A Place at the Table January 13, 2009
Posted by Matt in A Place at the Table.Tags: change, church of christ, patriarchy, role of women
trackback
Following the small firestorm over last week’s Lads to Leaders critique, I’ve been thinking a good deal about the roles of women in the Church of Christ and I wanted to lay out a few of those thoughts to you. Today I’d like to take a look at the idea of a patriarchy and why, in our post-modern society, it no longer will suffice. A later entry (I’m not ready to commit to tomorrow yet) will offer criticism of the New Testament teachings regarding women. I ask that your comments please remain civil.
I imagine that times were harsh for the people of the ancient world. As hunter-gatherers and later cultivators of the many times unforgiving soil, physical strength and endurance became tantamount for survival. It was in this atmosphere that men, with their greater muscle mass and inability to experience the perceived weakness of pregnancy, took the reins, first of families and later of entire nations. Leadership positions then went to the mightiest, strongest individuals, who were more often than not men and the patriarchy was born.
It was against this backdrop that the collection of books that we know of as the Bible came to be written. So, it is of little wonder that the books contained within the Scriptures, which were all written by men, regarded the male gender as superior to the female. This may have been appropriate given the time and culture in which these writings were authored, but today things have changed.
Our ideas have evolved quite a bit over the thousands of years, though. Women have ascended the proverbial ladder on a playing field that is becoming increasingly flat due to our society’s reliance of technology over brute strength. Women control major corporations and lead nations and now, for the most part, are seen as equals with their male counterparts.
Yet the path to equality remains blocked in some places. These bastions of backward thinking hold fast to the old ways as their absolutes, denying those of the female gender an equal part. In my world, this is no more apparent than in the Church of Christ. Like a two year old refusing to relinquish something of value they scream and throw a tantrum when a sensible adult tries to gently coax them.
It has arrived. The revolution has begun. It is time to revisit those once bedrock theological assumptions and realize, whether we like it or not, that change is upon us.
To be continued…
Matt,
I look forward to your continuing post on this subject, but I did want to ask a few questions, or at least posit a different point of view.
1) You mention that the writers of the New Testament regard men as superior to women. I’m not sure that is the case. Could it be that they regard them as equal but with different roles in society/church/relationship/etc. Just because I am equal to a woman, and she is equal to me, doesn’t mean that we have different roles to play in life. I am assuming (and we all know what that does) that you and your wife provide different needs to your children. They would not be as whole if there were two of you or two of your wife.
2) Just because times and society change doesn’t mean people’s characters have changed. I perceive that the bible teaches us about our nature without regard to the societal norms around us. It sounds as if you are saying that the bible has no more relevance to today and should be replaced. I don’t think that is what you are saying, but that is the way it comes across to me.
3) Just being honest, but I struggle with your comment that you are ready to criticize the New Testament teachings. My perspective is that we are subject to God and His Word, not the other way around. I may have misunderstood your comments, and I’ll grant that this is probably the case, so I am just offering my perception/reaction to your post.
I appreciate the post and look forward to hearing more about your views.
Patrick– Can you flesh out your first point some more? The reason I ask is b/c I’ve heard many times what a man can do that a woman can’t, but I’ve never heard it the other way around. What can a woman do that a man can’t? And I’m not talking physiology– I know a woman can give birth and a man can’t. I’m talking specifically within the context of the Church, since that’s what the post is about.
Thank you.
wow….much to chew on. as a minister in the coc I agree that there is MUCH more women could be doing. i do believe though that even within this school of thought, there will be limits.
it is hard…respecting scripture as “God-breathed” makes it hard to reason like this, even if I do agree that your cultural context is 100% dead on……looking foward to more conversation
MatT – U r Dum. Womenz r dUm 2. Idk who Patriarchy is, but he sounds like a good preecher to me.
Thank you for that astute analysis smokey.
Matt, I agree with you totally. I have to be pretty smart to figure out a way to teach the women here to make Tater Tot Casserole for the pot lucks. I mean, they don’t even have tater tots here!
Nicole
Have you considered the possibility that you are working from within a limited frame of reference? When you said, “I’ve been thinking a good deal about the roles of women in the Church of Christ,” don’t you really mean, “I’ve been thinking a good deal about the roles of women in the church as taught by Church of Christ.”
When I think of the Church of Christ, I am not thinking of the denomination it has become, rather I think of body as God intended based on scripture. There is a difference between scripture and the traditions of the Church of Christ. Like other denominations, the denomination known as the Church of Christ has had (and still has) some crazy traditions. Bogus tradition #1, grapes grow in all climates. Bogus tradition #2, the word for wine in the Greek means non-fermented. Bogus tradition #3, it is unbiblical as a congregation to support orphanages (one of the three legs for the split between the Church of Christ, Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ). Bogus tradition #4, it is unbiblical as a congregation to support missionaries (the second of the three legs for the split between the Church of Christ, Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ). Bogus tradition #5, the word psalm had its definition changed for 100 years around the time of Christ to mean accapella (the final of the three legs for the split between the Church of Christ, Christian Church and the Disciples of Christ, and this leg was only added because they thought they should have at least three biblical reasons for division).
To the best of my understanding, there is only one biblical distinction between men and women and it has existed from the beginning. That is the distinction of responsibility. The first big failure in this area is Adam, but it is the second failure who sheds the most light on the issue. Consider Abraham and Sarah. Who bore the responsibility for the decision of attempting to help God via wedding Hagar? Abraham bore the responsibility even though it was Sarah who was prompting. In the law it was taught that the father or husband bore the responsibility if they commanded their wife or daughter to break their vow. The concept is not, the husband or father makes all the decisions and all the vows, rather it is they bare the responsibility for determining whether the vow should even have been made and they are responsible for breaking it if it should not have been made.
Moving forward to the New Testament. The passage from 1 Corinthians says, ‘Brothers, Everyone is to …’ The responsibility lies with the brothers, but just as with the OT, it does not mean ONLY the Brothers do what follows. In this case, they are commanded that Everyone be involved in worship. The passage does not say, ‘Brothers, each of you is to …’, but that is how the tradition of the denomination of the Church of Christ has taught it. So, I would not lay the criticism at the feet of Paul, rather, it belongs at the feet of the modern day Churches of Christ and their weak study of God’s word.
The passage that used to be quoted a lot when I was a kid was, “study to show thyself approved,” but it has come to mean, “study to approve thy tradition.” For too long, the Churches of Christ have struggled to show themselves to be the, “one true church.” That focus comes as close to “losing their first love” as I can think of it.
I don’t think there is a reason to criticize the New Testament teachings, but there is plenty of reason to criticize the traditions based on poorly considered New Testament teachings. Even that is not a new problem, just look at the Pharisees and Sadducees.