'Hushing' Up Women Preachers

from the Christian Standard, "Readers Write" (p. 13), May 8, 2005:

WHO IS READY TO OPEN THE DOOR?

Alan LaRue ("How Can They Hear Without a Preacher?" January 30) was right on target in focusing on the need for more preaching ministers, but he left off one possible solution: the many committed, trained, and gifted women who would preach if they had an opportunity.

Just over a century ago there was a similar shortage of preachers, especially in the Midwest. Not too many miles from where Mr. LaRue preaches, Clara Babcock helped to fill that shortage. She served for 36 years, preaching in Erie and Thomson, Illinois. Her obituary (CHRISTIAN STANDARD, 25 July 1925, p. 1045) noted that she was ordained in 1888 and had baptized 1,502 persons by the time of her death.

Yes, women’s preaching is controversial now, just as it was a century ago, but that does not mean we ought to be hush-hush about it. Mission support has been a controversial issue over the years (direct support vs. mission agencies), but our churches have learned to live with this disagreement.

Instrumental music has been controversial, but Christian churches/churches of Christ are, more and more, willing to leave this issue in the realm of opinion. Our congregations will not soon—perhaps never—have consensus on whether the preaching ministry is a valid exercise of the gifts and calling of women, but it is one more possible solution to our pressing need for more preachers. Who is ready to open the door to the Clara Babcocks of our time?

—ROBERT HULL
Johnson City , Tennessee

Kent comments -

Long ago, when I was but a fledgling young minister-boy, I picked up a copy of the book Essays on New Testament Christianity (C. Robert Wetzel, Editor, Standard Publishing, 1978). In that volume I ran across the essay "Power, Submission, and Sexual Identity Among the Early Christians" by S. Scott Bartchy. It is a valiant attempt to avoid the full force of Paul’s teaching on the role of women in the church by relegating to the category of ‘Problem Texts’ those parts of scripture which put limits on the role of women.

There is an amusing section in this essay where Bartchy complains:

In other words, even if we think the New Testament teaching limits the role of women, we should be sorry that it does. Frankly, I don’t waste of lot of time wishing that God had said something other than what He did say. Woven into much of Bartchy’s essay is a running complaint that, in effect, men are just a bunch of culturally-conditioned male chauvinist pigs who should catch up with (what was then) "enlightened" twentieth-century feminism.

If you can remember 1978, you will probably remember that our world was only beginning to be "feminized" back then, especially the world of independent churches. For example, you could use "he" generically without provoking a sexual World War III.

So I read the essay and thought, "That’s different" but not much more.

Ah, but I have learned my lessons since then. The feminists won the war for the culture so decisively that we changed the language to accommodate their triumph. While they didn’t get - not yet, at least - the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" it turns out that feminists didn’t need it after all - they won without it.

While it has taken a few decades, the church of Christ has only recently shown signs of surrendering to the feminists. While you would think the feminists would not bother with the historic Christian faith just because of what Paul says, it hasn’t worked out that way. The floodgates of full-fledged feminism are now almost beyond containment. It is now common to hear the call for women preachers and women teachers of men in the church.

There is the old Bartchy approach to this, which is to "ask new questions" of the Biblical text - questions carefully crafted to reach the desired goal of having the Biblical text "answer" that, sure, women should teach men. With that, the church has "caught up" with our culture and all is well.

But another approach is to ignore scripture - which does after all contain some of those nasty, chauvinistic Pauline texts that have to be carefully reinterpreted - and just appeal to other things. For example, one recent writer appealed to that great logical doctrine of inevitability.

Robert Hull’s letter (above) is great fun in this regard. Why should women preach? Lot’s of great reasons:

1. There just aren’t enough men preachers.

2. It’s been done before.

3. It’s just a matter of opinion anyway.

Quick responses:

1. While necessity might be the mother of invention, it is not the standard for church practice.

2. "It’s been done before" is just tradition, and as one wise man once said, those things can make void the commandment of God.

3. Of course, if the Bartchy types are wrong and the Cottrell types are right, it’s not just a matter of opinion. And contrary to popular (and stupid) thought, the fact that some people disagree on a point does not necessarily make that point a mere "matter of opinion."

Just so no one thinks I’m trying to be too ‘hush-hush’ about the matter, let me make this as clear as possible. In the light of what the Apostle Paul says, the idea of women preaching to men is a bad one. It shouldn’t be done. It’s contrary to the revealed will of God. No. Nein. No way. Forget it. (Have I taken the ‘hush’ out yet?)

Women preachers will not be the end of this matter. Long ago, the Disciples of Christ - who have little regard for the authority of the Bible - began having women elders. We know this is also the case at "Willow Creek" so it can’t be long until the letter will come to the Christian Standard calling for women elders. Why? There aren’t enough men elders, its been done before, and it’s just a matter of opinion anyway.