IMPOLITE TOPICS

Welcome back!

The nomination of Sarah Palin as the vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party represents an astonishing Evangelical flip-flop on the role of women in leadership by self-proclaimed social and religious conservatives.

Let’s put this in perspective. If John Cain is elected President, Sarah Palin will hold the second highest leadership position in the nation—and as the saying goes, will be within a heartbeat of the highest leadership position. And conservative Christians declare themselves ecstatic over the choice.

In one of my first posts, I told the story of my first day at an Evangelical seminary when I was challenged with a Bible verse, the infamous—and universally mistranslated—1 Timothy 2:12, by a fist-pounding student who told me that “God does not call women.”  God Does Not Call Women

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence (1 Timothy 2:12, King James Version.) 

There are a handful of other New Testament verses that have been quoted again and again to prove that it is a violation of God’s order for a woman to be in a leadership position. Women are meant to be subordinate to men, and to be mothers and homemakers.

In future posts, I will be doing some careful Bible study of each of these verses to show that traditional interpretation of these Bible verses to argue for the subordination of women to male authority distorted the intended meanings.

But here, I want to point out how much Sarah Palin has risen to leadership as the direct beneficiary of the feminist movement and her Pentecostal roots.

“Conservative churches” have blamed the feminist movement for all sorts of social evils, claiming that the feminist agenda is an effort to reverse God’s chosen order of male leadership and female submission. Feminists have been blamed for all sorts of social problems and disasters, including the terrorist assault on September 11, 2001 and the ruination of American men and boys.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”  Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson on September 13, 2001 telecast of the 700 Club
 

It is impossible to understand what is happening to our kids today, both male and female, without considering the influence of feminist ideology. Swirling out of it was an attack on the very essence of masculinity. Everything that had been associated with maleness was subjected to scorn. Men who clung to traditional roles and conservative attitudes were said to be too “macho.” If they foolishly tried to open doors for ladies or gave them their seats on subways, as their fathers had done, they were called “male chauvinist pigs.” Women presented themselves as victims who were “not gonna take it anymore,” and men were said to be heartless oppressors who had abused and exploited womankind for centuries. Divorce skyrocketed as a surprising number of women simply packed up and left their husbands and children.

Although these early feminists called attention to some valid concerns that needed to be addressed, such as equal pay for equal work and discrimination in the workplace, they went far beyond legitimate grievances and began to rip and tear at the fabric of the family. By the time the storm had blown itself out, the institution of marriage had been shaken to its foundation, and masculinity itself was thrown back on its heels. It has never fully recovered. James Dobson, Radical Feminism Shortchanges Boys

In a blatant display of groping for right wing Christian support, John McCain chose a woman as his vice-presidential nominee.

Hoping his pick of Sarah Palin as running mate will soothe the concerns of evangelical Christians about his candidacy, John McCain will hold a sold-out rally here today in the hometown of James Dobson, the influential evangelical leader of the Focus on the Family ministry who once vowed he would never vote for McCain.

“It’s a better track he’s on these days,” Focus on the Family senior vice president Tom Minnery told the Denver Post about his selection of Palin. “She is a polished, thorough-going social conservative. That’s what’s brought life to the Republican Party.”

Athough he hasn’t formally endorsed him, Dobson said last week that he would vote for a McCain/Palin ticket.  John Bentley, McCain Aims Towards Right With Palin Choice

In one of her blazingly insightful articles, Anna Quindlen writes:

The Republican Party has undergone a surprising metamorphosis since Sarah Palin was chosen as its vice presidential candidate. In Palin I recognize a fellow traveler, a woman whose life would have been impossible just a few decades ago. If she had been born 30 years earlier, the PTA would likely have been her last stop, not her first. Her political ascendancy is a direct result of the women’s movement, which has changed the world utterly for women of all persuasions. It is therefore notable that Palin has found her home in a party, and in a wing of that party, that for many years has reviled, repelled and sought to roll back the very changes that led her to the Alaska Statehouse. Anna Quindlen,  Can You Say ‘Sexist’?

What is even more astonishing is that Sarah Palin is regarded as a “quasi-feminist.” Despite those who might quibble that a quasi-feminist is something like being quasi-pregnant, Sarah Palin is now the official representative of socially conservative feminism. She is a mother, whose five children are being used as props for her persona, just as the bear skin rugs, dead moose, guns, short skirts and high heels add up to a complicated portrait of Sarah Barracuda, the loving mother,and tough quasi-feminist politician who represents conservative social values.

