A Call to End the Justification of Racism and Sexism through the Abuse of God’s Word

In South Africa, the white leaders of Apartheid, who called themselves “Christian,” defended “white authority” by claiming that it was “God-ordained”:

“According to the theocentric way, which is our church’s way of thinking, the human being receives what is justly his when God gives him his God-ordained share … The rights and privileges of people [are] very different according to God’s free will … Justice in the world does not depend on whether each and every one is treated equally but on whether one is treated according to what God has ordained for him in the light of the inequalities which He Himself has created…”

These white leaders also claimed that they were obeying God by acting as the benevolent “guardians” of other people groups:

“Whether we like it or not, we are the guardians of the coloureds and the natives too, and we shall have the right to give reckoning to God about our guardianship.”

Appealing to the United Nations for equality among people of all races was described by these leaders as “an outrageous transgression of authority.”
http://smu-facweb.smu.ca/~wmills/course322/14aReligion_natm.html

The white leaders of Apartheid also denied that they were claiming a position of superiority over other races: “Say not that we are superior and they are inferior, but simply that we are different…” http://www.projectcensored.org/unfinished-revolution-interviews-white-south-africa/

In his book entitled, “Southern Slavery As it Was,” a complementarian writer for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, Doug Wilson, defends the institution of slavery by saying that it produced “a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since.”

He also claims that the institution of slavery was clearly supported by the Bible:

“And nothing is clearer — the New Testament opposes anything like the abolitionism of our country prior to the War Between the States. The New Testament contains many instructions for Christian slave owners, and requires a respectful submissive demeanor for Christian slaves.” https://timfall.wordpress.com/2015/05/01/prominent-pastor-defends-slavery-as-being-good-for-black-people-in-america/

In Doug Wilson’s mind, to advocate for racial equality and the abolition of slavery was to ignore the authority of the Bible.

This same author for the CBMW also claims that women “need” men to function as their providers and protectors (i.e. guardians):

“The best thing in the church for the women is for the men to be men. For a man to teach the word of God with authority (and not as the scribes) is not withholding anything from the women at all — it is a gift to the women. Godly women are grieved by usurping women, and annoyed by effeminate men. They are fed by men who teach the Bible with boldness. They need that sort of provision and protection, and they know that they do. We should know that also.” http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/brothers-we-are-not-sisters/

Though women are depicted as dependent upon male provision and protection, Wilson claims that this does not make them “inferior,” but rather “different”:

“To say that one thing is not another thing is not to register a complaint against either. To say that the sun is not the moon is not to criticize the moon, and to say that the land is not the sea is not to file a complaint against the sea. God establishes differences in the world with the intention of them complementing one another, and not so that his variegated world would try to melt itself down into one great indistinguishable mass.” http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/brothers-we-are-not-sisters/

Another CBMW author attempts to rationalize the subordination of all women to male authority using similar language:

“God said in his word that there are two institutions in which the man is to be the leader. One is the home, and the other is the church. Friend that is not chauvinism, that is not sexism, that is not fundamentalism, that is Bible. Now having said that ladies, let me reiterate a previous statement. This does not mean and it does not imply that women are inferior to men. Paul not only gives the picture of authority, he defends the practice of authority. He reminds us…men and women are different.” http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/the-way-it-is/

In all of the quotations cited above, some men are claiming the right to rule over others on the basis of their race or their sex. Further, they depict their right to rule over others as a “gift” or a benevolent “service” to other people groups, who are portrayed as dependent upon this kind of protective “guardianship.” How do they justify such outrageous racist and sexist beliefs? They claim that they are found in the “Word of God.”

For millennia, human beings have attempted to rationalize injustice and oppression by claiming that they have the support of God.

God does not agree:

“To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice” (Proverbs 21:3).

“Righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne; love and faithfulness go before you” (Psalm 89:14).

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free” (Luke 4:18).

”There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Not only did God extend salvation to Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slaves and free, but we are told that the salvation we have in Christ must be made known through our actions and by the transformation of our thinking:

“If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers” (James 2:8-9).

“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will” (Romans 12:2). Paul wrote these comments to a patriarchal culture that was sustained by slavery.

God stands against those who misrepresent his words to justify evil:

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?” (Jeremiah 8:8).

“Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar” (Proverbs 30:5-6).

