I have spent most of my life in a southern state of the U.S.A. where women are not always valued beyond their ability to look pretty, keep house, bear children, and cook a good meal. This is true even, and to my deep sadness, sometimes especially in the church. When women are praised here, it is usually for one or more of these acts, and although I like to hear women praised for their hard work in general, hearing over and over again how important women are because they support and raise up men, tears at me. Here's why:
In fact, didn't Jesus, Himself continue to expand on these things? He entered a time and culture in which women were treated largely as property, with few rights and many burdens. In fact, it is my limited understanding that Jewish men in that day were not even supposed to greet women. Jesus, however, spoke openly to women regardless of their ethnicity or backgrounds. He healed women that had culturally shameful and embarrassing illnesses, and called one such woman "Daughter." He raised a young girl from the dead. He befriended women and wept with them. He used women as positive illustrations in his teachings. He taught women and allowed them to call Him Rabbi in a day when girls weren't allowed anywhere near the level of education that would allow them to be a disciple of a Rabbi. When He rose from the dead, He appeared first to a woman. My mom told me often when I was growing up that Jesus was the first feminist, and although I didn't totally understand what she meant then, it is clear to me now that Jesus did indeed push through the cultural norms of the day in regards to women. He showed true concern for their well-being and defended them when men ridiculed Him for His interactions with women. What He did, in regards to women, may not seem super-radical to us today in modern America, but it was pretty culturally defiant in His day!
For years, I have heard people uphold some passages in the epistles as "proof" that women are supposed to remain "seen and not heard" in the church, but I'm going to push back today. I feel that I have some Biblical precedent for questioning the cultural positions of my day in regards to women! 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." At first glance, this Scripture seems to confirm the "women should be seen and not heard" policy in the church. However, these verses actually cite their reasoning. Women were supposed to be silent because it was disgraceful for them to speak in church...in that day and age, it would have been disgraceful. These verses are in a section discussing orderliness and peacefulness in the church. In other words, it sounds like it would have been quite disgraceful for a woman to speak up in church. It may have caused an uproar and resultant disorder. If my husband walked into a church service with me today and took off his shirt in the middle of service, I imagine that I would be both horribly embarrassed and it would result in quite a bit of disorder in the service. Does that mean that all churches everywhere need to have a "men should wear and keep their shirts on during church" rule? No, it means we need to be respectful to those around us during worship in whatever culture we find ourselves. In that time period in the Corinthian church, that meant that women should be quiet during church services. I don't see this written as a mandate for all times and places.
Another "problem passage" for modern women in the church today is found in 1 Timothy 2:8-13. "Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve." Again, we seem to have a "women should be seen and not heard" policy here. This one even goes on to state that Timothy's reasoning for this has to do with Adam and Eve. That sounds like a kind of eternal, Scriptural sort of reasoning that can't be ignored. EXCEPT, Timothy clearly says here that this is what Timothy's policies are. There are passages in the epistles where the writer says things like "this is me speaking, not God." This 1 Timothy passage says "I want....I also want...I do not permit..." Considering that we discovered in the Corinthians passage that women speaking up would have been seen as disgraceful and probably causing an uproar, I can see why Timothy would have enacted those policies. The policies in specific churches in early Christendom are not binding for all time though. Let's take another look though at the reasoning Timothy references though by going back to 1 Corinthians in another section pointing out differences in propriety between men and women in the church in that day:
Basically, I take these 3 "problem passages" from the epistles to be examples of how early church leaders instructed men and women to act with decency and orderliness in the church. I do not read them as binding, eternal, prescriptive words from the Lord across all times and cultures. So, what is God's view of all of this? Well, I suggest we look again at Jesus' example to understand how God would want us to treat women within our own culture. Jesus upheld the worth and value of women beyond what was the norm in his culture. He didn't raise them up as higher than men, but He offered them some surprising "equal opportunities" to speak to Him and to be taught by Him. He treated women as worth listening to and worth talking to, and He bucked the cultural norms to do so.
