Naomi brings an especially interesting story to Wineskins. It all goes back to 1966. You see, it was in 1966 that my congregation planted a church in Stamford, Connecticut: the Stamford Church of Christ.
This was part of the Exodus Movement in which several Churches of Christ worked together to plant churches in the Northeast.
As I understand the process, the plant involved several families from the planting churches pulling up roots and relocating to the new area. There is a good article in the Christian Chronicle recalling this plant. And here’s one from 1965.
I moved to Tuscaloosa, and my church home, in 1975, and so this was nearly a decade in the past at the time. (We’re fast approaching the 50th anniversary — and really ought to plan something.) And this was a plant, not a mission congregation, and so it was a fully autonomous, self-supporting church by the time I showed up. (I wonder how many former Tuscaloosans live there? Do they still remember how to say “Roll Tide!”?) Nonetheless, it was a ministry that my church understandably took great pride in.
Earlier this year, the Stamford congregation named Naomi as minister in residence, which does not make her the preacher, but which does mean that she sometimes preaches — to the full congregation, not just the women.
She is not the first woman to preach for a Church of Christ, but she is perhaps the most well known and, I suspect, the first to serve on staff in a preaching capacity for a church that size. (Female preachers are much more common in very small churches and church plants.) Obviously, this is a big deal, regardless of your views on the issue. (My views are laid out in Buried Talents, an ebook available for free download.)
You have to figure that a woman preacher has to be pretty good at it in the Churches of Christ. It’s like being Jackie Robinson or John Mitchell (Alabama’s first black varsity football player). Firsts aren’t handed out to the mediocre. It just doesn’t work that way.
Wineskins contacted Naomi and asked her to join our staff as a Featured Author, and we were thrilled when she agreed to do so. She blogs at Longing for Home.
Here’s a sample —
_____________________
After another look at a story we have all heard many times, we can clearly see that the Lord saved Israel that day [they crossed through the Red Sea]. Saved them from what? From the Egyptians, their oppressors. From slavery, a system of labor that worked Israelites to the bone. From a tyrannical ruler who, fearing their population growth, murdered their sons. From the need to stand, shivering and afraid, at the edge of the sea. From the need to accomplish their own deliverance. From the need to raise their swords and fight back.
And surely this is starting to sound familiar, because this is what salvation means for us as well. We, too, have been trapped in a system that does not recognize our full humanity and worth. We have been enslaved, to power, to comfort, to living life on someone else’s terms. We have been there, with the loss of a job behind us and no vision of gainful employment in front of us; with the loss of a loved one behind us and no hope for the future in front of us. We have been there, when from behind, the regrets and sorrows of our past are thundering toward us, and in front of us we see nothing but an expansive, chaotic sea of worries and troubles, yelling at God – or at whoever would listen – “Why have you brought us here?” We have been there, alone and afraid at the edge of the sea, unable to go back and scared to move forward.
But – and this is a an extreme contrast given the difficulty of living in a world that does not yet perfectly reflect the kingdom of God – But we have walked on dry ground through the sea. Into our moments, of hesitation, of regret, of fear, of uncertainty, of nervousness, of real and present danger, God has worked in our lives, in unexpected and remarkable ways. As Jamey and Simon and I spend more time here and get to know you, we continue to hear your stories, stories of a God who has been and is still at work in your lives, saving you. Saving you from what? From your oppressors. From slavery to a system of labor that does not bring fulfillment. From the need to be afraid. From the need to accomplish your own deliverance. From the need to fight back.
So what would you do, on the other side of the Red Sea? Would you collapse in fear, having barely made it through the sea? Would you break out into hysterical laughter, because you couldn’t believe what just happened? Would you weep in sadness that so many Egyptians had just been destroyed in order to save you? I don’t know what I would do. But I do know what Moses and Miriam and Israel did – they broke out into song, and at least Miriam started dancing. (She played an instrument too, but that can be our little secret. I won’t tell the other non-instrumental Churches of Christ if you don’t.)
_____________________
[I think I want to adopt her.]
