Most of us have never seen a female pastor or priest. How come? Is the church sexist? Why can't women be leaders in the church? What is the deal?
Well, not all Christians agree on this issue. In fact, there are now several denominations of Christianity that are allowing women to be pastors. So what is your opinion Pastor Mark?
I hold to a complimentarian view of the genders. This means that men and women are equal in value and worth but differ in roles. The Bible affirms that both man and woman were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Men and women are equal in their value and both share in the dignity of possessing God’s image. However, it is clear that men and women are different. Aside from mere physical differences which are obvious, men and woman differ emotionally and intellectually. Statistically, men are more prone to be visual learners, while women tend to learn more audibly. Men tend to think in terms of fixing a problem and women tend to view things relationally.
Its not that men or women are better than the other, but that based on the way we are built, men tend to be better than women at certain things and woman tend to be better than men at certain things. Men are better sprinters and women are better long distance runners. Men are better at jig-saw puzzles and women are better at word-scramble puzzles. Men are better in a fist fight and women are better in a verbal argument. We are equal in worth, dignity, and value but we differ in the roles God built us for.
While men and women are equal in worth, God created them to fill different roles. The husband is called to be the head of the household (1 Corinthians 11:3). Likewise, it is men who are called to lead the church. The Bible uses the words pastor, overseer, and elder interchangeably. Both 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1(which contain lists of the qualifications for elders/pastors) say that overseers are to be men who aspire to the position and are the husband of one wife. There is no room in these texts in the Bible for women to qualify as overseers of the church.
In fact, right before 1 Timothy 3 saying that men should be pastors, Paul seems to clearly prohibit women from being pastors.
But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. -- 1 Timothy 2:12
Look, I know those words will prompt anger in some of my female readers. But I'm not the one who made the statement. Paul did in the Bible under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In the context, he is speaking of the church as seen in chapter 3 with the qualifications of an overseer. What will probably spark even more disagreement are the reasons Paul gives that women should not hold the highest authority in the church as pastors/elders/overseers. He says...
For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. -- 1 Timothy 2:13-14
Paul appeals to two things. First, he says that it was men who were created first and therefore men who are to be the leaders. This was the case with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, Peter, James, John, and Paul. God uses men to lead because that's the way He designed this world to work. Men were the patriarchs. Men were the prophets. Jesus was a man. His apostles were men. The only real female leader we see in the Bible is Deborah in the book of Judges. However, even she asks a man to lead in Judges 4:6. She was leading because men weren't rising to God's call.
Second, Paul says that women should not be allowed to hold authority over the whole church because it was a woman and not a man who was deceived by the false teaching of the serpent in the garden. The devil went to Eve to trick her not to Adam. She fell for it. How does this connect? It seems to me that Paul is saying that women are more easily deceived and tricked than men, which is obviously a problem in terms of leading the church. While I understand those women who get upset with this verse, I also see this practically in the lives of most of the women I know. When its time to buy a car, a house, or anything expensive all of the women I know want their husbands to do it or ask a guy to come with them because the they don't want to be tricked and don't feel able to handle themselves in the negotiations. I don't think that women are dumber than men, God knows my wife has given me much needed advice on many occasions. However, it seems Paul is saying that women are more gullible than men, which possibly comes from a mixture of being too trusting, too kind, and maybe too naive.
I believe that this passage (1 Tim 2:12) clearly shows that women are just not allowed to hold authority in the church as pastors/elders/overseers. BUT, this passage cannot mean that Paul prohibited women from speaking, teaching, or serving at all in the body of Christ. This is seen from passages like 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 (in which women are allowed to pray and prophesy in church) and Philippians 4:3 (where Paul mentions the women Euodia and Syntche as fellow workers in the cause of the gospel). In fact, the woman Priscilla played a role in instructing the man Apollos in Acts 18:26 alongside of her husband. As such, I believe that Paul clearly allowed women to teach, pray, and serve in the church but prohibited women from teaching with authority. Thus, the Bible does not seem to permit women to hold the office of elder/pastor/overseer. Again, this distinction does not reflect on the worth or value of either sex. Instead, it is comparable to the relationship within the Godhead. While the Father and Son are equal in power, glory, nature, and all things, the Son still submits to the Father. Similarly, men and women are equal but function in different roles.
