In recent weeks much was written about the exchanges between Tim Challies and Ann Voskamp regarding Challies’ review of her book, One Thousand Gifts. He didn’t like the book, she sort of responded, and he sort of backed down when she invited his family to dinner.
I will confess that I haven’t read the book. I have thumbed through it, but the writing style is not one that engages me. I do, however, have an online acquaintance with Ann Voskamp. We have read each other’s blogs over the years, commented, and exchanged a number of emails on various topics. We have always had a cordial relationship online. Some of her posts about homeschooling have resonated loudly with me and I have returned to them time and again for encouragement. But the more mystical, ethereal, symbolic writings… Not so much. They just aren’t what connects with me theologically and, honestly, after reading many reviews of the book I think I would also have some significant concerns about it. (I write this disclaimer at the beginning to avoid being dismissed by readers out of hand for not “knowing” Ann or not having read the book.)
Why Don’t the Women Speak Up?
What I found most interesting was not so much the back and forth between Voskamp and Challies regarding the book’s content. Instead, it was a link Challies endorsed on his blog to The Christian Pundit. In the post, Challies, Voskamp, and All Us Girls, Rebecca VanDoodewaard expressed her deep concern that more Christian women (specifically Reformed Christian women) had not responded to some of the theological problems that Challies pointed out in his original review. Why, she asks, had no Christian women come forward in eighteen months to warn people of the dangers of the book’s content?
I’m not sure why VanDoodewaard is surprised that no Reformed women responded to the book. This is precisely what women have been taught not to do, especially in the Neo-Reformed circles. In fact, this entire scenario is an excellent example of some of the significant problems with complementarianism the way it is being heavily promoted in these same circles. One could almost say it is inappropriate for anyone to call out the Neo-Reformed women for not responding with any theological depth since they have been repeatedly told in subtle and not-so-subtle ways that they should not do this very thing.
Complementarian Women Have Been Told to Know Their Place
Consider some of the foundational teachings that women hear over and over again from teachers such as Tim Challies, John Piper, C. J. Mahaney, Al Mohler, the Pyromaniacs, and other connected with the complementarian Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
According to John Piper, the church has a masculine feel and women should be grateful for the male leadership in that masculine church. He said:
“When I say masculine Christianity or masculine ministry or Christianity with a masculine feel, here’s what I mean: Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.”
“It’s the feel of a great, majestic God who is by His redeeming work in Christ inclining men to humble Christ-exalting initiatives and inclining women to come alongside those men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work.”
So men do the theology and the women cheer them on. Intelligently, of course, but still. There is nothing about women being risk-takers who contend for the Truth of the gospel. In other words, the subtle message is that women should wait for someone like Challies to tell them what is wrong with Voskamp’s book and then cheer him on when he does so.
Or perhaps consider the Pyromaniacs and their attack on women with The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Discernment Divas in which they write:
The following video (40+ minutes) is from the recent Psalm 119 Conference in Keller, TX, sponsored by “Wretched,” featuring Todd (“Freakishly Tall”) Friel. Todd dragged me on stage to discuss the Elephant Room and other issues related to wall-building, biblical discernment, bad discernment ministries, shrill-and-sharp-tongued women who fancy themselves called to ministries of full-time criticism—and a few other interesting topics.
And then there is the pronouncement of why it is wrong for women to read Scripture in church by Tim Challies in Men, Women and the Public Reading of Scripture. He writes:
Over the years there has been near-endless discussion and disagreement about 1 Timothy 2:11-12. There Paul writes to Timothy and says, “Let a woman learn quietly and with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” He goes on to ground this in God’s Creation ordinance. “For Adam was formed first, then Eve…” Some people hold that when Paul says, “I do not permit,” he is speaking from a personal perspective and his words do not carry the weight of God’s authority. Some people hold that this is a cultural command that is no longer relevant today. Some hold that the kind of quietness he advocated was limited to very specific circumstances that do not apply to our churches. What we can all agree on is that these words, whatever they mean, are in the Bible and are, therefore, given by God for our instruction. These are not sexist words; they are God’s words.
It is my conviction that these words are meant to be read and understood in the simplest sense. Speaking with God’s authority, Paul is saying that women are not to exercise teaching authority over men. In other words, it is men who are charged with authority in the church and the most important component of this authority is to declare the words of God. This puts me firmly in the complementarian camp which says that God has created men and women equal in value and dignity and worth, but different, complementary, in function. Men have been called to exercise headship in the home and in the church while women are called to different and complementary functions.
How and Where Are These Complementarian Women to Learn?
These are just a few examples. I could go on and on. The point remains. Why would these women EVER think of offering a detailed theological response to Voskamp’s book? They’ve been told over and over again that they can’t lead in church, they can’t read Scripture in church, they are more easily deceived, and they should focus on being wives and mommies.
VanDoodewaar herself says:
“Are evangelical women able to sort the wheat from the chaff? It is so easy, being the emotional creatures that we are, to engage a book (or blog, or talk show, or magazine article, etc.), on a purely or even largely emotional level. And that is so dangerous. Emotion itself is not wrong; emotion taking over thought is. We always need to be thinking and evaluating biblically.”
Great. So how are women to learn to do this? In church where they are not allowed to speak? In Sunday School classes where a woman challenging a man on a theological point would be social suicide and seen as an indictment of her husband’s lack of leadership in the home?
And would VanDoodewaard be asking the same question if the book were written by a man? Is it okay for women to pick apart a book’s theology if it was written by a woman but not a man?
This circle wants it both ways. They want women to know their place which is, of course, sitting quietly under the authority of men. They want the men to do the serious theological thinking and sparring in public.
They tell women that they need to focus on being wives and mothers. College for women is subtly discouraged by many in this circle. And while a woman can learn on her own, how many women have the time or resources to do so?
Where are women to learn to wrestle with theological meat? Public school? Hardly. Christian school? Most Christian schools I’ve interacted with do not place a premium on developing the higher level critical thinking skills necessary to engage in significant theological debate. Homeschool? Yes, some women will learn much in a homeschool environment. But only if their father deems it important to thoroughly educate his daughters as much as his sons.
And why would the average young woman decide to invest much time in studying? What kind of outlet does she have for her learning? If she writes a blog with authority, she’ll be seen as too aggressive and stepping out of her natural sphere. (Unless she is speaking purely the Neo-Reformed party line. Then I think she gets a pass as long as she’s not too strong of a writer and thinker.) She shouldn’t be working so she doesn’t need her theology for that. She won’t be allowed to teach a mixed class at church. If a woman can find the time to study, what is she to do with it?
Are Women Supposed to be Bereans or Not?
VanDoodewaard writes:
Because while there are helpful elements in Voskamp’s writing, what we need are men like Challies: “…shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:11-14).
No, we really don’t. We need more Bereans in the church. Men AND women. There is already an unhealthy dependence on well-known leaders and speakers among Christians today. We don’t need more of it. We need less of it. We need men AND women who study their Bible, not wait eighteen months for a prominent blogger to do a review of a book.
The leaders in this group have created a culture of dependence amongst the followers. Why were people writing to Challies, asking him for his opinion of the book? Why weren’t they able to pick it apart themselves? Why aren’t they discussing it with their own pastor? Why do they need a word from on high from Challies, Piper, Mohler, or some other complementarian celebrity?
Complementarian Theology Leads to This
If they really want bold, theologically astute women who will raise the red flag when something is amiss, then they need to start approaching their teachings about men and women a bit differently. Because I think the average Neo-Reformed woman has gotten the message loud and clear.
When my husband and I went through a time where we were drawn to the Patriarchal movement, it completely destroyed my desire for the Bible and studying the Bible. I went from being a woman who devoured the Scriptures and happily spent hours studying them to someone who did not even want to open them. Why should I? I was being told that I was more easily deceived. I was told there was no appropriate outlet for my study. I couldn’t teach any longer even though I had taught to mixed groups for many years and had a clearly identified gift of teaching. Why bother studying any longer? The loud and clear message was that as a woman I couldn’t be trusted to handle the Scriptures.
Is that what these men are saying? Not explicitly. But that is the message that women are getting. Be sweet. Be submissive. Respect the men. Encourage the men in their leadership roles.
Why did the women not say anything about Voskamp’s book?
Because they are living out exactly what they have been told.
I’m Really Not Into the Postmodern Messiness
Excellent post, Sallie! It’s imperative that women study the scriptures for themselves! This is the only way they will be able to know the truth and expose the false teachings being perpetuated by the wolves and hirelings who have invaded the fold.
Sallie:
I had much the same reaction to Rebecca VanDoodewaard’s piece. An interesting flip-side to this can be found in an interview of Christine Pack of the SolaSisters blog (remember her sister Cathy had written a rejoiner to Tim Challies, taking him to task for his apology to Ann Voskamp).
In the interview, which can be found here,
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/sarahflashing/2012/05/30/one-thousand-gifts-mystical-christian-panentheism
Sarah Flashing of Blogtalk Radio asks Christine where the men are in all this, presumably because critique in these matters than is typed out by female fingers is less credible—or not credible at all.
Sergius Martin-George
Sallie –
I agree with Victorious. Coming from an SGM church I also unserstand what you experienced with “not picking up a Bible!” Yes, what was the point when you couldn’t even be involved in a discussion with what you were reading, unless you are discussing only with other women.
About Voskamp’s book . . . I read part of it, but didn’t finish. Now I will pick it up with new eyes; however, my impression was that it was Ann’s “thoughts,” not any kind of a theological statement. Should it be critiqued as though it were? I don’t think she wrote it with the intention of instructing anyone on anything. I have not read any if the blogs about this so maybe this is all addressed somewhwere else. I will go back and read the blogs you referenced. But can’t we read a book by a Christian just for pleasure . . . must we dissect everything? I think this is a “hyper-Calvinistic response mode” to everything. Can’t I read a book, mainly enjoy it, but not necessarily agree with everything the author says? I don’t need Challies to point things out to me, besides I don’t agree with Challies on everything so I would want to discern for myself.
Thanks for this post and the links!
Sallie! What a GREAT article!!!!! Tweeting and linking and sharing on FB. I had a discussion with several friends about the Challies/Voscamp exchange but your response was by far the most articulate and said exactly what needs to be said. Have others I would like to share with but, alas, they think “women are more easily deceived” too! :/
Thanks for this article, Sallie. I can’t deny feeling just a little bit defensive by the end of it (e.g. I’m not quite sure how it is that I “backed down” since I didn’t change my assessment of the book at all and I cringe when I see someone calling me a “celebrity”), but I do think you raise a valid point–that in many churches women are not valued as they ought to be. As often as not, I think women do not value themselves as they ought to. Is that the fault of men or of women? I suppose it’s probably the fault of both. I can attest that I come from a home where my mother was every bit a theologian and I’ve always admired that a great deal. My mother is still my go-to theologian in many cases and I’ve learned as much from her as from any author I’ve ever read.
As for people asking me for my take on a book, as often as not, that is not a reflection of people be unwilling to discern as much as people not wanting to put time and effort into a “bad” book. They would rather have someone else screen the book for them and tell them if it’s worth a read. I would not take that as an indication of theological depth. If anything, it may reflect just how many books are pouring out of publishers these days.
Again, thank you for the article. It has given me a lot to consider. I’m not convinced your characterization here is right, but I want to think about it more.
Best wishes from the region of the Mother Church (Jerusalem)
As for the whole church having a masculine feel, I’d recommend that anyone who holds that view to read the Rev. Kenneth Bailey’s new ground breaking book out last year from IVP (Paul through Mediterranean Eyes). This is a game changer of a book when it comes to what St. Paul supposedly taught about women.
Those who also do not see a feminine aspect in God are basically denying the evidence we see around us in the physical world going seemingly into the inanimate world where scientists tell us that negative (male) and positive (female) forces are at work. St. Paul tells us if we want to understand about God, look at nature.
Finally, let us not kid ourselves that the economic resources at stake in the Christian world were men and women equal, a whole new dynamic could be in place and men are very reluctant to give up their socio-economic and subsequent religious power, which they are quick to point out is God given.
If you control religious ideas such as marriage, gender roles, child raising and disposition of part of the financial resources of the believer, you are in a very powerful position and today the Church leadership structures still favor men.
However, times are a changing and rightly so!
Samuel Martin
Jerusalem Israel
http://www.samuelmartin.blogspot.com
As often as not, I think women do not value themselves as they ought to. Is that the fault of men or of women?
It’s the result of false teaching. Those doing the teaching are responsible for their part. Those believing the false teachings are responsible for not searching the scriptures to “see if these things are so.”
Thank you for the thoughtful comments. I’m glad people found it helpful. And thank you for sharing it, Karen.
Tim, thank you for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. It truly is appreciated. We’re delighted by your celebrity status here. (I’m kidding!) But you have to admit that when people are blogging and tweeting about where you are going to dinner and with whom… Doesn’t it seem a little like People Magazine? 🙂
I don’t think many of the prominent comps even truly understand the damage they are doing to women. I think it is unintentional, but a huge problem nonetheless. I think many of them are so insulated in their lives that they really don’t fully understand how their teachings and comments are perceived and then adopted by others.
Re: your comment of women not valuing themselves… I am sure there are women who don’t have a healthy view of themselves just as there are men. But I also believe there are many wise, gifted, and godly women who long to do more than show up at the service and sit there. They desire to matter in the kingdom and know their gifts are being fully utilized. But they are not getting the affirmation at all to do that in the Neo-Reformed circles. (As an aside, I am Reformed, but would not consider myself Neo-Reformed. I’m currently a member of a CRC church.)
I don’t have all the answers to the issue of women in the church. I don’t call myself a complementarian, but neither am I totally comfortable taking on the label of egalitarian. What I do know is that in my seven plus years of blogging, I’ve met a lot of wounded women. Deeply wounded women who long to be set free to use their gifts. Deeply disappointed women who can barely drag themselves to church each week because there is no meaningful place for them.
I truly don’t think this is what Jesus had in mind for our sisters in Christ. And, the more I have studied, I really don’t think it is what Paul had in mind either. I think if they could stand here today they would be truly appalled and literally weep at much of what is done and said about women in the name of Christ and the Bible.
I’d rejoice to see Tim Challies review Ken Bailey’s book “Paul through Mediterranean Eyes”.
As Tim’s blog reviews many books, this would be one that I would think he would rejoice in especially in light of the fact that as a pastor and book reviewer holding complementarian views, his ministry would seem as such to engage marital issues and he may want to heed the advice of one of the following scholarly reviewers saying: “Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes is a necessary addition to the libraries of all scholars and pastors working in or preaching from 1 Corinthians.”
I’m certain that our dear friends at http://www.ivpress.com would certainly respond to provide Mr. Challies a review copy of this essential book.
He’d join the following people who had something to say about this book:
“Kenneth Bailey sets forth a courageous proposition that Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians was in fact written as a circular letter for all the churches. As he works through the letter, Bailey–drawing on neglected Syriac commentaries and his Middle Eastern experiences–presents a gem-laden exposition of 1 Corinthians that engages topics of Christian unity, the cross, living in a pagan culture, men and women in worship, and the resurrection. This is a study on 1 Corinthians like none other I have seen. A truly unique approach to studying a Pauline letter.”
—Michael F. Bird, Lecturer in Theology, Crossway College, Queensland, Australia
“Yet another commentary on 1 Corinthians? Hardly. With this book Bailey opens a new genre in the rhetorical analysis of this famous and difficult New Testament letter. He argues that 1 Corinthians consists of five essays and each has a common ancient rhetorical structure (“ring composition”) missed by most exegetes. Paul was a trained rabbi, had memorized vast amounts of his scriptures and knew how to write a polished public letter using ancient Hebrew forms (particularly from Isaiah). But in addition, Bailey is using tools unavailable to the average scholar: twenty-two ancient translations of 1 Corinthians into Arabic, Syriac and Hebrew, as well as commentaries dating as far back as ninth-century Damascus. This book is a gold mine of astonishing new discoveries, crosscultural insight and sound pastoral wisdom. It will inevitably join the ranks of the great and important books on this epistle.”
—Gary M. Burge, professor of New Testament, Wheaton College
“Kenneth Bailey has transformed the way in which the parables and sayings of Jesus have been received and understood. Now Kenneth delves into the Pauline letters, and it becomes clear that a whole new perspective emerges. The view of Middle Eastern Christians is placed before us in its stark truthfulness. With remarkable attention to the detail of rabbinic rhetoric, Kenneth provides a window into the world of 1 Corinthians that is majestic in the vista it offers; and, in his inimitable style, he mines deeply into Paul’s use of parallelisms and Jewish structures of thought and writing, offering the reader a whole new way of receiving and interpreting this remarkable correspondence. With the skill of a biblical surgeon, Kenneth opens up the layers of meaning present. This commentary will bring many hours of reflection and insight for the edification of the reader and will be a blessing to God’s church.”
—The Most Rev. Roger Herft, Archbishop of Perth and Metropolitan of Western Australia
“Well-known for his numerous works on Jesus and the Gospels through Middle Eastern eyes, Kenneth Bailey now turns his attention to Paul’s writing as he provides a powerful and passionate reading of 1 Corinthians within its Jewish and eastern Mediterranean contexts. Suggesting that 1 Corinthians is an ‘apostolic homily’ written within the framework of Old Testament ‘prophetic homily,’ this work itself can be considered as a modern ‘homily’ that skillfully allows Paul’s message to touch the hearts of the contemporary audience. Particularly worth noting is Bailey’s reading of this epistle through the lens provided by Arabic, Syriac and Hebrew translations from the fourth century up to the modern period. To students of the New Testament text, this provides an invaluable resource for the history of the reception of Paul’s message to the Corinthian believers. To the general audience, this also serves as a helpful reminder of the significance of the long history behind our appropriation of the sacred texts.”
—David W. Pao, chair and associate professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
“Bailey’s warm pastoral style, up-to-date scholarship and attention to theology make for an excellent exposition of Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians. His unparalleled knowledge of the New Testament in Arabic translation, coupled with his lifetime of experience in the Middle East, gives Bailey a unique perspective on the biblical text. Highlighting Paul’s rhetorical argument and extensive use of Jewish Scriptures, Bailey’s work is a rare commentary that serves both pastor and layperson. This book sets a high standard for clarity and practical wisdom in the field of biblical exposition.”
—Lynn H. Cohick, professor of New Testament, Wheaton College
“Dr. Ken Bailey is already widely known for shedding light on the New Testament ‘through Middle Eastern eyes.’ He has taught in Beirut, Jerusalem and other parts of the Near East, as well as in America and Europe. This commentary is more than a conventional, largely repeated exegesis of 1 Corinthians. Dr. Bailey shows the relevance of prophetic and rabbinic forms of language, including especially chiasmus, and other literary and rhetorical forms. He uses Arabic, Coptic and Syriac sources. He rightly stresses the coherence of this epistle and its theology of the cross. He is alert to intertextual resonances and offers distinctive ideas. On top of all this, he produces numerous lively illustrations and practical applications. Especially for those who look for more than a conventional commentary, I warmly commend this work. History, culture, rhetoric, theology and practical application all find a place.”
—Anthony C. Thiselton, professor of Christian theology, University of Nottingham
“Professor Kenneth E. Bailey has authored a scholarly, creative and lucid commentary on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. Bailey argues that Paul is not addressing, somewhat haphazardly, a series of disjointed issues. Rather, Bailey perceives Paul providing a well-crafted series of essays that display a rhetorical and structural style that allows him to address fundamental gospel concerns with persuasion, conviction and clarity. This volume will benefit not only scholars but also, and especially, undergraduates and graduates.”
—Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., Executive Director for the Secretariat for Doctrine, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
“A rich and original study of 1 Corinthians, which draws on ancient Middle East sources to shed fresh light on this great epistle. We are in Ken Bailey’s debt for this work of scholarship.”
—Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury
“Ken Bailey is pure gold. No writer I can think of has been a greater help for teaching the Scriptures with freshness and clarity. What a gift to have his insights on Paul.”
—John Ortberg, Menlo Park Presbyterian Church
“A veteran student and observer of the Middle East, Ken Bailey has distilled his knowledge and experience in this work of deep pastoral sensitivity, allowing the apostle Paul to come into his own in a way that a conventional reading of Paul does not allow or encourage. Bailey’s work teems with learning and insight, and, buoyed by a clear, lively style, it instructs as well as it illuminates and elevates. The book is a model of biblical scholarship freed of the cobwebs of the study, and consecrated to the life-giving work of the church. It is a ‘double-decker sandwich,’ to use Bailey’s own figure, in which the sandwich is no less nourishing than the meat between the sandwich. I began reading it and couldn’t put it down. Go and do thou likewise.”
—Lamin Sanneh, D. Willis James Professor of World Christianity, Yale Divinity School
“New Testament scholars recognize Kenneth Bailey as that rare interpreter with intimate knowledge of Middle Eastern culture, ancient and modern. His latest volume now reveals rumination of the rhetoric that serves Paul’s theology and ethics. Bailey’s signal achievement is to rebut readings of 1 Corinthians as a haphazard document, obscurely reasoned. At once learned and deeply personal, this commentary will surely stimulate productive debate in the exegesis of one among Paul’s weightiest letters.”
—C. Clifton Black, Otto A. Piper Professor of Biblical Theology, Princeton Theological Seminary
“This scholarly yet accessible study is a helpful addition to any bookshelf–even those crowded with commentaries on First Corinthians.”
—Stephen M. Vantassel, BibleStudy Magazine, January & February 2012
“Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes is a necessary addition to the libraries of all scholars and pastors working in or preaching from 1 Corinthians. Bailey’s writing is easy to follow, warm, and lucid. Though making some complex arguments and performing some deep analysis, the author never loses sight of the reader or of his goal to make Paul more accessible rather than less. This book is highly recommended for any serious reader of 1 Corinthians.”
—Ron C. Fay, Criswell Theological Review
Greetings, Sallie.
I share your opinion of Ann’s writing. I have been encouraged and blessed by some of it, but I do not connect theologically with her more mystical writings.
I have a comment to make about the following:
I am curious about this, Sallie. In my many years of walking with God (I was saved in 1977, and I am 57 years old) I have attended a variety of churches (Fellowship Baptist, Brethren, Independent Fundamental Baptist, Associated Gospel, Reformed Baptist) and been involved in many different groups (Gothard – IBLP, Agape, CEF, NANC, Homeschooling groups (local and provincial), Patriarchy, Bible College, in real life and online. None of those groups diminished my love for God’s Word, nor my interest in studying it. In fact, it was because of the many different types of Christianity that I explored (oh, Christianity Explored was another one) that I made it a practice to search the Scriptures to see if the things taught were so. Even if the loud and clear message from men were to leave off studying, you pretty little thing… (and I don’t believe that is definitively true in any of the groups I named above) the Lord teaches us in His Word to study it, to memorize it, to delight in it. Blaming Patriarchy (or any other group) for your lack of zeal at a certain time in your life seems unfair.
If women are getting the message that they ought not to study, think, use discernment, etc., then they are failing to Love the Lord their God with all of their heart, soul, MIND and strength. Shame on them.
Hi Janet – Thanks for your comment. I’ve never lost my zeal for the Lord. David and I have gone through some pretty awful things with other believers and churches (which I’ve written about elsewhere), but by the grace of God my belief in His goodness, my salvation and His love for me never wavered. Ever. I never doubted that He was working in my life or that He has had His hand on my life. I can clearly see His hand throughout my life and that was a strong anchor.
I have, however, been left completely numb and broken by what others in the church have done to me and said to me because I am a woman. Trying to reconcile the two (my steadfast trust in God and the spiritual abuse we suffered at the hands of those who are strongly patriarchal) was very difficult. Anyone who has been through an experience of spiritual abuse will understand. Now that I am on the other side of this and have (mostly) healed from these experiences, I can thank God and see that He is bringing good out of it.
Related to that, I strongly disagree with your last statement: “If women are getting the message that they ought not to study, think, use discernment, etc., then they are failing to Love the Lord their God with all of their heart, soul, MIND and strength. Shame on them.” There are many women who love God deeply and have been through similar experiences that have left them wounded. There are MANY women getting this message and it is having devastating consequences in their lives. Perhaps you have not seen it or experienced it. But saying “Shame on them” is not helpful at all to those women (and their husbands) who earnestly desire to love God with their entire being and take seriously their desire to serve Him faithfully with the gifts they have been given. I hope some of them will chime in here and share their stories. There are a number of them who read here. This is not about me losing my zeal and blaming it on someone else. This is about a significant portion of the church marginalizing strong, smart, godly women with Holy Spirit given gifts.
I wanted to add one thing to my previous comment…
More and more women are facing the following dilemma… Stay in a church where they see women increasingly marginalized or move to a different church where the theology is suspect in many ways.
I wish I had saved the links, but there have been stories recently of women on church staffs losing their jobs when the male leadership decided that women should not be in any position of authority. So gifted women who have been using those gifts in the church are now pushed out by men who are taking increasingly narrow views of what women can and cannot do. The Neo-Reformed movement is having a big impact on churches with the spread of these ideas.
So what do those women do? Stay in a church or denomination where they know there will be NO place for them to exercise those gifts? Or move to a different denomination where they will have freedom to use their gifts but will have to basically violate their conscience on other issues?
My guess? I think we will see more of the third option. I think more and more women (and their husbands and children) will leave the institutional church. It will come to the point where they will have no choice if they want to maintain their faith. It is either live frustrated spiritual lives in a church where they don’t have the ability to use their gifts or raise their children in churches that don’t teach the Gospel. Women who love God deeply aren’t going to be willing to compromise in either way. It will get to the point where they will have to walk away and find something else such as an organic church with other believers who value women as equal partners and participators in the Gospel and worship of God.
Like you, I have found this whole controversy (if you want to call it that) – interesting. I’ve been a longtime reader of both Challies & Voskamp. I have issues with both of them, honestly. Challies lost me long ago when he made the statement about miscarried babies and heaven. Then, with the women shouldn’t recite scripture in church…
But as much as I’ve loved and treasured Ann Voskamp’s thoughts – for the past year or more I’ve not read her blog regularly because I feel like I’m being subjected to a Hallmark or Dayspring commercial every time I do. Her photography and writings are different – but they went from being very humble and raw to being a commercial (at least for me).
I did read her book, and like you, took at as one woman’s deep thoughts, not theology or something I need to adhere to or even think about beyond the scope of the book.
I’m no complementarian, but I’m also no egalitarian either. It’s an odd place to be. I’m one of those women who have pretty much quit church too. I don’t want to wipe butts in the nursery all day and clean up the kitchen after Sunday lunch. I’m not comfortable sitting in the sanctuary and being “quiet” as a woman when a male pastor/elder/preacher goes on willy-nilly about something that is not scripturally sound just because they’re a male and I’m not. I’m sure that sounds cocky, but it is what it is.
And kudos for getting Tim to leave a comment here. It is rather like People magazine I’d say! 🙂
Sallie, you misunderstand me, but I think it is because I was not clear. I am saying “Shame on them” if they allow anyone (male or female, authority or not) to come between them and their love for God. God is Sovereign, and He allows seasons of difficulty into our lives for our good, and for His glory. There will always be tyrants of one sort or another, but that doesn’t stop us (women, Christians) from seeking the Lord and loving Him with our minds and our words and our deeds.
I am quite familiar with spiritual abuse and abusive ministries. About 10 years ago we were hated out of our church for various reasons. I even wrote a paper for a course on Ecclesiology on “Abuse of Authority in the Local Church”. I sympathize with those who have withdrawn for various reasons. In our case, it was both my husband and me who were marginalized, shunned, hated, etc. I know the pain.
There is a lesson to be learned here, though. It is to love the Lord your God with all of your heart, no matter what your circumstances. It is to recognize that this world is a sinful place full of sinful people who will do you harm. It is to thank God for trials, because He designs them for our good, and He disciplines us with love and tenderness. It is to remember that this world is not our home, and to long for the better country that we all look forward to.
Forgive me if there is a lack of clarity. Very little sleep last night has left me with a muddled brain. I do applaud you for your desire to help women, even though I expressed disagreement with some of what you said.
Blessings.
Janet – We may just have to agree to disagree on this one. If I had a friend who was struggling spiritually due to church problems, spiritual abuse or the like, there is no way I could say to her, “Shame on you!” because she is struggling to make sense of everything going on. As human beings we are complicated creatures. We are not just stoic wills. God has given us emotions as well and I see nothing wrong with a hurting sister in Christ working through those emotions and trying to make sense of them. To shame her would accomplish nothing except add more burdens.
My relationship with God and my salvation are not dependent on my doing everything right no matter how I am suffering. God loves me enough and understands me enough to be compassionate when I am in pain. I do not think God was up there, mad at me, because I had lost my desire to study the Word. If anything, I think He wept for the callous comments and ways I was treated by men who were supposed to be my brothers in Christ. God is many things to me, including my loving Daddy. Just as God has compassion on the sleep deprived mother who can’t get a formal quiet time in each day or the ill person who can only lay in bed and say, “Help me, Jesus,” God has great compassion on the one who is hurting spiritually. Sometimes all the hurting one can hold onto is the knowledge that God is holding onto her and will never let go.
Last evening I remembered this comment on my site. It speaks well to the topic of this post.
Melissa
Sometimes it is difficult for those who have never experienced spiritual abuse to understand what goes on in the minds and hearts of those who have. this is one of the best articles I have read on the subject. Though I agree there are a variety of views and interpretations of women’s roles ( I, too, find myself somewhere between the egalitarian ad cmplementarian views), so much if what is being taught and applied in evangelical churches these days DOES qualify as spiritual abuse of women.
http://paradiserecovered.com/we-are-spiritual-abuse-survivors/
Thanks for your blog entry and thoughts. I do disagree with the balance in the article, however. I am complementarian at a church with that theology. However, we are not patriarchal or teach some of the spiritually abusive things you quoted in your entry. I am sorry for your experience. I, in fact, do know what you talking about from things in my past.
What caught my attention is when I began reading One Thousand Gifts and had concerns, my pastor asked me to write a book review. I was hesistant, but as we emailed back and forth on the issues in the book, he encouraged me all the more. I decided to send my work to interested women and my pastor rather than enter the public sphere, and I actually have not finished it fully yet (I’m homeschooling 3 under the age of 8).
What I found at my own church is that many women loved the emotional experience of the book, and because of the diversity of sources and poetical writing style didn’t quite catch some of the implications. Indeed, mystical writers are not known for their clarity, but rather the beauty of their words. Voskamp’s book isn’t easy to review because her positions are sometimes in tension with each other throughout the book. But more than anything, who wants to say something negative about another mom with pain in her life who is trying to trust God and serve Him? It’s not an easy thing to do. While I don’t find women lacking in intelligence or theological sharpness (at our church anyway), they do tend to avoid conflict more than the men. Me included! So please take this response in the spirit it was submitted. It’s not always easy to paint with a broad stroke. Thanks for listening!
thatmom – That was a very interesting and informative link that you provided. Thank you!