“You have to figure that a woman preacher has to be pretty good at it in the Churches of Christ. It’s like being Jackie Robinson or John Mitchell (Alabama’s first black varsity football player). Firsts aren’t handed out to the mediocre. It just doesn’t work that way.”
For real. The first female preachers to be given pulpits within CoCs will indeed need to be, as you say – “pretty good at it”.
Just think how good the women will need to be in order to be not merely preachers in the CoC, but appointed to their elderships. Perhaps, some already have?
Australian Churches of Christ have women preachers and women elders. And yes, I know that Australian Churches of Christ are equivalent to the independent Christian Churches, not the a cappella churches of Christ.
We have a great well trained and educated woman teacher that is admired by us all that speaks to all of us assimbled together occasionally on a specific subject. The way we get around her being a preacher is we have a man first get up on the stage and ask a question and stand there while she raises her hand and is invited up there to answer it. He stands there or sits on a stool while she answers.
Wow, Alabama John, legalism takes to its illogical extreme….
Thanks for posting this. Stamford was a great escape for us West Point cadets. I was always curious how they got there.
“The way we get around her being a preacher is we have a man first get up on the stage and ask a question and stand there while she raises her hand and is invited up there to answer it.”
So its the opposite of what Paul says, “if she has a question let her ask her husband at home” — so if the husband has a question, he can ask his wife and she can answer out loud. Makes perfect sense.
Paul’s remark about “let her ask her husband at home” was NOT referring to women teaching or prophesying but to women disrupting the meetings by interjecting with questions. Context context context…
New blood among cofC ministers has been needed for the past 30 years. I am glad to see her and her colleagues like Amy Henegar in NYC in the pulpits and putting their sermons online. Competition is great thing as it usually improves the quality of applicants.
I remember once at Harding the dean of nursing, who was a woman, spoke in chapel. She was far better than any man that we had to listen to that whole semester. They did it by letting her speak after the male-delivered “sermonette” and a “closing prayer.” Talk about ridiculous, but she was very good.
Now that homosexual marriage is being accepted, females should have an easier time becoming elders since they too can nw be “the ‘husband’ of one wife”.
Not that the scriptures should be able to discriminate against them to begin with…
Wow, hank…
Fred, I know, huh? “Wow” is how I feel as well…
While I appreciate much of what Jay has to say, I wonder if on this issue one is conforming one’s preconceived and desired notions to Scripture rather than the other way around.
Justin,
Ad hominem arguments are not persuasive and I have a longstanding policy banning them.
“Paul’s remark about ‘let her ask her husband at home’ was NOT referring to women teaching or prophesying but to women disrupting the meetings by interjecting with questions.”
Wendy, of course I’ve heard this explanation a million times. But if the issue was really interruptions, it seems kind of strange that Paul would single women out (even if at Corinth for some strange reason only women interrupted). We have to remember also that this is NOT the only passage on the subject. There is also the other one about “I suffer not a woman to teach…”
The fact is, you’d be better off just accusing Paul of being a misogynist than trying to claim that he was only talking about interruptions because its obvious by comparing the two passages in two different epistles that Paul was against women teaching, not just against women interrupting a sermon. And even if you think you can get rid of the one passage as a interpolation, can you so easily dispatch of the other?
I figure someone will trot out the argument that the pastorals are deutero-Pauline, but Protestant scholarship bases this on a very biased assumption that the Paul of Romans is unquestionably authentic and therefore the pastorals which are so different in theology and style must be forgeries. But on what basis do they assume Romans and Galatians are the authentic Paul? After all, if you assumed the pastorals were the authentic Paul you could declare Romans and Galatians to be the forgeries because of the difference in theology and style! Their assumption is based on their own doctrinal preference, i.e. the preference for faith alone over the principled Christian life taught in the pastorals.
It should be noted that my goal is NOT to defend the traditional position on women speaking so much as to question the assumptions here. An overt theology of “Paul must be taken with a grain of salt” or that his writings aren’t trustworthy would seem more realistic to me than claiming what is obviously untenable (i.e. that Paul was only speaking of disruptions). Because that position just makes me laugh.
