Evangelical Misogyny
Featured, Social Justice — By Jonathan Lembright on January 7, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I was recently talking with a friend of mine named Jane about her work at a Christian international non-profit near my hometown in the Midwest. In the course of our conversation she said, “I’m just not sure there is a place for women here.” When I asked why, Jane said, “I think it has to do with how they view women’s leadership in the church.” Hold on… what?
It seems Jane was implying that an anti-feminist theology was being applied to the organizational culture of an Evangelical non-profit — an unhealthy merger of faith and practice. Now throw in the fact that this non-profit is in the business of empowering women and girls around the world and what you have is a holy hypocritical mess. Think about this for a minute: How does an organization dedicated in part to liberating women in “darkest Africa” justify oppressing women within its own workforce in “whitest America”?
My assumption here is essentially that bad theology about gender is informing bad organizational practice. If this assumption is at least partially correct, then we have two options:
1) Start taking more seriously the attitude of Jesus and the early church towards women, or;
2) Remain captive to cultural attitudes that have little to do with Biblical faith.
I prefer option one. So let’s take a closer look at women leadership in the early church in order that if and when theology does inform organizational practice — which if not oppressive, is a good thing — the phobia of women leading our organizations may be overcome.
A historical look at the Near Eastern culture of the Old Testament reveals an understanding of women as possessions (akin to a donkey, ox, or slave) who existed to meet the physical, emotional, economic, and sexual needs of men. Jesus of Nazareth came to change this by standing against all forms of hierarchical systems that privilege one group at the expense of another, including patriarchal structures.
Throughout the early church, mirroring Jesus’ own teachings, we’ve forgotten the many examples of women leaders as in the case of Lydia of Philippi, a church starter (Acts 16:11-12); the case of Priscilla, one of Apollos’ instructors, a teacher (Acts 18:24-28); the case of the four daughters of Philip as preachers (Acts 21:8-9); the case of the elected lady in 2 John 1-5 as a church elder; the case of Phoebe, the church deacon (Rom. 16:1); the case of Junia, the apostle (Rom. 16:7); as well as Chloe (1 Cor. 1-11), Nympha (Col. 4:15), and Apphia (Philem. 1-2) each serving as pastors.
But what do we do with verses that misogynists use to justify oppressive social structures that keep “their” women proverbially barefoot and pregnant? (E.g., I Tim. 2:11-12). My suggestion might simply be to follow Christ’s example in Matt. 19:3-9 and either dismiss or reinterpret them. To quote the theologian Miguel De La Torre, “If verses in the Bible advocate the subjugation of one person to another and hence prevent life from being lived abundantly by a segment of the population, then those verses are anti-gospel and must be reinterpreted in light of the fullest revelation of God found in Christ.”
We must support a woman’s right to leadership not only because it is just, but because neither the church nor the workplace can afford to lose half of its most talented people. Additionally, the leaders of faith-based international NGOs, like the one Jane works for, must be challenged to broaden their understanding of what it means to liberate women from hierarchical systems of oppression both abroad and in their own place of work.
Jonathan works for a U.S. based international relief and development organization. He holds a Ph.D. in education from Michigan State University.
20 Comments
As an ordained elder in a conservative southern-themed denomination, I have seen first hand how well-intentioned men and accomplice women create a culture where quilts and cooking are viewed as the proper expression of women’s spirituality rather than prayer, preaching and good works. A women can only practice “spiritual” gifts in narrow range of areas regardless of her gift sets.I believe many churches are trapped in a death spiral as they age and younger women move on to serve God elsewhere. These churches and NGOs, because of their cultural non-biblical preferences, supported by misogynist male leadership, grieve the Holy Spirit and make themselves useless candle-bearers to the modern culture.
My conservative brethren do extensive biblical and historical parsing of scripture to justify essentially patriarchal practices that were okay then but not now. Enlightenment did not just happen in the Renaissance, it is on-going because of the Holy Spirit. As a father of two God loving and serving daughters and a ministry leading wife,I am blessed to have encouraged all three to express their gifts in service to their true husband Christ. It has been a challenge though to do that in a conservative church that does not actively invite women to the table to help lead. Serve yes, but not help lead.
Continuous reformation of church and denomination practices must be done in light of the gospel as revealed by the scriptures. The scriptures are not a rule book for societal practices. They are Words from God that changes hearts. As hearts change, so do societies and their culture.