In many ways, this quasi-feminist is the anti-Hillary, who has been treated with extraordinary scorn by the Christian right.

John McCain has been no advocate for women; when asked during the primaries, on the subject of Senator Clinton, “How do we beat the bitch?” he responded, “Excellent question.” (Note to the GOP: that IS sexist.) Anna Quindlen

And consider this snide remark by Cal Thomas, which is a clear reference to Hillary Clinton’s preference for pantsuits. The implication is that Sarah Palin is a real woman because she wears skirts and high heels.

And she wore a skirt and heels at her introduction last week in Dayton, Ohio. That should count for something among men and women who are tired of pantsuits. Cal Thomas: Sarah Palin, steel magnolia

(What Thomas doesn’t meniton is that Hillary Clinton stopped wearing skirts years ago after her legs became a major topic of criticism from snarky columnists.) 

In addition to having great legs for a 44 year old mother of five, Sarah Palin’s primary qualification as a socially conservative quasi-feminist is her view on abortion. However, the critics of women in leadership positions have been strangely silent about her leadership role. Whatever happened to their objection to women having authority over men?

The list of Christian right advocates who announced enthusiastic support for Sarah Palin’s nomination is a Who’s-Who of the Christian right.

Friday morning, before the major news outlets made any definitive announcements, Christian right pundits were buzzing about Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s likely nomination for vice president. Rev. Rob Schenk, President of the National Clergy Council and a member of the National Pro-Life Action Center, and Steven Petrouka, founder of Pro-Life Radio, both made early predictions based on confidential sources, and sung of the governor’s conservative credentials. She’s a devout Christian, a vocal antiabortion advocate and gay rights opponent, and the mother of five children – including a new baby diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome. Palin’s decision to continue the pregnancy after learning the diagnosis was declared proof positive, to pundits of the religious right, of how good the Alaska native would be for the pro-life cause: a beautiful, quasi-”feminist” face for social conservative politics.

In short order the announcement was lauded by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List, the Christian Coalition for America, the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission – which proclaimed Palin “a true Christian” (as compared to Obama and Biden) – the Population Research Institute, Fr. Frank Pavone’s Priests for Life, the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and the Beverly LaHaye Institute. Indeed, Rush Limbaugh has been promoting Palin since February. Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, said the religious right was “beyond ecstatic” at the choice, while Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who endorsed McCain with extreme reluctance, called the pick an “outstanding choice” that reassured conservatives of McCain’s pro-life judicial intentions. Richard Viguerie, one of the architects of the new right, observed in a press release that, “Conservatives, the base of the party, have been listless. But, now, nearly all will work enthusiastically for the McCain-Palin ticket. In fact, this is the most enthusiastic conservatives have been since the era for Ronald Reagan.”

The Family Research Council, already elated that the GOP platform was “the most conservative, pro-life, and profamily platform in Republican party history… articulated with the dedicated efforts of many conservative women, standing on the shoulders of long-time conservative leaders such as Phyllis Schlafy,” saw Palin as the icing on the cake. They declared succinctly, “Conservative Women Rule.”
Kathyn Joyce, McCain’s VP Courts Conservative Evangelicals

A “thorough-going social conservative” who happens to be the female governor of Alaska, has been the female mayor of a small town in Alaska, and, if elected—could potentially become the first female president of the United States. This is a social conservative from a movement that has declared that leadership by women violates the infallible, inerrant, Word of God?

Sarah Palin is a complicated woman who is the direct beneficiary of the feminist movement that social conservatives have denounced every step of the way. Sarah could not stand before crowds cheering her “quasi-feminism,” if it weren’t for the generation represented by the much maligned Hillary Clinton. This generation prepared the way for women to become governors, senators, and presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

There is another piece of the complicated history of Sarah, and this goes back to her Pentecostal history. 

Although news reports claim that she was never Pentecostal, and now attends non-denominational churches—even though the Juneau Christian Center is affiliated with the Assemblies of God—Sarah Palin gives every indication of being Pentecostal.

Margaret Poloma, at the University of Akron, has written several books on Pentecostalism and is herself a Pentecostal Christian.

Poloma has listened to the tape of the governor’s Assembly of God address and says of Palin’s faith: “It seems to me that she’s the real McCoy.”Poloma says faith in divine revelation, prophecy and an outpouring of the Holy Spirit are hallmarks of the Pentecostal faith. Barbara Bradley Hagerty, Examining Palin’s Pentecostal Background

One of the fascinating bits of history about the Pentecostal moment is that the leadership of women was accepted in the early years of the Assembles of God. Although I don’t have the exact figures available to cite here, I have seen several references to a substantial percentage of women clergy in the early days of the Assemblies of God—as many as twenty percent.

