[soc.religion.christian] Sexism in the church??

JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (03/22/91)

In article <Mar.18.10.39.32.1991.6096@athos.rutgers.edu>, mib@churchy.ai.mit.edu
(Michael I Bushnell) says:
>
>And, if the assumption is that being gay is inherently unhappy, or
>disappointing, it certainly isn't any worse than being a woman in our
>society.  It's roughly on a par with being a member of any oppressed
>group.

This sort of offhand comment about how women are members of an oppressed
group makes me curious...  I am a woman (I guess, I still feel like a
girl, but 22 is rather old for that...  =) ) and I simply don't feel
oppressed.  I've been discriminated against every now and again, but I
haven't ever noticed the types of systematic, entrenched problems that
the word "oppression" implies.  Since a Christian female friend of mine
was having a problem with this subject recently, I decided to get some
more opinions than just mine.  =)  (She, BTW, felt that her church and
the Bible were inherently discriminatory and therefore could not be
accurate reflections of a perfect God. This left two options: either
God was not perfect, or the Bible was not actually about him.  I
pointed out a third... that she was not perfect, nor were the other
members of her church, so it's possible that she was merely the
victim of inherently sinful people--like myself and herself.  =)  )

Anyway, the point of this is: Do other Christian women feel that
they are being treated in a less loving way because of their gender?
Is this happening within Christian circles, out of Christian circles,
or both?  (You will notice that I said "In a a less loving way", not
"differently".  That was not an accident, because it's possible to
treat someone differently, but treat them as well, IMHO)

Comments?  Opinions?
                                                   --Jenni
/-------------------------------------\ ********************************
| JMS111@PSUVM - Bitnet               | * A kindhearted woman gains    *
| JMS111@PSUVM.psu.edu - Internet     | * respect, but ruthless men    *
| These opinions are not the property | * gain only wealth.            *
| or responsibility of Penn State or  | *                              *
| the Center for Academic Computing.  | *                  Prov. 11:16 *
\-------------------------------------/ ********************************

carlson@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) (03/25/91)

In article <Mar.21.22.02.58.1991.15682@athos.rutgers.edu> JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) writes:
>
>Anyway, the point of this is: Do other Christian women feel that
>they are being treated in a less loving way because of their gender?
>Is this happening within Christian circles, out of Christian circles,
>or both?  (You will notice that I said "In a a less loving way", not
>"differently".  That was not an accident, because it's possible to
>treat someone differently, but treat them as well, IMHO)
>
>Comments?  Opinions?
>                                                   --Jenni

Yes, some Christian women feel that they are treated less than lovingly
because of their gender.  This has been particularly true of late in my
own denomination (Southern Baptist).  The subject of women's ordination
has come up in our national convention for several years running and there
is great disagreement.  I don't think disagreement is a problem or necessarily
bad, but the way some of the women delagates have been treated is.  They
have been hooted down when they stood up to speak, have had their microphones
turned off, been subject to derogatory comments, and treated generally as if
their opinions are not worth being heard.  The antics have sometimes gotten
so bad that the stories have gotten into the newspapers.  What a sad witness
from a group claiming a desire to demonstrate God's love to the world!

Ann B. Carlson

ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (03/27/91)

In article <Mar.25.03.46.55.1991.7272@athos.rutgers.edu>, carlson@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:
> In article <Mar.21.22.02.58.1991.15682@athos.rutgers.edu> JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) writes:
> >
> >Anyway, the point of this is: Do other Christian women feel that
> >they are being treated in a less loving way because of their gender?
> >Is this happening within Christian circles, out of Christian circles,
> >or both?  (You will notice that I said "In a a less loving way", not
> >"differently".  That was not an accident, because it's possible to
> >treat someone differently, but treat them as well, IMHO)
> >
> >Comments?  Opinions?
> >                                                   --Jenni
> 
> Yes, some Christian women feel that they are treated less than lovingly
> because of their gender.  This has been particularly true of late in my
> own denomination (Southern Baptist).  The subject of women's ordination
> 
> Ann B. Carlson


IMHO, the Bible does not hold men and women equal in every respect, but
it does such in a functional matter, not in a sexist manner. For example,
the Bible says that a MAN shall leave his father and mother and cling
unto his wife.  It does not say that a WOMAN should separate from her
parents in the same manner that a man should.  As a women, I find this
interpretation to be just fabulous.  As a married women in a society
where men usually have been and still are the main family breadwinners,
I think that it is of utmost important that the breadwinner, (usually
the man), learn how to stand on his own feet and support his own
family instead of depending on mommy and daddy.

As far as the sexism part is concerned, again, I believe that the Bible
is not sexist.  Yet, as Ann Carlson pointed out, many church folks have
twisted the Bible to fit their own social ideals.  Yes, it is true that
Southern Babtist do not allow women to minister in the same capacity as
men.  After attending Southern Babtist churches over 20 years, I have
never heard any Baptist women preach a sermon to a congregation.  The women
"pastors" in the church may lead in scripture reading and prayer, but
that is about as far as it goes.

One day I got on an independent trane of thought, and realized that the
Bible says "sons and DAUGHTERS shall prophecy."  And, I realized that
there were even women prophets, such as Anna.  So, I questioned one
of the leaders in my church, "If women recieve prophecies from God, are
they supposed to shut up and not tell about them just because they are
women?"  The answer was sort of a mixed reaction.

For this reason, and especially for the Southern Baptists' attitude
towards the latest war in the Persian Gulf (is Saadam the anti-Christ, etc.)
I have grow increasingly discouraged with the "policies" of Southern
Babtist, and have started looking either for another church, or for
another denomination.  As hypocritical as it may sound (and may even be),
it practically violates my conscious to attend services at my old church,
especially when I have the option to attend churches elsewhere.  Any
comments?


Elizabeth

[As far as Biblical precedent is concerned, it appears that whatever
restrictions Paul might have had in mind about the role of women, he
did envision at least some speaking in worship and some leadership.
E.g. 1 Cor 11 says that women should cover their head when praying or
prophesying, which seems to imply that they do prophesy.  Similarly,
the lists at the end of Paul's letters include a lot of apparent
female leaders, including Rom 16:1, which names Phoebe as a deacon.  I
Tim 3:11 seems to give qualifications for female deacons (though it
could also be qualifications for the wife of a deacon --
unfortunately, the same word can mean both woman and wife). and Tit
2:3 sees women (the word is actually the female form of presbyter,
which could mean simply older women or could be talking about female
elders as a more formal title) as teachers at least of other women.
Calvin's favorite example was Huldah.  When workmen found a book of
the Law in the temple, note that it was a female prophet that they
went to for a ruling on its validity.  2 King 22:14.

As I'm sure you know, there's a split within the Church about whether
we need to limit women to specific roles prescribed for them in the
NT.  But it seems to me fairly clear that even if we take the most
restricted view, the Bible does accept the concept of women receiving
revelations.  And I'd say it accepts some level of leadership, at
least of other women.  Part of it depends upon what you make of Paul's
insistence that women's role includes submission.  In I Cor 11 it
seems a somewhat formal acknowledgement.  That is, they pray and
prophesy just like the men, but cover their heads as a sign of
authority.  I've seen suggestions that I Tim 2:12 should be translated
as saying that no wife should have authority over her husband.  (This
again depends upon whether you translate terms as man and woman or
husband and wife.)  In that case, the point would be that any public
role of women should not compromise their relationship to their
busband.  Even I Cor 14:34, which is about the most general
restriction on women, points directly to the relationship between
husband and wife.  (I should note that Gordon Fee has made an
interesting argument -- based on the fact that I Cor 14:34-35 comes in
two different places in different manuscripts -- that those verses are
a later addition.  However my guess is that those people for whom the
NT role is relevant are not likely to accept such textual analyses.)

