* “Ministering Women” [April 8] ministered to me. As a woman on the staff of an international campus ministry, I soaked up the role models presented in the article. What they said was inspiring. They clarified some of the issues for women in ministry today. But I was also encouraged to think about what they have done–authored books, taught graduate-level classes, spoken from the Word to thousands, raised children, stayed married. I can’t collect too many examples of women who are obeying Jesus, as Briscoe said, in what he says to do today, even if it challenges some traditional categories.
Molly Adams San Luis Obispo, Calif.
* I was quite surprised and disappointed to come to the end of the article without one question having been asked about the biblical teaching of women in the church and the difficult Scriptures that seem to limit the role of women in leadership.
How can you answer the question of how far women have come without first trying to understand where they are trying to go? How can we have a discussion about how we do church without asking what God’s Word has to say?
Jerome Simpson Vice President, Development International Bible Society Colorado Springs, Colo.
(Readers who wish to examine the “difficult Scriptures” on this point should see articles by Walter Kaiser, Bruce Waltke, and Kenneth Kantzer (CT, Oct. 3, 1986, pp. 12-I-14-I).–Eds.)
I have greatly enjoyed ministering for the Lord the past 50 years. For 15 years my husband and I served in the Philippines. Several years ago at our annual denominational conference an old friend, a well-known evangelical leader, called me and asked me to participate in a missions panel that morning. I spent an hour or so collecting my thoughts, went to the meeting, and sat on the panel. I was never called upon and had no opportunity to speak. At the conclusion, my friend remarked, “I’m sorry, Alice, we didn’t have time to hear from you, but you were a lovely addition to our panel.”
I’m currently a “pastor’s wife” in a local church and have found a satisfying role. But God has directed me into an all-woman ministry we call High Teens. We have ministered the past 14 years to several thousand hurting parents nationwide. Instead of battling men for position, I suggest that women start their own ministries.
Alice M. Benson Tijeras, N.M.
As evidenced from your recent piece on women in the church, the church has accepted the secular message “You’ve come a long way, Baby.” This message challenges the God-ordained authority and headship of a man over a woman. In all facets of our lives, we are being told that the physical differences of the sexes have no bearing on our spiritual obedience to God in this physical realm of existence.
All of this experimentation with liberal theological notions of the “women’s place” continues to erode the fundamental principal of the concept of what a biblical family is. Furthermore, this concept of the biblical family is the foundation of American society. It is not difficult to see that the erosion of the family parallels the erosion of morals in our society, and the lack of respect for the headship of a man in marriage.
Mark Pepin Tonawanda, N.Y.
What Mrs. Briscoe calls “freedom and opportunity” is one of the leading contributors to the current ill state of the American evangelical church. There is no biblical basis for, and clear biblical teaching against, the attitude of “if you don’t like something in a church, you just go to another one.” This attitude trivializes what ought to be an agonizing choice for someone who once made a firm commitment to a particular local church.
We may never pursue change at the cost of ignoring Scripture. The views expressed by Mrs. Briscoe do not create confidence in her earlier stated reinterpretation that “in New Testament times women were being given permission to submit.” Isn’t all Christian behavior optional–a choice between obedience and disobedience?
Pastor Ralph E. Ritter Bible Fellowship Church Staten Island, N.Y.
* Growing up as a Southern Baptist preacher’s kid (and preacher’s sister), my own struggle with the issue has been painful at times. Essentially, secular feminism has given me the courage to come back to the church with an ear toward God’s voice and a security amid some hate-filled voices in the church that would silence God in women. To me, the tragedy in all of this debate is that the church is chasing gifted women away, and women are looking for other avenues to use their God-giftedness. Something has to reverse this trend, or churches will cease to minister to all of God’s children in favor of ministering to men alone. We need to be drawn together, not torn apart.
Paula Garrett Clinton, Miss.
WHY NO PK CLERGY WOMEN?
I was disappointed with the coverage of the Promise Keepers clergy conference in Atlanta in your April 8 issue [News, “Clergy Conference Stirs Historic Show of Unity”]. Not only were you not enthusiastic for the largest gathering of evangelical clergy in the world, you had to come up with the old complaint of why were women not included. There was very poor reporting on the actual content of the event.
Pastor Bill Carne Sun City Bible Church Sun City, Calif.
The stated purpose of the Promise Keepers clergy conference was the spiritual renewal of clergy in order to prepare them to exercise spiritual leadership in the coming revival. In limiting the conference to men, Promise Keepers evidently believes the spiritual renewal of women clergy is irrelevant to the accomplishment of this objective. One can only surmise this means that either women clergy are in no need of spiritual renewal or the church is in no need of their spiritual leadership. Both options are false.
