On a regular basis, we get someone showing up in the secular media who has a problem with the way churches manage themselves. The latest entry into this category comes from a blog post in the pages of USA Today.
Titled Do women have a prayer? the author, Mary Zeiss Stange, bemoans what she sees as the injustice of women not being able to serve as elders. Ms. Stange is apparently an expert on matters of theology, given her description as a "professor of Women's Studies and Religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y". Apparently for Ms. Stange, being an elder/pastor has little to do with Biblical qualifications and more to do with what is "fair". Women serve more, attend more, pray more so forget what God has decreed, they should get to be the leaders!
I have said on numerous occasions that the burden of ministry that falls on women because of a faithless, cowardly generation of men who are unwilling to serve is a shame, a travesty and a mockery of God. Having said that does not mean pitching the Word of God aside for some misguided modern notion of egalitarianism. We should disciple young men to be leaders in the home and leaders in the church, to delve into Word and prayer, to be men for crying out loud, not replace the order that God established. If you wonder what "equality" means to Ms. Stange, you need only read this portion of her screed...
The better news is that among the so-called mainline Protestant denominations, women have made considerable progress in attaining positions of religious authority. The United Methodist Church, the nation's second-largest Protestant Church with 8 million members, has ordained women since the 1950s.
But — in a pattern familiar among churches that do ordain women — few of these women hold senior positions in large congregations. In January, the church announced an initiative, the Lead Women Pastor Project, to study barriers to female advancement in the church.
The idea that this "progress" is "better news" is debatable. Of course, missing from her faint praise of "mainline" denominations is a recognition that these same denominations are destroying themselves through theological suicide. The common factor? Bowing to cultural pressure to ordain women to leadership positions in an express rejection of Scriptural command.
Ms. Stange closes with this...
It is a truth so familiar as to have become cliché: Women are the driving force behind organized religion. They fill the pews, they bring their children into the fold. The Pew data help make sense of these facts. But the same data highlight the cruel irony that in far too many religious contexts in this country, women remain second-class citizens.
What makes women second class citizens? Not being able to serve as elders in churches? Really, does that qualify women as "second class" citizens? I rather think that from a complementarian view, women serve a vital role in the church. They are indeed instructors of children, they are in constant prayer, they serve in a myriad of ways in the church. A woman who feels she is unable to be fulfilled in the roles she is called to and that only by overturning Scripture can she truly serve God does not have an issue of submission to her husband, she has an issue with God.
Rather than being the progressive, forward thinking and mature viewpoint, Ms. Stange comes across like a petulant child. So what we have here is a woman, looking at the world and deciding that the culture is right and that God is wrong. Women can be doctors, engineers and CEOs, so why not elders/pastors? I guess because Christianity is a faith based on Christ and He is revealed in His Word, and that is our bedrock and foundation. That Word has a lot to say about gender roles and not much of what it says match with what Ms. Stange believes.
Haven't we seen before the results of a human being granted all that he or she could ever desire, with one exception and what happens when in spite of what God has commanded, mankind goes after forbidden fruit? For feminists who care nothing for the church except for their outrage at a perceived slight and for Christian women who have bought into their dogma, the desire for a twisted sense of equality overrides every other concern. It is a worldview where equality must equal uniformity. If there is anything one person can do that another cannot, that is inherently unjust and must be destroyed.
Space and a headache prevent me from fully expounding on all of the issues that surround complementarianism, women elders, submission, the creation order, the idea of being a "helpmeet", etc. Really though, we have heard all of this before. Think back to the Word (irrelevant as it apparently is in this discussion) and a seminal event in Genesis 3...
Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
We could change that to…
So when the woman saw that the pulpit was good for self-esteem, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the pulpit was to be desired to make one equal to men in every respect (because after all, there are more women in the church than men), she took her rightful place behind it and preached, and her husband who sat in the pews looked adoringly up at her and ate up every word.
The lie is the same in both events, the serpent whispering “Did God actually say…” Let's hope that God's people will actually learn their lesson this time and stick to what God has decreed.
(I first saw this on Dr. Mohler's blog and he also addressed it on the radio)
Titled Do women have a prayer? the author, Mary Zeiss Stange, bemoans what she sees as the injustice of women not being able to serve as elders. Ms. Stange is apparently an expert on matters of theology, given her description as a "professor of Women's Studies and Religion at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, N.Y". Apparently for Ms. Stange, being an elder/pastor has little to do with Biblical qualifications and more to do with what is "fair". Women serve more, attend more, pray more so forget what God has decreed, they should get to be the leaders!
I have said on numerous occasions that the burden of ministry that falls on women because of a faithless, cowardly generation of men who are unwilling to serve is a shame, a travesty and a mockery of God. Having said that does not mean pitching the Word of God aside for some misguided modern notion of egalitarianism. We should disciple young men to be leaders in the home and leaders in the church, to delve into Word and prayer, to be men for crying out loud, not replace the order that God established. If you wonder what "equality" means to Ms. Stange, you need only read this portion of her screed...
