A post about gender differences in the church doesn’t really have a place in a series on baptism. Just as a talk about gender and the church doesn’t really fit a Bible lectureship about baptism and the Lord’s Supper. That’s how I see it. But not everyone shares my opinion.
The recent Pepperdine lectures were built around themes from John Mark Hick’s new book on baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I’ve read previous works by John Mark on these subjects, so I imagine this one should be excellent. Jarrod Robinson was invited to speak on Galatians 3:26-28 and titled his talk “Our Baptismal Vows.” He gave a talk that has garnered much attention, emphasizing his beliefs that there are no differences between what men and women can do in the church.
Personally I feel that Jarrod was set up to fail. Not that he didn’t give a very good talk. But his verse assignment pushed verse 28 to the forefront of the discussion. You either focus on the verse that discusses baptism or you expand your focus to include the whole paragraph. It’s either 3:26-27 or it’s 3:26-29. Otherwise, you’re turning what should be an exposition of Scripture into an agenda-driven talk. Which was what we got from Jarrod.
Not to say he didn’t do a good job. It was an effective talk. But it wasn’t Galatians 3.
(I should note that I raised these concerns in a group that John Mark Hicks is a part of. In response, he wrote a blog post on the subject. I think he’s reaching a bit to find a parallel between Joel and Galatians 3. It’s also hard to connect this reasoning with the topic under discussion in Galatians. But you can read his article and decide for yourself.)
The original hearers of the book of Galatians wouldn’t have heard the letter read and come away talking about 3:28. It’s a minor point in the letter. If anything, they would have discussed it in relation to their situation and the topic Paul was discussing… which was not about gender roles in the church (and was about whether or not believers had to be circumcised to be a part of the community of faith. Merely reading the verse with that in mind steers you in the proper direction)
Toward the end of his talk, Jarrod kept repeating the phrase: “We’re baptized believers. We’re better than this,” while discussing the limiting of the role of women in the church. An effective rhetorical device, but not one that leads to good examination of a text. I could say, “Let’s not just follow the whims of culture. We’re baptized believers. We’re better than this.” Good rhetorical device; less than helpful for improving understanding.
If you’d like to listen to Jarrod’s talk, you can see it on YouTube. Or search for it on iTunes.
I want to spend some time discussing this passage further before moving on to other passages on baptism (which is what we’ve been studying the last few weeks). I look forward to your comments, as always.
The topic under discussion in Galatians NOT merely whether or not believers must be circumcised — it is whether or not they must become Jews before becoming a Christian — whether the necessary response to the gospel means fulfilling the requirements of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in one’s flesh before being granted full entrance into the kingdom of God in Christ. That’s why Paul speaks of “works of the law” most of the time, rather than just circumcision alone. The argument out of which Gal 3:28 springs is about the whole law, and how none of it can nullify the previous promise of justification by faith prior to circumcision OR the law.
From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to me that, like Peter on Pentecost, Paul would shape their understanding of their (and our) own baptisms as participations in the Pentecost event which was (and is, every time a new convert is baptized) fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy of the Spirit coming on all flesh. The parallels which JMH points out (between “Jews and Greeks” and “all flesh,” “sons and daughters” and “male and female,” and slave/free) seem to make the connection between the two passages pretty explicit — especially since the vital connection between baptism and Joel’s prophecy was established from Pentecost on forward.
I do agree with the idea that the Galatian believers would not have focused on the gender aspect of Paul’s exposition upon its initial hearing, but I’m not sure that that means that we should only read Galatians as a treatise against circumcision. But even that implies an opening, for if circumcision is no longer required for full inclusion in the community — remember how the Temple was arranged, where the uncircumcised and the uncircumcisable were relegated to their own outer courts, while the circumcised could draw closer to God — then those who can’t be circumcised have had a barrier to full fellowship with God removed (even if Paul never ever even mentions male/female in Galatians).
“And afterward…. everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
“Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith.
But now that faith has come,(afterwards, in Joel’s prophecy) we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith (or, as Joel puts it, everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved).