There is clearly disagreement in this area, which I do not expect to
get rid of here.  But I don't think there's any question that women
can receive revelations from God and that they are expected to say
something about it.  The question seems to be not about whether they
hear from God, but about exactly what formal roles and authority it is
appropriate for them to have.  --clh]

awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu (03/27/91)

[I apologize that this posting is missing some context.  The original
one I got from him said that he didn't see sex discrimination in the
Church, and then cited one of the well-known scripture passages saying
that women were not to be allowed to speak.  I wasn't sure whether he
was a fundamentalist being sarcastic about how the Church had
"improved" on the Bible or what.  This is in response to my request
for a more unambiguous posting.  --clh]

My point was simply this:  

 I didn't see any sex discrimination in the Church.  There is,
however, inherent sex discrimination in the Bible.  I think your
friend is right about this.  Those quotes I used are to spell it out:
"Women suck".  This, of course, from all-wise God....NOT FROM ME!!!

 I don't feel that women shouldn't dress fancy or wear jewelry or
should be silent, etc.
...but Christ did.  And God spoke though Christ...

 I also commented on the fact that Christians (as well as people in
general) seem to have evolved beyond Christ's teachings in this area
(of life) as well as others.  My point: if ice melts, it is called
water; if a puppy grows up, call it a dog.  Why then not follow suit
in the area of religion?  When a religion no longer practices the
doctrines of its creators, don't continue to call it 'Christianity'.
If you want to make a religion that doesn't follow your present
doctrines...then do so.  But don't call it Christianity.  If Christ's
philosophy/teachings are not good enough for you to follow, don't
ignore some and follow the rest!  Simply look elsewhere...beyond
Christianity.  Make your own rules like I do.  Christians do it
anyway...and then call themselves Christians.  Go figure.  I think
Christianity is an out-moded philosophy that is INTENTIONALLY designed
so that NO human can follow it correctly.

In short, there is no God.  Even Christians are evolving beyond
Christ's teachings...because his teachings contradict human nature.

Your comments will be appreciated.  Thank you for responding.

--alan
"Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do."
 st.john 8:44

ps I hope this doesn't contain too many errors, don't have time to
proofread.  If it is still incoherent, I promise to take time to make
it coherent next time.

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/27/91)

In article <Mar.25.03.46.55.1991.7272@athos.rutgers.edu> carlson@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) writes:
>>
>>Comments?  Opinions?

>Yes, some Christian women feel that they are treated less than lovingly
>because of their gender.  This has been particularly true of late in my
>own denomination (Southern Baptist).  The subject of women's ordination
>has come up in our national convention for several years running and there
>is great disagreement.  I don't think disagreement is a problem or necessarily
>bad, but the way some of the women delagates have been treated is.  They
>have been hooted down when they stood up to speak, have had their microphones
>turned off, been subject to derogatory comments, and treated generally as if
>their opinions are not worth being heard.  The antics have sometimes gotten
>so bad that the stories have gotten into the newspapers.  What a sad witness
>from a group claiming a desire to demonstrate God's love to the world!

Our denomination (The United Methodist Church) has been ordaining women
for some time now.  (I think our local congregation had our first woman
pastor in the 50's.  We are now on our second (it only took a few
decades  ;-)).  Nancy has been well accepted, (some of the men admitting
that she "preaches as well as a man."), indeed Nancy is a great pastor.
I have a number of female clergy friends and acquaintances, not all
parishes are as accepting as ours.  I know that some of them have felt
sexually harrassed.  I know at least one was sexually assaulted.
Recently, one of our denominational newsletters published results of a
survey of women in the church (layity and clergy) dealling with sexual
harrasment.  The percentage responding that they had experienced sexual
harrassment in the church was shocking.  (I do not remember the exact
figures, I'm sorry, I want to say that it exceeded 2/3's of the
respondants for both categories, but that's an incredible figure.)

In any case, yes I would say there is discrimination against women in
the UMC.  This is a little more surprising when you look in the pews.
It is the women who make our churches work.  The pastors tend to be men,
the ushers tend to be men, but the people in the pews tend to be women.

In our denomination, we are broken up into areas by "Annual Conferences"
(somewhat analagous to the Roman Catholic Diocese).  Each Annual
Conference is required to have a "Commission on the Status and Role of
Women".  "CoSRoW" also exists on a general church level, and (in theory)
on a local church level.  CoSRoW is supposed to be a monitoring
organization, and is supposed to work closely with the bishop, and the
cabinet to further the cause.  The activity level of CoSRoW varries from
conference to conference, I would rate our conference's CoSRoW (of which
I am a member) at moderately inactive.


						Tom Blake
						SUNY-Binghamton

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/30/91)

Here's a little joke I learned from a lady pastor friend.

A new woman pastor is assigned to a small rural church.  It's her first
pastorate, and it's their first woman pastor.  Now the women of the
church take to the new pastor right off, but the men just don't know
what to make of her.

While talking the problem over with some of the women, the pastor finds
out that a bunch of the men like to go fishing together on saturdays.
On Sunday the pastor asks one of the men if she can go along next time, 
he can't very well refuse, so he invites her.

Well, the week passes and Saturday morning finds the pastor and a bunch
of the men in a boat headed out to the center of the lake.  Just as
they're about to start, one of the men realizes that in his nervousness
he's left the bait on shore.  Some grumbling ensues, but the pastor,
trying to make peace says, "Oh, don't worry, I'll go get it."  She
stands up in the boat, steps out onto the water and starts walking to
shore.

As soon as she's out of earshot, one of the men complains, "It's bad
enough they send us a woman preacher!  *She* can't even swim!"


					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton

carlson@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov (Ann Carlson) (04/01/91)

In article <Mar.26.22.43.11.1991.8496@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
> Yet, as Ann Carlson pointed out, many church folks have
>twisted the Bible to fit their own social ideals.  Yes, it is true that
>Southern Babtist do not allow women to minister in the same capacity as
>men.  After attending Southern Babtist churches over 20 years, I have
>never heard any Baptist women preach a sermon to a congregation.  The women
>"pastors" in the church may lead in scripture reading and prayer, but
>that is about as far as it goes.

Just wanted to let you know that this isn't universal in Southern Baptist
churches.  We have a woman assosiate pastor who preaches in the church and
we also have a woman lay pastor who occasionally preaches.  We even had
a girl from the youth group preach in both services on youth sunday one
year.  In my opinion, our associate pastor is one of the best preachers I've
heard.  She can talk all around an issue and then bring it all together in
a well thought out conclusion that can really zing you and leave you
with ideas that are not easy to forget.   I would like to preach myself,
someday, so I hope things continue to get more open for women rather than 
less. 

Ann B. Carlson (carlson@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov)

brendan@cs.uq.oz.au (Brendan Mahony) (04/01/91)

In <Mar.26.23.29.18.1991.10886@athos.rutgers.edu> awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu writes:

[Some very telling observations about (r)evolutionary Christian theology]

>I think Christianity is an out-moded philosophy that is INTENTIONALLY designed
>so that NO human can follow it correctly.

This is precisely why Christ gave us the Holy Spirit. When you let the
Spirit posses you being a Christian is EASY, when you shut him out it
becomes impossible. Of course in the most basic sense being a Christian
MEANS being open to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

>In short, there is no God.  Even Christians are evolving beyond
>Christ's teachings...because his teachings contradict human nature.

Well I gues we can differ on that. I would say they contradict human
failings, but reflect human nature in the sense of what makes humans really
feel good about themselves.

--
Brendan Mahony                   | brendan@batserver.cs.uq.oz       
Department of Computer Science   | heretic: someone who disgrees with you
University of Queensland         | about something neither of you knows
Australia                        | anything about.

news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) (04/01/91)

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:

>As soon as she's out of earshot, one of the men complains, "It's bad
>enough they send us a woman preacher!  *She* can't even swim!"