The more respectable the Assembly of God churches became over time, the more they moved toward the values of mainstream Evangelical churches. The percentage of women clergy decreased as the Assemblies moved away from store-front churches to larger, more affluent suburban churches.

In the video of Governor Palin at the Wasilla Assembly of God, I was struck by the story about the founding pastor who recognized her leadership qualities, and prayed for God to make a way for her. Sarah Palin At Wasilla Assembly Of God

This is classic Pentecostalism. Instead of arguing that a woman has no authority to lead, the earliest Pentecostal attitude was: “Who am I to challenge the one God has chosen by outpouring gifts of leadership?”  In the Wasilla Assembly of God, her gifts for leadership were recognized and blessed.

This is a far cry from my experience at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where women students were harassed relentlessly as being disobedient to God for seeking to become leaders in the church.

Although I have no way to prove it, I suspect that if Sarah Palin had grown up in a traditional Evangelical church, in which men were recognized as God’s appointed leaders—at home, in the church, and in the world—and women were taught to submit to the authority of men, the world might never know Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, the current Republican vice-presidential nominee, and potential national and international leader.

In many ways, Sarah Palin is the product of feminism—which social conservatives have blocked ardently at every step of the way—and a Pentecostal church that blessed her for leadership and did not treat her as disobedient.

Yet, despite these two strong influences, she is being put forward as the quasi-feminist, socially conservative antidote to Hillary Clinton style feminism. And the same conservatives who have condemned feminists publicly promote her qualifications to lead. This is the mother of all political flip-flops.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: 1 Timothy 2:12, Evangelicals, feminism, feminist, Hillary Clinton, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, John McCain, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Sarah Palin, Women And Leadership

One of my most vivid memories from my first days as a seminary student was of the New Testament professor who stood at the front of the lecture hall, waving a book with a red cover.  The book was the United Bible Societies’ The Greek New Testament. It is a version for serious scholars, with dense textual notes about variant manuscript traditions.

The professor was a man given to flamboyant gestures (and was also the single most important reason why I chose to become a biblical scholar.) As he waved the book, he declared:

 ”This is the New Testament.  Everything else is a translation.”

It’s true.  Every Bible published in English (or French or Spanish or Russian or Tagalog or Mandarin or any other language on the face of Earth) is a translation from manuscripts written in ancient languages, such as Greek, or Hebrew, or Latin.

If I had my way, every Bible published in any language would be required to have this warning emblazoned on the front cover. 

“Warning:  THIS IS A TRANSLATION. Use with caution and humility, because translators often miss the point.

Translators often miss the point because translation is the result of a complicated process, with so much room for errors and distortions at dozens of steps along the way.   

The first problem concerns the manuscript itself.  The finished document can never be better than the original document.  In the case of the Bible, there are a wide variety of ancient manuscripts behind various translations.  In the case of the King James Version, the translators used the best manuscripts available at the time. More recent translations are based on manuscripts that were discovered long after the King James translators did their work.

The second problem concerns the original language.  Biblical Greek and Biblical Hebrew are dead languages, which means that translators attempt to translate ancient words they may not understand.  Every once in a while, a scholar will stumble upon some ancient document that explains a mysterious word that no one quite knew how to translate.  (This is part of the problem with translations of 1 Timothy 2:12, where “authority” is used to mistranslate an extremely rare Greek word.  I’ll definitely return to this topic in a later post )

The third problem concerns the modern language. We all have heard about something being “lost in translation.” The challenge of any translation from one language to another is to convey the original intention of words in one language into the same meaning in a new language. 

Living languages are dynamic.  As I pointed out in “Is Godspeak A Biblical Language?” , the English spoken in 1611 was dramatically different from English spoken in 2008.

So the challenge is to translate words from a dead language into a dynamic living language, using the best manuscripts available, in a way that accurately conveys the sense and intention of the original words in a way that is consistent with contemporary language. This is not an easy task.
 
So, what about the “thou” language of the King James Bible, especially related to the Lord’s Prayer?

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen. (Mt 6: 9-13, King James Version.)

In the King James version, God is addressed with “thou” language. After four hundred years of usage, this “thou,” “thee,” “thy,” and “thine” language is deeply imbedded in Christian usage, as conventional elements of Godspeak. 