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Paul has a certain fluidity to his thinking on Christ and the Spirit — those who have clothed themselves with Christ have also been clothed with the Spirit, a la Joel 2)
Yes and no, Nick. That is, Paul does discuss the Law in general and observance of the Law. But note what he says in Chapter 5:
What was being pushed on to them was circumcision. And Paul warns them that accepting circumcision would oblige them to live like Jews in each and every aspect. They weren’t focused on being made to live as Jews; what is under discussion is the need for circumcision.
That may have been the intent of the false teachers (like in Acts 15:5). But what had resonated with the Galatians was circumcision.
Now, I’m not saying that each and every thing said in Galatians has to be directly tied to circumcision. But read 3:28 thinking about a community in turmoil over that issue, and suddenly it becomes clear why Paul says that, when it comes to becoming a child of God, there is no difference between Jew/Greek, slave/free, male/female. If nothing else, notice that under the Law, the first one of each pair would have been circumcised, the second not. (a free man living among the Jews would not be forced to be circumcised; a slave would be)
Paul says “With circumcision, there was a difference. With baptism, there’s no difference.”
You are certainly correct that the original hearers of the letter of Galatians likely would not have come away with any particular emphasis on 3:28. It is, as you said, a minor point within a much larger argument. That does not, however, disqualify it as a point of emphasis for sermon from a living text to a contemporary community of faith.
There is no debate in the contemporary church about circumcision or continued observance of the Law. So does that make the letter irrelevant to us? Of course not. The “original intent” of this letter cannot be the only circumstance in which the broader theological concepts can be applied, or else Galatians (not to mention most of the Bible) has very little to say to us.
In broad strokes, Paul was addressing a group of people who came to believe there were extra requirements and restrictions on the grace of God offered through Christ. And part of the problem was a perceived difference between Jew and Gentile, marked by circumcision (among other things), that automatically set one group of people at a disadvantage. Paul’s response to this situation, in anger, is that it is ludicrous to think that any marker that divides people could somehow change the requirements of accepting the grace of God in Christ.
In that sense, the reference to male and female in Gal 3:28 is all the more remarkable precisely because Paul does not feel the need to argue that there is no distinction between male and female when it comes to the Christian community. He presumes it. And he assumes that his audience agrees with him because he appeals to the lack of distinction between male/female in order to make his point about Jew/Gentile.
Returning to my broader point, of course a discussion of gender and the church belongs in a series on baptism and in the exegesis of Gal 3:28. To say otherwise would imply that the only way we can use biblical texts in the life of the church is to apply its “original meaning” (as if that’s something that can actually be determined). That is, it doesn’t matter that Paul was talking about circumcision, because the real point is about arbitrary distinctions that fester disunity by imposing hierarchy within the body of Christ.
A sermon is the word of God for the people of God, and that’s exactly what Jarrod gave. You can disagree with the premise and the conclusion, but you cannot say that it “doesn’t belong” in the series. You don’t get to make that call. And judging by the rounds of applause that Jarrod received, it’s a message a lot of people were waiting to hear.
Yes! Only men could be circumcised; men and women could be baptized. But by logical extension of that, under the law, there were all kinds of religious duties that only men could perform; under the kingship of Christ, a whole lot of them don’t matter anymore and the ones that do are open to everyone who believes. The priesthood of all believers is, yes, for all believers. There is inclusion beyond gender, to be sure, but it specifically includes gender along with freedom/slavery and Jew/Gentile. Baptism is no longer for male priests to sanctify them and only them for sacrificial and ceremonial rites, but to wash all believers clean of sin and sanctify them for the priestly privilege of bearing the gospel to the whole world.
Any restrictions and limitations we impose on that inclusion are completely artificial.
The narrative arc of scripture is one of progressively destroying barriers between people in their relationship with God, from Abraham’s clan, to Issac’s tribe, to the emerging people of Israel, to the Samaritan woman, to the inclusion of Gentiles, to Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians about their economic hierarchies, through Galatians 3:28 and its aspirational call to destroy the barriers to communion and full human dignity. These are echoes of Isaiah 25 where all people, universally all people, are assembled on the mountain of God, without shame or fear of death.