Cristi – Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I do understand what you are saying. I encourage you to read some of my other posts on the site to maybe get a broader understanding of why I wrote what I did. This post fits in with many others I’ve written concerning some of the unhealthy things going on that impact women in segments of the church. I’m glad you are in a church where you are encouraged to use your gifts. Unfortunately that is not the experience of many women.
I also understand what you are saying about women not wanting to say anything negative. Believe me, I do. I felt badly even saying the little bit I did about probably having concerns about the book. At the same time, any author who publishes anything knows that with the publishing comes the critique and evaluation. Every time I put up a post here I know that I risk offending someone or being shown that I might be wrong. So while I understand women not wanting to say something negative about someone’s pain, Voskamp made the choice to share that pain with the world. It isn’t like someone leaked her diaries and we’re all being voyeuristic. She chose to publish her thoughts with a major Christian publisher.
Complementarian view of women = earthly view
Egalitarian view of women = heavenly view
When the women in the time of Jesus heard his words against the tendencies of patriachially oriented religious leaders in his day with Jesus calling them those “who devour widow’s houses” they rejoiced because someone was standing up for all women who still are marginalized and often taken advantage of by men who believe that it is their God given right to supervise and be responsible for women.
This has basically not changed in 2,000 years in patriarchially oriented society as we see in many of the quotes that Sallie refers to here in regard to some of the men herein mentioned.
Many of these dear brothers continue to follow ideas which are firmly “under the sun” where men are to “work” (defined as a “purposeful act from which advantage is derived.” – Danby, The Mishnah, pg. 111) instead of a heavenly view which the Sabbath was a picture of, where no work (purposeful acts from which advantage is derived) ever take place. In heaven, no one takes any advantage over anyone else ever. The streets are paved with gold. There is no money, war, hunger, fear, thirst, sin or death and everyone is equal as a child of God, who, in Christ, has no second born children.
If you are living in this environment, which is precisely the one outlined in Colossians 3:1-17:
“If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (ESV)
you are then in heaven, with and in Christ, looking down on this earth, where purposeful advantage continues to be taken and where widows houses are still being devoured.
Thanks so much for this post, Sallie! Two things about this debate have surprised me.
First, as far as I’m aware, no one who criticizes Ann Voskamp has engaged with the substance of her defense – that what she says is no different than what is said by theologians embraced by the neo-Reformed crowd.
Second, I was very disappointed by what I saw to be an internal inconsistency in VanDoodeWaard’s post. She ostensibly encourages women to THINK, but in the final analysis, concludes that they are to simply parrot whatever Tim Challies says.
P.S. Like Samuel Martin, I loved Bailey’s book!!!
Sallie,
I could very much identify with what you said here:
I resolved it for years by staying mostly in the background at church while dialoging with my pastor about the areas of concern for me with regard to the treatment of women. Maybe some of what I said got through. My pastor said it did and there were changes over time but I never felt free to use my gifts there. On a scale of 1-10, opportunities went from maybe a 3 to a 5 before we left. The result was that I looked for opportunities elsewhere to use my gifts. I missed using them in the local body, but there were plenty of opportunities in politics, the workplace and the non-profit world, so there I focused my energies.
Now, just getting my feet wet in a new church environment, there are already more opportunities. We’ll see how many more, but I’m more joyful in church than I’ve been in quite awhile. It is neat to not feel as self-conscious about who I talk to or what I say, and I wonder how much energy I wasn’t even aware of spending trying to avoid the judgments of others, men and women, who would censure me for being too bold / forthright / opinionated, or whatever.
Marilyn – I confess that I haven’t followed any developments since I wrote my post. Too many things going on. But thank you for pointing out that no one has followed up regarding Voskamp’s response. And I’m glad I wasn’t the only one who thought VanDoodeWaard was contradicting herself. 🙂
EM – Thank you for your comment! I related to this:
I think about how much energy I have expended on these issues over the years. Sometimes I wonder if it is a waste, but when I’m thinking clearly (and not discouraged) I believe it is something God has called me to experience and then advocate for other women in the church.
But, yes, there have been days lately I’ve thought about taking my gifts and just using them elsewhere such as with a part-time job or volunteering. While I’m waiting around for the church to change, I’m watching my life go by. That is to say, I can’t really count on enough change happening in my lifetime to make a difference. I’m not interested in standing before Christ some day and making excuses for not using my gifts because the “church” wouldn’t let me. I’ll serve Christ with my gifts and let the people who denied me the opportunities answer for their own choices. 🙂