This is an old joke.  The first time I heard it was in reference 
to Helmut Kohl, who asked God for a miracle to impress his 
constituents.

JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) (04/02/91)

Genesis 3:16
"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
 conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire
 shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

I Timothy 2:11-15
"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."

Now my personal interpretation of these passages is that the curse of
Eve is sexism.  Adam is also given a curse in Genesis, but Eve's is to
be subject to her husband.  It also gives her the psychological makeup
where her desires become subject to her husband's.  I will admit that
in a marriage one partner has to give in to the other sometimes to make
it work, so this makes sense in some contexts.  However, I have seen
women strive to validate themselves as lovable or worthwhile creatures
through being loved by a man in a romantic relationship--I even used to
do it myself.  I don't know how valid to connect this phenomenon I've
observed to the phrase "her desire shall be to [in the NIV "for"] her
her husband," but I think there may be.  And I find that attitude
harmful to women, psychologically, breeding many unnecessary insecurities.

I find the passage in Timothy offensive.  It seems as Paul is taking his
interpretation of the Genesis story (which doesn't say whether Adam was
deceived or not), and using it to promote a policy which will keep the
men of the church from being upset.  Recently there was a controversy
in my parents' church, which resulted in a decision that, in light of I Tim.
women are not allowed to teach Sunday School to adult males unless it
it is "team teaching" where the wife shows deference to her husband
throughout.  Women are not allowed to lead a Bible study containing
adult men, where they are teaching interpretation of the scripture.
The thought of actually ordaining women would probably give that con-
gregation a community coronary.  In prayer and examining my feeling
for what is right, I really could find no *belief* in me that women
should not teach.  As a Christian, what was I to think?  Is the Bible
wrong?  Am I wrong?  The two just don't seem to go together.  I have
thought about this issue for over a year, and I still can't reconcile
them.  Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.

Joy Haftel               "And traveller's joy beguiles in autumn
JKH107@PSUVM                   Hearts that have lost their own."
                                    --A.E. Housman

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/03/91)

In article <Apr.2.03.23.39.1991.19564@athos.rutgers.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>...
>The thought of actually ordaining women would probably give that con-
>gregation a community coronary.  In prayer and examining my feeling
>for what is right, I really could find no *belief* in me that women
>should not teach.  As a Christian, what was I to think?  Is the Bible
>wrong?  Am I wrong?  The two just don't seem to go together.  I have
>thought about this issue for over a year, and I still can't reconcile
>them.  Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.

Just last night I was speaking to a good clergy friend.  Once again, she
has had to deal with someone (clergy of a different denomination)
questioning her call.

Her first question.  "Could he refuse his calling?"  When he replied
that he couldn't, she asked him how he could ask her to refuse hers.

After that, she made him the invitation she has made to others who have
questioned her calling.  "Come, and hear me preach.  And then we'll
discuss whether or not my calling is genuine."  She's never been taken
up on this invitation.


					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton

lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) (04/03/91)

In <Apr.2.03.23.39.1991.19564@athos.rutgers.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:

>Genesis 3:16
>"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy
> conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire
> shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."

There were no reporters taking notes in the Garden of Eden. The story is
an explanation of man's condition. The ancient author (it was probably
NOT Moses) observed that part of the human condition was that women have
great pain in delivering children and that the men were in charge. He
explained this condition by saying it was the punishment for Eve's actions.
In saying that the men rule over the women is part of Eve's punishment,
I believe he is implying that it is not part of God's original plan of
how men and women are supposed to interact.


>I Timothy 2:11-15
>"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."

This passage must be considered in light of the prevailing cultural
standards of the first century. To apply it out of context to men
and women today is simply foolish. Paul may have been under the special
guidance of the Holy Spirit (as were all the biblical authors), but that
does not make him (or his writings) immune from the prejudices of his day.

I believe the meaning of this passage for men and women today is that
we have all sinned and none of us is fit to lord authority over another.
Rather, we must all carry out the responsibilities and duties of our
station in life with humility and charity.

Frankly, I think the conclusion reached in your parents' church is
wrong. It's based on a misinformed reading of the passage and fails
to consider the social milieu in which Paul wrote. In another place,
Paul writes, "In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave
or freeman." Clearly this passage is more central to Christian living
than the one above. It's startling how Christians sometimes twist the
New Testament, ignoring important passages and raising insignificant
ones to the status of the 10 Commandments.

Ray
lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu

mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (04/04/91)

In article <Apr.3.02.53.53.1991.10388@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:

   Just last night I was speaking to a good clergy friend.  Once again, she
   has had to deal with someone (clergy of a different denomination)
   questioning her call.

   Her first question.  "Could he refuse his calling?"  When he replied
   that he couldn't, she asked him how he could ask her to refuse hers.

   After that, she made him the invitation she has made to others who have
   questioned her calling.  "Come, and hear me preach.  And then we'll
   discuss whether or not my calling is genuine."  She's never been taken
   up on this invitation.

Hmmm...this story echoes the past of several gay ministers I know.  In
fact, it echoes it almost exactly in one case.

	-mib

crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (04/04/91)

In article <Mar.26.23.29.18.1991.10886@athos.rutgers.edu> awmurray@eos.ncsu.edu writes:
> I didn't see any sex discrimination in the Church.  There is,
>however, inherent sex discrimination in the Bible.  I think your
>friend is right about this.  Those quotes I used are to spell it out:
>"Women suck".  This, of course, from all-wise God....NOT FROM ME!!!

Hmmm?  When I look at the life of Jesus I see an amazing willingness to give
women an importance they didn't otherwise have in 1st century society.
For example, Jesus had a deep conversation (no pun intended) with the
Samaritan woman at the well; he had women as followers who didn't desert
him at crucifixion time as most of his male followers did; and He chose to
make His first post-resurrection appearance to a woman (Mary Magdalene).

> I also commented on the fact that Christians (as well as people in
>general) seem to have evolved beyond Christ's teachings in this area
>(of life) as well as others.  ...
>         ....  Make your own rules like I do.  Christians do it
>anyway...and then call themselves Christians.  Go figure.  I think
>Christianity is an out-moded philosophy that is INTENTIONALLY designed
>so that NO human can follow it correctly.

'Tis sad, but true, that many people call themselves Christians without
following Christ's teachings.  I agree, they should probably find something
else to call themselves if they want to be honest.

I also agree that no human can follow those teachings correctly.  But
judging from what I saw above, we probably have different understandings
of what those teachings are.  I would suggest that the problem occurs, not
because the teachings are outmoded, but because we humans are rebellious
and deep down we don't really _want_ to do as we should.  Loving your
neighbor sounds wonderful on paper... but just try it on a real human
neighbor and it gets very unpleasant all of a sudden.

>In short, there is no God.  Even Christians are evolving beyond
>Christ's teachings...because his teachings contradict human nature.

Of course this is a non-Christian viewpoint; the following would be the
Christian counterpart:  Even Christians are drawing back from Christ's
teachings... because his teachings contradict human nature.
The teachings are good; it's human nature that needs fixing.

>--alan
>"Ye are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father ye will do."
> st.john 8:44

Grace and peace,

Charles Ferenbaugh

lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (logan shaw) (04/04/91)

In article <Mar.26.22.43.11.1991.8496@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
> Yet, as Ann Carlson pointed out, many church folks have
>twisted the Bible to fit their own social ideals.  Yes, it is true that
>Southern Babtist do not allow women to minister in the same capacity as
>men.  After attending Southern Babtist churches over 20 years, I have
>never heard any Baptist women preach a sermon to a congregation.  The women
>"pastors" in the church may lead in scripture reading and prayer, but
>that is about as far as it goes.