It’s awfully easy to draw lines, to establish categories, and to declare what is and isn’t relevant to our conversations, and you do it so casually. It’s the temptation of textualism to miss the beauty of the arc of the gospel and the ultimate point of the ministry of reconciliation.
Paul was writing about a local, momentary, contextualized question, but he was writing upon gospel precepts of radical inclusion, love and full human dignity. Full and just participation in baptism and communion is impossible without a righteous understanding of the gospel’s prophetic call for inclusion and dignity without regard for gender, race, wealth and status.
You should not attempt to separate these questions into discrete code sections. They’ll defy you every time.
Hello James. Welcome back.
While not being bound by the original meaning, any interpretation that doesn’t begin with that meaning as it’s base can’t be seen as being true to the text. That’s my point. To broaden Galatians 3:28 into a declaration that men and women are now indistinguishable in the body doesn’t recognize what was under discussion in the first place. Whereas circumcision rules applied to Jewish males and their slaves, entrance into the new community is the same for all.
Your statement that “of course a discussion of gender and the church belongs in a series on baptism and in the exegesis of Gal 3:28” doesn’t leave much room for discussion, does it? But hey, you’ve flagged me for speaking inappropriately in the past, so I’ll run the risk again. I’ll even disagree with your absolute statement that if I don’t agree with you, I’m saying the text can only be used in a certain way. You state:
That’s a very modern idea imposted on an ancient text. Or can you provide something from Galatians that indicates they were debating anything about hierarchy? Nothing comes to my mind.
JRBProf,
Narrative arc has its place but it also requires a ton of assumptions and filling in the gaps that can VERY easily be influenced by contemporary culture and various other agendas that it is not guaranteed to get us to the right place from God’s perspective. Narrative arc can pretty much take you where you want it to go all in the name of progress. I am not saying it has no place. I am saying one has to be very careful with that approach and recognize its limitations.
hi Tim,
I guess I just want to ask an open and sort of simple-minded question. If discussion of gender doesn’t have any place in a discussion of baptism, why does Paul include it?
Keith,
I’m not sure if Mr. Spock would find your extension logical; I don’t think I do. The priesthood of all believers was a concept that existed in the Old Testament. (Exodus 19:6) Even in the days of circumcision, the Israelites were a kingdom of priests.
Paul, in Galatians 3:28, is discussing entrance into the faith community. He is not saying that men and women are now indistinguishable within the body. Paul continued to teach differences between men and women, seemingly finding that less artificial than you do. Titus was written long after Galatians 3, according to the vast majority of scholars. Yet chapter 2 envisions different roles for men and women, and chapter 1 “restricts/limits” the role of elder to men.
Grace and peace,
Tim
I think the critique that Jarrod’s keynote wasn’t an exegetical sermon is warranted. But it assumes that a keynote should be an exegetical sermon, which I don’t think Jarrod was trying to do.
It’s a well established practice in church and within scripture to launch from an idea (in this case Gal. 3) and explore it from many different angles. It’s not appropriate (in my opinion) to examine everything from the bible that has to do with gender rolls in a keynote address. The power of the message would have been diluted by showing the study that went into preparing for it rather than the conclusions derived from that study. .
The keynote was a powerful rhetorical moment and a prophetic voice for our churches that need to see the error of our ways. In that vein it succeeded quite well.
Thanks, Jeffrey, for the comment. I agree that the gospel is about inclusion of all peoples.
Thank you James T. That’s is a valid point. Jarrod never claimed to be exegeting Galatians 3.
Hi JTB. I’ll admit to finding word choice difficult in discussing the topic. I tried “gender and the church,” but recognize that’s broad enough to hit and miss just about everything.
What I’m trying to say is that I don’t think a discussion of gender roles in the church is on topic in a discussion of baptism. Paul mentions gender because of its relation to the question of circumcision. (I’ll expound on that a bit tomorrow) Whereas circumcision had different standards for Jew and Greek, different standards for slave and free, different standards for men and women, entrance into the Christian community is the same for each of those groups. It’s not that women have to be baptized, but men don’t. There is no difference. We become heirs of the promise, children of Abraham, part of the family of God, in the same way.