(Just to clarify, it is I who was sharing my opinions in this blog post, not God. ;) )
This is my family. This is a four generational image of which I am a part. I am one of 2 daughters to my mother who had no sons, and my sister and I both have had 3 daughters each and no sons. I love my girls, my nieces, my sister, my family to bits, but the thought that my existence could only have meaning to the extent that I influence a man behind the scenes left me begging God for an answer to the meaning of my life. Is my life really meaningful only to the extent that I bless my husband or affect the life of an eventual male descendant!? That is just not enough for me. Would my girls' lives only have meaning once they were somehow able to support or raise up a man? I couldn't bear that thought for my precious daughters either. I needed to know that God saw significance in me, in my daughters, in my family. I needed to know that God did now and had always cared about women.
It was in this need, that I first came across a little story in Numbers 27:1-11.
The daughters of Zelophehad...were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milkah and Tirzah. They came forward and stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the leaders and the whole assembly at the entrance to the tent of meeting and said, “Our father died in the wilderness...and left no sons. Why should our father’s name disappear from his clan because he had no son? Give us property among our father’s relatives.”This little story would likely have escaped the notice of many, but in my place of seeking if God saw value in my family with no male descendants, it was a salve. Now, I wrestled with this and came to this story a few years ago, so I've had a bit of time to process it and more. I'll admit that from the viewpoint of my culture, this story in Numbers doesn't sound like God really showed that He cared that much about women. It, in one sense, was only a small concession for a select few women. However, to me, it shows that God cared even then about the welfare of women, their inheritance, their legacy, their provision, their worth, their viewpoint, their voices, and expanding their freedoms within what was already culturally established.
So Moses brought their case before the Lord, and the Lord said to him, “What Zelophehad’s daughters are saying is right. You must certainly give them property as an inheritance among their father’s relatives and give their father’s inheritance to them.
“Say to the Israelites, ‘If a man dies and leaves no son, give his inheritance to his daughter...This is to have the force of law for the Israelites, as the Lord commanded Moses.’”
In fact, didn't Jesus, Himself continue to expand on these things? He entered a time and culture in which women were treated largely as property, with few rights and many burdens. In fact, it is my limited understanding that Jewish men in that day were not even supposed to greet women. Jesus, however, spoke openly to women regardless of their ethnicity or backgrounds. He healed women that had culturally shameful and embarrassing illnesses, and called one such woman "Daughter." He raised a young girl from the dead. He befriended women and wept with them. He used women as positive illustrations in his teachings. He taught women and allowed them to call Him Rabbi in a day when girls weren't allowed anywhere near the level of education that would allow them to be a disciple of a Rabbi. When He rose from the dead, He appeared first to a woman. My mom told me often when I was growing up that Jesus was the first feminist, and although I didn't totally understand what she meant then, it is clear to me now that Jesus did indeed push through the cultural norms of the day in regards to women. He showed true concern for their well-being and defended them when men ridiculed Him for His interactions with women. What He did, in regards to women, may not seem super-radical to us today in modern America, but it was pretty culturally defiant in His day!
For years, I have heard people uphold some passages in the epistles as "proof" that women are supposed to remain "seen and not heard" in the church, but I'm going to push back today. I feel that I have some Biblical precedent for questioning the cultural positions of my day in regards to women! 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." At first glance, this Scripture seems to confirm the "women should be seen and not heard" policy in the church. However, these verses actually cite their reasoning. Women were supposed to be silent because it was disgraceful for them to speak in church...in that day and age, it would have been disgraceful. These verses are in a section discussing orderliness and peacefulness in the church. In other words, it sounds like it would have been quite disgraceful for a woman to speak up in church. It may have caused an uproar and resultant disorder. If my husband walked into a church service with me today and took off his shirt in the middle of service, I imagine that I would be both horribly embarrassed and it would result in quite a bit of disorder in the service. Does that mean that all churches everywhere need to have a "men should wear and keep their shirts on during church" rule? No, it means we need to be respectful to those around us during worship in whatever culture we find ourselves. In that time period in the Corinthian church, that meant that women should be quiet during church services. I don't see this written as a mandate for all times and places.
