceptance can cause all sorts of negative developments. We should also remember that divinely ordained problems are also part of the fear. When Pat Robertson blames gays for losing God's protection or moving hurricanes, many were stunned, but in many ways he is merely being a traditionalist. When homosexuality was criminalized in the Roman empire, the fear of earthquakes was cited, and during the plague, churches blamed fornication rather than fleas for the devastating disease.
Those three seem to be the most popular objections: personal harm, social decay, and divine punishment.
Now, to get on topic, is there any credence given to the idea that some of the verses against women teaching are later insertions? I have read this arguement in various works, but the position does not appear to be on as strong a ground as say the addition of the longer ending of Mark or John's account of the adulterous woman.
Do you really believe that the consenting behavior of two adults behind closed doors really endangers society?
Even if I do have a problem with it, I have no intention of legislating on it. Unless the S&M freakoids want to teach it to my gradeschool kids as a normative lifestyle.
Irrational Entity and Seeker,
The both of you are absurd. I don't see how two adults deriving joy from one another can be "bad" for the soul. In fact, I can definitely see how two adults to enjoy sexual kinks not indulging those kinks for the sake of God being bad for the soul. Do enlighten me and explain how two adults enjoying each others time and bodies is "bad" for the soul.
And Seeker, while I appreciate that YOU don't necessarily intend on legislating sexual behavior, what do you have to say for those of you on your side of the fence who DO want to criminalize certain sexual behaviors?
I don't see how two adults deriving joy from one another can be "bad" for the soul.
The same way you can enjoy smoking. Sin is pleasurable for a season, then it brings death.
As I have said, they are wrong for legislating in the moral gray zone. I believe in limited government.
But perhaps you should discuss specific legislation. Regarding sexuality, I think the law should be mute on personal behaviors. However, we do need to protect children, so I have no problem regulating pornography, or outlawing child porno.
But regarding official *sanction* of specific relationships via marriage, I believe it in the interest of society to only encourage hetero monogamy as nature's best. I'm not making gay marriage illegal or criminal, but just not officially recognized for legal purposes. If a church wants to "marry" 10 people into one marriage, or a pair of gays, who cares, legislatively speaking?
Seeker,
Are you against same-sex civil unions (i.e. legal recognition of the union) or just the use of the term "marriage" to describe said union?
I am for them if they include not only same sex partners, but other types of adult relationships in which things like rights of inheritance and such need to be established – like spinster sisters, non-gay long time friends of either sex. We don't need civil unions for gays, we need them for all loving unions that are not marriages. But I'm still not sure that what that would accomplish is not similar to just legally obtaining a power of attorney and a written will.
I think that some rights and priviledges should be maintained only for married hetero couples. I don't think we need to teach in schools that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle.
Seeker,
Except that homosexuality is a "valid" lifestyle. You just don't like it. I don't like Christianity, but I don't go around calling it an invalid lifestyle.
And convenient for you that gay couples are really no different from buddies, or spinster sisters, or whatever. Can you not at least admit that gays are capable of loving one another in a way that two friends cannot? Or is acknowledging even that much of a relationship simply too much for you?
Dude, this is too far off topic. We can talk about this on the next related post.
Sam, being a gay agnostic, I rather agree. I just like understanding what people believe and why. Beyond the impact on civil policy, I simply do not care if someone believes homosexuality or eating pork is a sin.