The basic mistake the evangelicals make is confusing headship within a family with male/female roles outside the family. In addition, they elevate 1st century jewish cultural practices to have more weight than equality between the priesthood of all believers. It really is not all that complicated. I can understand a church or denomination establishing a cultural preference of no women elders, deacons or pastors but don’t say it is biblical beyond question.
In my lifetime I have had the privalige of watching two of the greatest women leaders in modern history. I watched as Golda Meir lead Isreal thru very rough waters. I watched Margaret Thatcher lead England to one of the haydays of their greatness. Both lead with strength and dignity. If a women of those qualities came along today and ran for president, I would vote for her in a heartbeat.
Having said that I must say that this is one of the worst posts I have ever read in Burnside. Mabye you were so upset at what your friend Jane said that you wrote out of anger, but for a guy with a PH.D in Education I am stunned. There are three main areas where this article fails. 1)It is just poorly put together. 2)You resort to name calling to describe anyone who disagree with you. 3)Your primary argument is as unbliblical as you claim your friends organization is.
1)I will not deal with this much, but it seems that in your “righteous indignation” you just started writing and some of it did not make sence. I had to read it several times to try to understand what you were saying, and about who.
2)Misogyny means: “hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women”. Gee, so if anyone disagrees with your argument we are all “misogamist”. It is the old “have you stoped beating your wife” argument. But more than that I absolutly hate your use of the term “whitest america”. How dare you. I will have you know that within a couple of miles of me is a black church and a mexican church who also hold to the belief that women should not teach or be in authority over men.
3)You have two HUGE theological problems. The first is what you and Miguel De La Torre seem to be saying, which is that if scripture does not fit where YOU think it should be culturally, then we need to re-interpit it to fit our new enlightenment. What they call “Cultural Exagesis”. Which basically means you can just make it up as you go. The second problem is that you do not distinguish between the church, and institutions outside the church, yet the bible makes those destinctions. For example, in I Cor.11 God addresses the relational institution of marriage by talking about how husbands and wives are to be subject to each other. But the idea of a women keeping her head covered can be logically seen as cultural. In that culture covering your head related to marriage, singlness, prostitution and so on. Jesus made a distinction when He said, “Render to Casear what is Casear’s”.
But when it comes to the church it is a different matter. In I Tim.2 in reference to worship in the church, the writer says, “A women should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man;she must be silent”, now here is the reason, “For Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not the one deceived and became a sinner”. The writer took it back to the fall as a consequence of sin, just as the consequence for men is that they must now work, and work hard (Gen.3:17-19). I am VERY aware that some churches have used this passage to make women second class citizens in the church. My wife came out of just that kind of nonsence church, it was wrong then, it is wrong now. Everyone is to be treated with dignity.
But the most troubling part of you article was the last paragraph. You talk about some mythical crisis regarding churches and organization loosing half of their talent pool for some unknown reason. Is there a law about to be passed that we did not know about? Surely women have been excluded from things in the past, to our shame, but if you think things have gotten worse in Christianity then your not looking around. I hope you are as inflamed against Muslims and Mormans as it is against the “church”, because their track record is not just wrong, but evil. Lastly, your statement that your friends organization “must be challenged to broaden their understanding of what it means to liberate women” could be one of the most arrogant statements I have heard outside the whitehouse.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume you’re not a woman and have never been one, so let’s just put that out there to begin with.
Much like the article that was on here late last year, about how important it is to recognize that while we can have all the righteous indignation in the world about (for example) affirmative action, and argue about it until we’re blue in the face, really all that amounts to is a bunch of white dudes talking about something they’ll never ever be able to understand. You cannot know, fully, what it’s like to be a part of a group you are incapable of joining, especially if they are, or have been, opressed. I agreed with that article from the white perspective and on this article, from the minority perspective.
Here’s the thing: Scripture IS God-breathed and it IS the inherrent, infallible Word which we should live by.
But. BUT, we have to recognize that since God did create us all different, with different genders, roles, and stations on the Earth and in life, there is no way, no way at all, we are going to interpret every scripture the same. Even the big ones. So when you get all fire and brimstone over what you perceive is Jonathan’s blashpemy I have to offer some defense, since me, a woman, interprets 1Tim2 completley different than you.