Hi Tim,
Good question. I brought up hierarchy because the issue of circumcision and Christian identity is necessarily an issue of power, and therefore hierarchy. That is, by means of an arbitrary distinction, it creates an imbalance of power by which one group must meet a requirement that the other group meets by definition.
By the way, I think that we agree on an important point here: Gal 3:28 is not talking about male and female leadership roles in the church. Where we disagree, I believe, is on the use of Gal 3:28 as a theological foundation for gender justice within the church with regard to ministerial roles (and thus, as the basis for a sermon that deals with this topic).
But this is exactly my point: I do not need Gal 3:28 to be “about” leadership roles in the church because it’s “about” something much more critical: our identity in Christ. If, in christ, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female,” then it simply follows that the continuation of distinctions between these binaries within the church goes against the central concept that Paul is teaching.
Thanks James for the clarification. Let me emphasize that while I do see differences between men and women in the church, I in no way oppose gender justice, in the true sense of the term. The over-arcing story of the Bible portrays justice for all individuals, even within a framework of male leadership.
Where we differ concerning Galatians 3:28, is that I think Paul is saying, in context, “There is no difference as to how these groups enter the community of faith.” I don’t think he’s denying the existence of differences between men and women, for example, which is why 1 Timothy 5 references widows and not widowers, why Titus 2 lays out different responsibilities for men and women, why Ephesians 5 speaks differently of husbands and wives, etc.
Therefore, Paul’s continuation of distinctions between these binaries within the church was in no way inconsistent with Galatians 3:28, when that verse is read in context. If we merely take the words and strip them of any contextual orientation, then yes, they can be used to say just about anything we want about men and women.
Those of us who apply the term “gender justice” to the specific issue of leadership in churches can find no true justice in the framework of male headship. I understand that framing this issue with this language is difficult; it is intentionally so. To draw us back to the connection with Joel, this issue is not about what a couple of verses from the New Testament (of questionable authorship) say about what women can do in worship, it is about the fact that our sons and our daughters are prophesying, and it is about the nature and identity of God, who calls people to minister, to preach, and to teach, regardless of what male headship tells them they should do.
I imagine that the real root of our disagreement is what we expect to find in Scripture. If you are looking for black and white rules for governing worship and human relationship to God, you’ll find them. Just like the “Judaizers” of Galatia did. But the God who is revealed in the crucified and risen Jesus is not so easily tied down.
I don’t expect to persuade you with a couple of blog comments. But I think it’s important to vocalize the ways that we differ in approach. Jarrod’s call to “live into our baptism” is entirely appropriate for an interpretation of Gal 3:28 in a modern context because by continuing to devalue the place of women within our churches, we fail to see the image of God stamped fully on the body of Christ, both male and female.
I don’t think there is much serious question about who wrote Galatians.
James,
I am not sure if it can go both ways. On one hand you make your point from Galatians but then say it is if questionable authorship anyway. If you believe that, why would you make any point from this text? Confused.
Hi Matt,
For clarification, I’m not talking about Galatians regarding authorship, but rather the deutero-Pauline letters Tim referenced in a previous comment.
But that’s actually a minor point to me. I don’t think pseudo-Paul authorship is the ultimate word with regard to this issue (which is why I raise it as a parenthetical point, not my main argument).
James, I very much recognize the bullying intent of the term “gender justice.” That’s why I push back. I am for justice, even if your definition and mine are not the same. There is true justice within a framework of male headship.
I can tell you’d be very surprised to see how I approach Scripture. I may not be as much like the Judaizers as you think I am. I’m guessing there’s room within your concept of justice to offer me the benefit of the doubt.
Tim,
To clarify, I did not write the blog in response to your point in the discussion. Rather, it was part of my blogging on Joel. I think the parallel between Joel 2 and Galatians 3 is strong, especially as we think about 3:28’s “no longer” identifying “new creation” where everyone is a full heir. I agree the text should have included v. 29 as well–we are all heirs, and as heirs within the new creation, there is “no longer” Jew, Greek, male, female, slave, or free. Blessings, brother.
