Women in Christian preaching often explore their biblical roles, virtues, and spiritual gifts within the church and family, emphasizing both respect and distinct calling (1 Timothy 2:9-15). Illustrations frequently draw on historical, cultural, and scriptural examples to highlight women's faith, stamina, and leadership, contrasting worldly views with God’s design (Genesis 2; 1 Corinthians 11).
In an exhibition game a pitcher named Jackie Mitchell struck out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig on seven pitches. Such a feat would predict a great future in the major leagues, but the hurler never made it to the big time. You see, Jackie Mitchell was a girl.
________
For more on the story visit: http://www.exploratorium.edu/baseball/mitchell.html
Have you noticed that Christianity sometimes gets a bad rap when it comes to women? The notion that God has a distinct plan for womanhood has offended plenty of people inside and outside the church.
Truth be told, there was a time when those ideas ruffled my feathers. 1 Timothy 2:11-15, as well as other places in Scripture that deal with boundaries for women in the church, seemed, well, unfair. I came to realize, though, that the problem was with me and not with God’s plan.
A lesson about why God’s design is good news for women came as I put together some store-bought bookcases. My living room looked like a carpenter’s shop had exploded. Patience was severely tested. Band-Aids were needed. However, when I look at those bookcases today, I feel a sense of accomplishment.
The secret I discovered is that it is vital to follow the manufacturer’s directions.
I have absolutely no skills that enable me to be a master bookcase assembler. Yet, as long as I did exactly what the directions said, the bookcases slowly emerged from the many odd-shaped pieces I was provided. A few times I thought the directions seemed silly, so I went off on my own direction, only to discover that I was the silly one, coping with shelves that would not fit properly in their designated slots.
You see, someone designed those bookcases. This person then provided directions on how they were to be assembled. In those moments where I veered from the directions, I was essentially saying (in my mind) that I thought I knew better than the one who had a plan for how every piece was meant to be used.
As senseless as it was to go off on my own with those bookcases, how much more so when I say to God that I am going to do my own thing and ignore His directions and design for my life and His church? God is the Master Designer. He made each one of us and fashioned us (Psalm 119:73).
Like any good designer, God has the blueprints for how we fit together as the church -- blueprints found in the Bible. God fashioned you. He loves you. It just makes sense, then, to follow His blueprints for how to serve within the church.
The design
God intentionally created men and women as distinct, yet complementary beings (Genesis 1:27; 2:18). He did not create us haphazardly. While both men and women are given the responsibility of being God’s image-bearers to the rest of creation (Genesis 1:27), God had a specific purpose in mind when He created Eve as a “helper” for Adam (Genesis 2:18,20). Being a helper does not mean Eve was inferior to Adam in any way. It means that, from the very beginning, God had a plan and purpose in creating two distinct genders. Men and women need each other; they are “interdependent” (1 Corinthians 11:11) but not interchangeable with each other. These distinct roles for women and men were a part of God’s good plan before sin entered the world.
When it comes to how women serve in the church, I have found it helpful to remember some foundational truths regarding this sometimes-heated topic:
1. True Christianity has raised the dignity of women. Whereas some societies, and even some religions, have treated women as property, the Bible teaches that women, just like men, are created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-31).
2. Christianity teaches that while both women and men are sinners, Jesus loved us enough to make a way for us to be forgiven of our sins and to have a relationship with God (John 3:16).
3. The Creator has a blueprint for the church. We may not always understand or, at times, even like the plan, but we can and should trust the Plan-Maker (Isaiah 40:28-31; 1 Corinthians 12).
4. God has designed each of us and equipped us as He has pleased -- it’s not about us; it’s about Him (1 Corinthians 12:18).
5. Women and men are called to be a living witness of the goodness of God’s design by living obedient lives (Ephesians 4:1).
6. The church needs each member of the body -- men and women, boys and girls -- working together to build each other up (Ephesians 4:12).
7. Despite the fact that there are some distinctions between men and women in terms of their roles within the church, the Bible is clear that both are equal in terms of their worth before God and in terms of the inheritance they have in Christ (1 Peter 3:7; Galatians 3:28). Neither sex is more loved or more valued or more important than the other.
8. While women have been given two boundaries within ministry (not to teach men in the church or have authority over men in the church, 1 Timothy 2:12), there is a vast field of ministry women can and should do (Titus 2:3-5).
At the end of the day, God’s design for the church will be accomplished whether we choose to be obedient to Him or not. However, isn’t it cool that He wants to use us? And, doesn’t it just make sense to do things His way? He is, after all, the Master Designer.
________
Candi Finch is assistant professor of theology in women’s studies at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. This article was originally posted at Radical.net.
Our culture has long struggled with the realities of sexual difference, or “gender.” While first- and second-wave feminism generally asserted that women were equal in value to men, transgenderism now asserts that women are interchangeable with men. Notice the underlying assumption: in order for men and women to have equal value, they have to be the same thing.
Yielding to this fallacy has been a disaster, not just for the concept of gender, but also for the concept of human dignity. It’s as if many think there’s not enough of it to go around.
The Church should be able to offer clarity. Christians must insist that men and women are real. We must also insist that that fact doesn’t compel a competition. There is no hierarchy of human dignity.
Unfortunately, Christians over the centuries have made some big mistakes in this area. At times, roles that men and women fill have been prioritized over the goodness of their God-given design. More often, roles have been conflated with design. For example, Christians have generally understood that the Bible does not permit women to pastor churches. Some have taken that further to suggest that women must lack the intellectual capacity or curiosity to study the Bible and learn theology. That’s demonstrably false.
Because of the real physical differences between men and women, and the different things children need from mothers and fathers, men have historically performed the breadwinning work for their families. Some Christians have wrongly assumed that this means women lack the ability, talent or calling to pursue any kind of work unrelated to motherhood. Yet the Bible is full of stories of women who contributed to their families, communities, and the kingdom of God in ways other than through motherhood or marriage.
Another mistake some Christians make, which may be in response to modern feminism or critical theory, is to suggest that when women contribute something positive to society — a scientific breakthrough, or an impressive career — it’s because of their inherent superiority to men. Conversely, when women contribute something negative — they commit a crime or mistreat others — the fault is the patriarchal systems that oppresses them. That way of thinking robs women of moral agency.
In response, some Christians talk about the moral imperative for women to bear responsibility for what is wrongly considered exclusively female sins — such as immodesty or even abortion. Often, these Christians are unwilling to expect positive contributions from women outside the roles of wife and mother.
In other words, Christians ought not react to the rejection, erasing, or confusing of gender, by merely retreating to roles. We must begin where the Bible does, with design.
Both men and women were made by God in His image. How we live out our calling to fill and cultivate the creation will be marked, in both physical and non-physical ways, by our maleness or femaleness. At the same time, women who serve as wives and mothers are neither contributing more nor less than women who aren’t in those roles.
In other words, the primary calling of both men and women is to glorify God. How we do that in particular times and places, and in particular seasons of our life, will differ.
Too often, while the Church’s ministry to men is about cultivating admirable Christian virtues such as bravery and courage, too much of the Church’s ministry to women is only about how to be feminine. To think about Christian women only in relation to men is to paint an incomplete picture. In other words, we ought not leave the impression that Christian women are not also called to be brave and courageous, or well-studied and theologically grounded. And, Christian men are also called to be gentle, meek, and slow to speak.
If, as Jesus told the Sadducees, we will “neither marry nor be given in marriage” in the New Heavens and New Earth, how we will serve and glorify God in the age to come will not be as fathers and husbands or mothers and wives. When Jesus said that in order to be His disciples, we must take up our crosses and follow Him, He was speaking to both men and women.
Therefore, we should expect women to take responsibility for their sins, just as we should with men. And, we should expect profound contributions to the kingdom of God from women, as women, as much as we do from men.
In a culture so lost on gender, one which now suggests that women don’t really exist, Christians must stubbornly ground ourselves in God’s good, created design of His imago dei. If we can get this right, we’ll have much to offer our confused age.
________
Copyright (c) 2022 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
Hollywood’s female superhero myth attempts to influence the way our culture looks at women, shaping them into a one-size-fits-all mold, ignoring the great and subtle differences between the sexes. But women’s strength manifests in many different forms, and Christianity is rich with a variety of examples. Why not check those out?
________
Coming to theaters yet again: One more action flick with warring women in the lead role. But most of these movies only obscure real feminine strength.
“Anything you can do I can do better!” sang the title character in the 1950 “Annie, Get Your Gun.” That could be the motto of most of the female leads in blockbuster movies today. Consider Rey, played by Daisy Ridley in “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” She’s hailed as an empowering role model for girls, but critics have pointed out how closely she follows the infamous “Mary Sue” trope — an adolescent with no prior experience whose improbable powers and skills save the day.
In the original trilogy, Luke Skywalker lost his hand the first time he confronted the bad guy. Rey, meanwhile, easily bests her story’s villain, despite never having picked up a lightsaber before.
Writing at “Mere Orthodoxy,” Alistair Roberts points to a pantheon of recent heroines from Merida, Katniss, and Black Widow, to Jyn Erso in the upcoming “Star Wars: Rogue I” — all of whom are more than equals to men in combat. These 98-pound kung fu masters routinely make guys look like clumsy idiots, all while showing off petite, department-store model figures.
This “strong female character” cliché, says Roberts, teaches audiences that in order to prove their equal dignity, ladies must be able to best men in hand-to-hand combat. But these portrayals, he argues, aren’t just “failures of imagination” that pit women against men in a “zero sum game.” They also fly in the face of biology.