However, in modern speech, no one uses “thou,” “thee,” “thy,” and “thine,” except in wedding ceremonies when relics of King James English remain in the exceedingly odd grammatical construction, “I thee wed.”     

My first question is: Does the Lord’s Prayer in Greek use a distinct set of pronouns for prayer?

In other words, does Biblical Greek require “Godspeak” as the language of prayer? The short answer is: No. There is only one second person singular pronoun in Greek. The Greek New Testament has no separate pronouns for God.

So, where do “thou” and “thee” come from and why are they in the King James Bible? To answer this question, we need to take a little trip into the history of English.

English and German are cognate languages. That means they share a common Old German ancestry. German has distinct pronouns for “you,” depending on whether “you” is singular or plural, and on the closeness of your relationship with the person identified as “you.”

English used to make similar distinctions. ”Thou” was the pronoun of familiarity and “ye” was the pronoun for formality. (For more, see “Thou.” ) 
 
When the King James translators got to the Lord’s Prayer, they had a translation decision to make. Even though biblical Greek does not have distinct second personal singular pronouns, King James English did.

One of the goals of the translators was to use simple, clear, contemporary English. In addition, the context of the “Lord’s Prayer” in Matthew 6:9-13 is Jesus’ instruction to his disciples.  He is teaching his disciples how to pray. The sense of the instruction is that Jesus is telling them to use simple, direct language.  

In other words, “thou” is the language of intimacy and closeness. “Ye” is the language of formality and distance. So the King James translators used “thou” language rather than the formal “ye.” This was a theological decision based on what they understood about the prayer and the particular challenge of translating that prayer into meaningful English.

What happened next?  English changed, but the words did not. No one uses “thou” in ordinary speech. What I find particular fascinating is that the only second person pronoun in contemporary English is “you,” derived from the formal “ye.” This means that “you” can refer to your closest friend and your worst enemy, and is both singular and plural. In other words, the formal “ye” has turned into the all-purpose, one-size-fits all pronoun “you” of contemporary English. 

In the process, the language of intimacy in the King James Bible of 1611 became the language of formality in the King James Bible of 2008. The common speech of ordinary people turned into the formal, stuffy, archaic language of Godspeak.

King James translators used “thou” to convey the essence of the teaching they thought Jesus intended: ”You don’t need special language to pray.”

But as English changed and the King James translation remained stuck in time, this liberating insight has been turned on its head. To many people devoted to the King James translation, prayer to God requires its own formal language.  In other words, when you pray, you must invoke God in the archaic language of Godspeak.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

written by Kalinda \\ tags: 1 Timothy 2:12, Bible translation, Godspeak, Greek New Testament, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, King James Version, Lord's Prayer, thou

After years of observation, I have come to this conclusion. The greatest enemy of the Bible is the Bible verse. But why? My conclusion flies in the face of the dominant method of religious education for Sunday schools and churches.

The reason goes back to the adage I learned in my first preaching course in theological seminary.

“A text without a context is a pretext.”

The first fact to recognize is that a Bible verse is an artificial thing. Nothing in the Bible originated as a Bible verse. (In another post, I’ll tell the story of how the Bible got its verses.)

Bible verses were imposed long after books were written, by chopping whole books into little pieces, suitable for memorizing.

So far so good, but then the little buggers took on lives of their own. People forgot the books and focused on the verses. When this happens, the verses become little islands of meaning, totally disconnected from the context around them, the way a desert island is simply a speck of dirt with a few palm trees in the midst of the ocean.

Far too often, especially with children in Sunday school, memorizing Bible verses becomes part of a Bible Trivia game, where children learn Bible verses based on meaningless categories, such as “What is the shortest verse in the Bible?” The correct answer–which will win you a prize–is John 11:35. “Jesus wept.”

Let’s look at this verse. What on earth does “Jesus wept” mean? Did he stub his toe and start to cry because it hurt? Was he cutting onions and his eyes watered? Did his best friend die? How do you know? The only correct answer is: You can’t know from these two words. There is no context for them.

The only way to figure out this verse is to go back to the context of these words. Now it makes more sense. Jesus wept because Lazarus died. But even this is not enough. Why is this story about the death of Lazarus important in the Gospel of John? And so you have to back up farther. And before too long, you realize that this a story full of important topics, such as resurrection from the dead, and you realize you have to read the whole book to begin to understand why Jesus wept.

And when you read all of this, you might begin to think: If there was ever a case of missing the forest for the trees, this is it. Why bother measuring the length of Bible verses when the real issue is life and death?