Sorry, JMH. Didn’t mean to misrepresent. I did know that you are writing a series on Joel, but thought that point came out of our discussion. My mistake.
Bullying? Wow. We have very different definitions of bullying. Try telling a young woman who feels like her voice has been silenced by “male headship” that you feel bullied by the term gender justice. If that’s where you think this discussion is, then we have even less common ground than I thought.
I hope one day you’ll manage to see that someone else’s gifting and call to ministry in no way oppresses or bullies you.
By saying that only one particular stance is just, you are bullying people to accept that stance or present themselves as practicing injustice.
The problem is that every position on male/female relationships that doesn’t line up with “everybody can do everything” tends to be lumped together. Those of us who believe that women need a far greater voice than they’ve had in the past, yet still believe in male leadership, get lumped in with those who would have women silent and virtually invisible in the church. Is there anything “just” about an approach like that?
It’s not someone else’s call that I object to. It’s the misleading label.
Using the term gender justice is a means to convey the gravity and importance of the cause of full dignity and inclusion of women (and men) in the church. It is not a bullying term, even if it puts you on the defensive. From a point of privilege, the way of Christ would be to listen and learn from those who are silenced, rather than to silence them further when they exercise their voices. The oppressed cannot bully the oppressor, because the power imbalance makes such bullying impossible. Very often those in privilege will appropriate the language of subjugation when those who do not share the privilege make a claim to a seat at the table. Because we might enjoy a seat at the big table does not mean that we are victimized or persecuted when others want to pull up a chair.
This is akin to saying that women bullied men into giving them the vote during the suffrage movement or that black people bullied segregationists into the Civil Rights Act.
Several folks have characterized this call for gender justice as a compromise with contemporary culture, while the defense of complementarianism is the true faith. This assumption and its rhetoric are wrong. Like our progression toward racial justice, like the enfranchisement of women, like our cultural progress toward dignity for people with disabilities, the call for gender justice in the church is not a selling-out to culture. Rather it is the continuing manifestation of the gospel vision of the world. Paul amplified Christ’s radical call for a new way of life that abolished these cultural barriers. Calling for full inclusion of women is Biblical; it is the adherence to patriarchy and the biases of American frontier life in the 19th century that is bound up with worldly culture.
Tim,
This is nearly incomprehensible:
“Generally, it’s not oppressed women that are using the term “gender justice.” There are women who have the right to use that term. It’s rarely they who are doing so. 99.9% of them have no Internet access.”
If you think that is true, then we truly having nothing more to say. At the very least, I would point you toward the hundreds of victims of domestic violence I have represented as a lawyer, the thousands more our collaborators serve, the women of UCSB at Isla Vista, Malala in Pakistan, the #yesallwomen movement from last week, @everydaysexism, and all the women who have been criticizing your blog post in other corners of the internet to illustrate the very simple point that lots of oppressed women have internet access.
hi Tim,
as someone who personally and deliberately uses the term “gender justice” as preferable to the other ways that this issue is framed within our congregations, I want to be very clear that the phrase is not about “bullying,” nor even (and this is closer, I suspect, by what you intend to convey by that term) about putting people who disagree in the wrong. Instead, what is intended by the phrase is very clearly spelled out on the “about” page of gal328.org, which reads:
“The choice to use language of gender justice, rather than gender equality or inclusiveness, is a deliberate one. The definition of gender justice above, in contrast to the typical framing of the gender issue in Churches of Christ as “women’s roles in the church,” clarifies that the issue of gender in our churches is not primarily about what women may or may not do in church, but about who women are. Quite simply, who women are in the eyes of the church ought to reflect who women are in the sight of God.”
When discussing gender, we are discussing part of what it means to be human. It is helpful to use language of justice, because the issue is about whether or not women count as fully human, that is to say, fully imago dei, in the church and in the world, to the same degree and with the same status, obligations, privileges and capacities as our brothers in Christ.
