Pretty boys or pretty girls?
One thing about Doug Wilson: you will hardly ever wonder where he lands on important issues. Ordination of women is no exception. I congratulate him on not only his view, but on his no-nonsense, straightforward style!
Read below and see what you think. Let me know.
“The vocation of preaching is not just a simple act of communication; it is also a symbolic act. So not only must the preaching be biblical and good, but the symbolism must also be biblical and good. And our failures in this regard are why we are having such trouble today with the question of the ordination of women.
The reason the evangelical church feels the pressure to ordain women (despite clear texts) is that the standards used to evaluate the occupant of the pulpit (for well over a century now) have been the standards of feminine piety. This means that clergymen have been trying to live up to their reputation as the “third sex.” Put another way, we have insisted upon effeminacy in the pulpit, and we are now being pressed with the next logical step. If that is your standard, what possible basis could you have for excluding women, who can do what we are currently doing better than we are currently doing it? This is quite accurate, but the real question here should be whether or not we should repent of what we are currently doing. If we are going to have pretty boys in the pulpit, it would be much nicer to have pretty girls. I confess it. But should we have pretty boys?
The texts on this are so clear, and the pressure to disregard them so massive, the only way to account for it is through identifying another kind of disobedience—a global disobedience. We have been seeing the Scriptures (all of Scripture) in such a skewed fashion for so long that it necessitates that the words barring women from the pulpit be seen through the grid of creative theology.
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:11-15). So okay, here it is, right in the Bible. Of course there are arguments for setting this aside. And there are far more compelling arguments that make the set-asiders a laughingstock. But the question really ought to be, “Why are we even talking about this?”
This kind of creative exegesis is usually found only in authoritative texts—Scripture, Constitutions, Books of Church Order, and so on. Someone is bound by that authority to behave in a way that is consistent with the authority, but said someone doesn’t really want to be obedient. Because they have to keep up appearances, they engage in some amazing circumlogicalities. “The Constitution is a living document,” said the legal scholar. “It can stretch as far as you want, but only to the left.”
“In an ancient Ugaritic text that somebody found, a word that means servant looks kind of like the Hebrew word for warrior-princess after it is back-translated into Greek. I think. And this has enormous ramifications for our church polity today,” said the Rev. Xena.
Nobody has to deal with people who interpret newspaper articles this way. No one interprets the writing on the side of your paper cup from Arby’s like this. And when it comes to works of literature, we have to deal with such people sometimes, but usually to the extent that the work of literature has entered into the canon and has hence become somewhate authoritative. So, for example, Pride and Prejudice can be discovered to be a feminist manifesto, but this is only because the text speaks with more authority than the unsubmissive can stand.
It is not surprising that lack of submission to the text is an issue when we are talking about texts that require submission. And this brings us to the true irony. The masculine preacher can only be this way if he learns to submit himself. Masculine preachers are not those who demand submission from others; masculine preachers are those who submit themselves.
True masculinity is submissive. Right, submissive. Effeminacy in the pulpit is disobedient and rebellious. God tells the preacher to go and speak as the very oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11). He might not feel like it. He worries that people will think he is getting above himself. He wonders if he is really called to the ministry. When tackling any lofty scriptural subject, far above him, he is frequently as disappointed with his performance as the farmer’s wife was when she asked the sow to fold the linen. But how he feels does not matter. He is told what to do, and he is under authority. “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
We are frequently told that feminists don’t like masculinist bravado and bluster in the pulpit. It is fine if they don’t like it; no one should. But the real cause of the genuine conflict is this: masculine preachers (not maschismo preachers) are models of respectful submission. Men who preach with masculine authority are modeling obedience, and this is the one thing that rebels cannot abide.”
November 18, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Beautifully put: Why are we even talking about this? What will be next, women mentors at Covenant Theological Seminary? Oops, sorry–already done that one…
November 19, 2007 at 6:50 am
Why are we talking about this? We need Christian men to “act like men…” (1 Cor 16″13).
