Yesterday I did a post called "The Oppression of Women???" where I argued, contra Rhett Smith, that the prohibition of women from teaching offices in the church does not constitute oppression. My point was that this kind of ecclesiastical structure, in and of itself, is not necessarily an oppressive structure.
On the other hand, I want to agree with something that underlies Rhett's post, and that is to acknowledge that in many cases, today and throughout history, women have been oppressed. I just don't believe that this oppression results from a certain ecclesiastical structure. It comes from our innate sinfulness and can manifest itself in the presence or absence of any ecclesiastical structure.
More to the point, the problem here is something akin to Nietzsche's "will to power." I am not an expert on Nietzche so I won't try to interact with him, yet I believe that one of the main results of the fall is an ungodly desire to wield power over others.
In an earlier post I quoted an excerpt from Henry Van Till's Calvinistic Concept of Culture where he argued, persuasively in my mind, that Lord Acton was not exactly right in saying that power inevitably corrupts:
But culture, as such, is a gift of God to man as well as an obligation. The Germans have a word for it Gabe und Aufgabe. Thus man was at once servant and child. Man stood in that relationship to his Maker, wherein he knew God as his friend, and loved him as his Father. At the same time he had received dominion over all God's created world, to be lord and master in the name of his God. Unto this end he was to populate the earth with his kind and to cultivate it. This was not a matter of choice but of divine precept and it entered into the very constitution of man, so that man is essentially a cultural being. The cultural urge, the will to rule and have power is increated. This is not demonic, or satanic, but divine in origin. True, men may misues and abuse power after the entrance of sin into the world, but to say with Lord Acton that all power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutlely, which is quoted promiscuously by men who ought to know the Scriptures, is not wisdom but folly and confusion. For power belongs to man by virtue of his creation as a cultural creature. He was made to function in the realm of power and to develop his power to its highest potency - for God, of course! There's the rub! Men continually forget the divine original in paradise and take the condition of Paradise lost for granted as being normative.
His words are persuasive to me yet, since we live "after the entrance of sin into the world," I do believe that the temptation to misuse and abuse power is nearly overwhelming for most of us.
Because of Paul's words in I Timothy 2:15 I do believe that, in creation, God ordained male headship. In that verse Paul is basing male headship on the created order. In that pre-fallen state I believe that Adam and Eve were able to relate in such a way that headship and submission had none of the onerous connotations that are so often associated with them today. In a way I don't understand, Adam was able to exercise headship and Eve deference in a way that did not involve a poower struggle and in a way that brought joy to them and glory to God. But after the fall, relationships became characterized by a power struggle. In the curse on the woman in Genesis 3:16 it says:
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."
I know there is a good deal of debate about what this "desire" is on the part of the woman. I take it to be a desire to control the husband. The word here is the same one used in Genesis 4:7 where sin desires to "have" Cain, but Cain must master it. In other words, sin wanted to control Cain. Similarly here, the woman's loving submission to the man is turned into a desire to control him.
Yet, I also believe there is something sinister in the words "he will rule over you." As this is a result of the fall it seems to me most reasonable to interpret this as a desire on the part of the man for a kind of despotic or tyrannical rule where he keeps the little woman under his thumb.
And I believe that this becomes a paradigm for relationships in general - people are always looking for ways to get an advantage over one another.
So this seems to me to be the main problem in discussions of the oppression of women. It's not the ecclesiastical structure that causes women to be oppressed, or other cultural things. It is that our innate sinfulness causes us all to desire to gain an advantage over others. This desire can corrupt any ecclesiastical structure, and it corrupts all social relationships.
The answer to this then, is not for women to seek greater power, rather it is for all of us, men and women, to repent of the power paradigm in relationships.
In a comment on yesterday's post, Peter Epps did a bit of exegesis on Ephesians 5 and said this:
husbands, already commanded to submit to all other believers, which would include their wives, are also commanded to love them in a very particular way: that of Christ; and the mode of Christ's love Paul intends is particularly described, not in terms of *power over* but in terms of *sacrifice for* the beloved. The particular, special duty of Christian husbands is to be the first to sacrifice their interests in favor of those of others. Lead? Yes. Lead in submission, not by demanding it, but by *DOING* it.
Getting back to Rhett's post I will again say that I believe the Bible authorizes male headship in the family, and that women are prohibited from serving as teaching elders. These familial and ecclesiastical structures, in and of themselves are not oppressive structures, but they can become they, like anything else, can become the staging grounds for oppression and all kinds of evil.
Not that any of this resolves anything in particular but I think it helps zero in on the real issues at stake so they can be better addressed.