To frame the matter as “gender justice” is to redirect the conversation from “what men/women can/cannot do” to WHO WE ALL ARE IN CHRIST.
Which, not so coincidentally, brings us back around quite tidily to why I believe firmly that yes, this actually has everything to do with baptism–for it is in baptism that we put on Christ. Does this mean something different for women than it does for men? I am very much afraid that invoking preconceived notions of “male spiritual headship” demands that it does. As if after baptism, women put on a pink version of Christ, while men receive a blue one that gives them the right to stand behind a podium and speak into a microphone. Are we not, in fact, baptized into One lord, One spirit, One baptism? Where then do we draw these distinctions? And if Paul names gender lines among the others decimated by the baptism with which we are all baptized, how shall we justify continuing to discriminate along that line?
(Once again, Tim, I have spoken freely and passionately here on your blog on this topic, and I do so with the appreciation of our past interactions and with trust that you’ll remember that this is my m.o.)
The use of the term marginalizes your opponent, intentionally. It is a shaping of the dialogue in such a way that completely begs the question – JUSTICE is only your vision; any position that doesn’t match yours is by definition unjust, regardless of the actual content of the position… And the holders of any view that doesn’t march in lockstep with yours are subjugators and oppressors.
It is rhetorical bullying, because –and you say this yourself without a hint of embarrassment– that the only appropriate response for someone who disagrees with you is to sit down and shut up until they learn better.
ANY rhetorical demand that the other side sit down and shut up is rhetorical aggression. The fact that you can both claim to be powerless and yet condemn your brother as an oppressor is rich on its very face.
um–where did I tell anyone to sit down and shut up? I’m extremely confused by this.
JTB,
my apologies – I should have been clearer that I was referring to JRBProf’s post from 4:28. Yours appeared after I began mine, so I apologize for the lack of clarity.
When I hear the term “gender justice” is strikes me as far from a being a neutral term (the about page says as much…it is deliberately chosen to frame the discussion in a vary particular way). It seems to me that choice of words isn’t about any attempt at objective theological inquiry as much as it is about starting with a conclusion/framing the discussion with the choice conclusion in mind (that justice must not be happening or else we wouldn’t have to push for it) and, could well result in labeling those who haven’t arrived at that conclusion as those who oppose justice…which isn’t at all the intent of complementarians.
BTW, I am not saying that those who are egalitarian have not attempted to be objective in their interpretations…I realize one might read that into what I said and that was not my intent.
In our tradition, where only a tiny fraction of congregations empower women to minister, speak and participate fully in the life of the church, where the vast majority of congregations systemically silence and disenfranchise half their members, we are talking about actual, honest-to-goodness, systemic injustice.
We are all complicit, but if we are to achieve justice and the full dignity of all people in the church, then we must first call it by its name. This is not a squabble over instrumental music or praise teams. It is, as JTB says, a question of whether women are fully human before God.
(Also, in our tradition, where men can always speak, and almost always only men can speak, even if I were inclined to tell you to sit down and shut up, which I’m not, it would be meaningless. People arguing for “male leadership” have all the loudest pulpits.)
” It is, as JTB says, a question of whether women are fully human before God. ”
Let me play devil’s advocate here…were non-Levites viewed as fully human in the OT?
My point is, the assumption behind the way you are framing your argument is that to be less than 100% able to participate in every single possible position of leadership and ministry by default makes someone less than human. My question is whether or not that is a valid assumption.
By the egalitarian definition of these concepts, most men are equally disenfranchised and silenced.
Most men will never be allowed to “wear the blue version of Christ that allows them to speak into a microphone.” Most men are excluded from congregational decision-making.
I don’t know where you life, JRBProf, but there are very few people, male or female, in our congregations who can speak whenever they feel like it.
What seems to be being demanded are not opportunities to serve, which come from the Lord and are the only things appropriately titled ministry, but power and title.
Since I, the straight white male oppressor, will never be given either title or power within the church, I struggle to find a great deal of concern about who is holding the microphone. There are 168 hours in every week; this squabble is about who gets to stand up front for 1-4 of them.