(By the way, even the idea that this is the shortest verse doesn’t apply to all translations of the Bible. “Jesus wept” is two words in the King James Version. The New Revised Standard Version translates with four words: “Jesus began to weep.”)
 
But you might also be thinking: “Well, of course you have to put this particular verse in context. What about all of the other Bible verses where the meaning is clear?”  The assumption that other verses are clearer is exactly the problem.

In the case of “Jesus wept,” anyone who reads the words knows there is something missing. The real problem with Bible verses comes with other verses that have more words, but no more context. In these cases, people think they know what the words mean, but in fact, they have no more clarity about the meaning than they do with the words, “Jesus wept.”

Here’s an example about money. “Blessed are the poor.”

So what does this mean? You have to be poor to be blessed? (See Going Broke With Jesus, Chapter 8 for more on this particular verse.)

Or let’s get even more controversial. “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (KJV, Ephesians 5:22.)

Can you really build an entire biblical understanding of marriage based on these words (which by the way are a substantial mistranslation of Ephesians 5:22? You might be surprised to learn that the word “submit” does not occur in this verse in Greek. Read  Why Ephesians 5:22 Does Not Command Wives To Submit To Their Husbands.)   

How about, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (KJV, 1 Timothy 2:12.)

(I will demonstrate in a later post that the Greek of this verse doesn’t even use the word “authority,” despite the fact that every English translation I know uses the word “authority” in this verse.) 
 
What all of these statements have in common is that they are Bible verses without contexts, and the last two are serious mistranslations. In other words, they have become pretexts, distorting the actual intent of the words in their own biblical contexts.

And now I will make an even starker statement.

Every time you hear someone say, “The Bible says…” about a particular topic…it probably doesn’t.

Nothing–and I mean, nothing–causes more hurt and confusion than religion doled out in Bible verses. Too often, Bible verses become weapons to be used against people, to proclaim that women may not lead, husbands must rule, slaves must submit obediently to their masters, and gays have no place in the church.

You can find Bible verses that seem to proclaim these rules. But when these verses are put into their own contexts, the strident clarity of the Bible verses turns into something else. The verses become pieces of a larger whole. And very frequently, the Bible verse that is so confidently proclaimed as the very word of God turns out to be a distortion of the original intention behind the Bible verse.

And once again, I will mention my experience on my first day of theological seminary. What did my angry inquisitor throw into my face? He hurled a Bible verse.

This what people do. They use Bible verses as if they were rocks, spears, or Uzis. The Bible verses become assault weapons used against people who have no defense, except maybe to quote other Bible verses. Such battles cannot be won. They can only be fought, leaving casualties along the way.

The only way to get beyond such battles is to stop using Bible verses as weapons. And the only way to do that is to put any Bible verse into the context of the larger story, and the story into the context of the book, and the book into the context of the society which produced the story.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson

(My next post will explain how the Bible got its verses.)

 

written by Kalinda \\ tags: 1 Timothy 2:12, bible verses, blessed are the poor, Ephesians 5:22, Jesus wept, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, Kalinda Stevenson, wives submit to your husbands

Claims about authority are always personal, because they either increase or take away take personal power. And so rather than begin with an abstract study of authority, power, and persuasion, I will tell you a personal story.

My story began in the fall of 1973, with three days of orientation at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, which is a large evangelical seminary north of Boston, Massachusetts. I was an incoming student, who knew almost nothing about the Bible and very little about evangelicals.

I had recently experienced what I perceived was a call from God to attend seminary and study for the ministry. I chose to attend Gordon-Conwell rather than one of the other theological seminaries located in the Boston area on the recommendation of the minister of the church I was attending, who told me that he didn’t trust any of the other seminaries to teach the Bible accurately.

With hindsight, I can see many warnings signs of what was to come, and am sure that I would have been much happier if I had chosen to attend one of the other Boston area schools. But I simply didn’t know enough to anticipate what lay before me.

And so on a beautiful September day in New England, when the leaves were already beginning to turn, I joined more than two hundred other incoming students for orientation. I noticed immediately that I was one of only five incoming women enrolled in the Master of Divinity program. I found out that there were three women in the class ahead of me.

So, in a student body with more than seven hundred students, there were eight women enrolled in the degree program leading to ordination, as well as a few women enrolled in the Christian education program. I also happened to be the only student in the entire school who was also a mother. I soon began to feel that I had stumbled uninvited into a stag party.