CTS? Sad…
November 19, 2007 at 8:52 am
I like the MS degree for women. Also, the MRE would be good for them too. But MDiv? Yes, seems a bit out of order. Can anyone say slippery slope?
Look at this post from the Bayly bros:
“Let’s have a little honesty here. The problem the evangelical church has with all her women who have received academic or “rabbinical” training in theology is not that there aren’t enough venues within which their gifts may be valued and used. No, the venues are almost limitless, and the Church has always given her greatest love to women who serve in those venues–the nursery, the sick room, the leper colony, the hospital, the nursing home, the Sunday school room, the vacation Bible school classroom, the Pioneer club, the sewing circle, the kitchen, the cry room, the women’s Bible study, the women’s prayer meeting, the Neighborhood Bible Study, the wedding shower or baby shower devotional, the MOPS group, the Backyard Bible Club, the birthing room, the orphanage–and the list goes on and on and on and on and on and on….
But in the background we can hear, “Dammit, that’s not what I want–I want more! Why should I be forced to hide my most excellent gifts underneath such partronizing, such stultifying bushels? What gives you men the right to rope off my gifts into such obscure cubbyholes? I want out!”"
Don’y worry about the responses. I’m not sure anyone will wade into this.
November 19, 2007 at 11:29 am
Guys, please be very careful here. First of all, I am aware of the Bayly blog and am very disappointed and grieved by how they have interacted with people on the issue of women in ministry in the past, including my wife. They showed little grace and were nothing short of chauvinistic. I would recommend not quoting them in regards to this issue.
Yes, I can say slippery slope, and I recognize that there are two slopes: chauvinism and feminism. I don’t desire to slip down either one.
In regards to women receiving M.Divs, most of the women are getting this because they want to be challenged academically more than an M.A will allow, and of course they substitute homiletics courses for more general communications courses. What’s wrong with this?
I doubt I will keep commenting on this, but I caution you to remain gracious, and to not come down too firmly on something that the Seminary president and ALL the faculty FULLY support: women receiving rigorous theological degrees to be equipped for training the saints.
November 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Wes, I have read many of their posts on the issue and have yet to see chauvinism portrayed.
The Webster definition of chauvinism is “Prejudiced belief in the superiority of one’s own gender, group, or kind
Help me out here, but I have not seen one instance where they take a position that men are superior to women. But, I may have missed it since I have not seen everything they have written.
It seems that often the argument is made against complementarism using some sort of accusation that the C view is chauvinistic and/or demeaning to women. On the contrary the C view says that women are of great value to the church with their many and varied gifts and should be celebrated in their God-ordained roles.
The rub, of course, comes in that some women and even some men chafe at the C view that women should not lead men and exercise authority over them. Somehow THAT is demeaning.
I would encourage interested persons to look at cbmw.org and read some of the articles written by women who rather chafe at what the Bible says, actually wholeheartedly embrace their Biblical roles.
As to the MDiv, my opinion is that it is a step in a dangerous direction. Women can study theology with the best of them so to speak and I applaud that. Would that more and more men and women would want to learn theology! But, the MDiv, historically reserved for men training for pastoral ministry, in the hands of women can (not necessarily will) surely lead to women occupying the pulpits of America. It just is slippery. Again, my opinion.
November 19, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Maybe chauvinism was too strong a word, but after the women in ministry conference at Covenant College last year Stephanie interacted with the Bayly blog some (to her chagrin), and basically the position being argued was that women should stay at home and be content to be mothers, that Covenant College was supporting a feminist movement by inviting Carolyn Custis James to speak (she is the wife of the president of Reformed Theological Seminary), and all kinds of rants about women learning to “stay in their place.” Trust me, it was really distasteful.
Instead of making women feel bad about pursuing an M.Div., we should be encouraging women to pursue theological eduction. I say a woman can embrace her biblical role and be a better theologian, a more accomplished biblical exegete, than a man, even if she isn’t in the pulpit of her church.