Actually, if I remember right I've seen at least 2 women preach in
Southern Baptist churches I've attended.  While there aren't alot of
women in prominent positions, I think there are probably more than
there used to be, and you can't expect it to happen overnight...

>Ann B. Carlson (carlson@abcfd01.larc.nasa.gov)
-- 
     =----------------------------------------------------------------=   |
/\/         Logan Shaw         "Come to Me, all who are weary and        -+-
\/\  lshaw@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu   heavy-laden, and I will give you rest."   |
     =----------------------------------------------------------------=   |

balistik@nevada.edu (SHAWN HICKS) (04/04/91)

In article <Apr.3.03.52.52.1991.10909@athos.rutgers.edu> lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>In <Apr.2.03.23.39.1991.19564@athos.rutgers.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>
>>I Timothy 2:11-15
>>"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."
>
>This passage must be considered in light of the prevailing cultural
>standards of the first century. To apply it out of context to men
>and women today is simply foolish. Paul may have been under the special
>guidance of the Holy Spirit (as were all the biblical authors), but that
>does not make him (or his writings) immune from the prejudices of his day.

This thread dealt with the Gay Ordination originally and I think that Ray
makes an interesting point here that has relevance to that original thread.
In todays society the idea women should be subservient to men is pure bunk.
And yet there are passages from the Bible that say just that, rather straight
out, with no room to dither about meaning. Yet it is interesting how the
attitude is different for the women than for gays. 

Perhaps we too are not "immune from the prejudices of [our] day."




       It's startling how Christians sometimes twist the
 New Testament, ignoring important passages and raising insignificant
 ones to the status of the 10 Commandments.

  ___
  \  \________________
   |  |_______________>        InterNet: balistik@uns-helios.nevada.edu
  /__/ //Ballistik//                  B0 c+ k s- e h+ r
       

art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Arthur L Miller) (04/05/91)

In article <Apr.4.01.16.54.1991.15260@athos.rutgers.edu> balistik@nevada.edu 
(SHAWN HICKS) writes:
>
>       It's startling how Christians sometimes twist the
> New Testament, ignoring important passages and raising insignificant
> ones to the status of the 10 Commandments.

The original thread addressed the role of women in the church, but this 
last paragraph alone raises an important issue:  Who is to say which 
passages are important and which ones are insignificant?  Is it up to each
person to decide for him/herself?  If we're looking for ways to rationalize
away certain passages in the Bible, the necessary excuses will *always*
present themselves.  For every issue of faith, there always exists a way
to explain it to a different meaning.


-- 
Arthur Miller		| art@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Northwestern University	| Congratulations to the Kansas Jayhawks
Class of 1991		| on a great season & NCAA tournament!

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/05/91)

In article <Apr.2.03.23.39.1991.19564@athos.rutgers.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>...
>The thought of actually ordaining women would probably give that con-
>gregation a community coronary.  In prayer and examining my feeling
>for what is right, I really could find no *belief* in me that women
>should not teach.  As a Christian, what was I to think?  Is the Bible
>wrong?  Am I wrong?  The two just don't seem to go together.  I have
>thought about this issue for over a year, and I still can't reconcile
>them.  Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.

I will testify for a number of women clergy that they were called.
One's witness: "People ask me why I went into the ministry, I say
`Because I know what happened to Jonah!'"  Many of these women didn't
plan to go into the ministry, they were headed for (or in) other fields.
Eventually their calling became undeniable.  They aren't in it for the
money, (any idea what pastors get paid? ;-) ).  They aren't in it
because they're radical femnists, (although some of them *are*
femnists.)  They aren't in it for the glory.  They simply could do no
other thing.

Now, either their call came from The Spirit, or from The Devil.  People
are hearing their messages and being saved.  They are doing the work of
The Spirit.  If their calling was from The Devil, how could this be?
And for us to say that this calling from The Spirit is *not* from The
Spirit, that their good works come from another master.  We find
ourselves in the role of the Pharisees.  We are speaking against The
Spirit.

Any of you who doubt this, go and listen.  Hear the Good News proclaimed
by a woman.  *Then* decide whether they are called by the spirit or not.


					Tom Blake
					SUNY-Binghamton

jackk@elaine21.stanford.edu (Jack Kouloheris) (04/05/91)

In article <Apr.4.00.58.19.1991.14912@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>In article <Apr.3.02.53.53.1991.10388@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:
>
>   Just last night I was speaking to a good clergy friend.  Once again, she
>   has had to deal with someone (clergy of a different denomination)
>   questioning her call.
>
>   Her first question.  "Could he refuse his calling?"  When he replied
>   that he couldn't, she asked him how he could ask her to refuse hers.
>
>   After that, she made him the invitation she has made to others who have
>   questioned her calling.  "Come, and hear me preach.  And then we'll
>   discuss whether or not my calling is genuine."  She's never been taken
>   up on this invitation.
>
>Hmmm...this story echoes the past of several gay ministers I know.  In
>fact, it echoes it almost exactly in one case.
>
>	-mib

When the ELCA Northern California/ Northern Nevada synod was considering
whether or not to allow the ordination of a lesbian couple and a gay
man, I asked the bishop why he was acting to oppose the call these
three people obviously felt. The call must have been extremely powerful
for these people and the calling congregations (which
were not predominantly gay) to persist in the face of so much opposition from
the hierarchy. I added that *I* would not want to be in the position of
opposing the work of the Spirit in such a call, and wondered why he
would be. He answered that it was the job of the church to evaluate
such calls to see if they are valid. He forbid the ordination. The three
were subsequently irregularly ordained with over 100 clergy from Lutheran
and other denominations participating in the laying on of hands. In this case
and in the case of the ordination of women, people of color, etc. I think
the Spirit is leading the church into a new understanding of God's
love for all of humanity. When we set ourselves up to oppose the 
Spirit's work, we tread on dangerous ground.

Jack
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Remember not the former things,
	nor consider the things of old.
	Behold, I am doing a new thing;
	now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?
	I will make a way in the wilderness
	and rivers in the desert.
	The wild beasts will honor me
	the jackals and the ostriches;
	for I give water in the wilderness,
	rivers in the desert,
	to give drink to my chosen people,
	the people whom I formed for myself
	that they might declare my praise.

			-- Isaiah 43:18-21
 

howard@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Bonnie Howard) (04/06/91)

I have a hard time understanding with the gay person or persons leading
a congregation when they are still in their past lifestyle.  I do not
presume to judge them because God says to love the sinner but to hate
the sin.  If the person or persons truly feels the call of God on their
life they become a new creature and old things are past away - that also
means their lifestyle changes and they become convicted by the Holy
Spirit to change.  I know that sometimes this takes time but I also
know that God does hold us accountable when we are in leadership because
people whether you like it or not to look up to their pastors.  If 
their lifestyle is contrary to the "Word" how can you expect people to
change if you are not willing to change.

As for the keep silent in church to the women - A teaching that I heard
once said that this was said because women would ask their husbands to 
tell them what was being said during the service and supposedly they 
were told to wait until they got home to ask the questions.... I don't
know how true this is - guess we will have to wait and ask Paul when
we get there.

As for the church that says a woman can't teach a class without having
her husband there to check her-- what are you going to do with all the
single women out there who don't have that check....  REALLY -- I have
heard some excellent teachings from women who were very much anointed
to teach.  You are doing yourselves a disservice to limit your vision to
this narrow path...  

Enough said - Let your light shine that all men might know you are HIS>>>

ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (04/06/91)

In article <Apr.2.03.23.39.1991.19564@athos.rutgers.edu>, JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
> Genesis 3:16
> 
> I Timothy 2:11-15
> "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,
> 
> I find the passage in Timothy offensive.  It seems as Paul is taking his
> them.  Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.
> 

One of the explanations that I heard from this passage comes from (believe it
or not) a Baptist male preacher.  He said that the letter was directed to a
particular church (I cannot recall which) where the women and men were
having problems with each other, and the women were disrupting the church
services as a result.  The preacher said that the letter was solution to a  
particular problem in one church, and is not meant to apply to to all of us.

JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) (04/06/91)

In article <Apr.3.03.52.52.1991.10909@athos.rutgers.edu>, lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu
(Raymond Lang) says:
>
>In <Apr.2.03.23.39.1991.19564@athos.rutgers.edu> JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy
>Haftel) writes:
>
>In saying that the men rule over the women is part of Eve's punishment,
>I believe he is implying that it is not part of God's original plan of
>how men and women are supposed to interact.

Not part of the original plan,  no.  But it is his plan for the fallen
world.  And we live in a fallen world, although we are redeemed.
We still have the sinful nature, we are just no longer slaves to it.

>>I Timothy 2:11-15
>>"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."

Just as a note, I've heard a really interesting interpretation of the
last sentence, where "childbearing" was made out to be Mary's bearing
Jesus, who saves us all.

>This passage must be considered in light of the prevailing cultural
>standards of the first century. To apply it out of context to men
>and women today is simply foolish. Paul may have been under the special
>guidance of the Holy Spirit (as were all the biblical authors), but that
>does not make him (or his writings) immune from the prejudices of his day.

However, when Paul wrote it, he did not say "this is from me, not the
LORD"  as he did when writing about marriage in I Corinthians.  He also
refers to a principle he got from the story  of the fall to make his
statement, not a reason like "well, the men simply won't stand for it and
I just don't like the idea so much myself."

>I believe the meaning of this passage for men and women today is that
>we have all sinned and none of us is fit to lord authority over another.
>Rather, we must all carry out the responsibilities and duties of our
>station in life with humility and charity.

I think if it'd meant "men and women" it would have said "men and women."
This passage is pretty clear that it means just women.  (I get creative
with interpretations of some Biblical passages, too, but I try to avoid
interpreting direct doctrine in other senses than literal, because
doctrine is straightforward by nature)

>Paul writes, "In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave
>or freeman." Clearly this passage is more central to Christian living
>than the one above. It's startling how Christians sometimes twist the
>New Testament, ignoring important passages and raising insignificant
>ones to the status of the 10 Commandments.

I don't think it is that simple.  I think people sometimes explain away
parts of the Bible they don't *like* as being "cultural" or "insignificant."
If the Bible is "given by inspiration of God and profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," it is all
significant.  I've heard arguments say that I Timothy is not definitely
written by Paul, that the passage was cultural, etc.  I don't buy  it.
I think the Bible was inspired by God, and God would make sure it teaches
us accurately.  I am able to go fairly far on that, but I find I seriously
disagree with these passages.  What I would like to see is someone to
defend them, not try to refute them with personal experiences or ration-
ize away the text.  I would be *very* happy to see a refutation of what
I *think* the passage is saying by using the text itself, not discounting it.
(that seems circular; I hope I got it out right).

Joy Haftel           "Experience, though no authority..."
JKH107@PSUVM                            --The Wife of Bath (Chaucer)

[OK, let me try.  I think people are trying to get answers from Paul
to questions that he never asked.  That is, we're looking for blanket
statements that women are inferior to men or equal to them.  But I
don't think those are quite the right terms in which to put the
question.  On the one side, Paul acknowledges female leaders as
colleagues (Rom 16:1, as well as many other women listed in lists of
colleagues in various letters).  He gives rules for females when they
pray and prophecy in church (I Cor 11:5), which implies that they do
pray and prophecy in church.  Finally, the general principle is clear,
that in Christ there is neither male nor female (Gal 3:28).  

On the other hand, it's also clear that Paul does not simply see men
and women as indistinguishable.  The husband is the head of the
marriage (I Cor 11:3).  Women are to have their heads covered in
acknowledgement of their particular position while praying in public.
(I Cor 11).  The most obvious reading of 1 Cor 11 would seem to be
that women can speak, but that covering their head is necessary as an
acknowledgement that their leadership is not intended to challenge the
headship of the husband.

Finally, we have passages that include a prohibition of women teaching
or speaking.  These are I Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim. 2:12.  It is possible
to attack each of these passages, though I'm not sure whether I find
the attacks convincing.  Some scholars consider I Cor 14:34-35 to be a
later addition to the text, because it appears in two different places
in the manuscripts.  1 Tim 2:12 can be translated using "wife" and
"husband" rather than woman and man, since the same Greek word is used
for both.  This may even be a sensible resolution, if you believe the
suggestion I made above that the point of I Cor 11 is not to restrict
women's participation in the church, but to make sure that it is
always done in such a way as to acknowledge their particular role,
particular in marriage.  1 Tim 2:12 would then be talking about a
wife's submission to her husband, and the fact that no wife should be
put in a position of leadership over her husband, not a general
submission of women to men.  This interpretation would be particularly
likely if you take 1 Tim 3:11 to be referring to female deacons.
(Again, it depends upon whether we translate "women" or "wives".)
There is also the point that many people consider Tim to have been
written by someone other than Paul, and to reflect conditions as the
organization of the church was moving closer to a "Catholic" style.

If you accept I Cor 14:34 and 1 Tim 2:12, then we seem to have some
cases where women speak and are leaders and some where they are not.
In such a situation, it's no wonder that interpreters attempt to come
up with explanations for why the passages are responses to specific
situation.  As you probably know, it's common to suggest that I Cor 14
is due to some specific situation where women were being disorderly.
The way it following on 1 Cor 14:33 could certainly lend some support
to that idea.

--clh]

crf@tomato.princeton.edu (Charles Ferenbaugh) (04/06/91)

In article <Apr.3.03.52.52.1991.10909@athos.rutgers.edu> lang@rex.cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
> [in the continuing discussion on women's role in the church]
>... Paul writes, "In Christ there is no Jew or Greek, male or female, slave
>or freeman." ...

Unfortunately, putting that verse in this discussion amounts to pulling it
out of context.  It comes from Paul's letter to the Galatians, a letter whose
entire point is "You don't have to be a Jew to be a Christian."  In that
light, a good amplification of this verse might be, "Anyone is welcome to
come and be a part of the body of Christ, whether they are Jew or Greek,
male or female, slave or freeman."

That's an entirely different thing than saying that all differences between
individual human beings will be eradicated.  Scripture does clearly teach
that God loves all kinds of people, cares for all kinds of people, and has
an important part for every person to play in His church.  Putting down
women has no place in Christianity.  But it doesn't necessarily constitute
"putting down" to say that God has created each of us differently and gives
us different (but no less _important_) roles to play in His kingdom.

Grace and peace,

Charles Ferenbaugh

ph600fev@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) (04/08/91)

In article <Apr.6.01.29.47.1991.3400@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes:
>In article <Apr.2.03.23.39.1991.19564@athos.rutgers.edu>, JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes:
>> Genesis 3:16
>> 
>> I Timothy 2:11-15
>> "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,
>> 
>> I find the passage in Timothy offensive.  It seems as Paul is taking his
>> them.  Any thoughts or comments would be welcome.
>> 
>
>One of the explanations that I heard from this passage comes from (believe it
>or not) a Baptist male preacher.  He said that the letter was directed to a
>particular church (I cannot recall which) where the women and men were
>having problems with each other, and the women were disrupting the church
>services as a result.  The preacher said that the letter was solution to a  
>particular problem in one church, and is not meant to apply to to all of us.

I've noticed quite a bit of commentary about this scripture.
It may be convenient and reassuring to some congregations that a
preacher would say something like this but is this speculation on
the preachers part or is it truly a documented fact?  