There’s a reason traditional values taught us to despise men who hit women. Because on average, women simply aren’t capable of fighting back, much less kicking men around the way they do in these movies. Roberts points to studies published in journals of sports medicine and applied physiology showing that men have, on average, ninety percent greater upper body strength, sixty-five percent greater lower body strength, and are twenty-two percent faster. The average man, researchers concluded, is stronger than 99.9 percent of women.
Ignoring this results in more than just corny fights scenes. The belief that men and women aren’t meaningfully different has real-world consequences. We recently told you about transgender fighter Fallon Fox, who brutally injured Tamikka Brents in women’s mixed martial arts. Brents was being treated for facial fractures and a concussion.
And the Marine Corps recently proposed a plan that would allow women to pass the physical fitness test without completing pullups. One anonymous officer admitted that pullups are important metrics of combat readiness, but said allowing women to skip this exercise would positively impact their military careers.
This mindset undoubtedly contributes to our willingness to place women in danger. And if men and women belong together in the boxing ring and the battlefield, hey, why not the bathroom, too?
Even worse, we’ve become blind to the very feminine strengths that the Bible praises. Think of Deborah and Jael in the book of Judges. Think of Sarah, commended twice in the New Testament for her faith, or the Hebrew midwives, whose courage and value for human life saved an entire generation. Think of Hannah, whose patient longing for a child ushered in the kingdom over which Jesus would reign. Think of the loyalty of Ruth, and of Mary, who at a tender age welcomed God’s promise to save the world.
And look at history, too. My colleague Eric Metaxas tells of seven women in his book by that name. As Eric wrote in the introduction to the book, “When I consider the seven women I chose, I see that most of them were great for reasons that derive precisely from their being women, not in spite of it.” In other words, their accomplishments are not gender neutral but are rooted in their singularity as women. Amen! And their lives are so much richer than the stereotyped strong female characters in today’s movies. Even if they weren’t good with a lightsaber.
________
RESOURCES
Why We Should Jettison the “Strong Female Character”
Alastair Roberts | Mereorthodoxy.com | April 18, 2016
Female Marine Pullup Failure Doesn’t Mean Women Aren’t Strong
Mollie Hemingway | The Federalist | January 3, 2014
5 Strong Women From The Bible
David Peach | whatchristianswanttoknow.com
7 Women: And the Secret of Their Greatness
Eric Metaxas | Thomas Nelson | September 2015
________
Copyright (c) 2016 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
An assessment of Eve from a liberal perspective:
1. Eve and Women
Art has always played and continues to play, an important role in the service of what has been called “gender ideology,” communicating ideas about social order through the representation of female and male sexuality. The themes and styles of works of art often function as a prescription for relationships between women and men.
Images of women and men can effectively incite both sexes to adopt certain self-images, attitudes, and behavior. Male-constructed images of women, and men, are so embedded in Western culture that they appear quite “natural.” Once it is recognized that they are constructions, it becomes necessary to ask not only how they are constructed but also why.
The constructed social relationship between women and men in the West is rooted in the Genesis story of Adam and Eve. For the last 2,500 years it has underpinned our perception of sex and gender and thereby influenced how women and men are represented in art. Any discussion of images of women and men must therefore be prefaced by an examination of the opening chapters of Genesis.
The story of Adam and Eve is a creation story, and creation stories, which are accounts of how humankind came to be, can reveal a great deal about the ethos of the culture. Stories or legends about the origin or creation of humankind offer clues about how a culture perceives the world and the relation of living things to it and to each other.
The “message” of the Judaeo-Christian creation myth, recounted in the Biblical story of Genesis 1-3, shows a particular conception of the origins of humankind. It is claimed that God created man in his own likeness, was given dominion over “every living thing”, and leave to subdue the earth with his offspring. Equally significant is the prominence given to men; God is male and his most important creation is male. The story stresses the primacy of man and the centrality of his place in the universe, while making it clear that women play a subordinate role. The story also recounts how the woman, whom Adam subsequently named Eve, was disobedient and succumbed to temptation the result of which was the expulsion of both Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.
For the past two thousand years or so the story of Adam and Eve has communicated social and religious values to Western civilization. Whether you regard the story as an innocuous folk tale or as an invidious, misogynistic tract[*], it has successfully presented its “truths” about women in particular as God-ordained and universally valid.
Throughout the Christian period, the story of Eve has provided men with the reason why they should restrain and restrict the social, sexual, religious, political, and economic freedom of women. It has also given men the justification to hold women responsible for all the misfortunes suffered by mankind.
All women are like Eve, and their only chance of redemption is to become like the Virgin Mary, another patriarchal fantasy, who represents absolute obedience and purity. The story of Eve and its many misogynistic interpretations have over the centuries defined the image of woman in Western civilization.
2. Eve in Genesis
Genesis has been subjected to any number of interpretations, none of them satisfactory to the modern mind. Though the intent of the story is clear, as a narrative it lacks sense. Even the literalists who want to read it as straight fact find themselves following pretzel-like paths of explanation.
Apart from such knotty and awkward questions as from whence came evil in a new world God proclaimed as “good,” and the incestuous situation which must have prevailed for the human race to continue (by whom did Cain father children?), a fundamental problem is the fact that the story has two different accounts of the creation of man.
The first is told briefly in Genesis 1:27: God “created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”
The term “man” in this instance is to be understood in the collective sense as meaning mankind. This plural or inclusive use of the word “man” is made clear in Genesis 5:2 where it is again stated that “Male and female he created them and blessed them and called their name man on the day of their creation.” The passage therefore may be interpreted to mean that men and women were created in one act, both sexes together, equally and at the same time.
The second, much lengthier account is given in Genesis 2 and 3. Instead of simultaneous creation, the story tells first of God forming man out of the dust, breathing life into his nostrils, and setting him down in the garden of Eden.
Only after the first act of creation does the story go on to recount the making of a woman from the man’s rib, the story of the serpent’s temptation of the woman, and the subsequent expulsion of the man and the woman from the garden into our world.
Biblical scholars currently believe that the first account given in Genesis 1:27 was written much later than the second story, having been composed according to the “P” source or “Priestly Code” (so called because of its cultic interests and regulations for priests) probably by Jewish theologians around 500-400 BCE.
The longer second story, related more in the language of folklore, is derived from the “J” or “Yahwist” source (so called because it used the name Yahweh [Jehovah] for God) and was probably written down by members of Hebrew tribes around 1000-900 BCE during the time of King Solomon.
3. Eve’s Identity
Whether or not you believe the Bible was divinely inspired, the Book of Genesis has served as the primary source in the West for definitions of gender and morality.
Although much of the story of Adam and Eve can be explained within the context of Hebrew culture, and its patriarchal bias shown to be historical rather than divine in origin, it is nonetheless perceived as containing fundamental, and largely negative, “truths” about the nature of women.
For the last two thousand years or so, Eve has represented the fundamental character and identity of all women. Through Eve’s words and actions, the true nature of women was revealed; her story tells men what women are really like.
Eve represents everything about a woman a man should guard against. In both form and symbol, Eve is woman, and because of her, the prevalent belief in the West has been that all women are by nature disobedient, guileless, weak-willed, prone to temptation and evil, disloyal, untrustworthy, deceitful, seductive, and motivated in their thoughts and behavior purely by self-interest.
No matter what women might achieve in the world, the message of Genesis warns men not to trust them, and women not to trust themselves or each other. Whoever she might be and whatever her accomplishments, no woman can escape being identified with Eve, or being identified as her.
In the West, the story of Eve has served over the centuries as the principal document in support of measures and laws to curtail and limit the actions, rights, and status of women. The Pseudo-St. Paul, for example, in his Pastoral Epistle to St. Timothy, could cite Genesis as the reason why women should not be allowed to teach or to tell a man what to do:
For I do not allow woman to teach, or to exercise authority over men; but she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:12-14)
The early Christian theologian Tertullian (c. 155/160-220 CE) reminded women that they all share Eve’s “ignominy...of original sin and the odium of being the cause of the fall of the human race”:
Do you not believe that you are (each) an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives on even in our times and so it is necessary that the guilt should live on, also. You are the one who opened the door to the Devil, you are the one who first plucked the fruit of the forbidden tree, you are the first who deserted the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not strong enough to attack. All too easily you destroyed the image of God, man. Because of your desert, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die. (The Apparel of Women, Book I, Chapt. 1)
During the Middle Ages, St. Bernard of Clairvaux could claim in his sermons, without contradiction, that Eve was “the original cause of all evil, whose disgrace has come down to all other women.”
This perception of Eve has endured with remarkable tenacity, and persists today as a major stumbling-block in attempts by women to correct gender-based inequalities between the sexes. Consciously or unconsciously, it continues to serve as the ultimate weapon against women who wish to challenge male hegemony.
It is so deeply rooted in the socio-religious psyche of Western civilization that attempts to discredit it, or dismiss it, or simply ignore it as self-serving patriarchal fiction and myth-making have met with little success. One strategy has been to adopt a revisionist approach to the story itself and to re-read it, and re-interpret it, in feminist terms. It has been argued that Genesis 2-3 is not inherently patriarchal and efforts have been made to recover it from centuries of misogynist reading.
Phyllis Trible, Professor of Sacred Literature at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, for example, holds that far from being a secondary or dependent being, Eve is in fact the “culmination” of creation.
The argument that the order of creation, in which Adam was created first and Eve second, indicates hierarchy and therefore Adam’s superiority ignores the fact that animals were created before Adam. As Adam is superior to the animals, then the hierarchy of creation should be reversed, and Eve seen as God’s ultimate creation.
Trible also argues that at the time of their creation, Adam and Eve were equals and that the inequality between them enters only after Genesis 3:16 as a consequence of disobedience. In other words, inequality between the sexes was not originally part of the divine plan. It would therefore follow that attempts by feminists today to restore equality are in keeping with God’s original plan.
