A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power Read online

  Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband. (Ephesians 5:21–33)

  It seems to me that the first sentence introduces a balanced and equal relationship in marriage, but I understand how male supremacists base their claim on some selected phrases.

  When I was a child, the most revered Baptist was Lottie Moon, who had been one of our early missionaries to China. She gave much of her food to poor people and died of starvation. Even now, the financial contribution of Baptist congregations for evangelistic work in foreign countries is given in the name of this woman. In every sense of the word, she was the leader in evangelism, a fundamental commitment of my faith. Although a number of female Baptist pastors had been called by local congregations to serve their churches for many years, in 2000 official actions of the more conservative Southern Baptist Convention leaders soon made it clear that Southern Baptist women would no longer be serving as deacons, pastors, or chaplains in the armed forces, or even as professors in some Convention seminaries if there were male students in the classroom. I felt that another ancient principle was being violated with this decision: the premise that each local Baptist congregation was autonomous and that a majority of those voting in conference had the authority to decide who could join as members and who would serve God as lay leaders or the church’s pastor.

  Rosalynn and I decided to end our relationship with the denomination to which I had been loyal during the first seventy years of my life, but to remain active in our local Baptist church congregation, which was more traditional in its beliefs. For the same reasons, a substantial number of individual Baptists and entire church congregations made the same decision. There is an obvious need and desire among Baptists to resolve these disagreements, and some progress has been made, but one of the most obvious and persistent differences is whether to accept women in positions of leadership if they are elected by a local congregation. In our own Maranatha Baptist Church we enjoy having both a man and a woman as pastors, and at this time half our elected deacons (including the chair) are women.

  Later I will describe how people of other faiths disagree on this issue, but let me first explain why, in my opinion, Jesus Christ was the greatest liberator of women in a society where they had been considered throughout biblical history to be inferior. Even wives and widows of prominent and revered men had few legal rights. It is well known to those familiar with the Bible that, to enhance his own well-being, the patriarch Abraham gave away his wife, Sarah, to live in the harem of the pharaoh of Egypt and later attempted to give her to the heathen king Abimelech, claiming both times that she was not his wife but his sister. Men could possess multiple women (King Solomon had three hundred wives and seven hundred concubines), but a woman could be punished by stoning to death if she had more than one sex partner.

  There is one incontrovertible fact concerning the relationship between Jesus Christ and women: he treated them as equal to men, which was dramatically different from the prevailing custom of the times. The four Gospels were written by men, but they never report any instance of Jesus’ condoning sexual discrimination or the implied subservience or inferiority of women. In a departure from earlier genealogies, Matthew even includes four gentile women (all of whom had extramarital affairs) among the ancestors of Christ: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and Bathsheba. The exaltation of and later devotion to Mary, as Jesus’ mother, is a vivid indication of the special status of women in Christian theology.

  There are too many examples from the earthly ministry of Christ to describe here, but two or three are illustrative. Despite the strict prohibition against a Jewish man dealing with women in public, Jesus had no hesitancy about conversing at the community well with a Samaritan woman who was a pariah both among Jews and her peers because of her ethnicity and lascivious behavior. She accepted him as the promised Messiah and took his message back to her village—the first example of an evangelical witness. Jesus also rejected the double standard of punishment for adultery, by granting both a pardon and forgiveness to a guilty and condemned woman. Christians remember the story of how Jesus dealt with this ancient but then still prevailing command:

  And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, “Woman, where are thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” She said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said unto her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:3–11)

  The Gospel of Jesus Christ has at its center the ending of domination of every kind. For some Christians to use the Gospel to compromise the human rights of women and others borders on the obscene. Propagated with appeals to idealized heritage, immutable sacred history, and paternalistic care for the religiously ignorant, their rights-denying actions must be exposed for what they are—formal policies for the retention and augmenting of power by those men who already have it. The ethic of Jesus Christ proclaims the radical equality of human value. The ending of the subordination of women—and of all who are dominated—is critical to the building of the reign of God on earth as it is in heaven.