Since the seminary required us to be present at orientation all day, it provided us with lunch each day. On my first day, I sat down at a table in the dining room across from a young man. He looked me up and down, as if he was inspecting a side of beef, and obviously noticed my wedding ring. He then asked this question: “Is your husband a student at this school?”

I thought the question was odd, considering that all of us in the room were incoming students, and so I said: “I am a student at this school.” And then his eyes narrowed into little slits and he asked: “What is your degree program?”

I said: “M.Div.”

And then his tone, which was cold enough to start with, turned even colder and he said: “Haven’t you heard of 1 Timothy 2:12?  What is your hermeneutical position which allows you to be disobedient to the Word of God?”

The truth was, I hadn’t heard of 1 Timothy 2:12 and I had no idea what the word “hermeneutical” meant. And so I said: “I believe that I have been called by God to be here.”

At that point, the young man started to pound his fist on the table to create a drumbeat to emphasize each word he proclaimed loudly with dramatic pauses between them: “God!    Does!    Not!    Call!   Women!”

I remember thinking at that moment: “This is going to be harder than I thought.” I had never met a women minister, but I thought that was simply a cultural thing. At that point, I hadn’t met a woman doctor, lawyer, or truck driver either. This was the era of Women’s Liberation, with expanded possibilities for women, and I naively assumed that I was simply entering into new territory for women. I didn’t know that I was challenging the authority of the “Word of God.” 

I truly was ignorant about so much of the Bible. I didn’t know that many evangelicals thought (and still think) that women have no authority to be leaders within the church. I didn’t know that 1 Timothy 2:12 is the single verse most often cited to prove that God forbids women to be ordained into the ministry.

I did grasp in a single instant that I was in a battle for which I was not prepared. I had no answer for the question I was asked again and again: “How can you justify your disobedience to God by being here?”

A wiser woman would have said, “I am not going to put up with this,” and transferred immediately to a more welcoming seminary. But I was not wise enough to do that. I really thought I was supposed to be there. And so I endured. And “endured” is the proper word, in a place where most of the male students and many of the faculty (all male) thought that women had no right to be there. They felt that it was their obligation to continually “confront the women with their disobedience.” And the administration that accepted us as students and cashed our tuition checks did absolutely nothing to quell the endless harassment.

What made it tolerable for me was that I didn’t live at the seminary, but commuted back and forth. The women who lived at the seminary and ate their meals in the dining hall were exposed to relentless assault, day and night, by the male posse accusing them of disobedience to the authority of scripture.

Not surprisingly, of the five of us women who started in September, the woman who told us on the first day of orientation that she had dreamed of being a minister since she was a child  and couldn’t believe that she was finally in seminary, dropped out before the end of the first term, with her dreams of ministry shattered.

The second woman transferred to a friendlier seminary at the end of the first term.

The third woman dropped out in the middle of the second term, feeling devastated by the relentless attacks.

The fourth woman had made very clear that she had no intention of seeking ordination to the ministry. She simply thought that the Master of Divinity degree was a better career choice than the degree the seminary offered for Christian education, and so the male posse left her alone.

By the end of the first year, I was the only woman of five who started together in September who still intended to seek ordination.

In my rude awakening among the evangelicals, I learned how the concept of “authority” lies at the root of an evangelical world view. The idea of “authority” shaped almost every topic of study, from biblical studies, to systematic theology, to church history, to pastoral counseling.

And yet despite this relentless assault by the most vocal critics of women in ministry, I was also exposed to teachers who began to teach me how to answer such questions. I began to learn Hebrew and Greek and see beyond the limitations of English translations to grasp a larger vision than exclusion based on gender. I even learned what the word “hermeneutical” means. And I began to understand why those who use Timothy 2:12 as a weapon against women seeking ordination are misusing the verse, to claim that it means something it does not.

At this point, I will not answer the questions that my angry inquisitor demanded that I answer: “Haven’t you heard of 1 Timothy 2:12?  What is your hermeneutical position which allows you to be disobedient to the word of God?”

I promise that I will return to this story, to demonstrate a new perspective on these words, based on what the original Greek actually says. For now, I will leave this story at the point I was when I started my theological education, with no answer to the questions except to know that something was very wrong with the type of  relentlessly cruel authority that created such pain and suffering for women whose only crime was a desire to serve.

Dr. Kalinda Rose Stevenson
     

written by Kalinda \\ tags: 1 Timothy 2:12, authority, hermeneutics, Kalinda Rose Stevenson, ordination of women, theological seminary