I’ll see your Levites and raise you a Samaritan, a Gentile, a woman and a dog. It was exactly the environment and context of hierarchy against which Jesus, then Paul, were preaching. The Gentiles were, in fact, considered to be less valuable in the sight of God. The Samaritans were, in fact, alienated and oppressed by the dominant culture. Jesus rejected those assumptions for good reasons. They were placeholders from God, necessary perhaps for a season, but ultimately gave way to a better vision of the Kingdom of God.
The Levites did have place of privilege, and women were subjugated to men, not least of all by the cleanliness laws.
Jesus preached against the temple and priestly hierarchy? God assigned the Levites. God did not assign people to look down on Samaritans and Gentiles. The people did that in their own sinfulness. That is not a good parallel.
To be clear, I do not claim to be oppressed. I am a white, straight, Southern male in the Church of Christ, with a ministry degree from Harding, who has been preaching since he was 12. I am lending my voice, my work, my advocacy in service to women and girls (especially including my wife and daughters and friends) who cannot speak in most Churches of Christ. I am seeking to listen to my sisters, to learn from them and to amplify their stories.
I am not going to tell them that this is nothing about which to be so excited.
Those 1 – 4 hours in the Church of Christ are what we claim, explicitly and implicitly, are the most important of the week. On one hand, we tell our daughters that they can be anything they want to be, except when it comes to the most formative and critical of our experiences. We create incredible dissonance for boys and girls when we proclaim to them that one is made to speak and lead and one is made to serve silently, especially when neither may be called to those paths.
If you struggle to get worked up over “who gets to hold the microphone,” perhaps imagine never holding it. Perhaps imagine being part of a community where you get to make no decisions, never get to speak publicly, never have authority over the affairs of the organization in which you are invested. If that organization claims to be the utmost manifestation of the will of God, I dare say that you’d have more concern.
Last comment from me on this thread. This is such an important conversation and one where we have to make assumptions, regardless of which side you are on. It is going to take a lot of study, prayer and humility to come to grips with letting scripture show us the way on this. I have changed my mind on several things in regard to all of this even very recently and I pray that God will guide all of us as we seek to know and understand His will here. This is all very challenging. It is going to be vitally important moving forward that we get this one right…in a way that God affirms and allows freedom for people to be used as God desires for them to be used.
Thanks to everyone for weighing in and expressing your thoughts and opinions.
Jesus explicitly preached against the Levites and the Priests in the parable of the Good Samaritan, and he declared that he would cast down the Temple and rebuild it in three days. He came under incredible scrutiny for the women who surrounded him. He came to fulfill the law and to release the oppressed. He turned the world upside down.
Justice, by it’s very definition, is not a neutral term. It literally means “just behavior or treatment.” A peace and genuine respect for people. And whether or not it’s a word that you’re comfortable with, doesn’t make it a bullying or framing word. For the people that use it, it’s accurate.
I beg you, brothers, in view of Godd mercy, to approach this conversation with grace and with a posture of listening to your sisters. All of them. Not just the ones who agree with you. There are real faiths at stake in this discussion. And I can promise you that those of us struggling to find a place do not approach this with “objective theological inquiry” but heart and soul, Spirit filled prayer and longing. Please don’t put that aside because you disagree, but listen.
This “squabble” is not about 4 hours, but about identity. It’s harmful rhetoric to imply women are just trying to make a “power grab” when asking to be heard.
Brothers, please.
JRB you are taking the parable out of context.
Tim, when you say:
“Paul, in Galatians 3:28, is discussing entrance into the faith community. He is not saying that men and women are now indistinguishable within the body,
that misrepresents the issue. It isn’t that men and women aren’t different. That should be obvious to all, with our without scripture as witness. What he says is that difference no longer makes any difference.