I believe that this issue has often been abused and misapplied in churches today. This does not mean that women should have no influence or impact on the church. Quite the opposite! Women possess the image of God! They are a vital part of the ministry of the Body of Christ. The focus should not be on the one position they are not permitted to fill, but on the many positions they can and are deeply needed to fill. The church is in great need of godly women to serve by to volunteering in every area of ministry and especially in teaching younger women to live a godly life.
Don't forget to vote for next Thursday's topic on the right side of the screen!
Don't forget to vote for next Thursday's topic on the right side of the screen!
so...if there are many pastors in a church ( im not quite sure for the ranks go), but say an associate pastor, and she would defer to an elder pastor when making big decisions, does that still count? (as she will still be led by a man)
ReplyDeleteAren't men equally gullible and easily deceived as women? I'm pretty sure Adam was with Eve when she was being tempted by the serpent.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really good question and to be perfectly honest, I've never had to think it through. Another question that comes to mind that is similar is "What about a youth or children pastor, can a woman be in that position as she wouldn't have authority over the whole church?"
ReplyDeleteI guess it would partly depend on what kind of authority is just plain granted to any pastor at the church in question. For example, while I am "just" the youth and children pastor at CBCOP, I preach in big church on Sundays and if I rebuked an adult over an issue, they wouldn't look at me and say, "You're not a real pastor," they would probably take it to heart and treat me as having spiritual authority as a pastor at CBCOP.
So, my initial thought on this would be no, I wouldn't allow a woman to have any sort of pastoral title/office/job. However, I do admit that it is a bit tricky in certain situations such as the one you bring up. But in most cases, I think giving that title of pastor (whether associate or youth is added or not) conveys spiritual authority in the church as a whole.
What are your thoughts? Does that make sense?
Sorry, I just noticed I missed a comment. It does seem a little strange to me that Paul would consider Eve more easily tricked when Adam committed the same sin along with her. My thought there is that Eve sinned because she was tricked while Adam sinned because he was flat out rebellious without being tricked.
ReplyDeleteNow I know that would lead to arguments about which is better, sinning when tricked or not tricked, but that's not the point. The point is that Paul gives the concept of Eve being deceived as a reason that women should not be permitted to teach. Those are my thoughts on that.
I probably should mention that I don't think churches and denominations that allow women pastors are heretics or anything, though I do disagree with it. It is something I'm willingly to agree to disagree about agreeably if that makes sense ;-)
To what extent are these differences between men and women a product of the culture they live in, or are these inherent differences that apply to every man and every woman? It's hard because this question would be a lot easier to answer if there were men and women who did not live in a society at all to compare them to. This is one of the problems with Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau's state of nature projections--the state of nature never existed in reality.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, to what extent are these differences a factor in the quality of leadership? Yes, I know you pointed out the gullible one, but I don't understand how being better at word scrambles makes for a better leader. A side note from that is, why does the Bible condemn all women alike when there are women that do not have the objectionable qualities you may answer with above (and some men who do?) Why must all women be barred from teaching even if "most" women are gullible or whatever other quality. Shouldn't the Bible just make it a regulation that leaders not be gullible/not have other quality?
First off let me thank everyone for keeping the questions and conversations respectful and productive. That's a big blessing after the last controversial blog entry I wrote!
ReplyDeleteAs for whether the differences I mentioned are nature or nurture, like you said, its really tough to tell. I could offer my personal opinion but I'm not sure how accurate that would be. I will say that I think the gullible part that I mentioned is primarily by nature as Paul cites the very first woman Eve as the example.
