MrsLarijani had linked to Rachel Evans’ lastest book–A Year of Biblical Womanhood–on Facebook, expressing a desire to read it. Many of her friends, who were of similar theological persuasion as ours, did not have many good things to say about Evans.
So I decided to read the book myself.
I came to the book with some ambivalence. I knew very little about Evans; a fellow blogger linked to her review of Mark Driscoll’s book Real Marriage. I had some disagreements with her, but had not read much of her blog to know where she was theologically.
Toward that end, I appreciated Evans’ candor in A Year of Biblical Womanhood. She makes no bones about establishing her perspective early on: she self-identifies as a feminist and a supporter of evolution. While she self-identifies theologically as an evangelical, that means little here: the term “evangelical” is a catch-all identifier that includes just about everything that isn’t in Catholicism or the mainline Protestant world. Singleman–a regular here–pegged her as Emergent. I would definitely concur.
Before I take Evans to the woodshed, I will admit there were some things I thought were good about her “project”:
(1) In the process, she observed the Biblical feasts and holidays in the Old Testament. As someone who really enjoys the Old Testament and reads it Christologically, I appreciate the Biblical feasts and holidays. The better one understands Passover, Pentecost, the Day of Atonement, the Feast of Tabernacles, the better one appreciates the work of Jesus Christ.
(2) She did a good job pointing out some of the inconsistencies that conservatives often have with respect to their preaching and teaching; e.g., that there are many sermons about why women aren’t allowed to preach or lead, but not many about commands to men to lift up holy hands in prayer without strife, even though these are each part of the same Epistles.
(3) As she discussed “Biblical womanhood”, she brought attention to some popular–and at times–extreme perspectives, from Edith Schaeffer to Elisabeth Elliott to Debi Pearl. She also brought attention to some of the more conservative voices–such as John Piper–on the issue of women in ministry.
This, however, is one of her weaknesses, as she often misrepresents them.
Having read Elisabeth Elliott, Edith Schaeffer, Debi Pearl, and Mary Pride, here is my take:
Elliott and Schaeffer–and even Pearl–need to be understood with respect to the cultural backdrop from which they wrote the bulk of their work. While I would contend that there is no such thing as “good feminism”*, the feminism of the 1960s and 1970s–which served as the backdrop that motivated Pearl, Schaeffer, Elliott, and Mary Pride to write–made the First Wavers (Susan B. Anthony and Elisabeth Cady Stanton) look saintly.
I enjoyed reading Elisabeth Elliott and Mary Pride. There are even some things I appreciate about Debi Pearl, even though I am not a big fan of her. Do I always agree with them? No. But I laud the fact that they come to the table from the perspective that the Scriptures are the standard with respect to how men and women ought to conduct themselves. Where they address the Old Testament, it is with respect to the work of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant. This is very sound hermeneutics, which, sadly, is shockingly absent from Evans.
Unfortunately, Evans approached her project with what I would call a destructive agenda: to bring ridicule to the conservative wing of Christianity; i.e., those who accept the Scripture at face value. It is nothing new under the sun, as I witnessed this very thing at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary circa 1993-1994.
Here’s how it went: if you suggested that the Scriptures did not permit women pastors–or women leading men in the context of Church offices–you were immediately tagged as a sexist. If you point out that women preachers/prophets–such as Deborah, Huldah, and Anna–were the exception and not the rule, you would get accused of minimizing the contributions of women.
Typical answer: “So a woman is only good enough to lead if a man isn’t there to lead?” (As if this has anything to do with “being good enough”.)
My take on the Pastoral Epistles: the Scriptures generally prohibit women from pastoring or taking leadership positions over men. The reasons given in Scripture are explicitly theological–Adam was made first, then Eve; Adam was not deceived, Eve was**–and not cultural.
This is not a personal vendetta from me; it is an honest appraisal of 1 Timothy 2. Getting past that requires gymnastics that–if applied to the rest of Scripture–would leave us with a theology that is profoundly relativist and incompatible with Scripture.
Are there particular exceptions where God has called women to positions of spiritual leadership and/or proclamation? Yes. Deborah, Huldah, and Anna. For this discussion, I’ll even include Miriam. Four cases in 4,000 years of coverage by Scripture.
Of those four, only one of them–Deborah–was in a position of authority.
Of those four, one of them–Huldah–was sought out by King Josiah for advice, as the Priests, who found the Book of the Law in the Temple and had not a clue what it was, were in no position to advise the King.
Of those four, none of them undermined Scripture, although Miriam attempted to challenge Moses’ authority and received leprosy. Details…
Contrast that with the “women ministers” we see today. Mainline Protestant denominations–Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church (USA), Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), United Methodist Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America–have fallen off the cliff theologically, and their cadre of women ministers are reflective of the theology that facilitated this plunge.