Cultural context for women interrupting… http://www.travelingmead.net/uncategorized/paul-champion-of-womens-rights/
Here is how Joyce Meyer proved that females can indeed preach:
1. A woman was one of the first to go to the cross on that Sunday am.
2. It was a woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her hair.
3. When she (JM) told God she shouldn’t preach cause she’s a woman , God told her “You think I don’t know what sex you are?!”
DavidB
At this site, while we might take on the canon or inerrancy as a standalone topic, I don’t allow arguments on other topics to be built on denial of the inspiration of a book of the Bible.
Textual criticism is legitimate, of course, unless based on sheer wishful thinking.
Those who wish to dismiss the so-called Deutero-Pauline epistles to argue for female equality must do so somewhere else.
One doesn’t need to dismiss any Biblical Scriptures to argue for female equality in the church!
Wendy, when God said that he “does not permit a woman to teach” and that they must “remain quiet” in the church, was he really being against “female equality in the church”?
When he said that elders must be the “husband(s) of one wife” – was he being against “female equality in the church”?
In your opinion, does “female equality in the church” mean that females are exactly the same as men? That they must be granted the same roles and/or positions to be “equal”?
Please explain…
Was God against “female equality” throughout the Old Testament when he allowed only men to be priests?
Was he against “Tribal equality” when he only allowed men from the tribe of Levi to be priests?
I don’t get the logic here…
Its not like women don’t already control the pulpits anyway through intimidating their husbands. (Its the most obvious way that moral liberalism creeps in.) And by doing it that way they get the benefit of controlling the doctrinal content of the church without having to actually put in the work or face the heat.
Hank,
Is God against the bull, stud, Alpha, that is born male and expected and required to be head of the herd?
Males of by far most of natures beings are by nature the leader and that brings lots of responsibility that many males don’t want and frankly are pretty sorry at doing right.
Males have the title and untimate responsibility given them, but to think the females in all of nature don’t behind the scenes actually quietly and himbly run the place is naive.
Lol. We both just made the same point at once. But my actual point was women ought to be content to pull the strings from behind the scenes. They get the better deal that way. Heavy is the head that wears the crown. And to a great extent most of the weight on that head is from his wife beating him over it. If I were a woman I would relish the position of manipulating from the shadows. Way more satisfying than having to stand up there exposed to all the slings and arrows.
“Is God against the bull, stud, Alpha, that is born male and expected and required to be head of the herd?” — No
“Males of by far most of natures beings are by nature the leader and that brings lots of responsibility that many males don’t want and frankly are pretty sorry at doing right.” — I can see that…
“Males have the title and untimate responsibility given them, but to think the females in all of nature don’t behind the scenes actually quietly and himbly run the place is naive.” — Who denies that?
I still want to know why people insist that “equality” demands sameness?…
David, I felt your thinking!!! Bet you are a country boy as that comes natural to those familiar with nature.
Hank, There are differences among men too. In my business we have on every project invariably the loud order giver and the quiet ones that DO the things needing to be done. Each is needed, but when we move to the next project, which do we expecially want to go with us?
I feel those that want equality to mean sameness lack confidence and need a law or some way to bring them in their own mind up to another status standard somehow. Or, some just like to bitch and look for some way to argue to be out in front to be noticed. Again in my business women that can do the job equally are welcomed just as men. No difference made, all on the job are the same.
“Again in my business women that can do the job equally are welcomed just as men. No difference made, all on the job are the same.”
It the same in my business. Some just seem to forget (or deny) that God’s instructions (commands), to the church (like who van be elders and preachers) was HIS business. Not ours…
“women ought to be content….” ad nauseum… God weeps at this kind of patriarchalism.. and meanwhile the church loses members because of this kind of sexism (amongst other issues) and makes it harder to reach the unchurched.
Wendy wrote — “women ought to be content….” ad nauseum… God weeps at this kind of patriarchalism.. ”
Not really, though. God actually prefers us all to be content. Whether we can be an elder or not. Or a preacher.