As for the other factors (like jig-saw/word puzzles or sprinter/long-distance), I'm not sure they do necessarily play into leadership. My point with those was just to show that men and women are different without being unequal. The only differences between men and women that Paul cites as pertaining to leadership are the order of creation (Adam came first, then Eve) and the fact that Eve was deceived while Adam wasn't. So I can only safely say that those are the major distinguishers in terms of leadership between men and women.
As for why not make it a requirement that all pastors be non-gullible people rather than exclude all women... that's a good question. I offer two reasons as guesses but I will humbly admit I can't speak for God on this one and give His reasons for sure. First, it may be that, in terms of leadership, women are by nature more easily led astray and the best way to handle this is to prohibit them from highest authority in the church.
Second, it could be that God desires us to submit to this despite the equality of men and women for the sake of teaching us and allowing us to model the Trinity itself. The Father is not any more God than the Son or the Holy Spirit. The Father is not more powerful, more wise, or more anything when it comes to His nature than the other two members of the Trinity. Yet the Son and Holy Spirit always submit to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit never give a single order to the Father. The Father is always the one who leads in the Trinity. Perhaps, in telling us that men alone should pastor the church and women cannot, God is trying to give us a living example of the Trinity (similar to marriage) and actually blessing us with a chance to imitate the Trinity! When seen in this light, it is actually an honor to partake in the system He has set up to show equality in worth yet distinction in roles because it is a living sermon about who God is!
Additionally, why does one woman being gullible (Eve) mean that all women are by nature gullible? Eve was one particular woman, and who knows, maybe she was very gullible. Maybe that was just her personality. Why is her action a justification for excluding all women, some of whom may not be gullible at all?
ReplyDeleteUnless, you want to argue that Eve was not a particular woman and the whole scene in Genesis was allegorical and Eve is supposed to represent all women. But I think that interpretation brings up a whole host of other problems.
I don't understand the link between Adam being made first means Adam is a better leader.
The creation of Adam first is a bit easier to understand in light of family ties. Its pretty typical in most cultures for the oldest child, specifically the oldest son, to call the shots. In a similar way, because Adam was made first, he was to lead Eve and this was the example God laid out in general for men to be the leaders.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that Adam and Eve are simply allegorical. I believe that the actions of Adam and Eve do reveal truth about the rest of the race. It seems from Paul that he connects the deception of Eve to the disqualification for all women to teach. While it is true that Eve had a unique personality distinguished from other women, that doesn't make it impossible for all women after her to share a common problem. All humans after Adam inherited a sin nature. Perhaps it is a similar thing.
First, there is still no direct link between oldest and leader. Yes, I understand in our culture there may be a link, but cultures can change and cultures are not always right. The Bible is supposed to be beyond culture and I see no reason why the oldest must always be a better leader. The Bible claims all men are better leaders than all women because the man was made before the woman. I'm saying the property of being born/made first has (or should have) no direct bearing on the qualities that make a person a good leader. I think it's also funny considering Genesis consistently reverses primogeniture--Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over Reuben (or, if not Joseph, then another son who is not Reuben), Ephraim over Manasseh (and KING DAVID though he is not in Genesis). Older is not necessarily better.
ReplyDeleteYou say that it is possible for all women after Eve to share a common problem that make women unfit for leadership. I don't know what this common problem is. It cannot be something influenced by nurture or society because this is something that applies to all women regardless of their nurture or society. It cannot be gullibility because not all women are gullible, that is an empirical fact. Thirdly, for whatever answer you give, I want textual support from the Bible.
I think this is the crux of our disagreement--you think there is an inherent problem with all women that makes them unable to lead, and I disagree. If this common problem exists, it cannot have any the qualities I outlined above: cannot be related to nurture, cannot be related to Adam being older, cannot be about gullibility or any specific trait (unless you can prove every single woman has this trait), must have an impact on the quality of leadership, and it must have support in the text. I cannot think of a single thing that fulfills all of these requirements.
If no such thing exists, then the only logical conclusion is that the Bible is sexist because it bars all women from leadership for the reason of them being women and for no common trait that makes women unfit for leadership.