In the Evangelical world, it’s still pretty bad. The more popular ones–Joyce Meyer and Marilyn Hickey–are off the reservation.
While there are some decent women authors who contribute greatly to the study of Scripture–Kay Arthur and Beth Moore–they are not pastors, and would run from such roles.
If a woman assumes the role of a pastor, I tend to be skeptical right away, and that skepticism has been validated over the years.
In my experience, I’ve seen a grand total of one woman pastor–KDK–who I would even say was on the Biblical reservation. She is a good friend of mine from my crisis pregnancy center days, and her theology otherwise quite conservative. And KDK does not serve as a pastor right now, instead focusing her energies on homeschooling her kids.
When anyone preaches, I look first and foremost at what they are preaching. If it’s not sound doctrine, then everything else is a FAIL.
While a person can preach sound doctrine and still be unqualified, that first test is first base. While a person can have otherwise good character, if they preach unsound doctrine, they aren’t fit for preaching.
Sound doctrine is first base.
So far, with women pastors, I only know of ONE–KDK–who has made it to first base. (And that’s saying something, as I’ve known a LOT of women pastors spanning the Protestant spectrum.)
Of those who identify as feminists, 100% have failed to make it to first base.
In Scripture, we have three women–four if you include Miriam–over the course of 4,000 years. And none of them–except for Miriam, who momentarily opposed Moses’ authority, which itself was God-ordained–sought to undermine God’s word.
Today, we have a mother lode of women pastors, very few of whom are even on the Biblical reservation.
And yet Rachel, wearing her feminist blinders, doesn’t bother to address this problem. To do so would require her to reconsider her take on Scripture, as–in pure percentages–the track record of women pastors reflects an overwhelming tendency toward heresy.
For someone who seeks to champion critical thought, she fails to apply such analysis to her own assessments.
And we’re barely getting started with her book. More to come…
*Feminism–even the First Wave variety–has always been a larger assault against Scripture and all that Scripture teaches about manhood and womanhood. The First Wave feminists sought to undermine Biblical presentation of masculinity, and this fact is often overlooked by those who love to champion the First Wavers’ support of popular issues such as suffrage.
**Does that mean that the men are pristine theologically? Hardly. While Eve was deceived, Adam–who was with Eve–clearly rebelled even though he knew better. But there is a theological reality here: women are more prone to deception than men. And when you are dealing with the leader of a congregation, that is huge. If you deceive the leader, you can DESTROY the followers. Can a man who rebels do the same? Yes, but rebellion is easier to stop than deception. If a pastor has an affair–rebellion–it is a simple matter to expel him. With deceptive doctrines, it’s not quite as cut and dry, and the resultant divisions are greater and farther-reaching.
In my experience, I’ve seen a grand total of one woman pastor–KDK–who I would even say was on the Biblical reservation.
I’ve met several over the years; one of them presently serves as an assistant on my church’s staff, directing an important ministry in the church. None of the ordained women I currently know serves as rector or senior pastor of a congregation.
What would you say the percentage is of those women who were/are on the reservation, out of the whole field of women pastors you have witnessed?
Among those I’ve personally witnessed, I’d say at least half, maybe three-fourths. However, the number of women pastors I’ve encountered isn’t large. Also, I avoided hanging around too many liberals while I was still in the Episcopal Church.
FYI, TEC Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is cited as one of the reasons why the Church of England narrowly rejected a proposal last week to consecrate women as bishops. The Anglican Church in North America, to which I belong, also reserves the office of bishop only for men.
In my case, it has been the other way around: almost none of them are even on the reservation. And the sample size is pretty large. Russ can attest to what was going on in the Baptist world, as he was at SBTS when I was. (What was shocking: even then, SBTS was one of the more conservative seminaries.)
In the Baptist world, the women “ministers” tend to range from left to far left.
My experience with them outside the Baptist world is even worse: almost every time, the Word gets emasculated coming out of the gate. In the mainline Protestant denominations, I have yet to see a woman pastor who is even on the reservation.
It’s like showing up to play real baseball, and the pitcher tosses a Nerf ball instead, and–making matters worse–she fights against those who desire to play hardball.
Meanwhile, the real enemy plays hardball…
In all the years I’ve been a Christian there’s been no issue I’ve gone back and forth on more than women‘s ordination and women in leadership.
A brief story: I returned to my hometown after graduation and joined a fellowship group consisting mostly of students at a local university. The leadership was all-female. At the time my conviction was that women shouldn’t be in leadership, and said so. That got me into a lot of trouble; I was eventually kicked out of the group.
I’ve long since realized that I was out of line. I’d sensed, correctly, that something wasn’t right; more on that in a moment. But I was young, brash and foolish at the time. My words had the effect of pouring gasoline on a fire. I should have allowed the local students in the group to handle the situation.