What we should be asking ourselves is what is the evidence in the
Bible that women were or weren't allowed to rule in the church?  The 
decision on what to allow today rightly belongs to the respective 
churches, organizations, and congregations but we shouldn't try to
change the history of the early church.  I would suggest that someone 
who has access to an online bible find all the new-testament
scriptures that have "women/woman" in them and this way we can see not
only what The apostles had to teach about the matter to one
specific congregation but to the church as a whole.

Robert

cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (04/09/91)

In article <Apr.5.03.49.27.1991.9853@athos.rutgers.edu>, jackk@elaine21.stanford.edu (Jack Kouloheris) writes:
> In article <Apr.4.00.58.19.1991.14912@athos.rutgers.edu> mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
>>In article <Apr.3.02.53.53.1991.10388@athos.rutgers.edu> tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) writes:
>>
>>   Just last night I was speaking to a good clergy friend.  Once again, she
>>   has had to deal with someone (clergy of a different denomination)
>>   questioning her call.
>>
>>   Her first question.  "Could he refuse his calling?"  When he replied
>>   that he couldn't, she asked him how he could ask her to refuse hers.
>>
>>   After that, she made him the invitation she has made to others who have
>>   questioned her calling.  "Come, and hear me preach.  And then we'll
>>   discuss whether or not my calling is genuine."  She's never been taken
>>   up on this invitation.
>>

While I am in full agreement with women in the ministry I would like to
say that being able to preach a first class sermon is no indication of
calling to the ministry. I am been in several churches over the years 
where undoubtedly the best preachers were  from among the parishioners
rather than the clergy. I do not think that there is really any objective
test which we could apply to see if a persons calling is real or imagined.

Bill Rea
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bill Rea, University of Canterbury, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (04/14/91)

In article <Apr.9.03.12.58.1991.5547@athos.rutgers.edu>,
cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz *quoted*
q>  Just last night I was speaking to a good clergy friend.  Once again, she
q>  has had to deal with someone (clergy of a different denomination)
q>  questioning her call.

q>  Her first question.  "Could he refuse his calling?"  When he replied
q>  that he couldn't, she asked him how he could ask her to refuse hers.

q>  After that, she made him the invitation she has made to others who have
q>  questioned her calling.  "Come, and hear me preach.  And then we'll
q>  discuss whether or not my calling is genuine."  She's never been taken
q>  up on this invitation.

and *replied*
> While I am in full agreement with women in the ministry I would like to say
> that being able to preach a first class sermon is no indication of calling
> to the ministry. ... I do not think that there is really any objective
> test which we could apply to see if a person's calling is real or imagined.

Just two points I'd like to add.
1)  Someone who _doesn't_ have a strong psychological _sense_ of calling
    may nevertheless be called.  One of the books I cherish (but not to the
    extent of being able to remember the author's name, sorry) was written
    by a woman who became an ordained Anglican minister, not because she
    felt a strong call, but because she was uncertain about religious matters.
    If the book is any guide, her ministry is effective indeed.  But she
    never _felt_ that she was "irresistably called".

2)  A couple of weeks ago I read a book on the Ku Klux Klan.  (Apparently
    "Ku Klux" comes from "kuklos -- a circle", and it was founded in an
    area of Scottish/Irish settlement.)  I found to my amazement that in
    the early part of this century the KKK was supported by a lot of
    "Christian" clergymen.  This included Methodists and Lutherans.
    Do you suppose that any of those clergymen doubted their call?
    Do you suppose that any of them would have said "yes, I could refuse
    my calling?"
    Do you suppose that the KKK wanted them because they were incompetent
    preachers, or because they were competent preachers?

I wouldn't rely on the strength of anyone's belief in their call as
evidence that their call was from God, whether man, woman, or angel.
Friends of mine who've heard him tell me that the most spell-binding
preacher they've ever heard is a certain man who denies the virgin
birth, the resurrection, and the divinity, even the _calling_ of Jesus,
a man who, preaching in Christian churches, affirms less about Jesus
than the Muslims do.  So "hear me preach" is not entirely reliable
either.  (Then of course there's the story of the 19th century minister
whose wife was so impressed by his sermons that she said "James, why
don't you put your sermons in a book?" to which he answers "because
that's where I got them".)
-- 
It is indeed manifest that dead men are formed from living ones;
but it does not follow from that, that living men are formed from dead ones.
			-- Tertullian, on reincarnation.

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/17/91)

In article <Apr.13.23.07.33.1991.12051@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes:
>2)  A couple of weeks ago I read a book on the Ku Klux Klan.  (Apparently
>    "Ku Klux" comes from "kuklos -- a circle", and it was founded in an
>    area of Scottish/Irish settlement.)  I found to my amazement that in
>    the early part of this century the KKK was supported by a lot of
>    "Christian" clergymen.  This included Methodists and Lutherans.
>    Do you suppose that any of those clergymen doubted their call?
>    Do you suppose that any of them would have said "yes, I could refuse
>    my calling?"
>    Do you suppose that the KKK wanted them because they were incompetent
>    preachers, or because they were competent preachers?

A very good point.  Indeed, the question of slavery split the Methodist
church asunder.  Both sides took strong "Biblical" stands.  The "United"
Methodist Church represents a re-uniting of some of the factions of the
"Methodist Church" but not all unfortunately.

>I wouldn't rely on the strength of anyone's belief in their call as
>evidence that their call was from God, whether man, woman, or angel.
>Friends of mine who've heard him tell me that the most spell-binding
>preacher they've ever heard is a certain man who denies the virgin
>birth, the resurrection, and the divinity, even the _calling_ of Jesus,
>a man who, preaching in Christian churches, affirms less about Jesus
>than the Muslims do.  So "hear me preach" is not entirely reliable
>either.  (Then of course there's the story of the 19th century minister
>whose wife was so impressed by his sermons that she said "James, why
>don't you put your sermons in a book?" to which he answers "because
>that's where I got them".)

In the UMC, when a person feels called, they must have their call
affirmed by the "Pastor Parish Relations Committee" of their local
church.  (They are required to have been a member of that church for at
least one year).  They must also go before the "Board of Ordained Ministry" of
their district, and the "Board of Ordained Ministry" of their
conference.  Each candidate for ordination goes through quite a series
of examinations.

Feeling that you are called, and being able to preach a good sermon are
not enough to get you ordained in the UMC.  In the case of my friend, I
feel it important to point out that she did not claim that her preaching
*proved* her calling.  However, for someone to claim that her calling
was not genuine without even so much as hearing her preach does seem a
bit unreasonable.  She might say, live and worship with me for a year
and then we'll discuss my calling, but coming to hear her preach I think
is a reasonable request.

						Tom Blake
						SUNY-Binghamton

CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) (04/25/91)

Hello from Ake Eldberg!
 
If I understand correctly, the text I'm commenting on is part of
a chat about female ministers and their calling.

Tom Blake writes: "Feeling that you are called, and being able
to preach a good sermon are not enough to get you ordained in 
the UMC".

Well spoken. The calling is often referred to by people who
want to become ministers or else do something special in a
church -- but how can we know if a calling is true? Even a
person who feels called may be making a mistake.
 
I believe that the most common error about callings is to
assume that they are more specific than they really are.
The Lord summons someone to serve him, but the calling does
not usually have a "high precision" as to the exact function
this person should have. I'm saying that I don't believe the
Lord tells people to "go and become the rector of the New
Mesolithic Church in Hoopletown, MI" or anything as specific
as that. Rather, the Lord calls us to serve him, and we each
try to interpret this and find the right place to do it in.

This is where each Church has part of the calling. A calling
is not a personal appointment for the sanctification of the
person who is called. It is always done in relation to the
Church -- and so it would be nonsense for someone to come to
the church and say "I have been called by the Lord to be a
priest/deacon/bishop in this church, so don't you dare deny
my right to be so!" The Church must recognize the calling,
and provide a position where it can be used according to
what the Christian community needs.

