Oppression of Women???
At the Together for the Gospel Conference, the speakers put together a statement of faith, of which you can read a non-authorized transcription here (i.e. they are going to put out a final statement later this week). Rhett Smith is burned up about articles 16 and 17, which are:
Article XVIWe affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the chuhrch, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical dinstinction of roles excludes women from meaningful minstry in Christ's kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues without damaging its witness to the Gospel.Article XVIIWe affirm that God calls his people to display his glory in the reconciliation of the nations within the Church, and that God's pleasure in this reconciliation is evident in the gathering of believers from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. We acknowledge that the staggering magnitude of injustice against African-Americans in the name of the Gospel presents a special opportunity for displaying the repentence, forgiveness, and restoration promised in the Gospel. We further affirm that evangelical Christianity in America bears a unique responsbility to demonstrate this reconciliation with our African-American brothers and sisters.We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel.
Among other things, Rhett says:
Here's what I am confused about: Article 16 and 17. In article 16 they state that only men can be called to the Biblical office of teaching and then they say this, "We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women." And then in Article 17, speaking mainly on the oppression that African-Americans have experienced in the name of the gospel they say this, "We deny that any church can accept racial prejudice, discrimination, or division without betraying the Gospel."
How is it that in Article 16 they can discriminate against women, but then in Article 17 say that any discrimination is betraying the gospel. It's just ironic to me that these articles are back to back as well. Of course they didn't say gender discrimination. And if women in ministry is not culturally conditioned or oppressive, then how come they don't say that slavery is not culturally conditioned or oppressive. Doesn't Paul in Colossians 3:18-4:1 tell not only women to submit and obey their husbands, but also for slaves to submit and obey their masters. Same text. But somehow in this confession they have seen fit to think slavery was culturally conditioned and oppressive and completely wrong, but they can't go that far with women. The continued oppression and discrimination of women is okay.
Before I interact with this I do want to mention that, though I really don't know Rhett, we have had a bit of interaction through blogging and I would consider him a friendly acquaintance, and I hope he feels the same way about me. And, I understand that he and I may be on a panel together at this year's GodBlogCon so I'm looking forward to meeting him face to face. But I do think he is wrong here.
Regarding men and women in the church I would take the complementarian position and it looks to me like Rhett would take the egalitarian position. As far as that goes, I think Rhett's argument is one of the better arguments on the egalitarian side. But I think it falls short for several reasons.
1. He is comparing apples and oranges.
Slavery, and by extension, racism, denies basic human rights, in the former case treating certain races as in-human, and in the latter treating certain races as inferior-human. Slavery and racism denies the imago dei, that all human beings are created in the image of God. By virtue of being created in the image of God all races and all individualls share basic human rights.
The T4TG article XVI affirms the essential equality of men and women, affirms the complementarity of men and women in the body of Christ (as opposed to making a statement of superiority/inferiority), and disavows the oppression of women. In other words, there is nothing here that denies the equality of men as created in the image of God.
This article does deny to women the right to serve in one particular ecclesiastical office - that of teaching elder (I am using my own presbyterian tradition's language for that office). We presbyterians and the T4TG folks may have wrongly interpreted the Scriptures in this regard and thus our position may be in error, but it is wrong to equate this position with slavery/racism. The reason is that the Bible is clear that the right to serve in ecclesiastical office is not a fundamental right given to all human beings by virtue of their creation in the imago dei. Again, we may be wrong in how we understand the Scriptures in this regard, but the books of I Timothy and Titus make it clear that ecclesiastical office is not open to all people by virtue of creation.
2. There is an assumption here that prohibition from office equals oppression.
Again, the T4TG statement affirms the complimentary relationship of men and women in the church, and specifically denies that the prohibition of women from a particular ecclesiastical office constitutes oppression.
Yet Rhett assumes and asserts this without proof. It assumes that an authority structure in and of itself constitutes an oppressive structure, yet where is the proof of this?
3. It forgets the Pauline rationale regarding the prohibition of women from the teaching office.
As I said, I do think Rhett's argument is a strong one, though I disagree with it. He points out that Colossians 3:18-4:1 tells wives to submit to their husbands and slaves to submit to their masters. He seems to think that Paul is acquiescing to culturally conditioned authority structures where women have the same relationship to their husbands as slaves have toward their masters. And, though Rhett doesn't spell out his reasoning, I think it would go something like this - "we all know that slavery is wrong and since the 'submission' enjoined of wives here puts them in a "slave" relationship with their husbands this is also wrong."
In other words, female submission is an artifact of an unbiblical patriarchalism in the same way that slavery was an unbiblical cultural artifact.
I don't know where Rhett would go at this point but I think you can usually go one of two ways. You could say that Paul wasn't endorsing the submission of women to men, he was just telling women how to make the best of a bad situation where they were powerless. Or, you could say that Paul was simply parroting the cultural views of the day, views that we now know were wrong.
But in this regard the "culturally conditioned" track doesn't work. It doesn't work because there are places in the Scripture where Paul offers specific rationale for his teachings on women and leadership in the church. I Timothy 2:12-14:
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
In verse 13 Paul locates this prohibition in the order of creation, not the practices of culture. In verse 14, he locates the prohibition in the fall.