Good questions. First, let me clarify that when I write these articles on my blog and answer comments, I am doing so under the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore true and accurate. I am also operating under the assumption that most of my readers and those who comment agree with that as well. If you’d like to discuss why I believe that or argue that the Bible is not true, then that is an entirely different topic from women’s roles in ministry and I’d prefer to tackle that in a separate place. If you’d like to hear some of my thoughts about why I believe the Bible is indeed God’s Word, then you can check out my most recent sermon called "How Firm is the Foundation?" which can be found in the Sermons tab of this blog. You can also find some documents I have typed up on the subject under the Resources tab of this blog.
ReplyDeleteI’d like to address your comments and questions in pieces, I’ll quote you first and then share my reply.
You: First, there is still no direct link between oldest and leader. Yes, I understand in our culture there may be a link, but cultures can change and cultures are not always right. The Bible is supposed to be beyond culture and I see no reason why the oldest must always be a better leader.
Me: There is a direct connection as I pointed out in our common understanding. While many cultural things are not based on any sort of truth and are simply arbitrary (such as greeting by hand shake or kiss), there are some cultural things that are based on real truth. I believe this is one of them. In most cultures today and in almost all cultures throughout history, it is the eldest child (specifically son) who is afforded the most respect and authority in the family. Not only that, but most cultures also place age in high respect and thus sayings like “Respect your elders” exist. These things are not simply unique to our modern day culture, but common to almost all cultures worldwide. I believe they are common across the world because they are based on something more than just an arbitrary thing that can be thrown away. So, Paul appeals to the order that God created us, to show that God intentionally created man first because it was His desire for men to be the leaders. He used the order of creation to demonstrate this.
You: The Bible claims all men are better leaders than all women because the man was made before the woman. I'm saying the property of being born/made first has (or should have) no direct bearing on the qualities that make a person a good leader.
Me: Truth be told, the Bible doesn’t say that the order makes someone a BETTER leader in terms of the quality of leading ability. It simply says that the order of birth/creation comes with the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to lead. I’m not saying all men are actually better leaders. I know some incredibly foolish men that I wouldn’t allow to be in charge of the water cooler at church, let alone any sort of ministry. The order doesn’t convey ability but responsibility. It is the duty of current church leaders to make sure they choose men to lead who have the ability to do so, hence the many qualifications listed for pastors in Titus and Timothy.
You: I think it's also funny considering Genesis consistently reverses primogeniture--Isaac over Ishmael, Jacob over Esau, Joseph over Reuben (or, if not Joseph, then another son who is not Reuben), Ephraim over Manasseh (and KING DAVID though he is not in Genesis). Older is not necessarily better.
Me: Again, I agree that older is not necessarily better. However, that doesn’t change the fact that older is by default the one to lead. There are a great number of generations throughout the Bible in which the older leads and that is that. The only times that the younger gets to lead in the Bible are times when God explicitly steps in and says so or gives reason for the “norm” not to be carried out. Isaac was chosen over Ishmael because Ishmael was a child born out of a lack of faith in God’s promise to provide through Abraham and Sarah. Jacob is chosen over Esau by a direct prophecy from God that the older will serve the younger. Judah is chosen over Reuben, Levi, and Simeon because of Reuben’s sexual sins to usurp his father and because of the violence of Levi and Simeon which is explained when Jacob gives the blessings at the end of Genesis. Judah had sin as well, but was the only one who demonstrated repentance and so he was chosen to carry the promise out. The list goes on and on. There are exceptions to the rule but they are specific exceptions with extremely good reason, usually God’s choosing. Can there be an exception to men being the spiritual leaders of the church? Sure, we see such an exception with Deborah in Judges because the men refused to rise up to the call. However, this is the exception under guidance of God and cannot be the typical rule or the way we strive to operate.
ReplyDeleteYou: You say that it is possible for all women after Eve to share a common problem that make women unfit for leadership. I don't know what this common problem is. It cannot be something influenced by nurture or society because this is something that applies to all women regardless of their nurture or society. It cannot be gullibility because not all women are gullible, that is an empirical fact.