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
Great point. Notice the typo here: "but they can become they, like anything else, can become"
Posted by: Elijah | May 02, 2006 at 09:20 PM
There is a difference between submission and sacrifice. I think Eph. 5 is one of the places that teaches us that while under authority we submit, and while in authority we sacrifice (Mark 10 for instance) rather than lord it over others.
Sacrifice, in Mk 10 & Eph 5, is for the well-being of those under your care (redemption & nurture). It is not sacrifice just for the sake of sacrifice. Those in authority don't just give in, but use their power to serve the better/best interests of those under their care.
I guess what I am leery of, is those who use such language to neuter authority by not taking the context into consideration.
Posted by: cavman | May 03, 2006 at 12:37 PM
Elijah - thanks very much for pointing out the typo. I have fixed it. I have that problem of lots of typos.
Posted by: David Wayne | May 04, 2006 at 02:44 PM
"and that women are prohibited from serving as teaching elders"
Hmmm, if you like going against biblical precedent then I guess you could believe this.
I suppose that the main biblical passage that supports your belief is 1Timothy 2:9-12.
But if it is, you would also have to believe that women cannot dress with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes.
1 Timothy is clearly a passage about a cultural issue to separate the Christians from pagans and women who sold themselves.
But if you believe otherwise then:
What do you do with the fact that women wrote parts of the Bible?
and
What do you do with the fact that woman are prophets?
and
What about Acts 2:17-18, 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my spirit on all people, Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Even on my servents, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.'
and
Acts 18:26 talks about how Aquila and Priscilla taught a man, Apollos
and
Romans 16:7, Andronicus and Julia are said to be "outstanding amongst the apostles".
and
Whan talking about gifts and calling (Eph 4:11; 1Cor 12:4-31), Paul never once mentions gender- not even when discussing "pastor, teacher or evangelist"
and most importantly
God "allots gifts to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses." 1 Corinthians 12:11
and
Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male oand female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."
There are definitely different roles for men and women, but it is quite clear that leaderhip is not one of them, unless you are self-righteous enough to know better than what God desires.
Posted by: Tim L | May 05, 2006 at 12:26 PM
Wow,
I really should choose to preview first, Sorry!
Posted by: Tim L | May 05, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Here’s one woman’s view. I’m a woman, but a rather unusual one. I work as an appellate research attorney. And I’m also working toward an MA in theology and philosophy at Talbot.
I tend to get myself into trouble whenever I share my views on biblical womanhood. But I want to begin by reiterating a couple of comments that already have been made. First, it is good to be mindful that, as finite human beings, we cannot fully comprehend the infinite wisdom of God. We don’t know everything yet and it is profitable to receive information, process it (exercising reason and sound judgment based on the Scriptures), and arrive at conclusions that bring us closer to God’s intended meaning. Second, I appreciate Joel Hunter’s comments concerning how our views affect the gospel and our witness to the world. And I would add our personal salvation (sometimes we accuse each other of being unsaved heathens because we disagree on an area of theology—when it is abundantly clear that we entirely agree on the essential doctrines of our faith).
I’m a complimentarian because I think that view is most consistent with Scripture. But the church’s current description of biblical womanhood is not quite right—and, hence, the outcry among those who are our brothers and sisters in the Lord.
David Wayne may have focused inappropriately on the term “oppression” in responding to Rhett Smith’s comments. Maybe some additional thought should be given to the term “discrimination.” Sometimes I compare the treatment of women with the treatment of slaves, but I agree that it is not a fair or precise comparison. At the same time, I don’t think it is entirely wrong because even God invites some comparison in speaking of our identity in Christ: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) What I have brought up (more to elicit a response that to present my own view) is the example of blacks in the US. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the US Supreme Court held that separate facilities for blacks and whites are equal. About 50 years later, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Court held that separate is inherently unequal. So the question is: is the separate/different treatment of women inherently unequal?
Here are my tentative thoughts on the subject:
(1) Men and women are equal (ontologically speaking), both made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27).
(2) I agree with the biblical view that the husband should be head over the wife (the wife must submit to her husband’s leadership) and that men should have the primary authority within the church (and women should not usurp that authority) (1 Cor. 11, Eph. 5, 1 Tim. 2). God clearly established an order of all things, including a hierarchy between men and women. And this hierarchy is not limited to any particular culture. As I have said, “I find deeply troubling…any attempt to limit the application of Scripture based on trends or changes in culture and society. I believe the principles set forth in Scripture more often than not transcend the cultural context in which we find them. I also believe that while we take into account God’s choice of human authorship, we must acknowledge that it is God who ultimately is speaking and conveying His unchanging truth. We dishonor God when we take away from or add to the words given to us by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In reverence to God and His word, we should presume that the rule is normative unless the text clearly suggests otherwise (or is purely superficial—as with the instruction on “braided hair”).”
