As President-elect Obama formally announces his national-security team later today, news reports predict that he will appoint several women to top posts. Former rival, Senator Hillary Clinton, will replace outgoing Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State; former Security Council Member and Assistant Secretary of State, Susan Rice, will be his choice for US Ambassador to the United Nations; and Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, will be appointed to Secretary of Homeland Security.
Meanwhile, I find myself thinking once again about the fact that, in the church, many of our wives and daughters are finding it difficult to see that the Bible is as much the friend of women as it used to be.
In earlier times, the Bible was regarded as an advocate for women. Author Rodney Stark, in his book The Rise of Christianity points out that in a Greco-Roman world where men were valued more than women, infant daughters were often aborted or allowed to die at birth. In those days early Christians were known for rescuing such infants and raising them as their own daughters.
By contrast, many 21st century societies educate our daughters and encourage them not only to consider the options of marriage and motherhood, but also to become doctors, lawyers, and presidents. In such a world, the Bible has slowly developed a reputation for being on the side of men who want to treat women as sexual property and assistants rather than as equals.
As in the case of so many political and social issues, there are scholars, and studied opinions on both sides. Some believe that the most important statement the Bible makes about gender is found in the words of the Apostle Paul when he writes that, in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
Others argue just as emphatically that the same Apostle Paul encouraged wives to learn quietly in church (1Cor 14:34), and at home, to be submissive to their husbands, as unto the Lord (Eph 5:22). In another letter Paul adds, “I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (1Cor 11:2).
The tension between the two positions is understandable. On one side are those who believe that if God has spoken definitively on the role of women then his ways need to be regarded as more important than our own ways or preferences. On the other side are those who also hold a high view and authority of Scripture but who point out that the Bible was written to men and women in specific times and places and that the Apostle Paul himself adapted his behavior to the social order in which he found himself so as not to encumber the Gospel with arguable issues (1Cor 9:19-22).
While some cultures still enforce laws designed to protect women from the dangers and moral excesses of social equality, others make it much easier of both men and women to ask, “What if a woman chooses not to marry and have children? Or what if she does marry and has better judgment than her husband when it comes to spiritual, financial, or social issues? If she is the follower of Christ, does the Bible give her reason to defer to her husband even if he is doing something that will be to the detriment of his children or family?
Many of us don’t fault a wife for stepping up to the challenge if her husband is:
a. Physically disabled.
b. Diagnosed with a debilitating mental or emotional condition, or
c. Morally entangled in an addiction that blinds him to the needs of his family.
So what has happened? Have cultural changes trumped the social order of the Bible? Or have we in some way misunderstood the intent and wisdom the Apostle Paul when he wrote,
“God is not the author of confusion but of peace…Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says” (1Cor 14:33-34).
That last comment in 1Cor 14 has me thinking about “the law”. So far I have not been able to find any statement in the Bible that directly commands women to be submissive to their husbands, until the pastoral letters of Paul and Peter.
What I do find is a general pattern of male dominance (with some notable exceptions) and system of Mosaic law that reflects the curse of Genesis 3:16.
Following the fall of our first parents into sin, the Lord announces that the curse of sin will result in weeds and thistles in the field, multiplied pain in childbirth, men ruling over women, and death. In this text, male-dominance is seen as a curse that replaces the complementary relationship of Adam and Eve prior to their sin.
As you can see, I’m still thinking this through. I admire the wisdom of heads of state who surround themselves with wise counselors. I wish the church could be just as ready to seek and respect the advice and counsel of both men and women.