If you do know about the culture back then, men and women were generally seperated in church, and the women sat behind the men. The women were not educated, religiously especially, but usually not even remedially, and so when ever there was a message in church the women generally either were extremely disruptive because they were chattering among themselves, or asking their husbands what was going on (picture me watching a football game with my boyfriend.) It caused discourse and it was one of the (many) issues that was causing factions in the church that Paul addressed in his letters. Women were not trying to be pastors, or teaching, this was not the issue he was addressing.
Billybob, if you look at the way Jesus lifted up women, and the significance culturally that carried, as well as the many, many examples of leadership roles women espoused in scripture, you can’t seriously believe that we’re all supposed to be silent. Not based on one verse, when their is a multitude of others that say otherwise.
I have to echo Billybob here a bit, because I think some indignation over-ran reason here. First of all John I want to caution you that (although you have left out the name of this organization) you are teetering on the brink of slander. Have you interviewed the leadership of this group? Have you taken the time to see the other side of your friend’s statement?
As far as NGO’s and other non-Church organizations are concerned, I don’t care the least bit what role women are allowed to play. There is biblical precedent to be found in the example of Deborah in the book of Judges, and it’s easy enough to see the some women are more competent than the men present….it’s not brain surgery.
But, when it comes to the church we have a different story. There are several strong words from Paul to various New Testament churches regarding women holding positions of ecclesiastical leadership. While the role of Deacon seems to have been somewhat extended to women, the role of Elder, or Bishop is placed firmly out of the question. How is this not merely cultural? Easy, Paul address the issue to the Corinthian church, the church in Ephesus (of which Timothy was a leader), and expressly states in his letter to Titus that an elder is to be a man of one wife. However this rankles with our modern American sensibilities we have to repent of placing our culture as the judge of God’s Inerrant Word. It’s not a matter of social justice and oppression, but a matter of glorifying God in and through our respective gender roles. We would all die laughing if a man decided that he was being oppressed because he can’t bear children. It’s the same (or ought to be) with women pastors. It’s not because they’re incapable, but because God has asked them clearly in his word to worship him in a different way. Actually, when you think about it it’s more sexist to strip the female ecclesiastical role of it’s dignity. Because in clamoring for the male expression of faith, you devalue the female.
Jonathan,
I don’t think the choice is misogeny or “dismissing” scripture. I also don’t think the person who said that not a “yot or tittle of God’s word will pass away” did such a thing.
There is a third choice, prescribed by Scott McKnight. If you start with the narrative of scripture and see:
a) Adam and Eve living in partnership before the fall.
b) Deborah exhibiting national presidential leadership.
c) Joel’s prophesy
d) Luke’s inclusion of women prophesying the age of the Messiah
e) Female deacons and apostles in Acts and Romans.
Then you are given a clear narrative arc. The division between men and women was a result of the Fall. The Gospel combats this hierarchy and sees to restore the partnership between genders.
Once this is established you have a clear theological grid to start interpreting the “problem passages.” The thorniness of those passages is reduced (but not eliminated) when one starts to study and understand the cultural context of women in the mystery religions and in the pagan cultures.
All this to say, one can have a high view of scripture and women.
I’m in agreement with you big time. It’s dangerous to pick and choose scripture, suggesting that some may be passe, since We don’t think it fits our context. If all scripture is God-breathed then it is God’s word to us.
In light of the issue of women we certainly need to read scripture as a whole. In so doing we come up with exactly what you have pointed out. We cannot nor should not pit the OT against the NT since they are telling the one story of God’s redemptive work.
Your points re: Scot McKnight are on the money when it comes to the view of women in scripture.
Larry I appreciate your insight and I am thinking it thru, and will continue to. And although I have not heard him preach or read any of Scott’s work I admire the work they do in the Portland area.
I would just say that I don’t think this is really a “problem” passage. As I look at the context, and the greek, the writer seems to be making a very clear statement. And as I said, when the writer specifically referes back to the fall he takes it out of the cultural arena and moves it toward a consequence of the fall, along with other consequences that we all deal with.
I agree with the conclusion of a “shared partnership” but still believe it refers more to marriage and daily life than the church. I guess we all have a “grid” we run things thru, but understand my motive is not about subjugating women for any reason, period.
I’d also caution from labeling those with a hierarchical view of men and women as misogynists. If those with a more tradition view are correct then it would be humanistic to help men and women assume their God prescribed roles.