A point made by Trible and others is that at the time of creation in Genesis 2:7, ha-’adam, which has been conventionally translated as “man,” “the man” (ha read as the definite article “the”), or “Adam,” had no gender. Gender comes into existence only with the creation of woman in Genesis 2:22, following which, in 2:23, the “earth-creature” or “groundling” (suggested alternative translations of ha-’adam) is sexually differentiated as “man” (ish), and woman as ishah.
A note can be added here on the word “rib.” Sarah Roth Lieberman points out that the Sumerian word “ti” means both “rib” and “to make alive.” In ancient Mesopotamia, Ninti, whose name means both “lady of the rib” and “lady who makes alive,” is the goddess created by Nimhursag to heal Enki’s sick rib. The double meaning may explain why Eve, who is called “mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20), was created from Adam’s rib (an otherwise very odd piece of male anatomy to chose). Unfortunately, in the Bible, the association is lost because the Hebrew words for “rib” and “life” are two different words with unrelated roots.
Attempts have also been made to correct the popular belief that Eve was a temptress who tempted Adam into eating the fruit despite the fact that according to Genesis 3:6, after she ate the fruit herself, she then “gave some to her husband and he ate.”
This simple, and by any other measure, generous and unselfish act of sharing has, in a list assiduously compiled by Jean Higgins, been variously interpreted over the centuries by Biblical scholars and commentators to mean that Eve “tempted, beguiled, lured, corrupted, persuaded, taught, counseled, suggested, urged, used wicked persuasion, led into wrongdoing, proved herself an enemy, used guile and cozening, tears and lamentations, to prevail upon Adam.”
In the Vulgate, St. Jerome uses the word seducta to describe Eve’s transgression clearly implying that she used her sex to tempt, or seduce, Adam into disobedience. Such damning commentary has long supported the wide-spread conviction that Eve tempted Adam to sin and was therefore responsible for Adam’s fall.
However, despite the sometimes ingenious efforts by feminists in particular, it has proved remarkably difficult to correct popular belief and redefine Eve in more positive terms.
The negative view of Eve and of women in general has been constantly reinforced in the West over the centuries. In a medieval liturgical drama of the story of Adam and Eve, acted both inside and outside of many churches, at the moment of their Expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam, after hurling a wailing Eve to the ground, kicking her, and dragging her by the hair, cries out in fury and dismay:
Oh, evil woman, full of treason....
Forever contrary to reason,
Bringing no man good in any season:
Our children’s children to the end of time
Will feel the cruel whiplash of your crime!
Moreover this view of Eve and of women in general has been insinuated into the culture to such an extent that both men and women believe it defines a natural condition of women. It is a pernicious view and the degree to which it continues to subtly influence in negative ways our perception of women must be constantly born in mind.
________
* Holwick: certainly other understandings are also possible; it is apparent the author has a low view of Scripture.
Sermon in 1 Timothy series - Clean Up the Church, #5. 1 Timothy 2:9-15
WOMEN IN THEIR PLACE
====================
I. A catchy sermon title.
II. Modesty in dress and demeanor. 2:9-10
A. Ancient people were very concerned about appearances.
B. An outgrowth of Christian freedom?
C. Inner clothes matter more than outer ones.
III. Learning with the right attitude. 2:11-12
A. Quietness and submission may allude to the actual problem.
B. The issue of teaching and authority.
IV. The role of childbearing. 2:15
A. This verse has bothered people for a long time.
B. Possible interpretations of an obscure phrase.
V. What does this passage have to do with a Baptist church?
A. Pam and JoAnn have reasons to be concerned.
B. A humble and teachable spirit is still valued.
C. Modesty and proper behavior never go out of style.
D. The touchy area of authority.
E. Our oneness in Christ. Gal 3:28
A recent issue of Time magazine tells the story of Nirupama Pathak, an Indian journalist murdered by her own mother. Being charged with killing your own daughter by itself is enough to make the news. But what makes this story especially compelling for the Indian media is that Pathak’s mother is alleged to have killed her to avenge her family’s honor.
By some estimates, dozens of such “honor killings” occur in India each year. It’s a crime that rightly shocks the Western conscience. It’s also a reminder of the way Christianity transformed the Western world.
According to prosecutors, Pathak was murdered because she wanted to marry a man who belonged to a lower caste. She then compounded her offense by becoming pregnant with his child.
The transgressing of caste boundaries lies behind the large majority of these killings in India. Despite the country’s rapid modernization, relations between upper-caste women like Pathak and lower-caste men are violently opposed, especially in rural areas.
It shouldn’t surprise us that the area where most of the “honor killings” take place is also where sex-selection abortion has created the worst gender imbalance in India. There are only 861 women for every 1000 men. It’s a place where “groups called khaps run kangaroo courts,” enforcing the “vice-like grip” they have over women and the demands of the caste system, and they do it through intimidation and murder.
In other words, it’s a world much like the classical one that Christianity turned upside-down.
In her new book, Paul Among the People, classics scholar Sarah Ruden writes the common view of the Apostle Paul as an “oppressor of women” could “hardly be more wrong.” With the exception of a handful of high-born matrons, the Roman world often treated women worse than it did cattle.
This was especially true of slaves, who comprised one-third of Rome’s population. They could expect beatings, rape, and, if they were “fortunate,” being forced into prostitution. It was a world where unwanted children were left to die of exposure — infanticide.
Even high-status women ranked, at best, third in her husband’s hierarchy of concerns, behind his parents and her children. Sexually, she was expected to be at her husband’s beck and call. Wives could be disposed of when their husbands no longer desired them.
Thus, when Paul wrote that the “husband should treat the wife’s body as his own,” he inverted the way marriage was seen in the classical world. As Ruden put it, the ridiculous idea that some promote that Paul saw women as “sexual and domestic servants” could only be the result of a “brain fever.”
Paul’s’ teaching about equality in the Church was, if anything, even more revolutionary. The distinctions between slave and free, high-born and plebian were so much a part of the classical world that Paul’s teaching was scandalous. It was so scandalous that the pagan critic Celsus called Christianity a “religion of women, children and slaves.”
What Celsus thought as a criticism transformed the West and continues to transform communities today around the world.
The outrages in India and elsewhere are a reminder of the difference that Christianity has made, whether its contemporary critics are willing to admit it or not.
________
Copyright (c) 2010 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.
It has become increasingly popular in our secular culture to caustically criticize God, the Bible, and the Christian religion. Many best-selling books by high-profile atheistic writers are filled with accusations against God and alleged reasons why Christianity cannot be the true religion devised by a moral God. One reason commonly given by the skeptical community for its rejection of the Bible and Christianity is the way that women are purportedly viewed in the Scriptures. According to these secular apologists, the Bible writers viewed women as inferior creatures who are less valuable than men and do not deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.
Evangelist-turned-skeptic, Charles Templeton, summarized this view well when he wrote, “The Bible is a book by and for men. The women in it are secondary creatures and usually inferior” (1996, p. 177). In addition, the God of the Bible and various Bible writers are accused of hating women. In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins stated that the God of the Bible is “misogynistic” (2006, p. 31). Dan Barker made a similar assertion when he wrote: “Although the bible is neither antiabortion nor pro-family, it does provide modern antiabortionists with a biblical basis for the real motivation behind their views: the bible is not pro-life, but it is anti-woman. A patriarchal system cannot stand women who are free” (1992, p. 212). Famed skeptic Christopher Hitchens wrote:
A consistent proof that religion is man-made and anthropomorphic can also be found in the fact that it is usually “man” made, in the sense of masculine, as well .... The Old Testament, as Christians condescendingly call it, has woman cloned from man for his use and comfort. The New Testament has Saint Paul expressing both fear and contempt for the female (2007, p. 54).
Is it true that the biblical treatment of women presents an immoral code of ethics and falsifies the idea that the Bible was inspired by a perfectly moral Creator? Certainly not. In fact, just the opposite is the case. The Bible’s treatment of women is in perfect accord with truth and legitimate moral teaching. The accusations leveled against the Bible in this regard are vacuous and cannot be used in any legitimate way to militate against either the morality of God or the inspiration of the Bible. On the contrary, it is the teachings and logical implications of atheistic evolution that cannot hold up under the scrutiny of reason.
The Darwinian View of Women
Atheistic Darwinism is plagued by a host of problems regarding morality. In fact, it has been conclusively demonstrated that without a belief in God, concepts such as good and evil, moral and immoral, have no meaning (see Butt, 2008). Only a supernatural, moral Creator can explain the very existence of morality in man. Therefore, any attempt to question the morality of the God of the Bible based on atheistic ideas is fraught with error and self-contradiction from its inception.
Furthermore, the logical implications of Darwinism lead the honest thinker to the conclusion that equality for all humans is illusory. Not only did Charles Darwin admit that Darwinian evolution implies that certain races of people are inferior to others, with equal candor he concluded that women are inferior to men as well (see Lyons and Butt, 2009). In his monumental work, The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman — whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.... [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.... [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman (1871, pp. 873-874).
According to Darwin, males had evolved to a higher level than females. As evidence of his conclusion, he simply stated that males “attain to a higher eminence” in everything that they take up when compared to females. Using this line of reasoning, it would be impossible to condemn men for treating women as inferior, because, if men have the mental or physical ability to treat women as inferior, it must mean that men are stronger or more fit to survive and rule. It is ironic that the atheistic community, which is so enamored with Darwin, is suggesting that the Bible’s view of women is immoral. In reality, if their view of atheistic evolution is true, then all male-dominated societies are such because males are more able to dominate. And since survival of the fittest is desired, one must conclude that a male dominated society, in which women are viewed as inferior to men (as Darwin put it), must be at least one very prevalent natural order of things. Even if the skeptical community is right concerning its accusations about the Bible’s “mistreatment” of women (which it is not), how could the Bible be accused of maintaining an immoral stance, when that stance coincides perfectly with the Darwinian view of the “natural order of things?” In truth, those who propound atheism and Darwinian ideals have a much more thorny problem with the logical implications of their ideas as they relate to women, than those who teach that the Bible is the inspired Word of a perfectly moral God.