November 19, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Before I begin, some of you know that my wife has a seminary degree from Covenant (M.A.). Some of you also know that I consider her brighter than me in some very critical areas. She is also clearly a capable teacher. But none of these things give her the green light to do what she has not been granted by Scripture to do.
There is no question that the Bible supports women being taught theology; what sticks in everyone’s crop is the fact that the Scripture teaches that this teaching is the responsibility of a woman’s husband (if she is married, of course). I suspect that this is the real issue; how many men are capable of discipling their wives in things theological? Sadly, it is most often the other way around–and we are not in the least bit ashamed of this.
I have to admit that I am coming to the conclusion that what we see in our seminaries is really just the gradual institutionalization of the sin of Christian husbands to disciple their wives. Once again we are passing the buck–only this time it isn’t Kay Arthur or Beth Moore doing our jobs for us.
What about single women, you may ask? Where will they get their theollogy? I think the Scripture answers that clearly: From the public reading and teching of Scripture by the Pastor and from other, older women!
Call me provincial, narrow, a throwback; but I am pretty much convinced that Seminary should be reserved for training pastors and professors, not teaching laypeople. That is the role of the church, under the leadershp of the Session through the ministry of the Word preached and taught.
What, then, do I say about Lisa’s seminary degree? As I have reflected on the feminization of the PCA, I have to admit that I am of the mindset that it has caused more harm than good to offer Seminary training to any but those men being called by God to ordination as Teaching Elders. The more seminaries do what our churches are supposed to be doing, the more our churches will suffer.
November 19, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I think the “what’s changed?” question can be problematic because things change all the time and sometimes it is good. Not even 100 years ago women couldn’t vote. “What’s changed?” People realized that women should have equal political, civil rights as men. Pastors in our country used to defend slavery from the Bible. “What’s changed?” People realized that was a terrible misinterpretation of the text. The church used to defend from the Bible the fact that everything revolved around the earth? “What’s changed?” Science proved otherwise. I understand that most of you most likely agree that these changes are good. My point is that just because things change doesn’t mean its bad. Of course, just because things change doesn’t mean its good either. But just because something has been done a certain way historically doesn’t mean it is wrong to change it. Making final judgments based on how something was historically done is a historical fallacy.
So, why do many seminaries now grant M.Divs to women? Because people have realized that it is beneficial for women to receive the most rigorous and top-rated theological education there is. (Yes, there are M.A.s etc, but these degrees are not as rigorous, which is fine. They serve a different purpose.) Even those of us who believe that women should not be ordained to pulpit ministry (myself included in case you were wondering!), these women will be teaching other women in the church, children in the church, their children at home, will be conversation partners for their husbands, etc. Why would we NOT want women to receive this kind of training? I am an M.A. student at CTS, but I opted to take Greek, so most of my classes have been M.Div classes. My ministry to the young women in my small group at church has been exceedingly enhanced by my training. I have been taught how to do faithful exegesis, engage in hermeneutics, think about doctrine and practical pastoral theology. I could not learn all of these things from my husband or the church. Why would we NOT want the women who are teaching the women and children in our church to receive the most rigorous training there is?
Another practical reason: most Ph.D programs in theology require an M.Div as a pre-req to get into their program. So, for women who want to continue in theological education, they must receive an M.Div.
November 19, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I do not think anyone is arguing that women should be kept from learning. Far from it. So many women going to seminary to get MDivs so as to be better equipped to teach SS and Bible studies makes me think that our church leaders are asleep at the switch and are not teaching/training women and men as well.
Interesting is the rationale at Westminster Calif. from their website as to why they do not offer an MDiv:
Q7. Is the M.Div. program open to men and women?
The purpose of our Master of Divinity program is to educate and form men for official, ordained ministries of instruction and leadership in the church as pastors, evangelists, and teachers. Because the seminary board and faculty believes the criteria set down in Scripture limits the candidacy for official teaching and leadership ministry in the church to qualified men, we admit only men to our Master of Divinity program.
However, because God bestows on women as well as men gifts and calling to serve in non-ordained ministries, WSC’s Master of Arts programs admit both women and men.