Douglas Groothuis Denver Seminary Denver, Colo.
So Promise Keepers is a men’s movement. OK. So no women were invited to its clergy conference because pk is a men’s movement. OK. So when will Promise Keepers put on a conference for pastors’ husbands? Or how about male clergy who work with female clergy? Or–dare I ask–men who are being shepherded by women? Also, if “contention between denominations has gone on long enough,” I wonder how many Orthodox and Catholic priests were flown to PK headquarters for consultation. It appears that PK inclusivity really does go only so far.
Elizabeth Wiethoff Baker Minneapolis, Minn.
THE GOSPELS AS ICON
* In his article “Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?” in the March 4 issue, James R. Edwards distinguishes four general positions in the quest for the historical Jesus, imagined as four pictures on a wall: a photograph, an accomplished portrait, an abstract painting, and a mirror. Of the two he considers most fully, he prefers the figurative rendering to the abstract. I would contend that there is another way to view the Gospels, analogous not to a portrait or an abstract, but an icon. Each of the four canonical Gospels presents us with an image of the divine breaking through into the everyday world; contemplating them we are provided with a window into the sacred. While they describe real-world events, they are intended (as were the work and words of Jesus) to heal and call creation back into its rightful order–an order not immediately present to the senses, but nevertheless real.
John Leech Louisville, Ky.
That Jesus Seminar members should seek to distill a rationally derived Jesus out of the myriad Jesus realities that people of faith have known throughout history–this seems like a perfectly reasonable endeavor to me.
The trouble is, not all Truths are reasonable. I know. Because the Jesus I met over 20 years ago was neither the Historical Jesus of redaction criticism nor the Socio-Anthropological Jesus voted on by the Jesus Seminar scholars. Rather, the Jesus I met was Christ, Creator, and Lord–something totally unreasonable. That single encounter remains both more humbling and more important than any other event in my life before or since.
Wendy Steinberg, Ph.D. Wynantskill, N.Y.
* Can Christians be too polite? If the Jesus Seminar is a group of scholars presupposing no resurrection or saving significance of Christ’s death, let’s call them what they are: nonbelievers spreading the deceptions of Satan.
Don Monich Cincinnati, Ohio
As someone who has the rare privilege of teaching about Jesus both from a historical and social-scientific perspective and from a public confessional stance, I found Edwards’s piece one of the most helpful I have seen for lay readers.
My own relation to the notorious Jesus Seminar has been ambivalent: I have participated in their discussions from time to time by invitation, but have never been a “fellow” of the seminar. Their conversations are fascinating, but the idea of voting on questions of truth offends both the believer and the scholar in me: voting is a good temporary way to settle policy issues, but on matters of ultimate truth, I respect minorities.
Your article was only half-accurate in its description of the seminar’s balloting. “A red ballot indicates that a given statement (or something like it) was spoken by Jesus….A black ballot is a definite negative–the statement was derived from later tradition.” In fact, the seminar also worked with a quite different system, which, at least in my voting, could often produce an exactly opposite vote: “red: I would include this item unequivocally in the database for determining who Jesus was…black: I would not include this item.” This means the seminar’s voting statistics don’t mean much as they decline to differentiate between votes cast on two quite different sets of criteria.
I have used the seminar’s “The Five Gospels” with undergraduates: it actually contains a lot of stimulating discussion. Above all, the anti-church bigotry of its introduction is transparent to even the least-trained undergraduate eye. The book’s irresponsible side thus ironically helps students to see that no historical Jesus research can claim “objective” truth; that the best that academic history can do is to foster a level playing field and clear rules of play within which to conduct a fairer kind of controversy. Faith in Jesus saves; history and theology can only serve to structure debate.
Ian H. Henderson Montreal Diocesan Theological College McGill University Montreal, Que., Canada
* Learning at the feet of scholars is always faith stretching, even if all there is to learn is that the scholars have smelly feet. I know many will seek to cancel their subscriptions due to the controversy. So, true to my convictions, I am beginning my subscription immediately.
Rev. Robert L. Schaefer, Jr. Indianapolis, Ind.
JESUS IS TRUTH
Thank you for William Willimon’s article “Jesus’ Peculiar Truth” [March 4], in which he contrasts our natural fallen desire to objectify the truth rather than come into relationship with it in the person of Jesus Christ. What we can rationalize we can control, and what we can control we become god over. Hence, my own desire to “theologize” about everything rather than subject myself to the loving scrutiny of Jesus in vulnerable relationship.
Willimon touches upon a vital point: anytime we erect something to defend ourselves against meaningful relationship with Jesus, we become idolaters. Akin to “intellectualizing” about the truth is its twin idol, making morality the highest priority. Such emphasis on morality is what led Germany, a Christian nation, to come in the thirties into sympathy with a tyrant.
Bob Day Boring, Oreg.
* Willimon’s article is insightful, because our mind perceives truth only because it has been enabled to. Truth for us as Christians is always more than reasoning, but it is (or rather [Jesus] is) a personality. Willimon’s article is powerful in that, while we speak of apologetics, we are never to lose sight of the person of Jesus as truth and the work of the Holy Spirit in revealing that truth to us.
Sriram Sridharan Columbus, Ohio
* I understand Willimon’s concern for the subjective dimension of truth–that is, our response to truth. What I can’t understand is why the objective-subjective debate is so often cast in terms of either/or. Why not both/and? Each side of this ongoing debate seems to emphasize just that–only one side. No wonder recent evangelical statements on this issue continue to emphasize the objective. For 200 years or more, it seems we have heard nothing if not an overemphasis on the subjective. We need a balance. The objective is a necessary condition for the subjective. After all, if there is no objective dimension to truth, then what are Christians responding to? Absolutely nothing!
Dave Couric Dallas, Tex.
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE MORE “PRO-FAMILY”?
In the March 4 News article “Seeking a Right to the Rite: Gay Activists Advance the Concept of Homosexual Marriage,” CT made room for voices from both sides of the debate to be heard. I appreciate CT’s willingness and courage to do this.
I am a gay and celibate Christian. Celibacy can be a difficult and lonely calling, and I do not believe all homosexual Christians are called to it. Nor do I believe that a strong homosexual orientation can often be changed. My studies of Scripture suggest that both heterosexuals and homosexuals are allowed sexual relations, but only in the context of commitment and monogamy.
CT reports that Evan Wolfson believes homosexuals would be more committed to each other if society accepted same-sex marriage rites. I agree. And I support Mel White’s contention that same-sex marriage is ultimately a pastoral issue and concern.
This may sound radical, but same-sex marriage may be more on the side of “pro-family” than “anti-family.” Three great destroyers of families are AIDS, suicide, and promiscuity. Homosexual marriage should reduce the incidence of all three.
It is time to offer homosexuals a way to live in relationship with integrity and hope.
Donald G. Carlin Philadelphia, Pa.
Some who carelessly read Randy Frame’s balanced discussion of the gay marriage debate might mistakenly infer that Evangelicals for Social Action opposes organized, Christian resistance to legal same-sex marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. esa encourages its membership to work for a just and righteous civil society–including family law–at all levels of society, including the political. Because of this, we actively oppose legal status for same-sex unions.
But in our politicking, we must remember that Christians will not win or lose these alleged culture wars at the ballot box or in the courts. Rather than simply using our political clout to make America “more wholesome,” American Christians must begin to understand themselves as the church–a unique, self-conscious, and gracious counter-culture–and make our growth, purity, and witness, rather than cultural hegemony, our first priority.
Dwight Ozard Editor, “Prism Magazine” Wynnewood, Pa.
Your article repeated the claim that there is “not a big difference in heterosexual and homosexual promiscuity,” citing “The Male Couple,” by David McWhirter. However, McWhirter’s book reports the opposite. McWhirter writes that not only are 95 percent of the homosexual couples in his study sexually promiscuous, but fidelity in homosexual relationships is not defined the same as in heterosexual relationships.
“Sexual exclusivity among these [homosexual] couples is infrequent, yet their expectations of fidelity are high. Fidelity is not defined in terms of sexual behavior but rather by their emotional commitment to each other. Ninety-five percent of the couples have an arrangement whereby the partners may have sexual activity with others at some time under certain conditions….Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships.”
The same cannot be said about heterosexual relationships. McWhirter writes, “Our culture has defined faithfulness in couples always to include or be synonymous with sexual fidelity, so it is little wonder that relationships begin with that assumption.”
James Hochberg, Commissioner Governor’s Commission on Sexual Orientation and the Law Honolulu, Hawaii
********************* Brief letters are welcome. They may be edited for space and clarity and must include the writer’s name and address. Send to Eutychus, Christianity Today, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 708/260-0114. E-mail: ctedit@aol.com. Letters preceded by * were received online.
Copyright © 1996 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
