The other day, I was trying to explain the difference between someone having a negative opinion of you based on what you’re wearing versus something about your very nature as a human being. It’s one thing for someone to think you’re a thug because you wear certain articles of clothing; it’s entirely different for someone to believe you’re a thug because of the color of your skin.
The same holds true when it comes to being female. We’re not seen as a minority or being oppressed in any way, because we make up half the population. Isn’t oppression something done to keep small populations under the control of the majority? Far too many times in the last week, I’ve had to explain that having different standards for men and women is oppressive and inappropriate. It’s not based on something we’ve done wrong, it’s based on our very nature as people—our lack of a Y chromosome and some dangly bits.
I’m not even talking about gender roles. I’m talking about what men and women are considered capable of doing. There is no place this is more evident than in “traditional” churches. It never seems to matter whether or not a woman has intelligence, training, and insight. It never seems to matter whether or not she has prayed and asked the Holy Spirit to guide her. Women in those churches will always be told that if they have gifts of prophecy, teaching, or preaching, they should apply those to instructing other women. If she believes the Holy Spirit is leading her to pastor a church, she may be told that she should marry a pastor or that she has heard incorrectly or that she should consider using her gifts differently. If we point out women who are boldly preaching to men and women alike, we may be told that they are “challenges” to our faith.
It doesn’t matter if those women are fantastically gifted speakers and leaders. In the nearly 25 years that I’ve been a Christian, I’ve been subjected to some pretty awful preaching by men who hold the title of pastor. I’ve also heard some wonderful and inspiring messages from women, both clergy and laity. In my opinion, there is no excuse for putting a man up front to give a lousy sermon if a church has twenty women who could do a much better job.
The real problem, though, is the legalism attached to the “no women in spiritual authority” thing. (And a side note, I think the term “spiritual authority” is meaningless. Every time I hear it, I feel my inner Inigo Montoya rising and I want to say, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”) When a church makes rules about the role of women, they need to be consistent. There shouldn’t be the kind of legalistic mentality that leads to searching for loopholes.
The result is that a woman can lead a Bible study if she has a male co-leader who is present while she teaches. So if her lessons are good enough under those circumstances, why not when her co-leader is not present? Women can teach young men (usually under 18 or under 21), but not older. I assure you, there is nothing magical that happens to a man at age 18 or 21. The only reason to have that rule is that “there has to be a line somewhere.” But Jewish boys become men at 13. Since both Jesus and Paul were Jews, shouldn’t we go by their rules? How about an 18- or 21-year old male who is mentally challenged? Do we refuse to allow women to deliver a message to high schoolers after December 1 (the cut-off for school entrance) on the grounds that one or more of the boys may have turned 18 before the end of the school year? Or do we let her preach on, and just kick the 18-year-old males out of the room?
That last one is the worst offender. Deciding when a boy becomes a man and then trying to base Scriptural analysis and doctrine on that is foolish. When I was in high school, I took a Communicants class at church. (This is sort of a confirmation class, where teens can learn about faith, salvation, and the specific doctrine of the church. At the end, membership in the church is possible.) My teacher was a woman, a friend’s mother. She is intelligent, trustworthy, and knowledgeable about both Scripture and church tradition (and life in general; I can’t exaggerate the respect I have for her). By the Age 18 Rule, she could not give Bible instruction to a mixed group of college freshmen.
On what planet does it make any sense at all that a godly, wise woman three times their age would be considered to have less spiritual maturity than a male college freshman?
This isn’t about what education or training a woman is lacking. This is about the fact that she is lacking a set of hormones and a penis. And although I hate to break it to the men (okay, not really), your penis is not magical, no matter how much you might want to think it is. Refusing to allow people to reach the potential God has for them because you interpret the Bible to mean “no penis, no preaching” isn’t good form. Being female isn’t a choice, something we can correct so that we’re in line with the Bible’s teaching. It’s a vital, inborn part of who we are as humans. It’s not even the kind of thing one can argue over, whether it’s a choice or a person is born that way.
What I’m asking for is that if a church really believes that women should not hold authority over men, then be consistent with that. Don’t hire women to do the job of a pastor, but refuse to acknowledge that fact by denying her the title of respect. Be sure that when you hire men to preach, they are actually good at what they are doing. Otherwise, you’re hiring the appendage not the pastor. If you don’t want women to teach men, then don’t let them. Have all instruction, including that of children, carried out by men, or segregate children into male and female groups.
You can’t have it both ways.