  DR. ALISON BODEN, DEAN OF RELIGIOUS LIFE, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

  Perhaps more significant was the fact that women traveled with Jesus’ entourage and that their spiritual and financial support within his ministry was accepted. It may be that his closest confidante was Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus, whom he visited often in Bethany and who seemed to be one of the few people who understood that he would be crucified and resurrected. She anointed his feet with perfume a few days before his death, as Jesus said, “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial” (John 12:7). Mary Magdalene, one of his loyal followers, had the honor of visiting his empty tomb; Jesus then appeared to her and instructed her to inform all the other disciples, who were hiding in fear in a secret place, that the Savior was risen from the grave.

  There are a few selections from Saint Paul’s letters to the early churches that, taken out of historical context, seem to indicate his departure from Jesus’ example and show a bias against women by directing that they should be treated as second-class Christians. I do not maintain that these troubling scriptures are in error or that there are contradictions between different portions of the inspired word of God, but it is necessary to
assess the local circumstances within troubled early church congregations and interpret Paul’s instructions to “brothers and sisters” who were confused and disorderly. Paul is not mandating permanent or generic theological policies when he directs that women worship with their heads covered, keep their hair unbraided, dress modestly, and never adorn themselves or speak in a worship service. In a letter to his disciple Timothy, Paul expresses a prohibition against women teaching men, but we know, and he knew, that Timothy was instructed by his mother and grandmother. It is also difficult to understand how Paul’s close friend Priscilla is revered for having been a teacher of Apollos, one of the great evangelists of that day, so that he could more accurately reveal that Jesus was indeed the long-awaited Messiah.

  To resolve the apparent disharmony between Jesus and Paul, I refer to some of Paul’s remarks. In his letter to the Galatians, he states, “But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. . . . There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:25-28) In his letter to the Romans, Paul thanked twenty-eight outstanding leaders of the early churches, at least ten of whom were women: “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae. . . . Greet Priscilla and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus. . . . Greet Mary, who has worked very hard among you. . . . Greet Andronicus and Junia, my relatives who were in prison with me; they are prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. . . . Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them.” (Romans 16) It is inconceivable to me that Paul would encourage and congratulate inspired women who were successful deacons, apostles, ministers, and saints and still be quoted by male chauvinists as a biblical source for excluding women from accepting God’s call to serve others in the name of Christ. Paul has not separated himself from the lesson that Jesus taught: that women are to be treated equally in their right to serve God. Devout Christians can find scriptures to justify either side in this debate. The question is whether we evangelical believers in Christ want to abandon His example and exclude a vast array of potential female partners, who are equally devout and responding to God’s call.

  To a substantial degree, the argument justifying male dominance is based on two reports in Genesis of God’s creation of human beings that may seem somewhat contradictory. It was the sixth day of creation when, as described in Genesis 1:26–27, “God said, ‘Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness. . . .’ So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” Then, in the second chapter of Genesis, God first created man and later decided that he needed a partner. “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. . . . Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Both of these scriptures emphasize the mutuality and equality of worth of male and female, but many Christian and Jewish fundamentalists use the second selection as a basis for their belief in the superiority of men because man was created first. This belief is combined with the allegation that Eve should be held solely accountable for “original sin” because she accepted the forbidden apple from the serpent, tasted it, and gave it to Adam.

  My inclination is to consider more seriously the policies of the early Christian Church, after Jesus Christ came to explain the meaning of more ancient texts and to let us know more personally the true nature of God, who exemplifies a combination of justice, mercy, forgiveness, and love. The question of patriarchy is addressed quite clearly in Saint Paul’s 1 Corinthians 11:11–12: “You need to learn, however, that woman is not different from man, and man is not different from woman. Woman may come from man, but man is born of woman. And both come from God.”

  There is no need to argue about such matters, because it is human nature to be both selective and subjective in deriving the most convenient meaning by careful choices from the thirty-one thousand or so verses in the modern Christian Bible. If men with religious authority wish to remain in power, they can accept the version they prefer.