If you are using the Bible to justify racism, sexism or any other form of injustice, you should know that God wants you to stop. He wants you to admit to yourself the error of your ways and humbly ask him to help you change. He wants you to “love your neighbor as you love yourself.” He wants you to follow the example of the one you claim to serve:

“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!”
(Philippians 2:5-8)

If you do not listen to what God has to say about racism, sexism or any other form of oppression; and if you continue to misuse the Bible to rationalize doing harm to others, you will one day stand before God to give an account: “And the King shall answer and say unto them, ‘Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto me’” (Matthew 25:40&45). The way you treat your neighbor–and every human being is your neighbor–is the way you treat God.

Advertisements
Standard

Plato’s Spectacles: How Greek Philosophy has Distorted our View of Women in the Bible

The following presentation was shared at Emmanuel Bible College on March 3, 2015:

Plato’s Spectacles

To view the presentation, please click on the link above.  You will need Powerpoint (or a compatible program) installed on your computer to view the file.

If you would like Bob to share this or similar information at your church, group or organization, please feel free to send him a message on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bob.edwards.letmypeoplego.

May God use this information to enlighten and encourage!

P.S. For those who do not have Powerpoint, I have added this PDF version of the presentation.  You can view it using Acrobat reader.  Hope that helps!

Plato’s Spectacles

Standard

A “Biblical” View of Men and Women?

According to the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” (CBMW) the English Standard Version of the Bible (ESV) presents an “unapologetically biblical stance on God’s gracious plan regarding the complementary roles of men and women” (http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/literary-esv-is-unapologetically-complementarian/).

In the eyes of this Council, the biblical role of men is to be leaders, whereas the role of women is to submit to this leadership. Female leadership in the church is bluntly described as “unbiblical” (http://cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/50Q_contents.pdf).

The following passage from the ESV translation seems to support this viewpoint:

“My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths” (Isaiah 3:12).

It appears from this passage that God stands opposed to female leadership. If women usurp male authority, God’s people may be led astray.

What the CBMW does not seem to make clear is that this translation of the Bible is based on the work of Jewish scribes from the 7th-10th centuries A.D. known as Masoretes. One of the jobs of these scribes was to add vowel marks to the Hebrew text, which originally consisted only of consonants (https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/masoretic-text-vs-original-hebrew/).

Depending upon which vowels were added to Isaiah 3:12, “infants” could be translated “extractors,” and “women” could be translated “extortioners.” Which translation is accurate? This is an important question.

Is God opposed to women ruling in Israel…or extortioners? A much older version of Isaiah, translated from Hebrew, is found in the Greek Septuagint of the 2nd century B.C.. Please note that the writing of this translation predates the oldest available copy of the Mosorete’s text by roughly 1000 years. This version (the Septuagint) was also quoted directly and extensively by the writers of the New Testament (including Matthew, Luke, John and the apostle Paul) (http://www.bible-researcher.com/quote01.html).

How did the Septuagint translate Isaiah 3:12?

“O my people, your extractors πράκτορες strip you, and extortioners ἀπαιτοῦντες rule over you: O my people, they that pronounce you blessed lead you astray, and pervert the path of your feet.”

A much older version of the Bible, frequently quoted by the New Testament authors, says nothing about “women” in leadership.

In fact, in the Old Testament we see that God himself appointed Deborah as a judge, leader and prophet of Israel. She did not lead God’s people astray:

“Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim; and the sons of Israel came up to her for judgment” (Judges 4:4-5 NIV).

The CBMW also claims that female leadership is prohibited by the New Testament passage found in 1 Timothy 2:12:

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man…” (ESV)

What the CBMW doesn’t seem to clarify is that this translation of the passage is based upon Erasmus’ Greek/Latin version of the Bible from the 16th century A.D.. Specifically the notion that women may not “exercise authority” over a man comes from Erasmus’ Latin “auctoritatum” (Wilshire, 2010, Insight Into Two Biblical Passages). The Greek word he was translating was “authentein.” It is used only once in the New Testament, so it is difficult to grasp its meaning…unless we once again look to the Septuagint for assistance.

In the Septuagint Book entitled “The Wisdom of Solomon” the word “authentas” is used to refer to those who engage in pagan sacrifices to idols (12:6). The “authentas” were parents who sacrificed their children to a false god. What does this word actually have to say about women in leadership?