1 Timothy 6:6, for example…
Hank, you missed that I was being sarcastic that women were being dictated to by men. Told how to react. Like children. Told we ought to be content. It’s nauseating.
Wendy, Do you believe that IF (for argument sake) God limited certain roles to certain individuals and thereby excluded certain others, that he would then be guilty of some form of “inequality”.
Like if he limited the ability to be priests to a particular tribe?
Or if he limited the ability to be elders or preachers to a particular sex?
God did not limit women. “28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
“God did not limit women.” – Wendy
When God said that an overseer (a bishop/elder) “must be” the husband of one wife (a man of one woman), that he did not exclude women?
Do you believe that women can equally be “the husband of one wife”? How do you interpret “the husband of one wife” so as to not exclude women?
Paul was keen to accomodate and not make waves, in my interpretation. This is, for example reflected by his desire to become all things to all people. By comportment with the mores of his audience he draws them in. Paul’s list of the requirements for an elder are very similar to the list of a Roman writer by the name of Onosander for a military office. The structure of the list is the same. These requirements for leadership were likely understood by Paul’s auditors and fit with their needs of the time. Just like the fact that Paul never came out and said that slavery was wrong. I read somewhere that there are 400 mentions of slavery in the Bible. With all these mentions and instructions regarding it, there was ample opportunity for a prohibition. But it is not there. Yet, we now know it is wrong based on solid Christian principles and our overall understanding. To me it is the similar with women’s issues and I’ve no problem with women as ministers or elders.
Hank, we do as God in having some specific things for women and some for men just to keep things running smooth. Its done not as who’s the best thinking, but to stop confusion and keep order and harmony among the sexes. Whether any will admit it or not, males and females are different in many ways.
Before anyone asks me to be specific let me to keep it simple just say we have signs on the outhouses, designating them his or hers. Stops lot of confusion among the sexes, but doesn’t place either one above the other in importance.
Stevdor,
1 Corinthians 14:37 ESV
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I (Paul) am writing to you are a command of the Lord.
“Hank, we do as God in having some specific things for women and some for men just to keep things running smooth. Its done not as who’s the best thinking, but to stop confusion and keep order and harmony among the sexes. Whether any will admit it or not, males and females are different in many ways.”
I agree. Anything I’ve written seemingly contrary, was fasciculus 😉
Had to look that one up. Not sure which one you were referring to, but all would apply!!!! LOL
God has specific things for men and women to do with regards to procreation. As for gifting, the gifts of the Holy Spirit are given irregardless of gender. Denying women the ability to use their God given gifts in the service of the Kingdom is, well, limiting God.
Wendy, you write – “Denying women the ability to use their God given gifts in the service of the Kingdom is, well, limiting God.”
When Paul said that if anyone desired to do the work of an elder that (among other things) he “must be” the husband of one wife, was he denying females the ability to serve as bishops (oberseers/elders) in the kingdom?
Or, do you believe that woman can also be “the husband of one wife”?
Was Paul limiting God when he said that whoever wants to be an elder “must be” the husband of one wife?
Was God limiting himself throughout the OT when he ordained that all priests must be male (and not female)?
You might consider the fact that God has limited certain roles in his service to men to be “sexist”, a violation of “female equality” or whatever else. But, I would be careful seeing how the idea (to limit certain roles/offices to men) was God’s himself.
If that turns people off and/or causes them to keep away from church, well… Im sure God considered that before he gave his instruction.
Hank, I can’t give you a short answer. The long answer could be found in Scot MacKnight’s The Blue Parakeet. Or a study of the Bible that doesn’t assume a flat and surface interpretation, that looks at context, and considers the Bible a sacred text about God’s interaction with His people, NOT as a legal code.
Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are Scot MacKnight and “the Blue Parakeet”?? Lol
I’d rather just take the Scripture at its word…
“Or a study of the Bible that doesn’t assume a flat and surface interpretation, that looks at context, and considers the Bible a sacred text about God’s interaction with His people, NOT as a legal code.”