The Value of Women According to the Bible
When they use the treatment of women in their attack on the integrity of the Bible, most skeptics make blanket statements about the Bible’s position, without presenting anything resembling a balanced handling of the topic. For instance, Templeton wrote: “Women were associated with evil and weakness. Indeed, Israelite males sometimes thanked God in the synagogue that they had not been born women” (1996, p. 184).
Such generalized statements are designed to appeal to the emotions of a 21st-century audience, but they simply do not accurately represent the true sentiments behind the biblical texts. For instance, using the type of reasoning in which we cherry-pick verses without adequate explanation, we could say that men are treated unfairly in the Bible because husbands are told that they must be willing to give their lives for their wives, while the wives are never commanded to make such a sacrifice (Ephesians 5:25). In addition, we could accuse the Bible of mistreating males, because, throughout its pages, men are told they must work to provide food for their entire households, while women are not held to such a standard (Genesis 3:17-19; 1 Timothy 5:8). Such indiscriminate statements should be viewed by the honest observer as suspect, and a more complete and accurate picture of the biblical view of women should be sought.
Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that both the Old and New Testaments present a picture of woman that appraises her worth as equal to that of the man. While it is the case that the Bible presents different roles for men and women, it is not the case that men are valued more than women. A look at various biblical passages confirms this truth.
Wisdom as the Portrait of a Woman
The book of Proverbs, written primarily by King Solomon, is a literary genre known as Wisdom literature. The main theme of the book is the concept of wisdom. The writer stated: “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom” (4:7). To further stress the importance and value of wisdom, he penned: “For wisdom is better than rubies, and all the things one may desire cannot be compared with her” (8:11). Building on the idea of the immeasurable value of wisdom, the writer of the book of Job stated: “But where can wisdom be found? It cannot be purchased for gold, nor can silver be weighed for its price. It cannot be valued in the gold of Ophir, in precious onyx or sapphire ... for the price of wisdom is above rubies .... Nor can it be valued in pure gold” (28:12-19). It is clear that the Bible writers viewed wisdom as a personality trait of inestimable value.
What picture, then, was used to personify this trait of such value? Throughout the book of Proverbs, the idea of wisdom is personified by a woman. The text reads: “Wisdom has built her house” (9:1); “Does not wisdom cry out, and understanding lift up her voice? She takes her stand on the top of the high hill” (8:1-2). The most illustrative picture of the virtue of wisdom that the Proverbs writer could conjure was that of a woman (Willis, 1993, p. 37). How then can the Bible writers be so misrepresented as to suggest that they did not value women, when wisdom, which is “the principle thing” according to Proverbs, is portrayed as a woman? Additionally, the Proverbs writer stated, “A gracious woman retains honor” (11:16). The inspired writer also included a lengthy section (31:10-31) in which he extolled the worth of a virtuous woman who is clothed in “strength and honor,” who “opens her mouth with wisdom, and on her tongue is the law of kindness. She watches over the ways of her household.” Needless to say, you do not hear these passages about wisdom personified as a woman and the value of virtuous women in the jaded rants of the modern skeptic.
God’s Attitude Toward His People as Illustrated with Traits of a Woman
While it is true that God does not have a specific gender as humans do (see Thompson, 2000), it is the case that God sometimes illustrates some of His personality traits by comparing them to personality traits possessed by certain categories of people. For instance, it is a well-known fact that the God of the Bible often compares the love that He has for His created humans with the love that a father has for his biological children (1 John 3:1-2). If the God of the Bible were truly sexist, it would be obvious that comparisons between God and any human being would be confined to the masculine gender. A truly sexist god would never compare Himself to a woman.
Yet the Bible records instances in which the God of Heaven compares traits that He possesses to similar traits found in women. For instance, John Willis noted: “A most compelling piece of evidence that OT writers had a high regard for women is that they describe God as a mother” (1993, pp. 37-39). Willis then mentioned at least three passages as examples, including Isaiah 66:12 — ”For thus says the Lord .... As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; and you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”
Furthermore, if it truly were the case that the apostle Paul was a misogynist, was afraid of women, and had contempt for them, it would be unreasonable to imagine him comparing himself to a woman. Yet in 1 Thessalonians 2:7 he wrote: “But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So affectionately longing for you.” Surely a misogynistic man who is “afraid” of women would never describe himself in such feminine terms. Such examples as these bring to light the fallacious idea that the Bible writers hated women or viewed them as inferior to men.
Women Made in the Image of God
Many skeptics insinuate that the creation of Eve from Adam’s rib to be a helper for man manifests a view that woman is less valuable or inferior to man. Recall the claim of Hitchens when he wrote: “The Old Testament, as Christians condescendingly call it, has woman cloned from man for his use and comfort” (2007, p. 54). Supposedly, the fact that Eve was Adam’s helper somehow “proves” inferiority.
The problem with this line of reasoning is at least two-fold. First, it completely ignores the stress that the Bible places on women being made in God’s image exactly like man. Genesis 1:27 states: “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him, male and female he created them.” Contrary to many religious groups and male chauvinist thinkers, from the very first chapter, the Bible insists that both male and female were made in God’s image, and both deserve to be treated with the dignity that is inherent in that composition.
So what of the word “helper”? Is it true that a “helper” implies that the person he or she is helping is viewed as superior or of greater worth? Such an incorrect position is impossible to maintain in light of the clear biblical teaching regarding those who help others. For example, in John 15:26, Jesus explains that the Holy Spirit was going to visit the apostles after His resurrection. He stated: “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me.” Using the skeptic’s reasoning, we would be forced to conclude that the Holy Spirit is inferior to the apostles, since He is referred to as “the Helper.” Such a conclusion is obviously absurd. [NOTE: It is understood that the skeptic will not concur that there even is a Holy Spirit. This example, however, is used only to show that the Bible consistently maintains a picture of “helpers” and “helping” that in no way insinuates inferiority or less value.]
In Philippians 4:3, Paul urged the receiver of his epistle to “help these women who labored with me in the gospel.” Did that mean Paul viewed the one who received his letter as inferior to those women with whom he had labored? Not in any way. Furthermore, Jesus Christ Himself stated that He came into this world not “to be served, but to serve” (Mark 10:45). Would that imply that since He was “serving” or “helping” mankind, He was inferior in some way to humans? Certainly not. The concept of “helping” or “serving” carries with it no inherent meaning of inferiority.
Many Examples of Worthy Women in the Bible
In an attempt to bolster their misrepresentation of the biblical view of women, skeptics often “count noses” and insist that far too much biblical “press” is given to narratives whose central figures are men, while not enough time is given to women. In addition, many in the skeptical community insist that if God truly viewed women as equal, they would have been granted equal positions of leadership in both Old Testament times and in the ministry of Jesus. Dan Barker stated: “Jesus upheld the Old Testament view of women. Not a single woman was chosen to be among the 12 disciples or to sit at the Last Supper” (2008, p. 179).
Such statements are plagued with dishonest selectivity. When the entire biblical picture is viewed objectively, it is easily seen that women in both the Old and New Testaments played vital, powerful roles in God’s plans for the national rule of Israel, and for the spiritual Kingdom established by Jesus Christ. And, while space is lacking in this article to adequately list and describe each of these women, a few of the most notable will be addressed.
Deborah
The fact that women attained prominent, powerful positions in Israel militates strongly against the skeptic’s accusation that the biblical view of women is sexist. For instance, the book of Judges relates the story of Deborah, a prophetess and the recognized judge and ruler of the Israelite nation during her lifetime (Judges 4:4). A close look at the narrative shows that Deborah was the woman who commissioned Barak, a man, to lead the Israelites in battle against the foreign forces. When the time came for action to be taken, it was Deborah who said to Barak: “Up! For this is the day in which the Lord has delivered Sisera into your hand. Has not the Lord gone out before you?” (Judges 4:14). After the battle was won, and Sisera, the opposing general, was killed by a woman named Jael, Deborah and Barak composed and sang a victory hymn. Throughout the hymn, Deborah is mentioned as the leader of Israel who, with Barak’s help, defeated Sisera and Jabin. The text says: “Village life ceased, it ceased in Israel, until I, Deborah, arose, arose a mother in Israel” (Judges 5:7). “And the princes of Issachar were with Deborah” (5:15).
Using the skeptic’s logic, should we conclude that the Bible views all men as inferior to women since Deborah was a female leader of Israel at the time? Should we conclude that since Deborah’s story is recorded in a book that claims inspiration, such a claim is negated because, based on the Deborah narrative, whoever wrote the Bible hates men, shows contempt for them, and treats them as less valuable than women? Such reasoning is obviously flawed.
Once it is shown that the story of Deborah exalts women to an equal position with men, however, the skeptic is forced to back peddle and attempt another tactic. While it cannot be denied that the story of Deborah manifests an exalted view of women, the skeptic contends that such stories are few and far between. If God and the Bible really viewed women as equal in worth to men, then the Bible would have just as many stories about women rulers and leaders as it has about men.
This faulty assertion can be answered in two ways. First, how many examples would the Bible need to provide of the Gospel being preached to Ethiopians to prove that the Bible writers considered them just as valuable as Jews, and just as viable candidates to hear the Gospel? Would anyone contend that in order for the God of the Bible to be vindicated of bigotry against Ethiopians, the text must contain just as many conversion stories about Ethiopians as it does about Jews? Certainly not. When the book of Acts records that Phillip the evangelist delivered the Gospel to Candace’s Ethiopian treasurer (8:26-40), that one example is sufficient to provide evidence that all Ethiopians are just as valuable to God as all Jews, Arabians, or Egyptians.