Me: Well, the answer that Paul seems to be giving in 1 Timothy 2 is that the woman Eve was deceived while the man Adam was not. Why would he bring this up if it didn’t apply to his reasoning to not allow women to lead today? My thought on this is that he is indeed saying that this is a common problem for all women after Eve. The only other possible interpretation that I can see is that Eve’s mistake has simply disqualified all future women, not because all women carry her problem, but because all women after her are like-wise cursed with the consequences of her sin. This is an acceptable understanding of this in my opinion, however, it doesn’t change the fact that the Bible is excluding women from being pastors. As for your claim that it is an empirical fact that women are not more gullible than men, empirical facts typically need great amounts of evidence to be considered to be both “empirical” and “facts”. Do you have any? Or is this simply a hypothesis of yours?
You: Thirdly, for whatever answer you give, I want textual support from the Bible.
Me: 1 Timothy 2:12 says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”
“Why not,” you might ask.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 1 Timothy 2:13-14
You: I think this is the crux of our disagreement--you think there is an inherent problem with all women that makes them unable to lead, and I disagree.
Me: To be honest, I’m not extremely dogmatic on this point. As I mentioned above, it could be that Paul is not saying that all women share the problem of Eve (gullibility) but it could be that all women share in the consequences of Eve’s mistake and are therefore excluded from leadership as a pastor. I tend to lean toward the former rather than the latter but that’s not a doctrinal hill I’m willing to stake my life on as I would for, say, the resurrection of Christ. I think either understanding is acceptable and either understanding leads to following the Bible’s teaching that men are to be pastors and not women.
ReplyDeleteYou: If this common problem exists, it cannot have any the qualities I outlined above: cannot be related to nurture, cannot be related to Adam being older, cannot be about gullibility or any specific trait (unless you can prove every single woman has this trait), must have an impact on the quality of leadership, and it must have support in the text. I cannot think of a single thing that fulfills all of these requirements.
Me: Since you are writing anonymously, I can’t be sure if it was you or someone else, but I believe you already stated earlier that it is honestly impossible to truly tell what is nature and what is nurture. As such, gullibility could actually be nature and you really can’t conclusively say it is nurture. Gullibility does have an impact on leadership and does have textual support as I’ve cited. But again, I’m not so sold on this one interpretation that I feel the need to argue as long as you agree its either a shared problem or shared consequence.
You: If no such thing exists, then the only logical conclusion is that the Bible is sexist because it bars all women from leadership for the reason of them being women and for no common trait that makes women unfit for leadership.
Me: So is this the way you feel? That the Bible is sexist? I suppose it depends on what you mean by sexist. If you mean that the Bible teaches that men and women were created with different purposes and are supposed to function in different roles and that wives are supposed to submit to husbands and that women are barred from being pastors in the church, then yes, those things are true. But I don’t believe that is a negative thing. Again, I’ll point to the Trinity itself. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are completely equal, powerful and glorious, yet the Son submits to the Father and the Spirit submits to both the Father and the Son.
If on the other hand, you define sexist as teaching that women are inherently inferior to men and of less value and thus can be treated poorly, then the Bible teaches no such thing! In fact, the Bible consistently treats women far better than the cultures of its time. Jesus allowed women to follow Him when no other rabbis would consider such a thing. Jesus had personal conversations with women when all other leaders would have considered that shameful. The Bible teaches that both men and women bear God’s image. The Bible speaks well of many women who followed God in books like Ruth, Esther, the gospels, and Acts. Jesus was close friends with Mary and Martha. The Bible over and over urges husbands to treat their wives with love, gentleness, and care. The Bible is the opposite of sexist. While it does definitely teach that men and women are to function in different roles, it honors women and calls men to treat them far better than any other book of its kind.
Hope this helps. Any other thoughts or questions?