As it turned out, one of the leaders was off the reservation and then some. She was exposed as a fraud a few months following my forced departure. To put it mildly, the fallout was significant. I still shudder almost 30 years later when I think about the situation.
Today I’ve accepted the Anglican Church in North America’s position that women may be ordained to the office of deacon and priest but not bishop. Am I 100% convinced that ordaining women to the priesthood is right? No. Am I 100% convinced it’s wrong? Again, no.
In 1 Timothy 2:12, the apostle Paul states that he does not permit women to teach or have authority over men in the church. Is this a command of the Lord, as Paul cited in 1 Corinthians 7:10, or is this a personal opinion of Paul’s as he states in 1 Corinthians 7:12, 25 and 40? I frankly don’t feel qualified to answer the question.
I am so with you, SM – I have such a difficult time picking a side on this. It doesn’t really help that my best friend wants to be ordained (assuming she doesn’t get married and have a kid before she gets those psych evals).
On everything else, she is completely conservative. Its when it comes to authority that she completely buys into the hatefulness of feminism (even though she doesn’t consider herself as such).
I called her out on it, but I suppose 2am after several (5-6) beers really wasn’t the best time to do so =p
2 am, with or without beer, is not the best time to call anyone out on anything.
what i’ve seen is this internal-always-on-the-defense-to-prove-i-can-be-a-woman-minister thing going on. like they always have something to prove. i don’t even like being around them.
It strikes me as more of an “everything a man can do, I can do better” attitude, as if this issue of women pastors has anything to do with “rights”.
In the Scriptures, I don’t see Deborah–who was smack-dab in the middle of a Patriarchal culture that would send feminists in a tizzy–copping this kind of attitude with Barak.
I also don’t see Huldah–who probably had a substantial age advantage on King Josiah–copping this kind of attitude with Josiah or even the dim-witted Priests.
They simply did their thing, and allowed the final analysis to speak for itself.
This whole being ordained bit by women wouldn’t bother me nearly so much if they would actually be true to scripture and study it.
The church really does need women educated on this and put in leadership positions – but not as the head of the church. To have a woman versed in hermeneutics and exposition, educated in 1st century greek and hebrew to take a real, genuine look at Ephesians 5:22 and 1 Peter and be true to God’s word would be invaluable to women in the church (and the men, for that matter).
The problem I’ve seen, though, is that the women who seek ordination have already rejected those verses out of hand and the people agreeing to educate them either agree those verses are out of date or bitterly educate with derisiveness, clinging to the 1950’s Elizabeth Elliot version of submission without any real desire themselves to take a hard look at those verses.
Its frustrating. If I had more money, perhaps I’d actually seriously consider being ordained simply for this purpose. I suppose after my kids are in school, I won’t be nearly as needed 100% of the time and could really consider pursuing it.
That’s exactly my problem with it. Like I said, a very small percentage of them even get to first base, as the overwhelming majority of them rejected any semblance of sound doctrine coming out of the gate.
Having been to one of those seminaries, I can tell you where the Elisabeth Elliott supporters are coming from. When they look at mainstream Protestant world–the ECUSA, the PCUSA, the ELCA, etc.–they say, “We CANNOT let the Southern Baptist Convention become like that!”
I’m not saying that proves them right–obviously, anecdote is not data–but the women in these otherwise conservative denominations seem to have the desire to take these denominations the way of the mainlines.
Not to be nit-picky, but you dont need to be a priest to be ordained – granted that is in the liturgical circle of churches (Catholic, Episcopal, Anglican) and probably a bit foreign to the evangelical sect (Baptist, Assembly of God).
When I speak of ordination, I’m not talking about priests – I’m talking about deacons. They are also ordained – they are educated and teach, but are not the leader of their church and are subject to someone else’s authority on what they teach.
My friends who agree with women in priesthood kind of argue along the same lines – being that liturgical churches are held accountable to their doctrine by the Bishop of their diocese – but its not as effective as being held accountable by your head priest.
Where EE is concerned? Its the refusal to think differently than “Women submit with blind obedience” because its just too hard to study those verses.
Women are supposed to be taught by women. It is one of the commissions of women in the church – the elder women teach the younger women. Titus 2:4
If learning what submission means is not teaching young women how to love their husbands, than I don’t know what is. The answer is not blind obedience without question. It isn’t being a doormat (something all of us would agree on). I hate saying this, but we live in an age where only people who are “experts” in a subject are given the right to speak with authority. Its stupid and so reminiscent of the Middle Aged catholic priesthood, but it is regrettable reality.
And as to your last point, that is exactly how I feel about it – I just “wish” otherwise.