  It is ironic that women are now welcomed into ascendant positions in all major professions and other endeavors but are deprived of the right to serve Jesus Christ in positions of leadership as they did during his earthly ministry and for about three centuries in the early Christian churches. It is inevitable that this sustained religious suppression of women as inferior or unqualified has been a major influence in depriving women of equal status within the worldwide secular community as spelled out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

  It is likely that Christians and people of other faiths who represent the purest and most admirable qualities of their beliefs are those who devote their lives to service among people in need. When we have gone into the isolated villages throughout Africa to try to control or eliminate debilitating diseases, we have found that the Islamic mullahs, Christian priests, or other spiritual leaders are often providing the only rudimentary medical care available to the community. In the absence of medical training and modern treatment capability, they are dealing with cases of AIDS, encroaching blindness, worms within or emerging from bodies, extended stomachs and stunted growth of children, grossly enlarged arms and legs, open wounds, and broken bones. The religious leaders are the ones most trusted by the people, and, with no confusing theological debates as an impediment, they deal with fellow believers as equal to each other and deserving of blessing from whatever superior being they revere. Their commitment to serving others is inspirational.

  In my presidential inaugural address I promised to promote human rights around the world, and later I used the imprisonment and murder of Ugandan people by President Idi Amin as a horrible example of abuse of those rights. The dictator retaliated by ordering all Americans in his country to assemble in Entebbe and threatened them with death or expulsion. I was in a quandary about how to respond, until I learned that he claimed to be a Muslim and was very proud of having made a pilgrimage to Mecca. I called the king of Saudi Arabia to seek his help and was relieved to hear almost immediately an announcement from Amin that the Americans would be permitted to leave Uganda unharmed. The majority of them, who were Christian missionaries, sent me notice that not one of them was accepting this offer but that all would remain at their assigned posts with their families, despite the continuing threats to their lives.

  For many generations, religious missionaries have provided a connecting link between worshipers in more affluent communities and less fortunate people who are suffering from hunger, disease, and oppression. There is no distinction between men and women, either among the benefactors or those who receive the benefits of their ministry. It is impossible to overestimate their dedication and the positive impact of religious organizations like the Catholic Relief Services, Heifer International, the International Islamic Charitable Organization, and dozens of others. Religious and secular organizations provide more assistance to needy people than the contributions of governments and they combine financial help with devoted service. They form close personal ties in local communities and recognize the special suffering of women and children from deprivation and abuse, though they are sometimes constrained in their good works by laws and religious tenets that perpetuate sexual discrimination. I serve on the finance committee of our small church in Plains, and 10 percent of our total annual budget is earmarked—without discussion or debate—for the work of Baptist missionaries overseas. We collect a special additional offering each year for those providing benevolent services within the United States. In addition to the personal service of thousands of missionaries, religious groups in the United States contribute more than $8 billion annually for benevolent pu
rposes in these projects overseas.

  During the year that I ran for president, Jerome and Joanne Ethridge volunteered to serve as foreign missionaries from our local church. After intensive training in French they were assigned to serve in Togo, a small country in West Africa. Jerome had worked in the fields of an agricultural experiment station near Plains, and neither he nor Joanne had ever addressed an audience even as Bible teachers, so they had a formidable task in spreading the gospel in about a third of the country. Their assigned area was northeast of a river that was almost impossible to cross during the extended rainy season. Instead of preaching to the people, the Ethridges decided to ascertain their greatest needs and attempt to meet them.

  Joanne immediately began to learn the local language, Ifè, and was soon teaching the women how to read and write. At the same time, she worked with biblical scholars who were writing the New Testament in the language. As they traveled from village to village, they observed that few of the people had a supply of clean drinking water and depended instead on stagnant ponds that filled during the rainy season. The water became increasingly unfit as the ponds slowly dried up during the rest of the year, and waterborne diseases were prevalent. Baptists in North Carolina donated a well-drilling outfit, and Jerome went to each village and, with local help, bored holes down to the aquifer and installed a pump. This was a slow process, so Joanne usually went to the villages ahead of Jerome, to prepare the people for her husband’s arrival and to teach the rudiments of health care to the women. The Ethridges would say simply that they were providing these services in the name of Jesus Christ. When they had enough converts, they helped to organize a local church congregation. Jerome told me that one of their biggest problems was to induce the men to treat women as equals, not having to cover their heads and encouraging them to speak during worship services, and to teach both boys and girls about their new faith.