Okay, if I followed the previous structure of the comments I think it would get unclear and confusing, mostly because I was disorganized when I was writing earlier. So, I’ll try to outline what I think your argument is, and my problems with it.
ReplyDeleteThis is what I think you say, and the implications of your argument:
There is a problem common to all women that disqualifies all women from leading in the church.
Note that this problem must be common to ALL women. This is because the ban on women leading applies to all women. If the reason why women should not lead only applied to some women, then the rest of the women would be excluded simply because “they are women,” which I find extremely disconcerting and will clarify why I think this is sexist. So, in order for there to be a non-sexist reason for all women to be excluded, the reason must affect all women. (This is what I was trying to get at in an earlier post about pastors just being non-gullible people instead of excluding all women.)
Also I know you may add that there’s a “common consequence” but for the purpose of this discussion, I will treat the consequence as another example of a common problem.
These are my thoughts:
My overall argument is that a valid, non-sexist common problem does not exist. I will demonstrate that for a certain idea to be a valid common problem, it must fulfill the characteristics below and I cannot think of a problem that will fulfill all of these requirements. If you can give me one, then I’d consider it, but as of now, I am not satisfied.
1. It must apply to all women. The reason why this is a criterion is explained above.
2. It must affect the quality of every woman’s leadership. Even if you win that men and women are different, this difference must be a reason why all women are worse leaders than men. Otherwise, women are equally capable of leadership and are excluded for no meaningful reason other than “they are women.” You may bring up quality of leadership vs. right/responsibility to leadership, I’ll address that later.
3. It must have textual support.
So far, I think you have provided me with three possible explanations of the “common problem”.
I. Adam is created first.
II. Women are gullible
III. All women inherited it from Eve.
I’m willing to give you that all three of these explanations are in the text. I don’t dispute you on that point. When I brought up the need for textual support, it was in the fear that you would bring up a completely new idea for the common problem that was not grounded in the text.
So, let’s consider each of your assertions in turn. First, the idea that Adam was created first.
I think this is a problem that applies to all women, so it satisfies (1). Adam being created first is a factual statement about the world, and this is true despite the action or agency of any woman.
I don’t think this statement satisfies (2), ie, I don’t think Adam being made first affects every woman’s leadership.
You bring up two points: that seniority is respected by many cultures, and that the question is of responsibility of leadership and not quality of leadership.
First. Cultures. Your argument is that men are leaders because men are elder, and many cultures respect older leaders instead of younger leaders. I know this ties in with responsibility vs. quality of leadership, that’s coming next.
You claim that ‘because many cultures think age deserves respect, therefore, age-deserves-respect is real truth.’ I have a hard time justifying that “real truth” comes from culture, and knowing you, I think you would too. In many ancient cultures, slavery was common. Does that make it real truth? If many cultures say something, does that make it real truth? Also, I’d like some evidence on “almost all cultures” believing this, and I mean from a published source, not your head.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger problem I have is that age being respected does not justify every case of an older person being better than a younger. You can respect Adam’s “responsibility” by being made earlier, but acknowledge there are some instances where a woman (who is by virtue “younger”) is a better leader. Even if you respect your elders, nobody believes that EVERY older person is a better leader than every younger person. It’s a TENDENCY. Older people tend to be better leaders than younger people. Fine. But there are some instances where it is better to let the younger lead. The Bible seems to blanket-statement-support the older /man as a leader, regardless of the situations when a woman would be better at leading. It therefore excludes women from leadership for the reason of “well they’re made second, but I guess some women are still better leaders regardless of that.” This is a completely ARBITRARY distinction that excludes all women for a reason beyond their control that is not related to their performance as a leader. It excludes women for “being a woman,” not because they are worse at what they do, but because they happened to be born into a group of people that apparently were created after men.
Now, you may say, the question is about having the right/responsibility to lead instead of being a better leader. I have been interpreting your argument so far as about why men are better leaders than women, so excuse me if I have misinterpreted. However, you do admit that women may be equally good leaders as men. This exactly falls into the kind of argument I was making in the above paragraph. Women are then denied the responsibility of leadership for no reason other than they are a woman, and therefore, happened to be made after men.