This is why a woman saying "I am called to be a priest" weighs
little with me. I will reply, "It is possible that you are
*called*, but the function in which you will serve the Lord
will be subject to what the Church needs". The Lord has promised
that his Church shall be led by the Holy Spirit, too. It is
not a privilege for the called ones as individuals.
 
In Sweden, the secular government forced female ministers on
a church that did not want them. That was in 1957. The split
is still an open bleeding wound in the body of Christ, and
will remain so, I'm afraid, until the Church has a chance to
take a decision without interference from secular powers.

Ake Eldberg

mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) (04/29/91)

In article <Apr.24.23.13.49.1991.10948@athos.rutgers.edu>,
CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes:
 
> In Sweden, the secular government forced female ministers on
> a church that did not want them. That was in 1957. The split
> is still an open bleeding wound in the body of Christ, and
> Hello from Ake Eldberg!

I very much agree with Mr. (Pastor?) Eldberg that it is objectionable
for the state to, in effect impose doctrine on the church.  (There is
a similar problem when the church attempts to enshrine its doctrines
in secular law.)  This whole area gets a bit murky, and I want to look
at it some more (in another article; this one is already long.)  But I
must first raise an objection:
 
> I believe that the most common error about callings is to
> assume that they are more specific than they really are.
> The Lord summons someone to serve him, but the calling does
> not usually have a "high precision" as to the exact function

I am not certain I agree to this.  I have no personal experience of a
"vocation" of the kind I hear seminarians talk about, so my comments
are entirely second hand.  But I have heard some of them (a minority)
describe a strong resistance, a la Jonah, on their own part to what
winds up as a specifically sacerdotal call -- often they have TRIED
to meet (their initial understanding of) the call by various secular
and lay forms of ministry, or even religious orders (monastic or more
secular ones like the Franciscan) -- only to find themselves drowning
or in the belly of a fish [speaking allegorically :-)].

But let's assume you are right, and vocations are NOT that specific.

> This is why a woman saying "I am called to be a priest" weighs
> little with me. I will reply, "It is possible that you are
> *called*, but the function in which you will serve the Lord
> will be subject to what the Church needs".

Unless you ABSOLUTELY apply this same blanket refusal to all MEN who
seek ordination, I find this to have a dreadful odor of hypocrisy.
I have not sensed any such thing in other articles by Mr. Eldberg, so
I will try as charitable a reading as I can find for the context here.
But note that consistency on your part in this would be only a minor
problem for men -- they may continue believing themselves called to a
priesthood, and pursue that calling INTO the priesthood with no more
than a token deference to your theoretical position.  Whereas any
woman who faces an opinion like yours at the outset is essentially
DENIED a priori.  Even if you are right, you have a TERRIBLE pastoral
problem on your hands -- men can ignore you, while you have absolute
deflectional power over women.  Are you SURE that's how the Spirit
operates?  Is your understanding of vocations REALLY so good that you
can stand at the gate with your flaming sword to turn away the women
-- while the men stream past you?

> This is where each Church has part of the calling. A calling
> is not a personal appointment for the sanctification of the
> person who is called. It is always done in relation to the
> Church -- 
>                     The Church must recognize the calling,
> and provide a position where it can be used according to
> what the Christian community needs.

In principle, I can agree with this.  But one should be very clear
that the "Christian community" in this context poses *limits* on the
action of the Holy Spirit.  I would agree that a *social* context in
which a woman as priest would drive her congregation into rebellion
and apostasy is one is in which, however true her calling, she must
seek some other way of serving.

>                                            The Lord has promised
> that his Church shall be led by the Holy Spirit, too. It is
> not a privilege for the called ones as individuals.

No, it is not a privilege of the individual postulants; but neither
is it a privilege of bishops (or presbyteries or other institutions).
They have special charges and responsibilites for the care of the
church (and I am not dismissing these), but they also must not confuse
personal opinion in such matters with the Will of God.

If it would disrupt and dismay a parish in Lower Podunk to be forced
to have a woman priest, why should that have ANY part in the purely
voluntary selection of a woman pastor by a willing congregation?  No
one from the Protestant tradition has any business using the potential
schismatics of Podunk to resist women's ordination.  A more centralizing
or catholicizing tradition (my own Episcopalian or possbily Ake Eldberg's
Scandinavian Lutheran tradition) has trouble with schism, but even doing
all we can to avoid it (and in the US, at least, women's ordination has
been a troubling issue, but has NOT led to *major* schism) we had better
admit that schism lies at the base of our current church institutions.

And even the matter of forcing reforms on reluctant parishes is not all
that strictly impossible (again, speaking for centralizing traditions,
though I note something similar seems to happen even in theoretically
anarchic traditions like the Southern Baptist -- in a context where I
might be inclined to put ironic quote-marks around the word reform).
Since the Cluniac reforms sponsored by a papacy itself reformed through
pressure from the Ottonian Empire, it has usually been held that a main
governing body of a church may indeed require conformance of reluctant
local clergy and laity.

Hence, were you actually to discover, despite your initial disbelief, a
woman with a specific call to the priesthood, it is NOT beyond question
that such a person have a position created for her even if it did not
at that moment exist.  The Church, as the Body of Christ, is not a dead
thing but a living one.  People are ever-ready to condemn change as a
disease or corruption -- but it may also be growth.
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		I say "You are gods, sons of the
m.siemon@ATT.COM		Most High, all of you; nevertheless
...!att!attunix!mls		you shall die like men, and fall
standard disclaimer		like any prince."   Psalm 82:6-7

[While I agree that not all scenarios of compelling the unwilling are
realistic, some probably will happen.  The Presbyterian Church (USA),
of which I'm an elder, has some experience with moving to a policy of
ordination of women.  We do not impose female pastors on unwilling
churches.  However we do require that officers of the church --
specifically including pastors -- be willing to work with and
participate in ordination of female officers.  When our position was
newer, this did result in some difficult situations.  We did refuse to
ordain people if it became apparent that they would not be able to
ordain and work with female officers in their church.  Furthermore, we
expect local churches to elect female elders and deacons.  We do not
impose it on them -- it is treated pastorally rather than coercively,
and it can take years before the first female elder is elected -- but
we do expect it to happen, and some congregations have felt that they
are being pressured to violate their conscience.  It's hard to see how
one can make a decision to allow ordination of women without having at
least some situations like this arise.  --clh]

tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (04/29/91)

In article <Apr.24.23.13.49.1991.10948@athos.rutgers.edu> CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes:
>This is why a woman saying "I am called to be a priest" weighs
>little with me. I will reply, "It is possible that you are
>*called*, but the function in which you will serve the Lord
>will be subject to what the Church needs". The Lord has promised
>that his Church shall be led by the Holy Spirit, too. It is
>not a privilege for the called ones as individuals.

Well my brother... the church *needs* women in the pulpits.  Partially
for a purely practical reason.  The number of young men who are
answering the call to the Ordained Ministry is dwindling.  Without women
in the pulpits, more and more pulpits will go empty on Sundays.

But moreso, I believe that women are naturally gifted for the role of
Ordained Ministry.  The caring and compassion exhibited by the women
clergy I know I believe is much more "Christlike" than many of their
male counterparts.

As for biblical scholarship, my current pastor will soon have a higher
degree than her husband (who is my District Superintendant [like a
mini-bishop]).  I know of no intelectual limitation on the part of women
to prevent them from being just as good (if not better) a biblical
scholar as any man.

You can call up quotes from Pauline letters where the author clearly
speaks against women in the church, but as OFM points out, the verdict
is far from clear on where Paul stood on this issue.

I know of no irrefutable reason why women should not be ordained, and I
will testify to the calls of a number of them.  (Calls to the ordained
ministry, so there will be no confusion.)