Furthermore, let us apply the skeptic’s reasoning to a brief history of the United States of America. Were we to attempt to relate the history of our country, spending our time dealing with the Presidency, how many stories about women would we be able to include who have ascended to the presidency? To date, our nation has inaugurated 44 presidents, and not a single one of them has been a woman. Using the skeptic’s accusations as a springboard, should we insist that the ancient nation of Israel had a more “enlightened” and elevated view of women than does the United States in the 21st century? Moreover, would we despise and accuse of sexism those history writers who spent the majority of their texts focusing on the men who held the office of President? Such thinking flies in the face of common sense and could only be concocted by those who refuse to deal honestly with actual history and the biblical text.
Huldah, the Prophetess
Second Kings 22 records the life and reign of Josiah, the righteous king of Judah. In the course of his attempts to eradicate idolatry from Judah, he made a focused effort to repair the temple of God that had fallen into a state of disrepair. He commissioned Hilkiah, the high priest, to collect money to be used to clean out and repair the temple. During Hilkiah’s labors to revamp the temple, he stumbled across a copy of the book of the Law of Moses. Having read it, he sent it to Josiah, who listened to the words of the Law and was heartsick because the nation of Israel had wandered so far from God’s commands. Josiah commanded Hilkiah and several of the other religious leaders to “go, inquire of the Lord for me, for the people and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that has been found” (2 Kings 22:13). The text then states: “So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah went to Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. (She dwelt in Jerusalem in the Second Quarter.) And they spoke with her” (22:14). After speaking with her, Huldah delivered a message from God to Josiah through these officials.
Not only did these leaders in Israel seek out a woman prophetess, though she was married, there is no indication that the advice or counsel of her husband was sought. The envoy journeyed to a woman’s house to hear a message that the Lord related to a woman. Also notice that Josiah was recognized as one of the greatest rulers that Judah ever had, yet this passage shows that he sought the counsel of a woman of God. Here again, the narrative about Huldah undermines the skeptics’ assertion that the Bible views women as inferior.
Various Women in the Bible
Much could be said concerning women of prominence in the Bible, such as Esther, about whom an entire book is written. She ascended to the queenly throne of Persia and heroically saved her people. A lengthy section relating the selfless sacrifice of Ruth for her mother-in-law (Naomi) would further undercut the skeptics’ argument, especially in light of the fact that Ruth is listed in the genealogy of Christ as the great grandmother of David. Moreover, the faith of Hannah and her prayer for, and subsequent birth of, Samuel, one of the greatest prophets to ever live in Israel, would go far to put to silence the skeptics’ assertion that women are viewed as inferior by the Bible writers. Attention could be directed to Lydia, the seller of purple whom Paul and his companions found praying by the riverside, or Priscilla, who helped her husband Aquila teach the eloquent Apollos the Gospel of Christ (Acts 18:26). Additional information refuting the skeptics’ claim could include the faith of Jochebed, or the leadership skills and prophesying of Miriam, or the courage of Rahab, or the faithfulness of Jesus’ mother Mary, or the good deeds of Dorcas. One wonders how many examples of women in exalted positions the skeptical community would need in order to be satisfied that the biblical treatment of women is not sexist. Unfortunately, no matter how many examples are given, the skeptical answer about this and so many other things is, “Just a few more than we have.” In reality, the biblical examples of how the God of the Bible views women are more than sufficient to refute the tenuous complaints of the naysayers.
Numbering, Genealogies, and Traveling Groups
Certain practical matters must be properly considered in order to achieve an accurate picture of the biblical view of women. Some people who read the biblical text are struck by the fact that some of the genealogies only include the names of the men in the family. As Templeton wrote: “In the long list of Adam’s descendants over the hundreds of years that intervened before the Great Flood, not one female is so much as named” (1996, p. 178, italics in orig.). Furthermore, it is often the case that, when counting or listing the numbers of people involved, the Bible generally only counts the males. These instances have been viewed as sexist and discriminatory against women.
Upon further inspection, it becomes apparent that such accusations fail to take into account certain practical aspects and the cultural context. For example, Templeton mentioned the genealogy in Genesis five as an example of a “sexist” view, but he failed to mention the genealogy of Jesus Christ that is listed in Matthew 1:1-17 in which the women Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Mary are mentioned. Additionally, the text states: “And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ” (1:16). The prepositional phrase “of whom” relates back to Mary, thus indicating that Jesus was the biological son of Mary. Would it be proper to use this genealogy to insist that God has a lower view of men, since the text specifically mentions that the Christ descended biologically from a woman? No. And neither can the “male genealogy” idea be used to sustain the false accusation that the Bible views women as inferior. Add to that the fact that even today in 21st century America, the majority of wives assume their husbands’ last names and daughters assume their fathers’ last names, and are thus recorded in modern genealogical records [such as Annaka Harris, the wife of Sam Harris, or Juliet Emma Dawkins, daughter of Richard Dawkins (Periera, n.d.)], and the skeptics’ charge becomes manifestly erroneous.
In a similar vein, biblical numbers often only included the men. For instance, Numbers 1:2 states: “Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male individually” . Is this numbering an example of biblical sexism, or evidence that the Bible writers thought women of so little value they did not need to number them? Not in any way. The simple, practical aspect of this numbering system had only to do with able-bodied men who went out to war. As the text explains: “according to the number of names, every male individually, from twenty years old and above, all who were able to go to war”(1:20). In the same way that we could not use such numbering systems to insist that the God of the Bible, or the Bible writers, devalued children under 20, or old men past the age of battle strength, we could not use this method of numbering to disparage the biblical writers’ view of women. And, while the skeptic might attempt to argue that it was sexist for women to be excluded from military service in Bible times, a simple response could be that it was unfair to men to force them to be numbered for military service, while women were exempt from such. Would it be fair to state that since men were “serving” their women by providing military protection, their “service” shows they were inferior? To ask is to answer.
Other practical matters, including such simple concepts as travel and sleeping arrangements, must be factored into this discussion. For example, Dan Barker was quoted earlier in this article as saying: “Jesus upheld the Old Testament view of women. Not a single woman was chosen to be among the 12 disciples or to sit at the Last Supper” (2008, p. 179). While this statement is true, the skeptic Charles Templeton offers an extremely plausible reason for this:
The New Testament frequently reveals Jesus’ concern for women .... There were no women in Jesus’ band of apostles, but there would have been compelling reasons for this. Jesus and the disciples travelled frequently, often daily, invariably on foot. Often they slept out in the open. In the circumstances it would have been impossible — and potentially scandalous — for a woman to be a part of that male group (1996, pp. 184-185).
Even a cursory consideration of certain practical matters that relate to numbering, genealogies, and travel arrangements serves to defeat the skeptics’ claim that the Bible devalues women.
Was Jesus Rude to Women?
Those who are antagonistic to the Bible sometimes accuse Jesus of being rude to others, especially his own mother. Christopher Hitchens quipped: “Jesus makes large claims for his heavenly father but never mentions that his mother is or was a virgin, and is repeatedly very rude and coarse to her when she makes an appearance, as Jewish mothers will, to ask to see how he is getting on” (2007, p. 116). Richard Dawkins commented in a similar vein: “Jesus’ family values, it has to be admitted, were not such as one might wish to focus on. He was short, to the point of brusqueness, with his own mother” (2006, p. 250).
A more thorough analysis, however, reveals that what these writers are attempting to label as rudeness was nothing of the sort. In his article, “How Rude!?”, Eric Lyons effectively demonstrated that the way Jesus addressed His mother was neither rude, nor disrespectful (2004). Jesus’ statements in response to His mother are in perfect accord with the biblical injunction to honor one’s parents. Only a misunderstanding of the original languages and phrases used, and a cynical approach to the text, could lead a person to accuse Jesus of rudeness in these instances. His statements to His mother coincide completely with the fact that the Bible’s overall treatment of women presents them as neither inferior nor superior to men, but as equals.
Galatians 3:28 — The Golden Text of Equality
The apostle Paul is often demonized as a woman-hater who feared the opposite sex and held them in contempt. The skeptical attitude toward Paul is summed up well in Templeton’s statement: “To judge by his epistles, the apostle Paul was a confirmed misogynist” (1996, p. 185). Such statements conveniently overlook one of the boldest statements of gender and race equality in all religious literature. In Galatians 3:28, Paul wrote: “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” . About this verse, Jan Faver Hailey wrote: “Common exegesis understands Paul here to be advocating that access to God is open to all through faith in Christ, without regard to race, social standing, or gender” (1993, p. 132). To insist that Paul was a misogynist in light of his statement in Galatians 3:28 runs counter to evidence-based reasoning.
So why do some aver that Paul hated women, even with Galatians 3:28 in view? The main reason for this assertion is that Paul consistently maintained that, while men and women are equal in God’s sight, they have been given different duties and roles. The skeptical community mistakenly equates the concept of different roles, with the idea of different status. As Templeton wrote: “In his first letter to the church at Corinth, Paul states unequivocally that men and women have a different status before God” (1996, p. 186, emp. added). Allegedly, since Paul instructs men to be elders (Titus 1:5-9), and to lead publically in worship (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:8-15), and husbands to be the “head” of their homes (Ephesians 5:22-24), then he must view women as less able, less valuable, or inferior to men. [NOTE: See Jackson, 2010 and Miller, 2005 for biblical expositions of these verses.]
Is it true that since the Bible assigns different roles to the different sexes, their status or worth must be unequal? Certainly not. In Titus 3:1, Paul explained to Titus that Christians were supposed to be subject to rulers and authorities and to obey the government (see also Romans 13). 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 different roles that each party plays.