I find it as interesting as I do sad that so many people accuse those who do not wish to change the word of God, of employing “a flat interpretation”, of not looking “at context”, of not considering the Bible “a sacred text” and of limiting it to “a legal code”. All because they simply take what it says as true?!
I asked you very simple questions and you refuse to answer. Namely, does the fact that Paul said that whoever desires to be an elder (bishop/overseer), “must be” the husband of one wife imply the candidate “must be” a man? Or can a female be the husband of one wife? If so, how? And if an elder “must be” a man, the a woman can’t be one.
Any book that can explain all of that away is not a book worth reading, in my opinion.
Hank, you are wanting simplistic answers for issues which aren’t simplistic. I can’t give you an answer that can fit in a comment. Which is why Jay is writing a SERIES of blog posts on the issue!!!!! You think you might be taking Scripture “at its word” but 1 you are equating a flat reading with “truth 2 you are far removed from the 1st century worldview and experience and cultures 3 you are reading translations of translations and 4 you are taking a pastoral epistle written to ONE church to correct problems there and making it into new Torah. The whole trajectory of the Bible is towards inclusion of womb en (hint – it’s comprised of 66 separate books which should each be considered in their own context). Look at how Jesus treats women. Look at how the church has managed to change it’s stance on slavery and racism. This would not have occurred if the church had kept taking the Bible “at its word” (whatever that means). Time for the church to examine it’s stance on women now.
btw Scot McKnight is one of the leading NT scholars writing today. A gifted teacher. He blogs at Jesus Creed or you can find his books in any good Christian bookshop or online.
It’s always funny when people flat out refuse to read material that expounds on scripture if they know it comes to a different conclusion than the view they hold (Hank refusing to take a look at The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight). They seem to believe that reading anything but the Bible is wrong. And yet they read this blog, and the comments, and make comments of their own, and listen to sermons every week, and probably look at class material, bulletins, and other publications, all of which are “extra-biblical” and expound on the Bible. If they truly followed what they say, they would not listen to preachers, they would ONLY ever read their Bibles, and they would greet brethren with a holy kiss, wash the feet of the saints, insist that elders anoint the sick with oil, lift their hands when they pray, bring Paul his coat, etc., etc., etc.
Or we could admit that some of God’s expectations change in their details with culture and circumstance and seek the help of the larger Christian community in trying to understand that.
I guess the point I’d like to make is that if what Paul said was true (that an elder “must be” the husband of one wife), and if that then obviously excludes women from being elders, it wouldnt in any way imply that men were superior to women. It wouldnt make God guilty of “female inequality” or “sexism” or that God has “limited himself”.
Take for example, Titus 3:1, Paul explained to Titus that Christians were supposed to be subject to rulers and authorities and to obey the government. From that statement, is it correct to conclude that Paul views all those in governmental positions to be of more value than Christians? Does this passage imply that, because Christians are to obey other humans who are in governmental positions, Paul sees those in governmental positions as mentally, physically, or spiritually superior to Christians? Not in any way. The mere fact that Christians are to obey those in the government says nothing about the spiritual status or value of either party. It only addresses the different roles that each party fulfills.
Basically, there is no need to “fix” Paul’s writing to make him more PC and/or up with the times…
Steven writes – “(Hank refusing to take a look at The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight). They seem to believe that reading anything but the Bible is wrong. And yet they read this blog, and the comments, and make comments of their own, and listen to sermons every week, and probably look at class material, bulletins, and other publications, all of which are “extra-biblical” and expound on the Bible. If they truly followed what they say, they would not listen to preachers, they would ONLY ever read their Bibles,.
.”
Lol, have you really ever heard ANYBODY ever say that reading “anything but the Bible is wrong”? Man, I’ve heard of some people getting mixed up with some ignorant brethren, but those guys take the cake.
For the record, I have scores and scores of commentaries and have read countless books, blogs and comments on blogs from people who make some ridiculous comments, as well as false accusations.