I comfortable with labeling this position as incorrect (as best as I can tell). It’s not charitable to assume the motives of these traditionalists, though. (I was one myself once and that was due to being a product of the teaching I grew up with.)
Thank you Larry. While I think it’s unfair to keep women out of spiritual leadership, I also think it’s unfair to lump those who do as oppressors. They simply have a different theological perspective on this issue, like we all do about several other issues. It’s fine to argue that you disagree with them, but the name-calling is not going to help any.
I agree that many cultures have been oppressive to women. I think what Jesus did was to elevate women to an equal status as that of men in His kingdom. However, though we are equal in Christ, I do believe there are different designated roles, largely because of what happened at the Fall (Gen. 3:16-18), although I also believe that there was somewhat of a defined role for man and woman even before the Fall (see I Cor. 11:8). But in Christ, both man and woman are dependent upon each other; neither can claim he/she is able to do it without the other (I Cor. 11:11-12).
But in Christ, there certainly is a hierarchy (this is a kingdom, after all!): God, Christ, husband, wife (I Cor. 11:3). Does the fact that God is the head of Christ mean that Christ’s importance is diminished, or that Christ is not equal to God? By no means! Neither does the fact that man is the “head” of woman mean that he is more important than woman (see Gal. 3:28). It means that there are defined roles, and that each must do his/her own role in a manner that best pleases God. But in God’s kingdom, there is a hierarchy, and we are called to submit to one another for the sake of Christ (Eph. 5:21).
All of this having been said, I believe women have an extremely important role in the church. First, women are extremely tireless workers. They also seem to find it easier to emulate and understand Christ-like qualities like humility, joy, purity, and love better than most men emulate or understand them! Second, from personal experience, I know that the prayer of a woman is a powerful thing. Sometimes it has even seemed to me that God has a special place in His heart for the prayer of a woman. God likens Himself to a mother caring for her children (Isaiah 49:15-16) and certainly exhibits characteristics of both men and women.
Both man and woman have something to learn from each other about Who God is, and for men to oppress women misses the point of the kingdom. But I believe that for men and women to submit to God, regardless of what their culture says, and fit into their designed roles–though this may seem offensive and self-deprecating to the outside world (as are other teachings of Christ, such as to take up one’s cross daily)–is to bring glory to God. Christ taught us that to be the least is to be the greatest; thus, we should not equate godly submission to oppression; rather, it should be our joy to submit in every way called to by God (Romans 12:1; see also Colossians 3:18).
Good article and great responses. How the Christian Church has dealt with women and men and leadership roles raises many, many questions. Those who quote Scripture to deny women leadership positions in churches must closely look at history and the defense of slavery for many centuries. Interpretation of Scripture is hard and fraught with error. Culture changes. Interpretation changes. People can be arrogant and evil and defensive; they can twist the Bible. But relying on the Spirit of God and His love in our hearts and minds we can made wise decisions. Being married and having three daughters gives me some perspective. I would encourage 1) love 2) guidance from God’s Word and His spirit 3) fellowship of mixed groups and wisdom from local leaders 4) emphasis on using gifts and not a focus on who is at the top of a hierarchy 5) remembering that God is Spirit, not male or female. He has no gender, even though we use masculine pronouns. He is as great a Mother of us all as He is a Father or Creator of us all. These are metaphors for us lowly humans to gain understanding.
Hey Larry, thanks for the thoughtful response (among the many). Your point about McKnight’s narrative arc and the resulting theological grid provides a compelling third way. Thanks.
On another note, I understand misogyny is a strong word but I think it appropriately captures the historical injustices that in one way or another are embodied in the category of “traditionalists” that you mentioned. I agree that in many cases this understanding of women has more to do with upbringing than a consciously informed process of understanding. However, I’m not sure this excuses or lessens the offense. Like when my great uncle calls an African American a n—-r; this may be a product of his upbringing but isn’t it still racist (among other things)?
Finally, it seems with the myriad of views voiced we would be remiss to not acknowledge that in many ways “social location” in large part informs Biblical interpretation. This is not to say there are no absolutes in scripture, but it does prevent us from Pollyannaishly believing that our upbringing, our culture, and our gender are not significant factors in understanding our faith.
Recognizing institutional evil might be a less inflammatory way to discuss the impact that these views create. (Although when I read that last sentence I think that it might not be.)