Now, I am open to debate whether or not I, or the T4TG folks, rightly understand these verses. But I do want to point out that, in Paul's own self-consciousness, he was arguing for this position based on theology, not culture. I suppose one could argue that Paul is like the so-called modernist Christians who thought they were merely reading the Scripture when in fact they were reading it through culturally conditioned lenses. In other words, Paul's own patriarchal conditioning may have caused him to fashion an errant theological justification for his views.
But if we go that route then we have to get into arguments regarding the nature of inspiration, which is beyond the scope of this post. For now, I'm taking the approach that the Word of God is inspired, that though these words were Paul's words, they were also fully God's words, and that we have to assume that God had an agenda in inspiring these words that went beyond any cultural conditioning Paul may have had.
Similarly, in I Corinthians 11:3 Paul grounds his views of women and men, not in culture, but in theology:
3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
In other words, man is the "head" of woman in the same way that God (the Father) is the "head" of Christ. There are thousands of resources you can go to on what "head" means here but for now I am just pointing out the parallel. The relationship of man to woman is to parallel the relationship of God the Father to Jesus Christ.
And again, my point here is that, at least biblically, the culturally conditioned argument just won't work because Paul self-consciously argues on theological grounds in these matters.
4. In submitting and deferring to the Father, Jesus was not oppressed by the Father, neither is woman necessarily oppressed in submitting or deferring to man in matters of ecclesiastical authority.
One of the forgotten elements of Christology is that, in His earthly sojourn, Jesus submitted to God the Father, was limited by God the Father, and was under the authority of the Father.
Theologians speak of the trinity in two ways - the ontological trinity and the economic trinity. "Ontological" refers to being, "economic" refers to function. Ontological refers to who they are, economic refers to what they do.
As to ontology, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are full equal with God in being, in who they are. As to economy, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are different in what they do.
In His earthly sojourn Jesus submitted to the Father. In John 5:19 we see that Jesus could not act on His own initiative, He could only do what the Father did. In Philippians 2:1-11, we see that Jesus humbled Himself and became obedient unto death. To whom was He obedient? It was to the Father. In the garden Jesus had to submit Himself to the will of the Father, and forego His own desires.
All of these examples raise many deep questions and are profound mysteries. At this point we could go into all kinds of discussions about the two natures of Christ and how the ways they coexist in the one person of Christ, but to keep on track with the current discussion I simply want to point out that nowhere in the Bible is Jesus' submission to the Father portrayed as oppression on the part of the Father. In fact, I have never heard anyone else suggest that submission = oppression in the case of Jesus and His Father. I have never heard anyone raise the point that, in limiting the exercise of Jesus' gifts and powers, that somehow the Father was oppressing Jesus.
Yet that is precisely what is being argued by Rhett and others. That limitations to ecclesiastical office necessarily constitute oppression of women.
Of course, a good comeback is that men (i.e. the male of the species) are not like God and don't relate to women the way that God relates to Jesus.
This is true. But I am not arguing the point that men treat women badly and have done so throughout history, I am arguing the point that the prohibition of women from ecclesiastical office does not equate to oppression. The prohibition of women from the ecclesiastical office of teaching elder is biblically based, at least partially, on the authority/submission relationship of God the Father to Jesus. And the point is that an authority/submission relationship does not assume the oppression of the one who is submitting.
5. The "culturally conditioned" argument is ultimately self-defeating.
If we say that we ought not to accept the prohibition of women from the office of teaching elder because that position was culturally conditioned, on what basis are we negating it? We are negating it on the basis of our own cultural assumptions. And then we must ask on what basis do we assume that our own cultural assumptions are correct?
Who's to say that modern day egalitarianism is superior to the alleged patriarchalism of the biblical times. If it is assumed that patriarchy has historically led to oppression, what has egalitarianism historically led to? Has anyone ever heard of some of the great egalitarian movements of history like, oh . . . , say the French Revolution, or maybe Communism? Some of the most oppressive movements in history have been some of the most egalitarian movements in history.
My point in this is that any culture, whether it is patriarchal, monarchical, matriarchal, egalitarian or what have you can become utterly oppressive and we've got to be careful in throwing around the "culturally conditioned" argument when it comes to exegesis.
Having said all of that, again I will say that prohibiting women from serving as teaching elders in a church does not, in and of itself, give evidence of an oppressive stance toward women. Nor does an authority/submission structure where there is male headship necessarily oppress women. In fact, I argue that the prohibition of women from a teaching office and the male headship structure are biblical.
What I haven't done is address what I think is behind Rhett's concern and many others, and that is that men often do oppress women. But that is due more to the innate sinfulness of man than a particular ecclesiastical structure. And that is an issue I hope to address in a future post.
Hat Tip - Adrian Warnock
Related Tags: Current Affairs, Politics & Society, Religion, Theology, Christian, Christianity, Faith, Church, Women, Women in leadership, Leadership, Elders, Teaching Elders, Ecclesiastical, Together for the Gospel
Recent Comments