Absolutely nothing at all.

In fact for hundreds of years leading up to the New Testament era, the word “authentein” nearly always referred to perpetrating or supporting violence, murder or sacrilege (Wilshire, 2010). Not surprisingly, ascetic cults in Ephesus, the destination of Paul’s letter to Timothy, had a long history of performing violent ritual sacrifices involving men. Diodorus Siculus, a historian from 30 BC, explained that one of these cults originally sacrificed male children to their goddess, Cybele. In the New Testament era, male genitalia were offered to the goddess (an idol) during an annual ritual. Men not willing to participate in this ritual were perceived as “unclean” and therefore unfit for spiritual service. Is Paul really writing about “women in authority” here? Not if we look to the Septuagint to help us understand his language, and not if we take the religious history of Ephesus seriously.

So, is the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood correct in saying that the leadership of women in the church is “unbiblical”? No, I don’t believe they are. In fact, older manuscripts of the Bible strongly suggest that scribes and translators later distorted God’s message with their own sexist bias.

“‘How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?” (Jeremiah 8:8)

Standard

Confusing “Equality” with “Sameness”: Clearing up a Complementarian Misconception

Time after time, I’ve read complementarian literature that seems to misunderstand what is meant by biblical equality for women and men. The heart of the misunderstanding appears to be a misperception of what is meant by the term “equality.” Very often, the complementarian literature I’m familiar with assumes that egalitarians are advocating for the “sameness” of men and women in the church, rather than their equality. For example, in her book entitled, “The Feminist Mistake,” Mary A. Kassian uses the terms “equality” and “sameness” interchangeably (p. 37). She also assumes, wrongly, that Christian egalitarians want women to be “just like men” (p. 38).

Sameness suggests that there are really no differences between men and women. Numerous complementarian books, journal articles and blogs expend vast amounts of time and energy refuting this notion of “sameness.” They believe they are refuting biblical equality, but they are wrong.

Equality is not blind to the rather obvious biological differences between men and women. Equality, however, does not view biological differentiation as a basis for subjection. In other words, it does not believe that authority in human relationships should be designated solely on the basis of a person’s sex at birth.

Theologically, the association of “maleness” with leadership characteristics has a long history. For example, Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D.) declared, “Man is stronger and purer since his is uncastrated and has a beard. Women are weak, passive, castrated and immature… His beard, then is the badge of a man and shows him unmistakably to be a man. It is older than Eve and is a symbol of the stronger nature. By God’s decree, hairiness is one of man’s conspicuous qualities, and, at that, is distributed over his whole body. For what is hairy is by nature drier and warmer than what is bare; therefore, the male is hairier and more warm-blooded than the female; the uncastrated, than the castrated; the mature, than the immature” (Trombley, 2003, Who Said Women Can’t Teach, p. 234).

Clement argues that beards, penises and body hair are a sign of maturity, strength and purity. Theologians throughout church history have concluded that these qualities make men—and not women—fit candidates for leadership. Clement’s notion that beards, body hair and male genitalia relate to maturity demonstrates a profoundly androcentric and erroneous worldview. He wrongly evaluates a woman’s maturity in terms of issues related to male puberty.

Is it really true that men are more intellectually, emotionally or spiritually mature than women? If you asked St. Augustine, the influential 4th century Roman Catholic Bishop, he would have answered, “yes.” He believed that women must be subject to men because “the weaker brain must serve the stronger” (Questions on the Heptateuch, Book I, § 153).

After immersing himself in Augustine’s commentaries, prominent Protestant reformer John Calvin came to similar conclusions about a woman’s “nature” and how it rendered her unfit for leadership: “[A woman] is formed to obey; for gunaikokratia (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach” (Commentary on Timothy, Titus and Philemon). In the eyes of Calvin, women were created to “obey” not lead. He also viewed obedience and teaching as mutually exclusive activities.  In his commentary on Genesis, he referred to female subordination as “the order of nature.”

Today, complementarians continue to associate “masculinity” with “leadership” and “femininity” with “submission.” One of the founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, for example, said that women may not exercise authority because of their “characteristic weaknesses” (Piper, desiringgod.org, “affirming the goodness of manhood and womanhood in all of life”). Another complementarian leader expressed this viewpoint more bluntly, stating simply that women are more gullible and more easily deceived than men (Driscoll, as cited at the wartburgwatch.com, “danger flee churches which teach that women are easily deceived”).