Again, in 1 Timothy 6:2, Paul instructs Christian servants to be obedient to their own masters. Does this imply that Paul believed masters to be superior, or to be of more inherent worth than servants? No. It simply shows a difference in roles, not of status. Logically speaking, different roles can never be used to support an accusation that such roles necessitate different value or status.
Furthermore, while the skeptic is quick to seize on Paul’s ordination of men as elders and leaders in their homes, those skeptics neglect to include the responsibilities involved in such roles. Husbands are called upon to give their lives for their wives (Ephesians 5:25), physically provide food, shelter, and clothing for their families (1 Timothy 5:8), and to love their wives as much as they love themselves (Ephesians 5:25). While much is said about the “unfairness” of Paul’s instructions, it is productive to ask who would get the last spot on a life boat if a Christian husband and wife were on a sinking ship? The Christian husband gives himself for his wife in such instances. Is that fair that he is called upon to accept the sacrificial role of giving himself for his wife? Is she more valuable than he because God calls upon him to protect and cherish her and die for her if necessary? No. It is simply a difference in assigned roles, not in status or worth.
CONCLUSION
The militant skeptical community incessantly attempts to discredit the Bible and the God Who is represented in its pages. One line of reasoning used in their efforts is to demand that the Bible presents a sexist picture of men and women, in which God and the Bible writers place more value on men, and view women as inferior and of less inherent worth. This accusation falls apart, however, when the entirety of the text is considered. Careful study reveals that Bible writers personified and illustrated such invaluable attributes as wisdom in the form of a woman. God himself compares traits that He possesses to similar traits found in women. Both the Old and New Testaments are filled with narratives lauding the actions of faithful, powerful women. The apostle Paul, who is often accused of misogyny, makes one of the boldest statements of gender equality ever recorded in religious literature. And the misguided attempt to discredit Paul by claiming that different gender roles in his epistles prove he valued women less cannot honestly or reasonably be sustained. In truth, the Bible presents the clearest picture of gender equity, value, and inherent worth ever recorded in either ancient or modern literature. The status of women in the Holy Scriptures, not only is not a challenge to its divine inspiration, but the biblical treatment of women actually provides another piece of evidence for the Bible’s perfection and inspiration.
________
REFERENCES
Barker, Dan (1992), Losing Faith In Faith — From Preacher to Atheist (Madison, WI: Freedom from Religion Foundation).
Barker, Dan (2008), godless (Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press).
Butt, Kyle (2008), “The Bitter Fruits of Atheism: Parts 1 & 2,” Reason & Revelation, http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3740 and http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3762.
Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: The Modern Library, reprint).
Dawkins, Richard (2006), The God Delusion (New York: Houghton Mifflin).
Hailey, Jan Faver (1993), “‘Neither Male and Female’ (Gal. 3:28),” Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity Volume 1, ed. Carroll Osburn (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Hitchens, Christopher (2007), god Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (New York: The Twelve).
Jackson, Wayne (2010), “Women’s Role in the Church,” http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/169-womans-role-in-the-church.
Lyons, Eric (2004), “How Rude!?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/593.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Darwin, Evolution, and Racism,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240063.
Miller, Dave (2005), “Female Leadership in the Church,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2694 .
Pereira, Oliver (no date), “Descent of Richard Dawkins from Edward III,” http://humph rysfamilytree.com/Royal/Notes/dawkins.txt.
Templeton, Charles (1996), Farewell to God (Ontario, Canada: McClelland and Stewart).
Thompson, Bert (2000), “Is God Male?” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/162.
Willis, John T (1993), “Women in the Old Testament,” Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity Volume 1, ed. Carroll Osburn (Joplin, MO: College Press).
________
Copyright © 2011 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
“God couldn’t be everywhere, so He made mothers.” While not theologically accurate, this old Jewish saying describes beautifully the significant role mothers have in our lives.
Motherhood is one of God’s greatest gifts to humanity. A loving, committed mother is an indispensable person in our development. Just imagine a world without mothers. It would be a sterile place indeed. Mothers instill powerful social and nurturing characteristics in each generation. It is principally from their mothers that children learn the virtues of sacrifice, sharing, valuing others, compassion, community and a host of other interpersonal values and skills that enable humans to live together in peace.
Biologically, women are designed for self-sacrifice. When pregnant, a woman’s body focuses its primary attention to nurturing that new, growing life developing within her. Her body will automatically prioritize the needs of her unborn baby. And this inherent gift for self-sacrifice isn’t only biological. After her children are born, a mother will continue to sacrifice herself for the needs of her children. She will do whatever she can to assure her children have what they need.
Mothers are also designed by God to nurture. There is just no greater nurturing power on the planet than a mother. When the apostle Paul was describing his love for the church at Thessalonica, he used the metaphor of a mother’s love to describe how deeply he cared for the Thessalonians. He reminded them that he was like a “gentle” mother who “tenderly cares for her own children” (1 Thessalonians 2:7). When God described His love for Israel, He did so with a motherhood metaphor. He told Israel that He would comfort them like a mother comforts her children (Isaiah 66:13).
I am reminded of the closing chapters of the great biblical book of wisdom, the book of Proverbs. The book that has helped billions of people through millennia live better lives closes with a great testimonial tribute to women. That’s right; the last words of the book of Proverbs don’t extend praise to God, or exalt manhood. They speak of the beautiful, indispensable role that women play in God’s creation. After 30 chapters of directions on living the good, godly, noble life, the great book of Proverbs closes with these words to the godly woman: “Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her, saying, ‘Many daughters have done nobly, But you excel them all.’ Charm is deceitful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands, and let her works praise her in the gates” (Proverbs 31:28-31).
The best of all that God designed a woman to be is expressed in motherhood. Not one of us came into this world without a mother. And in these days of abortion on-demand, motherhood is a conscious, deliberate decision by a woman to enter into that noble, God-like act of loving self-sacrifice to participate with the God of all creation to bring a new life into the world -- you.
This Mother’s Day, I hope you will take the time to say thanks to your mother in a special way. No she isn’t perfect, and no she didn’t do everything right, but she gave you life. And if she is like most mothers, she sacrificed for you and did what she could to prepare you to be a loving, caring person. And to mothers, I say thank you for all you have done to prepare your children to be the good men and women of the next generation. Our world cannot make it without you. Thank you for all you do. Happy Mother’s Day.
In April 2023 a list was circulated among Southern Baptist churches detailing more than 170 churches where women serve as pastors. Most of the women were not senior pastors but associate pastors, or pastors of specific ministries like education or children’s ministry. The critical point was they were called “pastors” which is a calling most Southern Baptists limit to men. The list evidently was composed as a prelude to an attempt to force these churches out of the convention later in the year.
Rev. Arthur Wright Jr. offered an alternative list in response. He believes that God always has called women into partnership as preachers, teachers, schemers, prophets and otherwise.
May you always remember Junia [also spelled Junias], the prominent apostle of Jesus Christ and a leader in the early church. Like her, may you remember that Christ sends you into the world with purpose and with a message of love and hope and good news to share.
May you recall Deborah, a fiery woman, a prophet and the greatest of all of the biblical judges, who led the Israelites so faithfully in war and then in peace for 40 years.
May you never forget Mary and Martha, who both had a part to play in hosting Jesus in their home. May you remember at times to be like Martha, working hard to get things done, to be hospitable and create space for people in your life and in your church. But may you also remember to set apart time to emulate Mary, to sit and listen at the feet of Jesus, to spend time in prayer and contemplation. May you never work so hard that you neglect your own deep relationship with God, because it is in that space of contemplation that we foster our vital connection to God that is so important in ministry.
Like Moses’s sister Miriam, may you sing and dance and celebrate as you partner in God’s ongoing work of liberation in the world.
May you continually recall Huldah, the prophet whom King Josiah consulted when his officials discovered the book of the Law in the temple. May she inspire you with boldness, because she spoke hard words of truth to the king, opening a pathway to repentance and a return to true and meaningful worship for those who had lost their way.
May you, like Vashti, have the courage it takes to defy the powerful. And may you be bold enough to resist like the midwives Shiphrah and Puah.
Of course, may you always remember the Samaritan woman at the well, who had the courage not only to go toe-to-toe with Jesus himself in theological dialogue, but also to be open to new ideas about what God is up to in the world — and then to go and preach to all who would listen.
Like Esther, may you always trust in God’s providence, confident that God has called you — yes, you — to lead in such a time as this.
Finally, like Mary Magdalene, the apostle to the apostles, may you keep your eyes ever open to witness the miracle of the resurrection in your life, and in the lives of others. Amen.
This list is not exhaustive. There is also Eve, Tamar, Rahab, Hannah, Ruth, Priscilla, Chloe, Phoebe, Euodia and Syntyche, ….
________
Adapted by David Holwick from Arthur M. Wright Jr.’s opinion piece, “How dare they publish that list,” March 24, 2023, < https://baptistnews.com/article/how-dare-they-publish-that-list/>. Arthur M. Wright Jr. is senior pastor of Williamsburg Baptist Church in historic Williamsburg, Virginia.
Roberta Hestenes, president of Eastern College, had an unhappy, abusive childhood. Her family was not religious and her father was an alcoholic. While in college she heard the chaplain, Ray Lentzsch, describe various religious positions (liberal, fundamentalist, etc) and decided she was a liberal. Her first day back after Christmas break, Lentzsch asked her, “Do you know Jesus?” She wasn’t sure but said yes. He had been converted over the holidays and invited her to church that night. She spent last $6 she had to buy a Bible.