Q8. What can a woman do with a master’s degree from WSC?
Our female graduates have used their WSC degrees to give them biblical and theological foundations for pursuing law and Ph.D. degrees, missions work in a variety of capacities, and teaching at primary, secondary and college levels. For others, the benefits have enriched their service in the local church, prepared them to lead Bible studies and women’s ministries, and to be better equipped to raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
November 19, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I don’t think that its just women going to seminary to teach Sunday school that we are talking about, but (perhaps, for example) women who feel called to serve on staff full time with a church engaged in ministry where they are teaching, discipling, and counseling women, youth, and children. Or women involved in full-time church planting, campus ministry, missions etc. Not just in a volunteer capacity, but in full-time ministry. The M.div (at least at CTS) is a holistic degree that includes training in biblical studies, Greek and Hebrew, practical theology, doctrine, counseling, expository teaching/preaching, and education. It is difficult to find an M.A. in theology that provides the same diversity and level of training. that is why a lot of women settle on pursuing an M.Div. So, maybe a good solution would be to expand and improve M.A. programs if we want to exclude women from the M.Div.
November 19, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Stephanie,
As I understand your argument, we can’t use the Bible today to justify belief in the same things people 100 years ago used the Bible to justify their belief. It sounds like you’re saying that since we moderns are more enlightened than our Neanderthalic forebears on matters like slavery, heliocentricity and suffrage, surely we must conclude that any remaining convictions they used the Bible to justify must have ben equally as quaint–so we better not hold them, either!
I know that isn’t what you mean to say, but that is precisely how you are proceeding. It makes it sound like we have to be “open” to altering our covictions as we are more and more culturally liberated.
People still use the Bible to justify belief in all manner of unbiblical things; neither the passage of time nor plain ignorance has changed that a bit! In each of the three examples you mention, the problem is not that the people had not been enlightened but that the Bible simply does not teach what they believe.
Indeed, Randy’s query is dead on. What has changed? It is our understanding of the roles of men and women that has changed–and that hasn’t always been biblical or beneficial.
November 19, 2007 at 11:58 pm
I hear you. I was responding to the question at hand, which was “why are seminaries allowing women in their M.Div programs?” I don’t think that allowing women in M.Div programs necessarily means that we have taken an anti-biblical turn in revising the roles of men and women. I personally think it is beneficial. Obviously, different opinions are on the table here.
By the way, this is the first time I have interacted with you on the blog, but I vaguely remember you from Twin Oaks. In case you don’t know this, I’m the daughter of Bill and Wendy Myers. I’m sure its been a decade since I’ve seen you! Anyway, just thought I would let you know who I am in case you didn’t know. Hope you and your family are well! Its good to interact with you and others who are older and wiser. Obviously, this is a topic I am rather interested in. I know I have much to learn. Thanks for your thoughts.
November 20, 2007 at 7:33 am
Yes, I do indeed remember you–and I can’t believe you’re married! Lisa remembers you from a girl’s discipleship group she did. As for me, it’s probably best that most people’s memory of me is vague!
I’m glad to be interacting on this topic because I feel it was not covered well at all when I was in seminary. In addition to that, the more I pastor the more I realize what seminary training can’t cover. I, too, have so much to learn!
November 20, 2007 at 11:30 am
Thanks for clarifying. I agree blog discussions can be confusing sometimes!
I’m still interested in any thoughts on my previous post about the M.Div being the most rigorous and thorough theological degree, which is why women choose to go with the M.Div rather than an M.A. What is wrong with allowing women to pursue the most rigorous and extensive degree possible, especially if they are hoping to be involved in full-time ministry?
November 20, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Yes, I know the Th.M is more rigorous but it requires an M.Div. My question is not just about women wanting to pursue further education, but mostly about women who want to be in full-time ministry. Without the M.Div as an option for these women seeking training, I don’t know if there is another satisfactory option.
December 15, 2007 at 5:37 pm
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce