One third of the U.S. Supreme Court justices are women, more than 50 female astronauts have traveled into space and 41 women have won the Nobel Peace Prize. But place a woman in a pulpit and blood pressure and eyebrows immediately begin to rise -- rise, that is, within the religious tradition of my upbringing: the Southern Baptists.
The current position statement on women by the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) states that "Scripture teaches that a woman's role is not identical to that of men in every respect, and that pastoral leadership is assigned to men."
Today -- in 2011 -- the road to ordination in the Southern Baptist Church remains strewn with women who have been turned down or, worse, who have been ordained only to be ousted from the denomination. Consider the case of 28-year-old Rev. Bailey Nelson who was recently called as the Senior Pastor of Flat Rock Baptist Church in Mount Airy, N.C. Within two weeks, her church was summarily kicked out of the local Baptist Association for violating scriptural guidelines that they believe reserve the role of pastor to male. "We're getting letters from all over the world voicing concern and support," Nelson said. "The outpouring has been overwhelming."
Rev. Nelson is not alone. I remember at an early age telling a vacation bible school teacher that "I was trying to decide between being a minister or a jet pilot." She smiled and said, "Well, girls can be jet pilots, but God only calls men to preach."
Eventually I decided against the jet pilot career and became a lawyer -- same job as a minister, just different clients. Yet the call to ordination became too strong to ignore. In the end, I was forced to leave the Southern Baptists and join the American Baptists, a more moderate denomination within the Baptist family and one that ordains women.
But I'll give the Southern Baptists one thing: They are nothing if not consistent. To this day, after 10 years as a trial lawyer, two graduate degrees, an honors thesis in seminary and my own pulpit in New York City (and the first woman in my church's 164 history), I am still not welcome to preach in my home church in Charlotte, N.C., where I grew up.
As a lawyer, I can't help but scratch my head at the circular nature of this situation: The SBC interprets scripture to exclude women from ordination; yet all those who interpret scripture within the SBC are ... men?
Their position hangs on a literal interpretation of passages like 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 in which the Apostle Paul writes "Let the women keep silent in church." Of course, a literal interpretation of this passage would mean women may not sing or verbally praise God in worship. For anyone who has attended a Baptist service, you know that is a manifest impossibility.
In another similar scripture (1 Timothy 2:11-12) Paul writes: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." Not even addressing the historical context of this scripture, which demonstrates these words were directed at marital issues and not ministry, there is a larger problem of selective enforcement. For example, that same passage also forbids women to wear gold jewelry or pearls. We don't hear much about that section. I guess the SBC decided that would be too much to enforce on us bling-lovin' southern sisters.
We also don't hear much about Romans 16:7 where Paul speaks of Andronicus and Junia (a woman), describing them as "outstanding among the apostles." (Not surprisingly, some later translations changed the female name "Junia" to the male "Junias.")
If you want to take a literal interpretation of the Bible, then how about use Acts 2:17-18: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." As I used to say in my prior career, "I rest my case."
Numerous theologians and prominent members of the Baptist family have publicly disagreed with the SBC, most notably former President Jimmy Carter, who broke with the Southern Baptists due to their position on women in the ministry. He explained, "The truth is that male religious leaders have had -- and still have -- an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women ... They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter."
The reality is this: We live in a world in great need of healing. And there are people across the globe offering to dedicate their lives toward this healing; yet, they are denied simply because they are women.
In one of his most famous parables, Jesus said that the Kingdom of heaven is like the landowner who entrusted his three workers with certain talents (money). Two invested the talents, doubled their value and were rewarded. The third worker, however, was punished because he buried the money and barely returned what was given.
The SBC is burying the divine gifts borne by more than 50 percent of God's children. It is wasting these talents. We can no longer afford this unjust denial of vocation. We can no longer afford to stifle God's call. Given the broken nature of our world today, I say we need all the help we can get -- Supreme Court Justices, jet pilots, preachers, and all.
Follow Rev. Susan Sparks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/revsuegrace
Michele Somerville: Pentecost: The Flaming Dove of Upper Room Roman Catholicism
Christianity : Pictures, Videos, Breaking News - Huffington Post
Southern Baptists and the Role of Women: Wives Must Submit to Husbands
Southern Baptist Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The words of God do not justify cruelty to women | Jimmy Carter ...
I fail to see what the controversy is about.
Historically women have been the healers, and nurturers of civilization. Religions run by men have relegated women to being spectators, and not participants. These men are neanderthal in their thinking, and need to step down because they are cheating their congregations.
I for one would attend a religious ceremony that actively included women.
But until that day comes, I will avoid religion........ it is such a waste of time anyway.
but God? Meh....
In this context, I became a licensed minister and preached my first sermon in 1998. I knew many other women, as well, who, freed from former constraints, stepped up to the plate and began to operate in ministry. Despite certain visual changes on the surface, there remained a hollow, a void in many churches regarding the place of women ministers.
Some of the older women, conditioned by their many years in patriarchal churches, were adept at hanging in there, suffering silently the ugly comments, the oversights, the slights. This was not for me, however. A very young woman at the time, I left my small home congregation because of lack of training opportunities and a stubborn commitment to tradition.
Now, I am not associated with any formal church community. I do, however, teach my own small Bible study. Someday, I am sure that I will return to a more formal church community, but I am glad to have freedom to teach and lead outside of the mainline Baptist tradition. I have a feeling I'll need that strength someday.
Trying to be a part of something that fundamentally rejects your efforts seems pointless. Good luck.
If you truly wanted to be part of something, then you should research the bible to see if he is correct and not believe every word.
My sister is still catholic. She's pro-choice and uses birth control as do 98% of catholic women!
So why go to a church that doesn't support you?
I left decades ago.
If you stopped supporting them they would disappear!
Yes you do have that much power.
Why do you think religion was invented in the first place.
If you don't leave nothing will ever change.
Stand up for yourself. Worship somewhere that they actually respect you.
So I can see both parts of this one...
This other POV incorporates the history of Corinth re-founded in 44BC without the great temple of Aphrodite and its prostitutes. The temple of Apollo was rebuilt: here is when this other POV becomes interesting and more relevant to verse 34 IMO. Apollo, a demi-god of the sun, and son of Zeus was famous for providing to the ancient world; esteemed and popular women prophets including the Roman Sibyl of Cumaean, and the Oracle of Delphi.
A Christian woman prophesying in a Corinthian church could become confused as a new type of woman prophet rivaling the older Apollonian traditions. I can see where Paul would not want any such event happening and taking the simple solution not to allow women to begin in the first place.
The theme of 1Corinthians 14 is speaking in tongues (foreign languages). Paul is not saying that a woman is not to speak in church; he's saying that she is not to speak in tongues in the church
Then I do not read Genesis 3:16 “…desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.” As pertaining to speech and prophecy given by the Holy Spirit in the church to a married woman, I can be wrong but again there is no logic in such thinking for me to give it much weight.
I do not see such wording in Galatians, Romans, Acts, 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, or Philippians. To affirm a consensus in agreement with the few verses there are in this subject. Therefore, I have to consider the traditional explanation of Genesis 3:16 as weak.
“…God may have changed his mind….” Aside from the fact, I said nothing of the sort. Do you kill those scripture tells you too? Eat pork, shrimp? Spin scarlet cloth after seeking wool and flax (Proverbs 31). Does your husband by the sweat of his brow toil the fields (Genesis 3:17-18)? Accept polygamy? Please, only in the treatment of women, in some churches forbidden to move forward.
Covering of long hair has benefits that are forgotten today. Mainly, you do not have to wash it as often. In a time of poor dying ability, as in ancient Iron Age Rome, reducing the need to wash one’s long hair was beneficial.
Claiming Paul was simply a misogynist has not been much help in the discussion of women in the Christian Church. Therefore, the more other reasons for such verses. We can provide the better we stand the chance of opening up greater understanding of possibilities to explain what is not explained in scripture itself. There are other reasons available, for consideration. One of which is not considered; such as the role of women prophets in the Apollonian traditions and Corinth’s loss of income with the permanent closure of the Temple prostitutes of Aphrodite with the rebuilding of Corinth in 44BC. This consideration is not considered because the city’s need for taxable income traditionally is not considered. It should be.
Matthew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.