Women's Right to Preach!

In 1859, Catherine Mumford Booth wrote an article in defense of women preachers. The title of her article was "Female Ministry; or, Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel."
The title makes me wonder...is it appropriate to speak of it as a right? I find that using the word 'right' in relationship to a woman's position in the church is not considered the Christian way to speak of it. To speak of 'rights' smacks of liberal civil rights 'speak.' To speak of 'rights' sounds like an entitlement. To speak of 'rights' seems selfish and self-serving. To speak of 'rights' is perceived as a demand and seems to set up a sense of competition. How does speaking of "Woman's Right to Preach the Gospel" fit with the idea that we, as Christians, should not demand our rights?
Funny, we don't have a problem speaking of our 'right' to vote. Or our 'right' to 'privacy.' Or our 'right' to the freedom of worship. Or our 'right' to assembly. Or our 'right' of freedom of speech. Most of us do not consider these 'rights' as selfish, self-serving or un-Christian.
Is it really because a Christian should not demand their 'rights' or is it really that a woman should not?
I wonder...

There is neither male or female...

Why the Best Man for the Job is a Woman: The Unique Female Qualities of Leadership hails the lady CEO as a sign of a revolution taking place in a corporate culture traditionally dominated by men. The world of business is changing...and it is women who are best suited to meet the challenges of the modern marketplace. Book [the author] contends that women such as Meg Whitman of eBay and Marcy Carsey of Carsey-Werner succeed because they embody seven uniquely female abilities: they can sell their visions; they are not afraid to reinvent the rules; they are closely focused on achievement; they show courage under fire; they turn challenges into opportunities; they are aware of customer preferences; and they maximize what Book calls "high touch" in an era of high tech.

Within the church, I think we need to be really careful to avoid the temptation to make the argument that women have uniquely female qualities that not only qualifies them to be pastors, but makes them better suited for the task. First, persons are called into ministry. Each person, male or female, is uniquely gifted for the ministry to which the Holy Spirit calls him or her. Secondly, to say women are better qualified based on their abilites (as the book review indicates) is to diminish men and their gifts and what they have historically contributed to the ministry. Thirdly, there should be no competition nor contrast and comparison. Fourthly, to speak of women as though they are totally different in their ministry giftings from men, is to minimize and isolate womens' gifts and still maintain the male model of pastoral leadership as the norm. The Holy Spirit is the gift giver and the One who does the calling. To make this argument does a disservice to those called into ministry and also to the Third Person of the Trinity. Women do not have to be better (or the same) as the opposite sex. They, like men, just have to be called!

"Separate But Equal"

Separate but equal was a policy instituted in southern states which practiced segregation. Under the policy, African Americans and people of European descent were provided separate public facilities and services, such as schools, water fountains, and bathrooms.

In many churches, the "separate but equal" rule is alive and well. Those who apply this 'rule' attempt to convince women that when they are told they are equal before God-but have a different 'role'-that it does not mean they are lesser than men. They are just different! That has never made sense to me any more than it did to the African Americans that were told to use a different rest room or water fountain. When African Americans protested this practice they were judged as 'uppity,' as 'stepping out of their place,' as 'rebellious,' as not understanding their 'God-ordained' position in the world. Sound familiar?

New Testament Headship

Please see the article by Gilbert Bilezikian from which I quote below: He gives some explanations of what "head" meant in the New Testament times.

"Eph. 1:22-23. The passage that immediately precedes this text exalts the supremacy of Christ in his session. But in relation to the church, the role of Christ is described as being appointed as head for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. The headship of Christ is never over the church in the New Testament. Here, it is for the church. As head, Christ gives the church fullness. He provides for the church's growth. The function is not one of authority but of servant provider of what makes the church's growth possible.

Eph. 4:15-16. Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows and builds itself up. The function of the head in relation to the body is to provide it with growth. Headship is not an authority role but a developmental servant function.

Eph. 5:23. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which is the Savior. As head of the church, Christ is its Savior. If head had meant authority, the appropriate designation for Christ would have been "Lord" instead of "Savior" which is consistently a self-sacrificing, life-giving servant role in the New Testament.