Take for example that for me to truly “follow what (I) say”, I shouldn’t listen to preachers. Tell me, what was it I said that made you say that? That was silly…
To me, it’s not that insisting on the gender limitations is calling women inferior. You’re right about that. It’s about whether or not the gender limitations in the Bible were a result of the culture of the time. A time when women were extremely uneducated and most people, including the Jews, would have been scandalized by women in leadership positions. Not that God is always against being scandalous, but Paul was called to be all things to all people, and the church was called to graciously live in and work with the culture they were in, so that they might save some and not create unnecessary walls. This is why slavery was not immediately abolished by God, but the church eventually came to see the immorality of it through biblical PRINCIPLES, even while others continued to argue for it by quoting certain verses. Similar principles tell us that in a culture where women are just as educated as men and female leadership is not scandalous, it makes no sense to insist on the church being 50% less effective and spiritually fruitful as it could be.
I undestand why many women feel they must do more than it seems is allowed. They live a different life in many ways that influence their and our thinking and feelings on many subjects based on our life experiences.
I knew an old COC conservative woman once that told me she had written in her will she only wanted women pallbearers at her funeral.
That was the first time I had heard that and asked why?
She said the men didn’t carry me out when I was alive and I do not want them to when I die.
Wendy says “God weeps at this kind of patriarchalism.. and meanwhile the church loses members because of this kind of sexism (amongst other issues) and makes it harder to reach the unchurched.”
Lol. Its funny then that in even the most staunchly conservative churches of Christ the majority of the members are women. Women like to hold women down as much as men, if not more.
If the church is losing membership over something, I would think its simply a function of the loose sexual ethics of our time and the fact that the church isn’t able to restrain them. Young men and women disconcerted with the fact that they can’t find a mate in the church raised to be as conservative as themselves in that area are more likely to leave than anyone upset over women not being allowed to preach.
The church is theoretically bleeding members at both ends over the sexual revolution. Losing conservatives because it isn’t touch enough on fornicators. Losing liberals because it isn’t liberal enough to embrace their favorite perversion wholeheartedly enough.
“It’s about whether or not the gender limitations in the Bible were a result of the culture of the time. A time when women were extremely uneducated and most people, including the Jews, would have been scandalized by women in leadership positions.”
That’s not it at all. That’s not even true. The reality is that Roman law said that it was not possible to commit adultery with a shopkeeper. That is, if a woman held any sort of public position, the husband had no recourse if someone else slept with her. He could not sue that man for sleeping with his wife. A woman who was in the public eye was considered a whore. The Roman authorities would not even bother to look into a case of rape. Their position was that she deserved it for being in a visible position. Keeping women out of those positions was defending them.
Have things really changed? Since women have taken center stage in public life, chivalry has died and all women are treated as nothing but whores and sex-toys by the media and society in general. Women are no longer honored at all. And we have shills for feminism (who are not feminine at all, but butch warriors for perversion, like Wendy) who are on their birth control pill having sex with everything that moves, especially interracial, and then demaning that we let them in our pulpits so they can preach the greatness of abortion and making us pay for it via Obamacare.
A woman-lead society simply becomes a society of sex-perverts, as modern history demonstrates. Allowing women to lead, leads to abortion and infanticide, because its leads to their vaginas becoming God.
No morality any longer matters. No truth any longer matters. Their children no longer matter. All that matters is constantly having something between their legs. And this we are going to let into our pulpits?
Modern women seem to be crazier even than they used to be because the pill rots their brains. If it was bad to allow a woman to preach before the pill was invented, now that they are possessed by Satan through the pill, its even worse.
David, how is this Christlike “And we have shills for feminism (who are not feminine at all, but butch warriors for perversion, like Wendy)”???????
David,
Your diatribe was uncalled for and completely un-Christian.
I actually thought David started out with some good and valid points. Then, the wheels came completely off his wagon.
Funny how my last comment from two days ago is still “under moderation” and yet the last flury went up just fine.
Please God don’t let Naomi see these demonic comments.