>In Sweden, the secular government forced female ministers on
>a church that did not want them. That was in 1957. The split
>is still an open bleeding wound in the body of Christ, and
>will remain so, I'm afraid, until the Church has a chance to
>take a decision without interference from secular powers.

It's been 34 years now.  Haven't they had a chance *yet*!?

I'm sorry, currently the UMC is engaged in a fearsom battle over
homosexuals in the church and the pulpit, but at least the church is
examining the question, (at denominational, conference and local
levels).

I would say that at this time it would be unwise to try to assign a
female pastor on a congregation who felt that women should not be
ordained.  But certainly there must be congregations in your
denomination who no longer feel so strongly in this way.  Why not assign
women pastors to those congregations, and then the rest of the
denomination can judge by the fruits of those women's labors whether or
not their calling is from the spirit.

I believe you'll find that a woman pastor can bring new life to a
congregation where no man has succeded before.  I've seen it happen.


						Tom Blake
						SUNY-Binghamton

math1h3@jetson.uh.edu (05/02/91)

In article <Apr.28.18.37.27.1991.20418@athos.rutgers.edu>, mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes:
> In article <Apr.24.23.13.49.1991.10948@athos.rutgers.edu>,
> CONS.ELF@AIDA.CSD.UU.SE (Ake Eldberg) writes:
>  
>> I believe that the most common error about callings is to
>> assume that they are more specific than they really are.
>> The Lord summons someone to serve him, but the calling does
>> not usually have a "high precision" as to the exact function
> 
> I am not certain I agree to this.  I have no personal experience of a
> "vocation" of the kind I hear seminarians talk about, so my comments
> are entirely second hand.  But I have heard some of them (a minority)
> describe a strong resistance, a la Jonah, on their own part to what
> winds up as a specifically sacerdotal call -- often they have TRIED
> to meet (their initial understanding of) the call by various secular
> and lay forms of ministry, or even religious orders (monastic or more
> secular ones like the Franciscan) -- only to find themselves drowning
> or in the belly of a fish [speaking allegorically :-)].
>        
I'd like to comment here.  My own belief on this matter is that the Lord
calls someone to the ministry through the church.  Just as the Word is
preached through the church, so also the Lord calls people to his service
through the church.  The church trains people for various forms of service:
preaching, teaching, etc., and then extends the Lord's call. 

Now if a woman says that she feels she has been called to the preaching
ministry, I think there are valid reasons to say that she has not.  The Lord
does not contradict himself; and God's Word is particularly clear on this 
point: a woman should learn in quietness and full submission, and not act
as a man's master-teacher.  (1 Timothy 2:11,12).  If a woman claims to have
been called to the preaching ministry, then first of all she claims to have
a new revelation that contradicts the revelation we already have.  We should
reject her as a false spirit, as would the Bereans.
 
> [While I agree that not all scenarios of compelling the unwilling are
> realistic, some probably will happen.  The Presbyterian Church (USA),
> of which I'm an elder, has some experience with moving to a policy of
> ordination of women.  We do not impose female pastors on unwilling
> churches.  However we do require that officers of the church --
> specifically including pastors -- be willing to work with and
> participate in ordination of female officers.  When our position was
> newer, this did result in some difficult situations.  We did refuse to
> ordain people if it became apparent that they would not be able to
> ordain and work with female officers in their church.  Furthermore, we
> expect local churches to elect female elders and deacons.  We do not
> impose it on them -- it is treated pastorally rather than coercively,
> and it can take years before the first female elder is elected -- but
> we do expect it to happen, and some congregations have felt that they
> are being pressured to violate their conscience.  It's hard to see how
> one can make a decision to allow ordination of women without having at
> least some situations like this arise.  --clh]

I also want to comment on the question of central control vs. the local 
congregation.  I think the real question is, what is the church?  Luther
once wrote (Smalcald Articles, article XII):" ... thank God, a seven-year
old child knows what the church is, namely, holy believers and sheep who
hear the voice of their Shepherd."

The church is a body of believers gathered together on the basis of a common
confession of faith.  God wants the church to be perfectly united in doctrine,
for as Paul wrote:  

"I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of
you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you
in mind and thought." -- 1 Cor 1:10.

The church is to avoid those who teach false doctrine:

"I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put
obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned.
Keep away from them.  For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but
their own appetites.  By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of
naive people."  - Romans 16:17-18.

So, for me, the question is not at all one of central authority.  It is 
a question of fellowship.  No authority can tell me what to believe, and 
expect me to obey.  My faith is between me and the Lord.  But you can
decide for yourself whether to practice fellowship with me, and similarly
I can decide for myself whether to practice fellowship with you.  I speak
here in a human sense.  If we are agreed in doctrine, and we are both
Christians, then there is no option -- it is God's will that we have
fellowship.  But if I discover that your are teaching false doctrine,
and you refuse to repent, then it is my responsibility to avoid you, and
not practice fellowship.  

The problem of central authority imposing its will against the congregation
is usually only a problem on matters that are at least perceived as doctrinal
by one side.  The unfortunate thing is that in some denominations, the local
congregation is not free to leave the fellowship of the denomination unless
it gives up its property.  In other words, the denomination owns the 
congregation.  Strangely, we find this in denominations like the PCUSA that
do not consider themselves to be 'doctrinal'.  If there is no unity in 
doctrine, then what is the spiritual or rational basis for central authority?
Who supports whom?  Usually the local congregation supports the denomination,
not the other way around!  (I don't mean to pick on the PCUSA, it's just that
as a matter of personal history, I have more familiarity with them than with
others).

The only real threat that a church can hold against an individual or group
is :  "We refuse to have fellowship with you".  Of course implicit in
such a statement is a belief the group consists of `heathens and tax
collectors' (gasp! :-) )  Shouldn't such a threat be enough?

This brings me to another point.  Why do churches find it advisable or 
attractive to constrain people against their will?  When a denomination
decides to ordain women to the preaching ministry, why do they want to
constrain congregations that disagree and may continue to make trouble?

A similar situation exists in my own church.  If a pastor leaves the ministry
before retirement, he forfeits his (miserly) pension.(I believe this is
correct).  I would think that if we had some pastor who wanted to leave
us for some church not in fellowship with us, then we ought to let him go
and not give him an incentive to stay and make trouble.  Unfortunately,
some (most?) people cannot stand to see good money go to a man they see
as bad.

David H. Wagner
a confessional Lutheran
new mail address:  DWagner@uh.edu

[The theory proposed by the constitution of the PCUSA is that a larger
group of Christians is less likely to be misled than a smaller one.
Indeed the way the constitution is written, one could argue that we
might have to be bound by decisions of a general council, if such a
thing ever becomes possible, and possibly even by decisions of the
World Alliance of Reformed Churches.  (The World Alliance doesn't
normally try to dictate to its individual members, but a few years ago
it tried the South African church for heresy because of apartheid.
I've sometimes wondered whether some of the changes in South Africa
could be traced to that.)  This does seem to have some benefits in
practice.  Now and then churches fall apart into warring parties.  In
a number of cases, presbyteries have been able to intervene and heal
the situation, whereas in a church with a congregational polity, the
church would probably either split or continue in an unhealthy state.
I think it's this sort of situation where the connectional polity is
useful, more than one where a church has doctrinal disagreements with
the denomination.  Note that in the merger with the southern church,
an escape clause was left so that churches that suddenly find
themselves in a denomination with different policies on ordination
could leave with their property.

Actually I think the PCUSA is more "doctrinal" than some people
realize.  I spent a number of years as a Methodist when I was growing
up.  My parents were active in the denomination, so I ended up knowing
what was going on at levels above just the local church.  The PCUSA
seems noticably more doctrinal.  While we no longer follow the
Westminster confession word for word, we take the reformed theological
tradition seriously.

--clh]