(3) The biblical view involves discrimination (i.e., different treatment) and a functional inequality. I prefer to say it as it is. To twist our language to a point where it is no longer meaningful seems rather unnecessary (as if we’re afraid of being labeled “politically incorrect”). I think the idea of submission necessarily and inherently involves a functional inequality. Sometimes I describe the woman’s role as “lesser” or “lower,” but people tend to assume that I have forgotten Christ’s teaching on servanthood and kingdom values. I have not. I am simply saying that there is a difference and women assume a lower place in the hierarchy. To say that a woman cannot be an elder/teaching elder is to treat her differently than her male counterpart. To say that a woman cannot be an ordained pastor is to deny access—this is discrimination (to say otherwise contradicts both reason and experience). But not all discrimination is wrong and unjustified. Sometimes it is necessary (the designation of leadership is necessary for the proper functioning of any social unit, including the home and the church). Based on Scripture, the Complimentarian is saying that the different roles are justified based on the inherent differences between men and women (which are not only skin deep). And, even more importantly, we are saying that they are justified based on God’s established order and appointment of functions. Even if we are capable of performing other functions, we submit to the established order out of love and respect for God.
(4) Currently, the church does an inadequate job of training women to love the Lord with all their hearts, soul, mind, and strength. Most women leaders lack any formal training (and it shows—think about who teaches men’s bible studies and men’s conferences as opposed to who teaches at women’s bible studies and women’s conferences). The church generally does not encourage young women to pursue educational goals. At times, the church forgets that women are often equally capable and tends to treat women according to their “lower” function. Instead of a robust and truly complimentary environment where we edify one another, the church has created a stiffled environment where men feel uneasy about women and women are not permitted to live up to their full potential in Christ.
As for me, the more interesting question is women in academia (which is not clear in Scripture—it depends largely on whether we equate seminaries with churches). I’ll probably end up teaching philosophy at a secular university anyway—so the question may be a moot point.
Shalom,
Chong
Posted by: Chong | May 06, 2006 at 07:53 AM
OO-OO! C’n I answer those questions, teacher, c’n I?
“What do you do with the fact that women wrote parts of the Bible?”
Which books do you think a woman wrote? And so what if Ruth wrote the book about her, or any other woman wrote any other book; in what way does that negate what Paul says about a woman having authority over a man?
”What do you do with the fact that woman are prophets?”
I don’t do anything with it, since it’s not a fact. There were women prophetesses, and there were prophets. There are none now. And, so what if there were? In what way does that have anything to do with a woman having ecclesiastic authority over a man?
’What about Acts 2:17-18, 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my spirit on all people, Your sons and daughters will prophesy. Even on my servents[sic], both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.'’
When do you think those ‘last days’ are gonna be? Peter clearly said that prophecy referred to what happened in Acts! None of the women prophesying (presuming that there were such) were exercising authority over a man in a church setting.
’Acts 18:26 talks about how Aquila and Priscilla taught a man, Apollos
and
Romans 16:7, Andronicus and Julia are said to be "outstanding amongst the apostles".’
Again, not in a church setting.
’Whan talking about gifts and calling (Eph 4:11; 1Cor 12:4-31), Paul never once mentions gender- not even when discussing "pastor, teacher or evangelist"’
Argument from silence; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
God "allots gifts to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses." 1 Corinthians 12:11
and
Galatians 3:28, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male oand female, for all of you are one in Christ Jesus."’
So there’s no longer any actual differences between men and women? Maybe that explains the declining birthrate… Or, call me crazy, I dunno, but just maybe Paul is saying that there’s no longer any differences among these groups in terms of their salvation, as versus the situation that had been in play for a few millennia, i.e., salvation was of the Jews only.
‘There are definitely different roles for men and women, but it is quite clear that leaderhip[sic] is not one of them, unless you are self-righteous enough to know better than what God desires.’
Now there’s a self-defeating statement; if you don’t think you know what God desires on this subject, then why in the world should anyone bother to pay any attention to you about it? And if you do think you know, then what does that make you?
Anyone who’d like to read a sensible exegesis of Scripture when it comes to such issues might want to peruse:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield1.html
Doc
Posted by: Jeremy Klein | May 15, 2006 at 05:58 PM