So when you progress to “Paul continued to teach differences between men and women, seemingly finding that less artificial than you do,” that miscasts the issue further. Where we actually disagree is whether what Paul taught about all differences between men and women being intrinsic for all time and requiring different roles within church (your position, I believe) or about some differences being temporary due to a sea change in the culture of mankind because of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, but still leading to instructions to preserve the order within the church so that all (including women) could learn and then share and witness and proclaim (which, I believe, is my position). Women were new to the religious gatherings of men in Jewish culture, and may have been dominant in religious gatherings in Greco-Roman culture (at least in Ephesus, and probably in Corinth). Merge those cultures, and you can’t help but have some degree of conflict. The instructions given for these conflicts were given for those circumstances.
It’s telling that a great deal is made over women not teaching men in the letter to Timothy, but we don’t belabor that men shouldn’t pray angry, or pray against each other, or pray with their hands in any position but lifted. One, it is said, is cultural and therefore temporary; but the other is genetic and for all time.
To me, there is far more consistent evidence in seeing Galatians 3:28 as normative and the oft-quoted instructions to Corinth and Ephesus as exceptional. To see them as overpowering the witness of Galatians 3:28 causes more problems than can be resolved. To see them as exceptional and temporary resolves any conflicts. We see instructions about masters and slaves to be exceptional and temporary, thanks to a radical shift in culture that began to take place in this country just 150 years ago, and still hasn’t found root all over the world. Similarly, we see making racial distinctions (between Jew and Greek, for instances), as unacceptable, a relic of history, temporary, cultural at that time. We should not deny spiritual leadership responsibilities based on social construct of class, income, race or ethnicity … but somehow we feel we should based on gender.
Because of some unfortunate, but understandable instructions meant for a culturally-transitional time about two thousand years ago.
The term “Gender Justice” communicates quite clearly what this issue is about.
Look at it this way: what if a hypothetical congregation had a belief that God had ordained white people be the leaders in the church and black people to be subservient to them. Black people are allowed to come to the worship and quietly participate from the pew and can get to heaven the same way as everyone else, but to actually participate in the kingdom fully NOW would not be okay. The church had a policy against their faces being seen at the front. They can’t lead the congregation or serve as elder, lead singing, preach, no matter how gifted they might be in these areas. Their voice cannot be heard in the assembly, lest they appear to be usurping the white man who is the God-ordained head. They are quite welcome to tend to the nursery, prepare food for everyone to eat, clean up after the potluck, etc., but that’s all.
In this hypothetical congregation, would it be a bullying tactic to suggest that this is an injustice? A matter of racial justice?
Would you say that Galatians is irrelevant to this scenario?
Would “Well, not ALL white people are on the stage” be a reasonable justification for a written policy that NO black person, no matter how gifted or talented in preaching or singing or leadership, would be allowed on the stage?
Would it be a sound argument–or just a silencing tactic?–to accuse an African American who objected to this practice of being power hungry and attention seeking? As if the person grasping onto power and not letting others have a voice is the good guy and the one who says “Hey, can I say something too?” is the power-grabber?
If you said “no” to the above questions, why would you be okay with women being treated like this? Women who you love and are members of your family? This is called a justice issue because it IS A JUSTICE ISSUE.
Jesus did not choose the characters in that parable without reason, both pedagogical and rhetorical. It is a radical expression of neighbor-hood and inclusion, and he was deliberate in choosing his protagonists and antagonists.
So Jesus’ point in the Good Samaritan was a judgment against the Levitical priesthood in and of itself?
That’s not the principal point of the parable, but his inclusion of the Levite as an antagonist in his moral tale is an indictment on the priesthood that ignored the plight of the oppressed and insulated itself with self-righteousness in its religious hierarchy. It was all too easy for the Levite and the Priest to hurry past the real injustice while tending to the things they deemed more significant in their religious leadership.
So you are saying your initial point about Levites was a stretch. Jesus is clearly condemning a view about self righteousness and faux- religiosity without demanding here that even a single female Levites be a priest much less all women.
JRBProf writes,
Effectively evaded.
The Gentiles were not part of the people of God.
The Samaritans persecuted God’s people when they returned from exile.
But neither of those groups are parallel with the Levites.
The question remains unanswered: were the people of Israel, of the other 11 tribes, less than human because God assigned the Levites leadership roles in guiding worship in the kingdom of God?