Read: Question #3, p. 12-15, in Banned Questions about the Bible by Christian Piatt.
Some read Genesis and blame Eve for our fall from grace. The Old Testament holds up few women as positive role models. In fact, we see far fewer women than men chronicled in the Bible. The OT laws often treat women as subordinates without a voice in a male-dominated society. Throughout its history, the Bible has often been used to justify keeping women in subservient roles in the church and in society. This particular passage from Paul is quoted often in support of keeping women out of leadership roles in the church:
“Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
As I write this, a controversy is bubbling up over Rachel Held Evans’ new book A Year in Biblical Womanhood. Lifeway Christian Stores, which is operated by the Southern Baptist Convention, announced it would not carry the book, presumably because of the inclusion of a certain word used to describe a particular part of female anatomy. Matthew Paul Turner argues that it’s not as simple as that in a recent blog post. You can read that for yourself, but the Baptists are not the only denomination that limits the role of women in its churches. We Presbyterians are considered heretics by some because we have female pastors. I’ve been told by some conservative evangelical Christian friends that it’s just not “biblical.”
The Banned Questions… responses to the question all emphasized the need to read the Bible in the context of the time and that, in that context, there’s plenty in the New Testament to support an “ethic of equality.” But the dissenting opinion – the view that women cannot serve as pastors or teachers in the church and that they should be subservient in marriage – is still alive and well today in some denominations.
We’ll tackle Paul’s writings later in the week. Since everyone who responded to the question in Banned Questions… pointed to Jesus’ examples, let’s start there. In the midst of a patriarchal society, here are some of the things Jesus did:
- He healed women as well as men, at times going counter to OT laws on ritual purity (Matthew 9:18-26, Mark 5:25-34) and the Sabbath (Luke 13:10-17).
- One of his longest conversations was with a woman Jews were not supposed to associate with (John 4:1-42).
- Not only that, but he didn’t turn women away when they sat to hear him teach, even if the woman’s “role” was to serve in the background as hosts (Luke 10:38-42).
- In fact, women were part of his inner circle, to the extent of helping support his ministry (Luke 8:1-3).
- In the end, women remained with Jesus to the end, even as many of the male apostles had gone into hiding (Matthew 27:50-56).
- And, of course, women were the first witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (Matthew 28:1-10).
There are other examples in which Jesus treated women “as valuable human beings, every bit as worthwhile as men” [Marcia Ford, p. 14 in Banned Questions…). Sometimes we read the gospel accounts and forget how much of what Jesus taught and did ran counter to religious and cultural norms of his day. Perhaps it doesn’t jump out as bold and revolutionary as we expect to see it today, but Jesus upset a lot of people who supported the status quo. Yet today, while some churches believe the New Testament supports women in ministry, others use the same Bible to deny women pastoral and leadership positions in the church and to contend that women are supposed to be subservient to their husbands in marriage.
What do you think? Do you think the gospel accounts of Jesus provide clear support for treating women as equals or does the Bible as a whole still provide support for a male-dominated society? Why can some Christians read the Bible and find support for treating women as equals in church and society while others find support for keeping women out of leadership roles in the church? If God intended all people to be treated as equals, why isn’t the message in the Bible clearer?
Please click on “Comments” below to share your thoughts and to read what others are saying. Come back often to continue the conversation!
I believe that when Jesus was put on this Earth, it was to turn around our way of thinking. Jesus was a rebel. I don't think he looked at it as a man/woman thing. I believe he just wants everyone to know him and know God. It didn't matter if you were a Samaritan, leper, female, male, Jew, Pharisee, etc. He wants us to go out and spread the word to everyone, he never said to only spread it to certain people.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I’m pretty sure that the first time Jesus claimed to be the Messiah to anyone was to the Samaritan woman at the well. Don’t forget that he was convicted to be crucified for claiming to be the Messiah, so that’s pretty significant.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that you have to look at the Bible in historical context. It’s difficult for most people to imagine how tough life was in those times. A woman probably took a different role back then because having a lot of babies was vital to the survival of society, and women doing anything else was seen as a dangerous distraction. Otherwise, if equality was so important to God, why didn’t he use his chosen people, the Jews, to demonstrate equality to the world? For that matter, why didn’t God create us all equal? I think that it’s also true that if you love your neighbor as you love yourself (the second greatest commandment according to Jesus), you’ll treat people pretty much equally. My guess is that that’s what Jesus was demonstrating and trying to teach us.
