Sexism and Culture Deform the Masterpiece of God Called "An Adolescent Girl"

Yesterday I read a fascinating book entitled Reviving Ophelia, written by Mary Pipher, Ph.D, a clinical psychologist who lives in Lincoln, Nebraska. Mary is not an evangelical believer, but her insights into the conflict within the souls of adolescent girls are some of the most powerful I've seen. I've long believed that psychologists know all the right questions to ask but seldom have the right answers. Dr. Pipher seems to have found a measure of both. I personally think her book, though written in the mid-1990's, ought to be required reading for anyone who ministers the good news of Jesus Christ to girls from the ages of 11 to 18. All truth is from God, regardless of the secondary source from which you read it. Mary Pipher helps those who know Christ to understand the battle going on in the minds of young ladies who may not know Him. The following lengthy quotes from Reviving Ophelia convey some profound insight regarding adolescent girls, peer pressure and the sexualization of Western culture.

I realize that some evangelical conservatives who read Mary Pipher would prefer John Piper on the subject of adolescent girls and women. However, I think Mary Pipher comes closer to the biblical truth that God uniquely and majestically creates each young woman into a masterpiece of abilities, talents and gifts. Sin plays its part in destroying the image of God in the life of a woman, but Pipher makes a very good argument that sexism and Western cultural rituals have played an even greater role in deforming the uniqueness, character and self-perception of adolescent girls. Read on:

"Psychology has a long history of ignoring girls this age. Until recently adolescent girls haven't been studied by the academics, and they have long baffled therapists ...Simone de Beauvoir believed adolescence is when girls realize that men have the power and that their power comes from consenting to become submissive adored objects. Dr. Beauoir says, "Young girls slowly bury their childhood, put away their independent and imperious selves and submissivley enter adult existence." Adolescent girls experience a conflict between their autonomous selves and their need to be feminine, between their status as human beings and their vocation as females. Dr. Beauvior says, "Girls stop being and start seeming."

Girls become "female impersonators" who fit their whole selves into small, crowded spaces. Vibrant, confident girls become shy, doubting young women. Girls stop thinking, "Who am I? What do I want?" and start thinking, "What must I do to please others?"

Olive Schreiner wrote of her experiences as a young girl in The Story of the African Farm. "The world tells us what we are to be and shape us by the ends it sets before us. To men it says, work. To us it says, seem. The less a woman has in her head the lighter she is for carrying." She described the finishing school that she attended in this way: "It was a machine for condensing the soul into the smallest possible area. I have seen some souls so compressed that they would have filled a small thimble."

Adolescence is when girls experience social pressure to put aside their authentic selves and to display only a small portion of their gifts. This pressure disorients and depresses most girls. They sense the pressure to be someone they are not ... Parents know only too well that something is happening to their daughters. Calm, considerate daughters grow moody, demanding and distant. Girls who loved to talk are sullen and secretive. Girls who like to hug now bristle when touched. Mothers complain that they can do nothing right in the eyes of their daughters. Involved fathers bemoan their sudden banishment from their daughters' lives. But few parents realize how universal their experiences are. Their daughters are entering a new land, a dangerous place that parents can scarcely comprehend.

With puberty, girls face enormous cultural pressure to split into false selves. The pressure comes from schools, magazines, music, television, advertisements and movies. It comes from peers. Girls can be true to themselves and risk abandonment by their peers, or they can reject their true selves and be socially acceptable. Most girls choose to be socially accepted and split into two selves, one that is authentic and one that is culturally scripted (emphasis mine). In public they become who they are supposed to be ... While the rules for proper female behavior aren't clearly stated, the punishment for breaking them is harsh. Girls who speak frankly are labeled as bitches. Girls who are not attractive and skinny are scorned. The rules are reinforced by the visual images in soft- and hard-core pornography, by song lyrics, by casuual remarks, by criticism, by teasing and by jokes.

To totally accept the cultural definitions of feminity and conform to the pressures is to kill self. Girls who do this are the "Muffy's and "Barbie dolls" with hair and smiles in place and a terrible deadness underneath. They are the one who make me want to shout "Don't give up, fight back." Often girls who try to conform overshoot the mark. For example, girls with anexoria have tried too hard to be slender, feminine and perfect. They have become thin, shiny packages, outwardly carefully wrapped and inwardly a total muddle.

Girls have long been trained to be feminine and beautiful at considerable cost to their humanity. They have long been evaluated on the basis of appearance and caught in myriad double binds: achieve, but not too much; be polite, but be yourself; be feminine and adult; be aware of our cultural heritage, but don't comment on sexism. Another way to describe this femininity training is to call it false self-training. Girls are trained to be less than who they really are. They are trained to be what the culture wants of its young women, not what they themselves want to become.

America today is a girl-destroying place. Everywhere girls are encouraged to sacrifice their true selves. Their parents may fight to protect them, but their parents have limited power. Many girls lose contact with their true selves, and when they do, they become extraordinarily vulnerable to a culture that is all too happy to use them for its purposes.

Intelligent resistance keeps the true self alive." (From pages 22-23; 37-38; 44).

One Has to Admire the Bold Consistency and Application by John Calvin in His Views on Women

In these dying days of evangelical patriarchalism, many believers in male superiority and male authority over females try to soft pedal their views. When patriarchalists--who  prefer the name "complementarians"--are challenged that their interpretations of Scripture are actually a belief that males are superior to females, and that they are teaching females were only created to enrich the lives of males, they cry "foul" and object to such a characterization of their views on men and women.

However, John Calvin, one of the fathers of evangelical patriarchalism in protestant circles, was quite consistent in applying his patriarchal theological views to daily life. What he theologically believed regarding women was practically applied in every day living. The consistency of the way he lived with the things he believed is evident. Calvin wrote in his commentary on I Corinthians the following:

"As far as the external connections and social propriety are concerned, the man takes his lead from Christ, and the woman from the man, so that they do not stand on the same level, but this inequality exists ... Because he is made subject to Christ and that includes the condition that he take first place in the control of the household and its affairs. For in his home the father of the family is like a king... The man is in authority, and the woman is in subjection to him ... In I Tim. 2:12 he debars women from speaking in church altogether ... because of the pre-eminence which God has given to the man, so that he might be superior to the woman ... The woman took her origin from the man, and that therefore she has a lower standing ... The woman was created for the express purpose of greatly enriching the man's life ... Paul looks higher, viz. to the eternal law of God, which had made the female sex subject to the authority of men. Therefore all women are born to submit to the pre-eminence of the male sex ... Let the man therefore carry out his function as the head, having supremacy over her; let the woman perform her function as the body, giving help to him ... Let the woman be content in her position for subjection, and not feel indignant because she has to play second fiddle to the superior sex"(translated by John W. Frazer, Eerdmans, 1996, pp. 229ff.).

I do wish modern patriarchalists would be as bold in their declarations as Calvin. Faulty interpretations of Scripture are not nearly as evident when the application of the theology is covered up. In other words, we have a great many professing "complementarians" (patriarchalists) who are functioning egalitarians. Such hypocrisy is not healthy for anyone. I personally told Paige Patterson I admired his consistency in removing Sheri Klouda from her position as Hebrew at Southwestern--he was living the way he believed. I then told him I would do everything in my power to help people see his beliefs were totally, one hundred percent diametrically opposite of the Scriptures and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

One of these days the Scriptural teaching of the equality of men and women in Jesus Christ will be the standard view of conservative, evangelical churches because it is precisely what the Bible teaches. Until then, it would be helpful if those who theologically believe in male superiority and male authority over the female gender would be as bold and direct as Calvin in terms of the application of that theology into daily living.

It would help people see the utter ridiculousness of their beliefs and the tragedy of falsely interpreting the Bible to support such absurdities.

Pastors Are Among the People, Not Over the People

Jon Zens is our guest for Emmanuel's Fall Bible Conference which can be viewed via live streaming at 6:30 p.m. central time Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week (September 20th-22nd). One of Jon's good friends is Frank Viola, Christian author of Pagan Christianity, and a thought provoking biblical scholar.

Recently I came across an excellent article by Frank Viola encouraging men called to pastor and shepherd people not to dominate, control, or exert "authority" over their flocks. The entire article can be read online, but I thought a pertinent section spoke biblically and directly against some of the practices of pastors within the Southern Baptist Convention. If we pastors could all catch the spirit of what Frank writes below, 95% of church problems would be resolved. Frank Viola writes:

"In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the elders, “Be on your guard for yourself and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” Notice what he says: “You, elders, are among the flock, and the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” Not over the flock; among the flock. Among the flock! Among the flock to do what? “To shepherd the church of God.” Not to control the flock, but to care for it. To serve it. The elders are overseers, not overlords! The word “overseer” means one who looks out for the good of the saints, not for his own personal interests. Yet because overseers care for the saints, they are called shepherds also. And a shepherd (pastor) is simply a metaphor, it is not a title nor an office. In the first-century churches, all the brothers and sisters take care of one another. All of them take care of one another! But the shepherds are the older, wiser ones that do it best. They are the examples for everyone else. Let me put it this way. Every brother and sister is to do what a true shepherd/elder does. The elders are but examples to all. Now hold on to your chair. Get ready. It’s going to be heavy, brothers. Look at Acts 20:33. I want you to read very slowly verses 33 to 35. Follow this: “I, Paul, have lusted after no one’s silver or gold or apparel. Yes, you elders know that my hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you, elders, must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Now, brothers, let’s get the scene. Paul, an apostle sent by God, spends three years raising up a church in Ephesus. Before he leaves, he acknowledges the older brothers, the elders. He says to them, “Take care of God’s people if there is a problem.” He did not say, “Lord over them. Control them. Do all the teaching and preaching.” Nor did he say, “You are their leaders. They must obey you.” He didn’t say that. Four years after the church in Ephesus is planted, Paul meets with the Ephesian elders at Miletus. He says them, “Brothers, the Holy Spirit has given you a gift to care for the Lord’s people. They are the flock of God; not your flock. It’s the flock of God, purchased with His own blood. You are among them, not over them. Brothers, when I was with you I worked with my hands. I paid for my own needs, and I also paid for the needs of the men I trained. By doing this, I gave you an example. Elders, shepherds of Ephesus, remember my example. That I did not take anything from God’s people! I gave to them! I did not take from them! Follow my example.” And that is what an elder is, brothers. He is a person that gives! He doesn’t receive! Brothers, think about this. Just think about it."

A Free Speech Ekklesia for All Brothers and Sisters

34 "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." é What! (Nonsense) 36 Did the word of God only come to you (Judaizers)? é What! (Nonsense) Or are you (Judaizers) the only people it (God's Word) has reached? (I Corinthians 14:34-36).

          37 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy..." (I Corinthians 14:39). 

In the first two verses above (v. 34 and v. 35), Paul is giving the false belief of Judiaziers who have infiltrated the church at Corinth and other early Christian churches.

These two verses (v. 34 and v. 35) articulate the Judaizers' attempt to bring 1st Century synagogue traditions into the Christian assembly.

These Judaizers were "zealous for the Law," or the teachings of the Talmud (Acts 21:21). They caused all kinds of problems in the early church.

Paul is blunt about them in II Corinthians 11, calling them "false apostles" and "deceitful workers" (II Cor. 11:13).

Paul tells the Christians at Corinth to resist the false practices of the Judaizers and stand firm to the New Covenant "traditions" that Paul had taught them (see  I Corinthians 11:2).

Paul is consistent throughout all his writings that all the members of the assembly, both male and female, could participate in congregational worship (see I Corinthians. 14:31 and I Corinthians 11:5-15).

In fact, Paul expects that women in the church will publicly pray and teach just as men publicly pray and teach (see I Corinthians 11:5).

The entire discourse of the New Covenant Scriptures is that God's priesthood is composed of males and females, slave and free, Jews and Gentiles. There is no separation of race, nationality, gender or color in the God's New Covenant priesthood. Each of us has been made a priest (Revelation 1:5) and we all form a royal priesthood (I Peter 2:9).

So, the startling prohibition of I Corinthians 14:34-36 "Let the women keep silent in the churches" seems discordant and unconnected to the rest of the New Covenant Scriptures.

There's a reason for this -- it is.

Paul is quoting the views of the Judaizers regarding women in I Corinthians 14:34-35, false views about women that the Judaizers are attempting to bring into the Christian assemblies.

Paul quotes what they were teaching in order to refute it.

The Judaizers had been taught four things about the role of women in the synagogues when they were Jews, and they wished to make "the church" conform to these restrictions.

1). The Jews believed women were not qualified to be learners in the synagogue because the talmudic literature forbad them from learning. Their presence in the synagogue was tolerated, but they were to be unobtrusive and silent, never interferring with the work of the men. The Judaizers wished this tradition to be carried over into all the churches. But Paul argues throughout I Corinthians for full participation of women within the assembly (see I Corinthians 14:31 and 39).

2). The Jews recognized that a woman in the synagogue might at some point wish to move from passive attendance to actually learning something in the synagogue, but this was viewed as an exceptional occurance and not the norm. Therefore, on the rare occasion a woman desired to ask a question in order to learn, she was instructed to maintain her silence in the assembly and wait to ask her husband after leaving the synagogue and returning home. The Judaizers wished to keep the same passivity of women in the earkt Christian churches. But Paul expects women to pray and prophesy, the two acts of worship in the assembly, in the same manner that men pray and prophesy. Women compose half the priesthood (see I Corinthians 11:5).

3). There is the assumption in the synagogue that all Jewish women would be married; it was even expected by leaders in the synagogue that Jewish women would marry. The Judaizers believed the same thing should be true about all women in the early church. But Paul argues his preference that Christian women remain single for the purpose of ministry (see I Corinthians 7:34).

4). The Jews believed, and it was reinforced by the Talmud, that only the males should receive religious instruction. Jewish husbands were the source of their wives learning. Women should remain silent within the context of the synagogue. The Judaizers carried this tradition into the early churches and taught just as firmly that all Christian women should be silent in the churches. But Paul has taught that the priesthood of God is composed of both males and females, and there is an equality within the priesthood in both role and function (see I Corinthians 11:11 and Galations 3:28-29)

Paul states the Judaizers beliefs about women in I Corinthians 14:34-35, and then he begins to refute it. 

Gilbert Bilezikian writes:

"It is worth noting that in 1 Corinthians more than in any of his other Epistles, Paul uses the é particle to introduce rebuttals to statements preceding it. As a conjunction, é appears in Paul's Epistles in a variety of uses. But the list below points to a predilection for a particular use of é which is characteristic mainly of 1 Corinthians."

Bilezikian then shows the appearance of the é particle in Paul's letter to the Corinthians, and in each case translates it as "What! or (Nonsense) to give the contextual meaning.

1 Corinthians 6:1-2--"If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? (é What! Nonsense) Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?"

I Corinthians 14:34-36 - Here Paul states the Judaizers' belief that that he intends to refute, and he uses the Greek uses the eta é like he does in I Corinthians 6. 

Corinthians 14:34-35  - "34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church" é What! (Nonsense)"

I Corinthians 14:36: "Or did the word of God come only to you (Judaizers)?  é What! (Nonsense! Or are you (Judaizers) the only people it has reached?"

After refuting the false belief, Paul writes:

"Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy..." (I Corinthians 14:39). 

So the "What" (the Greek eta), is used by Paul throughout Corinthians to refute false teaching. 

There are actually two of these eta particles in I Corinthians 14:34-36. Paul is expressing his disbelief (a compounded disbelief) that anyone would think that men only are the mouth pieces of God and that women should be silent in their presence. 

Paul states his objection to that kind of thinking very clearly.

"What! Did the word of God come only to you? What! (Note: this "What!" is the second eta in the text) Are you the only people it has reached?"

Paul is refuting the Jewish Old Covenant belief that men only can hear from God and speak in the assembly (synagogue), which Christian Judaizers wished to carry over into the ekklesia (churches).

In other words, the "women keep silent" passage is not God's commandment, but it is the Judaizers corrupt teaching.

The internal evidence that identifies this "women silent in the assembly" as false Judaizer teaching is clear:

1.  The Greek conjunction prior to verse 36.

2. The absence of quotations in the original Greek

3. The context bot shows Paul is correcting the Judaizers' false beliefs.

I once spoke on this topic during a Wednesday night Bible study. I spent time reviewing the overwhelming number of verses, including those from Paul's own letters, which are diametrically opposed to the principles taught by the Judaizers. If you think I Corinthians 14:34-36 is from God and not the Judaizers, then you will have a hard time explaining why the rest of Bible directly contradicts the prohibitions in  I Corinthians 14:34-36.

We always have a question and answer time at the end of Bible study and a new member of our church, a woman about seventy years of age who was life long member of a traditional SBC church in Nevada, desired to comment about what I had taught. She was seated next to her husband, and she raised her hand to be recognized and was called upon, she spoke and disagreed quite strongly with my interpretation. She believed I Corinthians 14:33-35 was a commandment from God and after explaining her reasoning, she concluded emphatically that God wanted women to be silent "in church."

When she was finished I gently suggested that if she believed my interpretation of I Corinthians 11:34-35 was wrong and her's was right, then she should have never raised her hand to be recognized, she should have never voiced her beliefs in the assembly, and she should have waited until she and her husband arrived  home before she asked a question of HIM or made a comment to HIM about what I had taught.

That is what the text says!

So either she must believe that what I'm teaching is right and then she is FREE to ask questions of her pastor, at any time, any place, for any reason the assembly is gathered, or she must be true to and consistent with her beliefs and remain absolutely silent in church.

Her response?

She said she was not "in church," so she could speak. Mind you, we were in our Fellowship Hall on Wednesday night with a couple of hundred believers present. There were numerous other small groups from our church meeting throughout our facility and around the city that night. But, in our new member's mind, we were not "in the church" that night because we weren't in the "auditorium" and having a typical Sunday morning "church" service.

Her comment led me to think many Southern Baptists don't have a working, biblical understanding of what the church is. Traditional Southern Baptists often seem more Jewish or Roman Catholic in their views of the assembly (church) and authority (clerics) than the writers of the New Testament. I believe that the Bible teaches that where two or three are gathered in the name of the Jesus Christ, the assembly is gathered and Christ is at the center of His people.

So Wednesday night is as much church as Sunday morning. Tuesday night small group is as much church as Wednesday night Bible study. Tuesday morning's gathering for fellowship, service, and worship is as much church as Sunday night's discipleship classes.

We, the people, are His church, and when or where we assemble, as few as two or three, His church is convened.

So move over Judaizers; all the people of God are free to function.

Who Has the "Authority" in a Marriage--the Husband or the Wife?

I was recently reading John McArthur's blog Grace to You, and came across a comment with several questions that I found interesting. I did not see any attempt to answer the lady's questions, so I thought I would respond here at Grace and Truth to You.  The woman wrote:

"I am concerned about a marriage situation in which the husband is a ob/gyn doctor. He believes they should not use birth control and delivers all their children at home. She is exhausted with the load of the continual pregnancies and the little ones. He is not willing to allow her to have outside help in the home. She would like to be able to limit the pregnancies. He rules! She submits. How does this fit in with God's balance of the man loving the woman? What are her options in this type of marriage? How can she disagree and be biblically correct? Any insights on this? I would love to hear them."

McArthur, Piper and other conservative Bible scholars I admire are fond of referring to the husband's "authority" over his wife. There is only one place in the entire New Testament, however, where the word "authority" (exousia) is used in reference to the husband and wife--I Corinthians 7:4:

"The wife has not authority (exousia) over her own body, but the husband. In the same manner, the husband has not authority (exousia) over his body, but the wife."

Authority in the marriage seems to be mutual between husband and wife. Paul goes on to affirm mutual authority by saying in the next verse that the sexual union in marriage is an act requring "mutual consent" or agreement. The Greek word is "symphonou" from which we get our the English word "symphony." In an orchestra there is harmony in the symphony when all instruments are played at the right time and the right place with mutual understanding and agreement. There is a discordant and disharmonious symphony if even one instrument strikes out on its own against the wishes of the rest.

So it is in marriage. The Bible is quite clear in its answer to the lady's questions above.

(1). There is no sexual union unless both the husband and wife agree.
(2). Multiple childbirths requires mutual consent, not the demands of one.
(3). Disagreement in marriage is not only biblical, it is expected, thus the instructions of I Corinthians 7.
(4). The loving spouse will honor the wishes of the one being loved and wait for mutual consent.
(5). Authority and submission, according to the sacred text, is mutual in the husband and wife relationship.

It's ironic to me that many inerrantists seem to want the sacred text to say that which it doesn't. It's time we actually believed the Bible and obeyed it.

In His Grace,

Wade

A Pastor with a D. Min. Degree Should Not Be Addressed as "Dr." - Tom Kelley

After a few weeks of posting at Grace and Truth to You and fluctuating with my desires about comments, it seems that moderation provides the best solution for what had become a  perplexing problem. Moderating comments--viewing them before they are posted--is a compromise between the completely open comment system which sadly allows subversiveness from ideological ranters which drowns out the substance of other commentors, and the completely closed system which just as sadly shuts out the incredibly astute comments of many who either agree or disagree with what I write. Until events dictate otherwise, Grace and Truth to You will operate under comment moderation.

I've discovered an army of Southern Baptists, usually silent in public, who feel empowered to comment on blogs, and their comments are both needed and thought provoking. One such layman, a highly educated professional himself, wrote a comment on last week's post about mail order degrees obtained by some Southern Baptist pastors. Tom Kelley did not comment about fraudulent degrees, but instead wrote about D.Min degrees,  degrees that are legitimate post-graduate degrees for many Southern Baptist pastors. However, Tom expressed his disapproval that these pastors either insist on being called "Dr." or even allow others to address them as "Dr."--a distinction that the D. Min degree does not afford. Tom explained his feelings in this manner:

"One thing that bothers me is the number of pastors who complete D.Min. degrees and then refer to themselves (or allow others to refer to them as) "Dr." As a practitioner's degree, the preface of Dr. for a D.Min. grad is not appropriate, as it is with an academic's degree, such as a Ph.D., Th.D., or even Ed.D.

It's appropriate, if one sees a need, for a D.Min. to follow their name with their "letters", just as a lawyer can follow their name with J.D. (Doctor of Jurisprudence). But one should no more call a D.Min. grad "Dr." than one would call a lawyer "Dr." This is because the purpose of both degrees serve as terminal degrees in the practice of one's "craft"; the degrees are not intended as scholarly qualifications.

In fact, a pastor with a Ph.D. should not be called "Dr." in reference to his position as pastor, only in his work as a professor or theologian. Even someone with an M.D., a profession notorious for insisting on being called Dr., would be out of line to think his mechanic should call him "Dr." when he gets his oil changed.

Context is key."

In light of Tom's perceptive--and in my opinion, accurate--comment, I would like to thank Kevin Ezell, President of this year's 2010 Pastors' Conference in Orlando. No speaker is listed as "Dr.". Most speakers have earned the D.Min degree. A couple have earned Ph.D's. It is right to do away with all titles when SBC pastors are called to preach the word of God. Christ Himself spoke about being careful of considering oneself superior to those to whom one speaks (Matthew 23:8). Thankfully, the SBC Committee on Order of Business has adopted a similar approach when presenting speakers.

Do you agree that the D. Min is not an academic research degree, and that pastors desire to be identified as a person with this degree, they should abstain from "Dr." before their name, and simply go with D. Min after their name, as would an attorney with a Juris Doctorate degree? Or do you believe that a pastor with a D.Min should be called "Dr." and introduce himself as "Dr."? It seems that most Southern Baptist pastors with a D.Min believe it is both normal and expected for their congregations to refer to them as "Dr.". I think Tom Kelley has made some valid points about this being an errant practice.

In His Grace,

Wade Burleson