Yes, I love this excerpt:
To quote the theologian Miguel De La Torre, “If verses in the Bible advocate the subjugation of one person to another and hence prevent life from being lived abundantly by a segment of the population, then those verses are anti-gospel and must be reinterpreted in light of the fullest revelation of God found in Christ.”
I find the bible wonderfully diverse. Eat meat, don’t eat meat, teach these things, don’t offend, which is it Paul?
What I see is that the different variables with various situations and people’s hearts. These things change with different people, situations, and even the same place and people but with time. We are not led by knowledge (knowledge puffs up, but love builds up) but by the Holy Spirit who sees all the variables and knows what is called for in a certain place with the people. The Holy Spirit will look to move in the love of God found in Jesus-our only sure foundation. Sometimes it may mean to keep our mouths shut and / or abandon our personal liberties for the sake of others, while we can still practice healthy ones in our personal lives apart from what the Lord is looking to do.
Anyway, what I see with this male / female issue in the Light of Jesus as I see it is that as we are in the Lord, that dividing wall is torn down. Neither male / female, Jew / Gentile, etc. Although for the sake of unity and peace in Christ, I feel there is a structure that has been put in place by God. If there is disunity within the marriage, then the male is considered the head of the household and the wife should be submissive in that sense (and not talking of abuses that take place as we know that view has been abused). See this with honoring our parents too. As we do this we allow the Lord to work in the situation to rectify it. And we don’t build on the structure, we build on the foundation built on Jesus.
So if you don’t like the structure, stay single. Hee, hee. Either way you will run across it in coming in contact with the corporate body of Christ, in our employment, etc, so no avoiding it.
You can see this too in the corporate body of Christ where some may no longer share the vision of their pastors and such. It may be that the Lord is moving us on. It may also be that they are in error yet we are all learning and growing. Isee a pastor (whether in the four walls or out of it) is entrusted to sheperd the sheep entrusted to Him (though not blocking or overshadowing the Light of Jesus from them personally). Oh yes, some our more out for themselves but there are many that at heart are well intended and God does see the heart and honor it. We can pray for them and even speak to them personally about our grievances.
It also helps to understand the role of the offices given to the body for the equipping of the saints so that we come into the full stature of Christ and are no longer tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine that comes around. Also, to help equip them to do the work of service, not to Lord it over them.
Got into it but deleted as made this post even longer. Overall though this is what I see regarding structure within the body of Christ. It is established until we come to the full stature of Christ and put childish things behind us for the more essentials of the fruits of the Spirit, the greatest of these being God’s love, Also, for equipping the body for service.
I will say that I think alot of damage comes from taking portions and making a doctrine to be followed out of it. You covered that well in this article.
I will also say that a few years back I had a prophetic dream about my personal life. It started with this older guy which I think may have represented wisdom, telling me about all these demons, lots of demons as he put it. I’m not one to concentrate on them over what I may see as more essential at the time as I feel they are the manifestation of a larger problem, although I don’t look to ignore what the Lord is trying to show me either. Anyway, the older guy then wanted to have bible study (think it was him that suggested it but may have been me). The dream continued from there and I have seen the revelance and truth in that dream. I won’t get all into it but I always wondered at my response to him telling me about lots of demons. I said, “I thought so.” It was like I had seen that and suspected as much and he was confirming what I felt I saw. Although at the time and sometime afterward that kinda puzzled me, I realize now that I have suspected such and was picking it up some, yet now feel I see it more clearly.
And this is where I feel I see it now, in taking portions and making a doctrine out of it to follow. I see it so often. Isn’t this what the enemy does. You can see it in the bible too.
Long post, I know. I’m trying. I’m trying! Thought it was useful info but feel free to let me know if it was too much or too meaty. I don’t believe meat is to be tossed around lightly so you gotta let me know.
Thanks, great stuff.
Love in Him,
Joanne
Bleh, what a mess.
Explain, pls.
“My suggestion might simply be to follow Christ’s example in Matt. 19:3-9 and either dismiss or reinterpret them.”
How do you even begin to get that Jesus is saying to reinterpret or dismiss scripture with this passage? That’s borderline heresy, there, friend.
I think a better response would be to take the scripture in context for what it really means. Is that what you’re getting at?
The issue, in kingdom building work, is probably less about gender and more about the incredible high regard we are to have for one another ….and in so doing “they” will know you are my disciples (Jn 13:35)