That evening Lentzsch took her to Grenada Heights Friends, a small, evangelical Quaker church. After the service they went to the home of Robert Seelye, a local businessman. Seelye began to talk to Hestenes about Christ. “While he was talking, his voice going on, I found myself praying and saying, ‘God, if you want to know me, and you can be personal, show me.’ Twenty minutes later Robert said to me, ‘Are you prepared to ask Christ into your heart?’ I said, ‘I already have.’” The time was 10:47 p.m., January 2, 1958.
She was discipled by Seelye and started a Bible study where dozens were converted. The college was aghast at their fundamentalist fervor and tried to stop it. One day Hestenes, who worked part-time in the college administration office, was given a notice to type: it was the dean’s official order outlawing all dorm Bible studies. When she told the Christian group, they began to pray ardently. That Sunday night the dean died unexpectedly. Hestenes does not often tell the story, but she remembers it as powerfully faith forming. “I don’t know what happened, but I know what we believed: that God had slain her for opposing the work of God.”
Read: Genesis 3:1-20
The Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?” — Genesis 3:9
Men are supposed to lead. (How’s that for a non-controversial start?)
Let’s head back to Genesis 3 to see if this statement is true. The first thing we discover is that the serpent is talking to Eve. He’s trying to persuade her to commit a sin–to disobey God.
Note that Adam isn’t there to help her [sic: but Genesis 3:6 would seem to indicate contrarily. RGH] She’s on her own. This wasn’t God’s plan. He made woman from man. Man came first and he was to lead her and protect her. Read what happened after Adam and Eve fell. They had eaten the forbidden fruit and had committed the first sin. Then God called — to whom? Adam.
He said, “Where are you?” In other words, He said, “Yo, dude, where are you?” Not, “Yo, dudette.”
Why? Because it was Adam’s responsibility to take the lead spiritually and keep both of them from sin. Instead, he was nowhere to be seen when Eve gave in to the serpent. Later, he ate willingly of the forbidden fruit she gave him. In verse 17, God said to Adam, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”
Was it wrong for Adam to listen to his wife? No. It’s great for men to listen to their wives! But it was wrong for him to bail out on his responsibility to lead her spiritually.
In Genesis 3:20, Adam named his wife Eve. That was taking the lead. Way back in Genesis and throughout the Bible, God made it clear that His plan in relationships between a man and his wife was that the guy was to lead.
So, what does this mean? It means the man should be so in tune with God that he treats his wife with a kind of servant-love that Christ has shown the church, His bride.
You need to start thinking about your responsibilities right now. If you’re a guy, it means that God holds you accountable for the spiritual state of your relationship. If you’re a woman, it means you should get serious only with a guy who knows how to lead you into a Christ-honoring, spiritually and physically pure relationship.
Yo, dudes. Take the lead! — TF
REFLECTION
• Who are some of the good male role models I can think of — men who are servant leaders and spiritually mature?
• What are some of the key characteristics that define them?
A man is a leader, not a dictator.
There is a widespread belief around about the Bible that it is some kind of powerful patriarchal conspiracy which has been used to oppress women. As a female speaker I find that this question is frequently asked: “How can you as a woman promote such a sexist book? The church has tried to keep women down!” As Christians we need to be sensitive to the issues which underlie such an emotive question. While it may indeed seem to be the case that women have been discriminated against by religion, the Bible itself deserves closer examination on the subject. How is it that many of the greatest Jewish and Christian pioneers have been women? What does the Bible really say about this subject?(1)
Throughout the Bible there are numerous positive images of women and stories that involve women. In the Old Testament women share the image of God at creation. At the end of time at the Second Coming of Jesus, the church is represented as the bride of Christ. All the way through from beginning to end, the Bible includes the feminine as an integral part of the Judaeo-Christian tradition. While it is true that the Bible is written over a long period of time into specific cultures and that some of these contexts did not give equal social advantages to women, it would not be true to say that the message of the Bible is sexist or discriminatory against women.
In the New Testament, there are quite a number of significant events involving women, particularly considering the conservative cultural attitudes of the context into which it was written. This context is demonstrated by a simple statement in John’s Gospel in the famous encounter between Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well. There is a telling little sentence in 4:27 which sheds a great deal of light on just how radical the Bible is in affirming women. The disciples come across Jesus during his conversation with the woman and we are told they “were surprised to find him talking with a woman.” This is the context of Jesus’s ministry and yet he goes against these cultural trends time and time again.
He does this firstly by having female disciples. In a culture where the idea of women travelling around with a group of men, or having the status of disciple was seriously questionable, Jesus has a number of women who are included in his travelling circle who contributed financially to the needs of the group. In fact, when Jesus is told that his mother and brothers are waiting outside to see him, he points to his disciples and says “here are my mother and brothers.” This statement is unthinkable unless there were women among his disciples. In the Middle Eastern culture of the 1st century, it would be unspeakably offensive to point to male disciples and use female imagery to describe them. The group of disciples referred to must have included some women.
We also see Jesus teaching women in the New Testament. In Luke 10:38, we read of Mary who “sits at the feet of” Jesus and engages in theological study, much to her sister’s chagrin. This phrase “to sit at the feet of” is the same formulation as Acts 22:3 where Paul describes his training under Gamaliel. The clear implication here is that Mary is affirmed as worthy of a Rabbi’s theological instruction; indeed, it is interesting that later on in John’s Gospel we read of Martha, Mary’s sister, who is the first to be taught one of the most astounding theological statements of the New Testament. Jesus says to her “‘I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live even though he dies” (John 11:25). In contrast to the cultural norms of the time, Jesus made a habit of revealing great theological truths to women. The first person who discovers Christ’s true identity in John’s Gospel is the Samaritan woman at the well. We must not underestimate how radical this is: Jesus was turning cultural taboos on their heads by teaching women and allowing women to be his disciples.
In reality, it is clear that women played a full and vibrant role in the ministry of Jesus, both as examples within his teaching and as recipients of it. While this may seem absolutely right and proper in our 21st century context we must remember how radical this was in first century Palestine. Jesus intentionally affirmed and included women. We see a continuation of this in the early church, from Lydia and Tabitha to Philip’s daughters, where women undertook various roles. While it is true to say that there are two particular passages in Paul’s writings which seem to go against all of this, by commanding some women to be silent and forbidding others from teaching, these must be read and interpreted in the context of the rest of the Bible. Paul himself gives guidelines for women when they publicly prophecy and mentions women who do teach like Priscilla.
When we come to the text of the Bible with the issue of sexism in mind, we must be clear that while God is predominantly spoken of with male imagery and ultimately is incarnated in the man Jesus, this is not to say that women are undermined or undervalued. Some female imagery is used of God, and Jesus constantly affirms the value of women, teaching them and interacting with them as human beings. Both male and female are created in the image of God and both are so precious that Christ comes to the earth to redeem both male and female with his blood shed on the Cross.
________
1. A version of this article was first published in IDEA Magazine, Jul/Aug 2005. See also IS THE BIBLE INTOLERANT? by Amy Orr-Ewing (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006).
________
Copyright © 2007 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (RZIM). Reprinted with permission. "A Slice of Infinity" is a radio ministry of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.
*
[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #19810]
Episcopals elect first women bishop, Barbara Harris, a divorced black with 8 years experience. According to Margaret McManus of the Center for Women and Religion at Berkeley, the issue is no longer equality, but the transformation of our religious institutions. Discussion of the gender of God, feminization of the church, de-sexed language, and understanding of God, trinity and Jesus. Feminists have developed new rituals.
Father James Burtchaell criticizes "the methodology of feminists whose central insights come from their own sense of injustice and then go to Scripture to find what they need." It has become, in effect, an assault on everything in Christianity but Jesus and his initial movement. One who dares to differ is Biblical scholar Elizabeth Achtemeier of Union Theo. Sem. in Richmond, VA. She repudiates the women-church movement as "a new religion." She criticizes mother metaphors for God because they resurrect the Near Eastern fertility goddesses whom the authors of the Hebrew Bible rejected in proclaiming a Creator who is qualitatively different from his creation.
From Coshocton Tribune newspaper, 2/12/89, page 1:
Rev. Barbara Harris was ordained Feb 11, 1989, to become the first woman bishop among the major Christian churches. She has no formal seminary or college degree, is divorced, very liberal, and has only 8 years experience as a priest. John Jamieson of the conservative Prayer Book Society's Chicago chapter voiced opposition but she received a standing ovation anyway.
