Debates over women in leadership are a good test of PC environment on Christian college campuses...

(Tim) Yale prof Harold Bloom isn't impressed with the merits of Nobel laureate Doris Lessing. He comments that the prize has become "pure political correctness."

Defending Lessing, the New York Times reprints an Op-Ed piece by Lessing they ran back in 1992 in which she traces the Communist, Marxist, and German origins of the political correctness of the Academy. Here's an excerpt:

Even five, six years ago, Izvestia, Pravda and a thousand other Communist papers were written in a language that seemed designed to fill up as much space as possible without actually saying anything. Because, of course, it was dangerous to take up positions that might have to be defended. Now all these newspapers have rediscovered the use of language. But the heritage of dead and empty language these days is to be found in academia….

Francis Schaeffer pointed out that the church adopts the habits of the world ten years later. So we might predict that being PC is the name of the game across the campuses of member and affiliate institutions of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.

If the two institutions with which I'm most familiar--Indiana University and my own alma mater, University of Wisconsin (Madison)--provide any indication where the most severe censorship will be done in the name of political correctness, today we can expect CCCU member institutions to make short work of the poor simpleton who thinks he should be able to expresses himself publicly concerning women in leadership...

Think of the CCCU institution of your choice and imagine, as we approach the inauguration of Hillary Rodham Clinton as president, a prof saying or writing this in the school's public forum:

The government of women is entirely contrary to the legitimate order of nature and ought to be seen as God's judgment on us.

Can you imagine the hue and cry this would cause on the campus of Taylor University, Wheaton College, Westmont College, or Covenant College?

Would it be any defense if, after the fact, the prof revealed he was only quoting John Calvin, and that John Knox and Martin Luther said the same?

About the government of women I expressed myself thus: Since it is utterly at variance with the legitimate order of nature, it ought to be counted among the judgments with which God visits us… (John Cavin in a letter to Bullinger dated April 28, 1554)

Comments

[Fr. Bill]

"Would it be any defense if, after the fact, the prof revealed he was only quoting John Calvin, and that John Knox and Martin Luther said the same?"

Uummm ...

Would it be any defense that in exactly the same situation, God deemed this state of affairs as calling forth His judgment? Seems like someone somewhere back there said something like this.

You know, the place no one likes to look. Where some cranky prophet quotes God concerning the women who rule over His people.

[Eric Rasmusen]

Here's a question I've also asked on Volokh Conspiracy, with no response:

Does anybody know of any case in any era in which a professor was punished for speaking in favor of homosexuality? (or in favor of, say, racial desegregation?)

I wouldn't be surprised if there were, and I've heard of cases where professors were punished for homosexual activity, but I've never heard of a university objecting to a professor's abstract views on the subject.

In contrast, I recently heard of a dean who told a law professor he wouldn't be allowed to teach first-year courses because he opposed racial preferences in one or two op-eds (outside of class, which was on an unrelated subject) and that made some students uncomfortable. The prof is objecting, and we'll see what happens.

[Cliff Foreman]

It's interesting that Knox stopped making comments like this when England came under the rule of a protestant queen, Elizabeth 1. That suggests either that his real beef was against Catholicism or that he came to realize that some women deserved and demanded his respect.

[Keith LaMothe]

I work in IT for a public University. Of the relatively few leaders in the organization that I truly admire for integrity and competency, two of the most remarkable are women.

It's a strange world... Universities, doubly so.

[Kamilla]

"It's interesting that Knox stopped making comments like this when England came under the rule of a protestant queen, Elizabeth 1. That suggests either that his real beef was against Catholicism or that he came to realize that some women deserved and demanded his respect."

Or that he favored keeping his head attached to his body. . . . .

Kamilla

[Keith Knowlden]

An inarticulate generation: Taylor Mali
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SCNIBV87wV4

[Clifford Foreman]

So there are three possibilities: 1.) Knox really only objected to Catholic women rulers; 2.) When it cane to Elizabeth 1, Knox was too fearful to "speak the truth to power"; 3.) When Knox encountered a competent woman ruler, one who seemed called to the throne by God, he changed his mind. Knox was a man who spoke his mind bluntly, so I doubt #1. Knox never seemed too fearful when he was confronting the Marys, so I doubt #2. Certainly 3 is the most charitable and logical supposition. Is it possible that some unimaginable set of circumstances could lead condemporary reformed leaders to similar conclusions?

[David Gray]

>Is it possible that some unimaginable set of circumstances could lead condemporary reformed leaders to similar conclusions?

Let's hope not. Although you don't seem very well read in the period you are discussing...

[Tim Bayly]

If you haven't already, watch the Taylor Mali clip Keith linked to above.

[Tim Bayly]

Professor Foreman, you're quite wide of the mark, historically.

As for reformed men changing their minds today, where have you been looking? They're everywhere.

How do you think the PC(USA) and its predecessor denominations got to the point where men unwilling to ordain women to the ministry and the eldership were refused ordination? And why do you think all the PC(USA) churches fleeing the trainwreck these past few years are almost all entering the EPC? Haven't you watched the CRC, recently?

Come on, sir: the whole world is filled chockablock full of reformed men who've changed their minds on this subject. They're everywhere!

The real miracle is that anyone is going against the flow. But God is merciful and His kindness leads us to repentance.

[Cliff Foreman]

I hate emoticons, but sometimes one's tone doesn't seem to come through in writing.