Col. 1:18-19. Christ is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead. Through his blood, shed on the cross, all things are reconciled to God. In a passage that celebrates Christ's supremacy over all creation, this text describes Christ as the source of the life of the church through his resurrection from the dead and because of the reconciliation obtained through his self-sacrificing servant ministry at the cross. Headship is not defined in terms of authority but as servant provider of life.

Col. 2:19. Christ is the head from whom the whole body grows. The function of head in relation to the body is not one of rulership but of servant provider of growth. Christ as head to the church is the source of its life and development.

This survey indicates that head, biblically defined, means exactly the opposite of what it means in the English language. Head is never given the meaning of authority, boss or leader. It describes the servant function of provider of life, growth and development. This function is not one of top-down oversight but of bottom-up support and nurture."

HEAD

A basic rule of sound hermeneutics requires that no biblical term or concept be infused with meanings foreign to it. For this reason, the meaning of head in the New Testament must be defined from within the New Testament itself. It cannot be assumed that the value of head in the English language as authority, leader or master carries over automatically into the New Testament's use of the same word head...it must be determined whether the word head, when used to describe Christ's relationship to the church, carries the same meaning of lordship or whether it is invested with a different value. The glib assumption may not be made that, because head denotes authority in English, it also does so in the language of the New Testament.-Gilbert Bilezikian

Can you think of a word that evokes more emotion with regard to men and women, marriage and the leadership of the church than the word HEAD?

My aim on this blog is not to write treatises or theses on the topics that I choose. Rather, my goal is to present thoughts that provoke our thinking and hopefully challenge some of the assumptions that seem to cloud our view on the 'role' of men and women. There are traditional interpretations of the Bible that can tolerate a review of their hermeneutics without challenging the authority or truth of the Scripture.

In my opinion, the use of the word head as it is denoted in English, rather than in the context of the New Testament, is one interpretation that needs to be reviewed and revised.

Complementarianism

"...there is the novel post-1970s interpretation of a se-
lected number of biblical texts on women that is now
adopted almost word for word by all contemporary 
hierarchists and rejected by all egalitarians. This says
men and women are equal, yet role-differentiated, 
which, when unpacked in plain speech, means that
 women are permanently subordinated to male 
authority. Women’s subordination, it is added, is
not a consequence of sin or a reflection of cultural 
values, but is predicated on a hierarchical social 
order established before the fall. It is the ideal that is
pleasing to God and, as such, is unchangeable."
-Kevin Giles, Author

This 'novel interpretation' is actually the definition of "Complementarianism." It sounds really good when it states that men and women are equal. But don't fall for it. It is not egalitarian! The whole concept rises and falls with the word 'role.' It is interesting to note that the term 'role' is a not a biblical term. It is a sociological term and the use of this meaning of the word came into our vocabulary in the 1970's. So beware when you hear the term 'complementarianism.' it does not lead to the support of Women in Ministry. It actually serves to keep women out of the pulpit!

Ordination interview

Well, I survived my Ordination interview. It is my last interview with the DBMD (District Board of Ministerial Development) before my actual Ordination this summer at District Conference. They are the ones with whom I have interviewed at least once a year for the last couple of years. I must say I was quite nervous, but as with most things, once I got started I felt better.

What did I learn that I can pass on? Well, make sure you are prepared! I studied The Wesleyan Discipline which defines our positions on the various doctrines of the church. It felt good to be able to reference what the Discipline says while at the same time give my explanation of what I think it means. I am more of a conceptual person, so I had to work really hard to remember the Scriptural references related to the theology. What are some of the questions? They ask questions about the Atonement, Justification, Regeneration and Sanctification, of course.

One interesting part of the interview was that my husband sat next to me as my spouse. That was really different given that I stood with him at his ordination many years ago. He normally sits as a member on the DBMD, but for this time he sat next to me and had to answer the spousal questions of whether he could support me. You will be glad to know he did! It felt really good to hear him speak of me the way he did.

So, I have one more class this spring and then onto Ordination. I am praying that my 91 year old pastor-father will live until then so he can pray over me. I asked him to promise he would live until July, 2009. Even though his health is failing and he is on dialysis 3 times a week, he promised he would try. You can't ask for more than that!