Another "problem passage" for modern women in the church today is found in 1 Timothy 2:8-13. "Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve." Again, we seem to have a "women should be seen and not heard" policy here. This one even goes on to state that Timothy's reasoning for this has to do with Adam and Eve. That sounds like a kind of eternal, Scriptural sort of reasoning that can't be ignored. EXCEPT, Timothy clearly says here that this is what Timothy's policies are. There are passages in the epistles where the writer says things like "this is me speaking, not God." This 1 Timothy passage says "I want....I also want...I do not permit..." Considering that we discovered in the Corinthians passage that women speaking up would have been seen as disgraceful and probably causing an uproar, I can see why Timothy would have enacted those policies. The policies in specific churches in early Christendom are not binding for all time though. Let's take another look though at the reasoning Timothy references though by going back to 1 Corinthians in another section pointing out differences in propriety between men and women in the church in that day:
I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you. But 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. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.First of all, before one of you says or thinks, "women need to have their heads covered in church!" I'd like to point out it specifically says "if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head." It is not disgraceful for women to have short hair in our modern American culture. I'm assuming you've figured out then the modern corollary for that "if, then" conditional statement. Why I really came here though is for that paragraph in the middle. Paul seems to be employing a similar Adam and Eve reasoning as Timothy did, but he ends it with saying that in the Lord neither men nor women are independent of each other and that everything comes from God. AND despite that eternal, Scriptural sounding reasoning for his statement about head-coverings for women, his very next statement is "Judge for yourselves." Despite his whole eternal, Scriptural, "just the way God made things and the way they'll always be" sounding argument in the middle, he seems to clearly recognize that this is his own reasoning, not God's binding word on the matter.
A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. It is for this reason that a woman ought to have authority over her own head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.
Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16)
I was both excited and saddened by a recent talk at a Catalyst conference in the Dallas area that I attended. Shauna Niequist spoke about non-gender-based giftedness and churches allowing women to minister in whatever ways God has gifted them. She spoke to the need for men to be encouraging in this within the church and to help women come up with creative solutions to the logistical challenges of raising a family while also serving others outside their family...even if it was only logistically possible for a few hours a month. Her talk confirming how God has given both freedom and value to women had me literally standing to applaud her. However, after her speech, I saw several tweets from men at the conference who clearly felt that it could threaten families and homes. This breaks my heart. Instead of fearing the breakdown of homelife as they know it, I wish men and women would consider how God might be calling us all to push the cultural norms within some Southern US churches to offer more "equal opportunities" to women. We are at a point in our time and culture at large when it is not seen as disgraceful for women to speak in public spheres. The church should not be lagging behind in this. It should be pushing ahead as a leader in this!
As a home-schooling mother, I am essentially the last person on the planet to endorse women abandoning and ignoring all home obligations in order to serve within the church or the world at large. However, if you are a man who feels threatened by the idea of your wife spending even just 4 hours a month pursuing her passions and service opportunities outside the home as Shauna Niequist suggested, then let me suggest you re-consider WHY that is and if you need to readjust your expectations and homelife logistics! I am fortunate enough to have a husband who encourages me to use and develop my gifts to bless others outside our home and creatively problem-solves the logistics with me to allow for this, just as I try to do for him. I do not champion women because I hate my family life. In fact, it's quite the opposite. I largely champion women born out of the love I have for my daughters and for my family at large. Yes, I do believe that God is pro-women. I also think He's pro-men, pro-children, pro-human actually regardless of the person's age or gender.
What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?...Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. (Romans 8:31, 33, 34a)
(Just to clarify, it is I who was sharing my opinions in this blog post, not God. ;) )
Comments