FYI, I think this substantially changes the argument. The argument changes from “women cannot be permitted to lead” to “women aren’t supposed to lead.” All the problems I had above still apply. Also, the second formulation there does not prohibit all women from leadership. Saying women do not have the responsibility of leadership does not mean that it is wrong for a woman to lead. It brings up the possibility of exceptions, but the text clearly prohibits exceptions (‘I do not permit a woman to speak’ verse). Also exceptions are hard because nobody can confirm whether God told a woman to be a leader or not. In the Bible, it confirms whether God did in fact tell a woman she could lead. It also means that this is not a strict commandment from God because He would not tell someone to do something that contradicts his laws.
Let’s move on to your second explanation of the common problem, that women are gullible.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I think this definitely affects the quality of leadership. Gullible leaders are probably not good leaders. It satisfies (2).
However, I don’t think it satisfies (1). It doesn’t apply to every woman. Remember, the common problem you present must apply to every woman for the reasons explained in the beginning.
Your argument is that every woman is gullible. My argument is that some women are not gullible. I hope you realize how uphill of a battle this is.
First, I only need to prove there exist some women somewhere that are not gullible. They don’t have to be from modern society, they only have to exist. I can think of many women who were outstanding leaders throughout history, presumably gullibility was not an issue because they succeeded in leadership positions of enormous power. Elizabeth the Great, Catherine d’Medici, Catherine the Great, Hillary Clinton, just to name a few.
I originally hoped you would agree this was inherent, but in your request for evidence to prove that not all women are gullible, I have found some. I have this article in a pdf on my computer, I don’t know how to post it to this blog, but I will if I can find a way to. Or you can try to find it online on your own, it may be locked up in databases though.
Here is the cite:
Eagly, Alice H. “Sex Differences in Influenceability.” Psychological Bulletin 81.1 Jan. 1978: 86-116.
This is an article published in an academic journal of psychology. Alice Eagly has a Ph.D in social psychology and is currently a professor of psychology at Northwestern University.
I’ll let the evidence speak for itself. Here is the abstract:
“This article examines the hypothesis that women are more influenceable than men in a variety of situations. On the basis of a literature review focusing primarily on persuasion and conformity research, the hypothesis is rejected. For persuasion research and for conformity studies not involving group pressure, there is scant empirical support for a sex difference, and for group pressure conformity research, there is support among a substantial minority of studies. Also explored in this article is the possibility that various sex differences in social influence studies are a product of contextual features of experimental settings. The importance of the cultural context in which research is conducted is suggested by the fact that findings reporting greater influenceability among females were more prevalent in studies published prior to 1970 than in those published in the 1970s. In addition, the importance of the content area of the influence attempt is well established. Finally, sex differences in various psychological processes that may mediate persuasion and conformity are evaluated as possible explanations for those influenceability sex differences that appear to be genuine. The explanation that there is a propensity to yield inherent in the female sex role appears to account for some aspects of influenceability findings, but a second explanation, a tendency for women more than men to be oriented to interpersonal goals in group settings, is also plausible.”
The article goes on to examine three main types of influenceability studies: persuasion research, non-group based conformity studies, and group-based conformity studies. It finds that OVER EIGHTY PERCENT of the studies done in persuasion and non-group pressure conformity situations find that there is no difference in between men and women. For group pressure conformity studies (not the case with Eve in the garden fyi), there is a statistically significant minority of studies that report higher female influenceability (but 62% of studies still report no difference.) Here is a quote concerning persuasion research:
ReplyDelete“In persuasion situations, an influencing agent gives his or her position on an issue and presents arguments supporting the position. Subjects' subsequent agreement with the position is assessed to provide a measure of how much they are influenced. Persuasion studies have generally not reported a test of sex differences, but Table 1 lists those studies located that did provide this information. The most common finding by far is no sex difference. Of the 62 studies listed in Table 1, 51 (82%) reported no difference, only 10 (16%) yielded the significant female presuasibility finding so often reported in summaries of the literature, and 1 (2%) yielded significantly greater persuasibility among males.”