The better news is that among the so-called mainline Protestant denominations, women have made considerable progress in attaining positions of religious authority. The United Methodist Church, the nation's second-largest Protestant Church with 8 million members, has ordained women since the 1950s.
But — in a pattern familiar among churches that do ordain women — few of these women hold senior positions in large congregations. In January, the church announced an initiative, the Lead Women Pastor Project, to study barriers to female advancement in the church.
The idea that this "progress" is "better news" is debatable. Of course, missing from her faint praise of "mainline" denominations is a recognition that these same denominations are destroying themselves through theological suicide. The common factor? Bowing to cultural pressure to ordain women to leadership positions in an express rejection of Scriptural command.
Ms. Stange closes with this...
It is a truth so familiar as to have become cliché: Women are the driving force behind organized religion. They fill the pews, they bring their children into the fold. The Pew data help make sense of these facts. But the same data highlight the cruel irony that in far too many religious contexts in this country, women remain second-class citizens.
What makes women second class citizens? Not being able to serve as elders in churches? Really, does that qualify women as "second class" citizens? I rather think that from a complementarian view, women serve a vital role in the church. They are indeed instructors of children, they are in constant prayer, they serve in a myriad of ways in the church. A woman who feels she is unable to be fulfilled in the roles she is called to and that only by overturning Scripture can she truly serve God does not have an issue of submission to her husband, she has an issue with God.
Rather than being the progressive, forward thinking and mature viewpoint, Ms. Stange comes across like a petulant child. So what we have here is a woman, looking at the world and deciding that the culture is right and that God is wrong. Women can be doctors, engineers and CEOs, so why not elders/pastors? I guess because Christianity is a faith based on Christ and He is revealed in His Word, and that is our bedrock and foundation. That Word has a lot to say about gender roles and not much of what it says match with what Ms. Stange believes.
Haven't we seen before the results of a human being granted all that he or she could ever desire, with one exception and what happens when in spite of what God has commanded, mankind goes after forbidden fruit? For feminists who care nothing for the church except for their outrage at a perceived slight and for Christian women who have bought into their dogma, the desire for a twisted sense of equality overrides every other concern. It is a worldview where equality must equal uniformity. If there is anything one person can do that another cannot, that is inherently unjust and must be destroyed.
Space and a headache prevent me from fully expounding on all of the issues that surround complementarianism, women elders, submission, the creation order, the idea of being a "helpmeet", etc. Really though, we have heard all of this before. Think back to the Word (irrelevant as it apparently is in this discussion) and a seminal event in Genesis 3...
Genesis 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.
We could change that to…
So when the woman saw that the pulpit was good for self-esteem, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the pulpit was to be desired to make one equal to men in every respect (because after all, there are more women in the church than men), she took her rightful place behind it and preached, and her husband who sat in the pews looked adoringly up at her and ate up every word.
The lie is the same in both events, the serpent whispering “Did God actually say…” Let's hope that God's people will actually learn their lesson this time and stick to what God has decreed.
(I first saw this on Dr. Mohler's blog and he also addressed it on the radio)
2 comments:
I have no interest in leadership in the Church. None. I just don't see the biblical mandate. None. I am aware that many churches are ordaining women into the ministry, but there is no biblical mandate. That is my concern. When the Bible is tossed aside as outdated or "out of touch" we are in serious trouble.
I believe women do have many gifts. The Lord is no respector of persons. That is we are equal in HIS eyes, but we have different roles in the body of Christ to fulfill. If women become pastors how can they teach their children? How can they actually have time to bear them? There are specific things that God created women to do, and that is not of "less value" then what men are called to do.
I think that is the major problem of the feminist movement -- I agree we are equal, but I also believe that we are destined to diferent roles. Men can't have babies. Period. Women are called to keep the home, not men. Again, we see problems come up when people step out of God's revealed will and plan for us.
Different roles ,but equal in God's eyes.
Blessings
gloria
I was the debate partner of Mary Zeiss Stange (known to me as Mary Martha Zeiss) in 1964, when we were in high school. At age 14-15, she was my first kiss, and we danced. I was a sophomore, and she was a freshman, at a Catholic school.
I am not much larger than she was, physically. Both of us were very bright. Both of us had similar interests at that time. We made a good debate pair. Her mom, a school nurse, liked me.
In many, many respects we were equals, except that she and I were of different genders. She, however, was better connected than I was, having lived in that suburb all her life, whereas my family had moved there from the city. I presume that her family had higher income, too, as well as more education.
As I recall, I outscored her on standardized tests, even though she had more sociological advantage than I did. I had to go to a local state college upon graduation. She went to a private college. She was not religious, and neither was I.
She and I did not last long together. As I recall, she was on the lookout for guys who would be more advantageous to her, NOT for a sweet, bright guy like me who was was her equal. As for me, I wanted an equal.
Now I read about her complaints regarding equality and opportunity. Oh, please!
Incidentally, both of us are mentioned on the web site of National Review magazine (Corner blog). She's mentioned in 2004, in the context of guns. I'm mentioned in 2008, in the context of poetry.
Post a Comment