Charlotte Diggs "Lottie" Moon (1840-1912) has often been referred to as the "Patron Saint" of Southern Baptist missions because of the influence she had on missionary outreach and giving. She was raised on a Virginia plantation and after the Civil War pursued a teaching career in Georgia, but her heart was in foreign missions. She was motivated not only by her faith in Christ but also by her desire to move beyond the routine of life in the post Civil War South. Other family members had "marched out to fight for the Stars and Bars" and had performed "splendid service" while she had remained home on the plantation. Now it was her opportunity to become involved in an exciting venture.1
In 1873 she sailed for China, where she initially taught in a children's school. She was lonely and her job was unfulfilling. She was tempted to try to solve her problems by getting married, but she broke an engagement to a brilliant missionary-minded young man because he had adopted the Darwinian theory of evolution. He later became a professor at Harvard University, while she, in her own words, was left to "plod along in the same old way." Years later, when reflecting on the broken relationship, she said, "God had first claim on my life, and since the two conflicted, there could be no question about the result." 2
With that decision to remain single came a determination to carve out for herself a more fulfilling ministry among the Chinese people. She was convinced that her talent was being wasted and could be better used in evangelism and church planting. She had come to China to "go out among the millions" as an evangelist, only to find herself chained to a school of forty "unstudious" children. Giving women such assignments, she argued was "the greatest folly of modern missions." She viewed herself as part of an oppressed class -- single women missionaries -- and her words were an appeal on behalf of all those who were facing similar frustration in their ministries. But the examples she used precisely fit her own situation. "Can we wonder at the mortal weariness and disgust, the sense of wasted powers and the conviction that her life is a failure, that comes over a woman when, instead of the ever broadening activities she had planned, she finds herself tied down to the petty work of teaching a few girls?"3
Lottie Moon's plea for her sex was always in the context of her ministry. Indeed, she was not pleading for women's rights as much as she was pleading for the right to best use God-given gifts in ministry: "What women want who come to China is free opportunity to do the largest possible work.... What women have a right to demand is perfect equality."It is interesting that one of her bitterest enemies on this issue was a woman -- a not uncommon scenario in women's history. A Congregational missionary wife, Mrs. Arthur Smith, questioned Lottie's mental stability and denounced her "lawless prancing all over the mission lot." In her view the appropriate role of a woman missionary was to attend "with quivering lip" her own children.4
Lottie's insistence on doing evangelism and church planting was not readily endorsed by her field director. Indeed, she feared that he might seek to further limit the ministry opportunities for women in the mission. Despite some vocal opposition, women missionaries serving with the Southern Baptists were at least permitted to vote -- a liberty not granted Presbyterian women missionaries. Fearing that that liberty might be rescinded, Lottie made her position very clear: "Simple justice demands that women should have equal rights with men in mission meetings and in the conduct of their work." And in reference to her field director's efforts to limit her ministry, she wrote, "If that be freedom, give me slavery."5
Despite her field director's initial opposition, she successfully conducted evangelistic work, and in 1889 her work in P'ingtu was described as the "greatest evangelistic center" among the Southern Baptists "in all China." This remarkable success was in part due to her own personality and gifts. After working among the people for a time she wrote, "Surely there can be no deeper joy than that of saving souls." But there were other reasons as well, and her sex no doubt had as much to do with her success as did her own capability in this type of ministry. As an unordained woman, she was not qualified to lead the churches she planted. Thus it was imperative for her -- more so than for her male counterparts -- to train indigenous ministers as soon as possible. This worked in favor of a strong local church. Indeed, within two decades the Chinese pastor at P'ingtu had baptized more than a thousand converts.6
In light of her own successful ministry, Lottie aggressively appealed to women at home to raise funds for China missions and to sponsor single women missionaries for the work. "What I hope to see," she wrote, "is a band of ardent, enthusiastic, and experienced Christian women occupying a line of stations extending from Vingtu on the north and from Chinkiang on the south, making a succession of stations uniting the two.... A mighty wave of enthusiasm for Women's Work for Women must be stirred." Her emphasis on recruiting women was based not only on the confidence she placed in female evangelists and church planters, but also on the stark reality that Southern Baptist men had virtually handed over the work of China missions to women by default. Earlier Lottie had written, "It is odd that a million Baptists of the South can furnish only three men for all China. Odd that with five hundred preachers in the state of Virginia, we must rely on a Presbyterian to fill a Baptist pulpit [here]. I wonder how these things look in heaven. They certainly look very queer in China."7
Lottie identified closely with the Chinese people, and when a time of great famine inflicted devastation on her Chinese friends, she gave her own food supplies to needy families. She was simply unable to eat when there were starving children at her door begging for food. As a result, she herself died in 1912 at the age of seventy-two from complications relating to malnutrition, and perhaps it was fitting that she died on Christmas Eve. She had initiated a Christmas offering from women at home for the China work, and her death served as a symbolic offering of the very life that stirred the conscience of the Southern Baptists. The Lottie Moon Christmas offering became a widely celebrated fundraising tradition for missions among Southern Baptist women that in recent years has netted tens of millions of dollars annually.8
For all that she did to promote women's involvement at home and in China, showing that women indeed could function on an equal level with men, Lottie Moon could not change the perception that some men would always have of women. In recognition of her singular work, the Foreign Missions Journal paid her its highest tribute by saying that she was "the best man among our missionaries."9
____________________________________
1. Irwin Hyatt, Our Ordered Lives Confess: Three Nineteenth-Century American
Missionaries in East Sahntund (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1976), 95.
2. Ibid., 99.
3. Ibid., 104.
4. 104-105.
5. Ibid., 106.
6. Ibid., 115, 117.
7. Ibid., 113.
8. Ruth A. Tucker, From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya: A Biographical History of
Christian Missions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 288.
9. Catherine Allen, The New Lottie Moon Story (Nashville: Broadman, 1980),
288.
Taken from Guardians of the Great Commission by Ruth A. Tucker. Copyright 1988 by Ruth A. Tucker. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.
Subj:MF99.08.18-Moon
Date: 8/9/99 5:38:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: RickWood@XC.Org
Sender: bounce-brigada-pubs-missionfrontiers-86568@XC.Org
Reply-to: rickwood@xc.org
To: brigada-pubs-missionfrontiers@XC.Org (Text of Mission Frontiers, and
other USCWM updates)
*
Roberta Hestenes, president of Eastern College, had an unhappy, abusive childhood. Her family was not religious and her father was an alcoholic. While in college she heard the chaplain, Ray Lentzsch, describe various religious positions (liberal, fundamentalist, etc) and decided she was a liberal. Her first day back after Christmas break, Lentzsch asked her, “Do you know Jesus?” She wasn’t sure but said yes. He had been converted over the holidays and invited her to church that night. She spent last $6 she had to buy a Bible.
That evening Lentzsch took her to Grenada Heights Friends, a small, evangelical Quaker church. After the service they went to the home of Robert Seelye, a local businessman. Seelye began to talk to Hestenes about Christ. “While he was talking, his voice going on, I found myself praying and saying, ‘God, if you want to know me, and you can be personal, show me.’ Twenty minutes later Robert said to me, ‘Are you prepared to ask Christ into your heart?’ I said, ‘I already have.’” The time was 10:47 p.m., January 2, 1958.
She was discipled by Seelye and started a Bible study where dozens were converted. The college was aghast at their fundamentalist fervor and tried to stop it. One day Hestenes, who worked part-time in the college administration office, was given a notice to type: it was the dean’s official order outlawing all dorm Bible studies. When she told the Christian group, they began to pray ardently. That Sunday night the dean died unexpectedly. Hestenes does not often tell the story, but she remembers it as powerfully faith forming. “I don’t know what happened, but I know what we believed: that God had slain her for opposing the work of God.”
"After all these years, I see that I was wrong about Eve in the beginning; it is better to live outside the Garden with her than inside it without her." -- Mark Twain
Maybe you've worked through a Bible study written by Beth Moore, heard her speak at a conference or read one of her books –- and sensed that she's like a friend who understands what you're going through because she's been there as well.
“I don't struggle much anymore with trying to appear to be something I'm not,” Moore said. “I think that's a struggle especially for believers because there's such an expectation of what 'church people' ought to look like. And in all fairness to the body of Christ, we also want to be that way.
“In my young adult years, I wanted so much to be a righteous young woman, so I certainly wanted to appear that way and behave that way as much as I could,” Moore said. “I used to look around and think everybody had it together, and I was the only one cycling in and out of a pit.”
But, Moore said, now that she is a middle-aged woman she understands that others didn't have it all together. “The fact that they acted like they did, though, left me feeling hopeless. It's so harmful.
“I want people to know I struggled because I want them to feel hope,” she said.
As a young woman, “I really did have a heart for God,” she reflected. “I wanted so much to be good, but I had a very hard time figuring out how to do that on any kind of consistent basis. I had so many hurts, so many things I was dealing with that were not very obvious in a lot of ways from the outside.
“I became desperate and began to act out of my handicapped state -- and by 'handicapped' I mean of heart and of mind.”
Through years of ministry, she has realized that literally thousands of women feel the way she used to feel.
“They think, 'If people really knew I'm struggling with this in my home ... or I have this temptation or that, they would think I'm a terrible person and I can't get my spiritual life together,'“ she said. “We need to just say, 'I am so challenged to live in any kind of consistent victory, and I need help learning how.’ That's where we need to be.
“We have to learn to be more honest with one another in the body of Christ and certainly more honest with God,” Moore said. That outlook, she said, has become “a great help to me.”
A big part of Moore's ministry is challenging women to pursue the call of God on their lives -- the good work He desires to complete in each of them, whether it's vocational ministry or something else.
But she is concerned that many women never come to understand their calling.
“We may do good works and noble things, but we will not be able to make the mark God desires for us to make for His kingdom,” she said. “That's why it's critical that each believer seek to know God through His Word -- because that's where it's going to be revealed.”
It was a head-on collision with God and His Word that healed Moore's heart so dramatically and miraculously that she wanted to share it with others.
“My ministry was born out of pain and of finding that His Word was my prescription, and He was my healer.”
Another major spiritual breakthrough occurred when she grasped the difference between really believing God and simply believing in Him.
“Our salvation,” she said, “begins with believing in God, of course,” coming to a place of acknowledging that Christ Jesus is the Son of God and thus believing in Him unto salvation.
“Believing Him means I take that step past believing in Him -- I believe what His Word said is so; I believe He is who He said He is; I believe He can do what He said He can do; I believe I am who God said I am. There's a world of difference between those two.”
Now, instead of looking to God simply as a source of answers or direction, she asks God to cause His Word to “literally jump into my belief system and flow in my bone marrow. I want it to become part of me; I want it to change the way I think.”
Realizing that absolutely nothing is impossible for God has changed her radically.
“I am proof that He can pull any life out of a pit,” Moore said. “And that He would be gracious and merciful enough to forgive and redeem and dare to use me - - that He would have chanced His good name on someone like me -- is inconceivable.”
*
[Original illustration here was a duplicate in HolwickID 25837-26027]
Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.
Donate