Note that each of these data points are studies. That means there is data within each study. For those studies that do report higher female influenceability, they report an observed trend or tendency. I am sure that none of them report that 100% of women are more influenceable than men. That is your argument. That EVERY woman is gullible. If you can find me one study that finds that 100% of women were found to be more influenceable than men, I will give up my argument.
Here’s some more evidence from the conclusion:
“When all available evidence is considered, the widely accepted idea that there is a sex difference in influenceability consistent across types of influence settings appears to be wrong. There is exceedingly little empirical support for the idea in persuasion studies and in conformity studies not involving groups: The slight trend toward female influenceability in these settings can be readily explained by researchers' tendency to choose experimental materials somewhat biased against the interests and expertise of women.”
If I win that not all women are gullible, then the Bible excludes some women from leadership for the simple reason of “women are women” and not because they are worse leaders. It would be a much fairer system to say that leadership roles should be filled by people who are not gullible.
Finally, your last claim. That this ban on leadership is a ‘common consequence’ all women somehow inherited from Eve.
ReplyDeleteOkay. I think this has all the problems I have articulated earlier. This is the premise of women having a “common problem” that I defined the requirements for in the beginning. Except instead of defining what this problem or consequence is and what its impact on leadership is, instead it is left as this nebulous consequence that all women have, but has no other characteristics. There is no impact on leadership articulated. The only reason that women cannot be leaders is apparently because they are women, and so was Eve. This is by definition discrimination based on gender.
Conclusion:
What I have been trying to prove in each case is that each formulation of the common problem is reducible to the reasoning of ‘women cannot be leaders because they are women.’ I find this abhorrent. Someone is denied from doing something because of their gender. A woman is not barred from leadership because she would make a bad leader, she is barred because she was born female. That is discrimination. Plain and simple. She can be seen as equally valuable all you want, but when you refuse to let her do something because she is a woman, you are discriminating. If a woman was rejected from going to college because she was a woman, you would agree that is sexist. (I hope.) This is no different. This is equally discriminatory.
Now, I’m glad that the Bible is radical for its time and at least establishes equality of value. That’s wonderful. It really is. But that is BY NO MEANS a justification for discriminating in leadership roles. Sexism is still bad and should be eliminated, no matter how many good improvements are made towards eliminating it.
It’s just that gender inequality really, really pisses me off. And I don’t think that’s an unreasonable opinion to have.
It will take me some time to actually read through this and respond adequately.
ReplyDeleteFor now, I'll say this. My intention here is to simply lay out what the Bible says on this issue. What does the Bible say about women serving as pastors? That's the question.
So, I have presented what I believe the Bible says. It seems very clear that women are prohibited from being pastors. There are two valid interpretations of the reasons. Either women are naturally more gullible than men or Eve's failure has disqualified women in general from this role, not by any fault of their own.
It seems, however, that you are arguing a slightly different topic or question. The question you are addressing is more like "Is the Bible's view on women in ministry sexist or not?" That is not a bad question, but it is a different question than I intended to address with this blog entry. Again, the question is "What does the Bible say?"
I will be perfectly honest, the Bible says things and calls us to do things that are difficult to obey and believe sometimes. I understand your desire to push back against this specific issue.
As a Christian who has been convinced the Bible is actually God's Word though, what I must do is submit to God's Word when I see things I would not normally agree with or want to do. I cannot stand over God's Word as if I am its judge and tell God that I know better than Him.
I would encourage you to check out some of the reasons I lay out for believing the Bible is God's Word (check out the Resources tab). From that point, you will be able to decide if you believe it or not. If you do believe in it, then submit yourself to it and don't stand as judge over it. If you don't believe in it, then you may dismiss it and that's that.
That's it for now. I'll get to this when I can and I hope to be able to address your questions and comments.