Is it accurate to equate masculinity with leadership? No, I don’t believe so. This is really just a mental association resulting from gender-socialization. I don’t believe this particular association is evidence-based, though it has a long history in church tradition.

Do many women want to share decision-making authority in their churches and homes? Yes. Some of these women are also gifted to teach the Bible and/or preach the gospel of salvation. Does this mean that they want to be “just like men?” Only if we assume that maturity, leadership, teaching and preaching are distinctly “male” characteristics…and they are not. Equality is not sameness. Women can be distinctly female and–of course–spiritually mature; they can share decision-making authority with men, teach the Bible and preach the gospel: beards, body hair and male genitals are not required.

Standard

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: Examining the origins of their beliefs, and calling for repentance

Where does the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood get the notion that women must be subject to male authority in the church and in the home?

An examination of the book entitled “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” provides an indication:

“John Calvin…alludes” p. 150

“Calvin comments” p. 151

“In Calvin’s terms” p. 151

“Calvin properly interpreted” p. 260

“Calvin says” p. 260

“Calvin remarks” p. 263

What did John Calvin say about women?

“[A woman] is formed to obey; for gunaikokratia (the government of women) has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing; and, therefore, so to speak, it will be a mingling of heaven and earth, if women usurp the right to teach” (Wilshire, 2010, p. 79).

Where did Calvin get the idea that “the government of women has always been regarded by all wise persons as a monstrous thing”?

An examination of his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” provides an answer:

”Augustine expresses” p. 45

“Augustine considered” p. 52

“Augustine…says” p. 53

“Augustine therefore” p. 54

“Augustine justly calls” p. 62

“Augustine reminds us” p. 63

“Augustine distinctly declares” p. 71

“Augustine tells us” p. 74 (and so on, for another 900 pages).

What did Augustine say about women and authority?

The apostle puts flesh for woman; because, when she was made of his rib, Adam said, “This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh.” And the apostle saith, “He that loveth his wife loveth himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh.” Flesh, then, is put for woman, in the same manner that spirit is sometimes put for husband. Wherefore? Because the one rules, the other is ruled; the one ought to command, the other to serve. For where the flesh commands and the spirit serves, the house is turned the wrong way. What can be worse than a house where the woman has the mastery over the man? But that house is rightly ordered where the man commands and the woman obeys. In like manner that man is rightly ordered where the spirit commands and the flesh serves. (On John, Tractate 2, § 14, ed. J. Wijngaards, for womenpriests.org)

Where did Augustine get the notion that men represent “the spirit” and that they must “rule” over women, who represent “the flesh”?

He tells us in his “Confessions”:

“certain books of the Platonists” p. 86

“the books of the Platonists” p. 92

“the study of those [Platonist] books alone” p. 94

“certain books of the Platonists” p. 96

What did “the Platonists” say about women?

Let me further note that the manifold and complex pleasures and desires and pains are generally found in children and women and servants…. Whereas the simple and moderate desires which follow reason, and are under the guidance of the mind and true opinion, are to be found only in a few [all of them men], and those the best born and best educated…

Very true. These two, as you may perceive, have a place in our State; and the meaner desires of the [many] are held down by the virtuous desires and wisdom of the few…

Seeing then, I said, that there are…distinct classes, any meddling of one with another, or the change of one into another, is the greatest harm to the State, and may be most justly termed evil-doing? This then is injustice…

You are quite right, he replied, in maintaining the general inferiority of the female sex….” (Plato’s Republic)

Conclusion

The belief that women must be subject to the authority of men does not have its origin in the Bible. In other words, it is not properly called “biblical” at all. Rather, it has its origin in the human philosophy of Plato. This philosophy was incorporated into Christian theology by St. Augustine, a Roman Catholic Bishop of the 4th Century A.D.. It was carried into the Protestant Reformation by John Calvin, and today it remains alive through the work of the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” and other similar organizations.

What does the Bible say about basing our beliefs on human philosophies such as Platonism?

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ” (Colossians 2:8, NASB).

It’s time for the church worldwide, and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in particular, to stop confusing sexist human philosophies with the will of God.

“You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions” (The words of our Lord, Mark 7:8, NIV).

Standard