I don't think that 'not all the same' is equivilent to 'not all equal.' I do believe that we are all equal in the eyes of God. God isn't looking at the external trappings of our physical bodies. Besides, the even word subsurvient makes my skin crawl. I much prefer partner. I'm sure there are times that my husband wishes that I wasn't so adverse to the concept of subservient :-) I dont think that you can look at the Biblical concept of the role of women without the historical perspective. The Bible, however inspired, was written by men of that time and that culture. I do think that the actual actions of Jesus are more telling. Kevin and I left the Catholic Church after both having been brought up Catholic. As adults we could no longer continue practicing a religion where we disagreed with many of the basic tennents; the role of women being a primary example. Just as individual seekers of Faith need to continue to grow and change, so to do institutions of Faith.
ReplyDeleteJust to add gas to the fire Nelson, you forgot Colossians 3:18: Wives, be subject to your husbands as is right and fitting and your proper duty in the Lord.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reminder, Dave. We'll get to that on Thursday when we look at what Paul says about women as leaders in the church (or elsewhere).
DeleteAlso, you missed Ephesians 5:22: Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord.
ReplyDeleteLadies, back me up here...anybody :-)
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me that most of the denominations that argue that women should not have leadership roles in the church go to Paul's letters and not the gospels. I thought about this as I was riding home from work, trying to recall an equivalent of Eph 5:22 or Col 3:18 in the gospels. Nothing came to mind, except for this thought.
ReplyDeleteSo much of Jesus' ministry on earth turned the old ways of thinking around, forcing us to look deeper in our hearts. The folks who responded to this question in Banned Questions talked about how Jesus' treatment of women would have been seen as revolutionary (and probably caused outrage among some male leaders). It just dawned on me that maybe Paul is doing the same thing.
Here's the traditional/conventional thinking of the day from the passage in Ephesians (Colossians follows a similar pattern):
Women, submit to your husbands (Eph 5:22)
Children, obey your parents (6:1)
Slaves, obey your masters (6:5)
But the twists in conventional thinking occur in between:
Husbands, love your wives and be ready to give your life for her, just as Jesus did for us (5:25)
Fathers, don't exasperate your children, but bring them up in faith (6:4)
Masters, treat your slaves the same way God treats those who serve God (6:9)
From what I understand, that was pretty radical thinking for the times. Paul doesn't throw away the traditional male-in-charge mindset. But he adds bounds to it - being "in charge" doesn't mean being domineering. The whole relationship is re-framed in terms of Christ's relationship with us.
The husband is called to love his wife as Jesus loves us. Parents might insist on their children obeying them, but their call is not to frustrate the children, but to teach and equip them in faith. Paul may not have said that slavery is bad and should be abolished, but if the masters were to treat their slaves the same way God treats us, doesn't that remove the shackles and bondage and injustice?
We might look at these verses today and think they were rather mild/weak in addressing inequalities, but I suspect they rocked the status quo of the time.
Yes, I may be stretching it, but there's more to these passages than "wives, be subject to your husbands."
I like what Nelson added to the conversation in the paragraphs just above.
ReplyDeleteIn a class I attended this week, I was reminded of another reference from the letters of Paul that says something different: "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27-28
The Bible is not all of a piece, neither are the letters of Paul!
Maggie, I ain’t no lady, but I’ll back you up. When I take the whole context around those particular verses, what I hear Paul saying is that to truly follow Christ, you have to be a servant to other people. I think that he was just giving some concrete examples and wasn’t trying to establish or reinforce some set social order. Did you notice that Paul never told husbands to dominate their wives? If a woman submits to her husband, it doesn’t prevent her husband from submitting to her at the same time. Serving each other doesn’t set such a bad example for the kids, either. It’s just hard to overcome your own ego, emotional baggage, and maybe your upbringing.
DeleteHey Judy, it’s late! Go to bed! I hope this didn’t keep you awake.
Just want to say I'm enjoying these conversations... early in the morning, late at night, and all times in between. I'll be putting up a post dealing specifically with Paul's take on women later this evening.
ReplyDelete