[Paul]

Truth is in tension – it seems all biblical truth is held in tension by counter balancing factors – a doctrinal tug-o-war if you will. Law and grace, free will and sovereignty, faith and works, the love and fear of God, His permissive and directive will – all must be accepted in “both/and rather than either/or” conclusions. The struggle for balance in our view of men and women is similar.

Both physically and spiritually, men and women are far more alike than different. Apart from our interdependence, neither could exist. Together in masculine and feminine distinction we reflect the likeness of God. In Christ we are equally loved and accepted by God, equally baptized into the body of Christ and equally accountable to honor and love one another. Together we are called in the ministry to serve one another in the attitude of Christ.

By far the majority of the New Testament instruction treats men and women as equals who are called to the kind of strength of character that occurs as Christ is formed in us. Our overwhelming physical and spiritual likeness and unity however, must not blind us to the creative differences and marks of distinction that our Designer has built into us for our common enrichment and survival. Physically speaking, men do not honor themselves by going out of their way to be feminine. Women do not distinguish themselves or glorify their creator by trying to be masculine. We do dignify ourselves by building on the complementary similarities and differences that God has built into us.

Ministry in the church has some of the same implications. Opportunities for ministry are more alike than different. Men and women have been called to help one another with whatever gifts they have to offer. They are called to encourage, to challenge, and to teach one another. Only in roles of general oversight are there well-defined differences. And though much has been written about how Christ lifted women to a place of honor far exceeding the social attitudes and customs of the first century life, and the bible is full of noteworthy women and their achievements. Women then had authority to prophesy only when they wore head coverings. Which reflected gender distinctions and acknowledgement of male headship. (1 Cor 11:3-12).

With Deborah as my example: Judges 4:1-3. Deborah received direction from God that she passed on to Barak and told him that he was to raise an army of 10,000 men and go up against the Canaanites. It is significant that God spoke through the judge Deborah and not directly to Barak. And in that way Barak resembles us in that we do not get a direct word from God, but we live on the words given through God’s prophets and apostles. However, Deborah knew her position as a woman and told Barak to fight instead of her. In contrast Barak didn’t assert his headship and therefore was dishonored put to shame. A woman though not Deborah won the victory.

A balanced view of scripture leads a woman to (1) feminine distinction, [which keep in mind during that time they all wore dress like robes, so this does not mean women can’t dress in slacks and men can’t wear kilts according to the culture] (2) selective submission, [in accord with the law of God] (3) spiritual equality, and (4) strength of character. Many Women of character who distinguished themselves by the desire to know and be used by God can be seen throughout the bible. Women are not mindless home appliances and by no means, should be thought of as barefoot and pregnant or property.

God’s order for husband and wife relationships as described in Eph. 5 is important to understand. When the principle of male headship showed up in Paul’s discussion of the church, the apostle was protective of God’s order for Husband’s and wives. (1 Cor. 11:1-12) This is clear from the fact that Paul was concerned that cultural head coverings be in place to protect the principle of headship order in men-women relationships. Paul showed that gender is a factor when the church meets to worship. He reasoned from the principals of (1) headship (2) creation order (3) Greek customs of head coverings and (4) natural law. The most important of these seem to be the headship.

Headship seems to imply leadership and authority. In (Eph 5:22-25) he describes a kind of loving servant leadership. He asked wives to submit to husbands, who in turn were instructed to protect and cherish and nourish their wives. So does this go beyond the husband and wife? Paul made an issue of men in headship while discussing the cultural practice of head coverings in the church. Paul was concerned that women not violate the principle of headship by discarding customary head coverings while praying and prophesying. So would ordaining a godly woman have less implication for headship than the head coverings Paul was concerned about? What is important is not the title but the function, office and role. What is important is that the church does not organize itself in a way that will confuse the order God has built into marital relationships.

It is not surprising that when Paul listed requirements for a bishop he called for spiritually qualified men (1 Tim 3:1-7). He may have been thinking more broadly than just the marital relationship, but because he did not take pains to clarify that we can only assume that he was, at the very least, showing concern for marital headship in the church. This concern for a relationship that is clearly described in Eph 5 is significant. We can be sure that Paul was more concerned about pastoral modeling than he was about head coverings. Having a woman as a ruling Pastor or elder equivalent role would confuse husband-wife relationships in the church. And we are not to separate our church life from our home life it is all one life in Christ.

Leadership according to Christ is self-sacrificing. To lead us to His Fathers’ house, Christ suffered slaps of hatred that should have fallen on our faces. To lead us from the slavery of sin, Christ exposed His back to whips, His head to thorns, His hands and feet to nails, His side to a spear, His lifeless body to a barrowed grave. To bring us out of darkness, He showed a leadership that first made Him a follower who was willing to say, “Not my will, But yours, be done” (Lk 22:42)

And Paul as a church leader who served in the Spirit of Christ. He did not act like some one enamored with his own position and influence. He labored not for the praise of men but for the approval and honor of the Lord under whose authority and oversight he served. Such leadership if practiced today would solve many problems. It would help persons “under authority” to feel respected by church leaders and heads of households who are not above washing feet, dishes, clothes, walls, and bathrooms. It is a leadership that could be accepted more readily after reading (Heb 13:17).

Some might be so resentful of the exclusion of women from pastor and elder roles that they are tempted to reject Christ Himself. Such an inclination is a signal to look within. We need to be sure the real issue is not between our right to equal treatment and God’s right to be God. Furthermore, just because He created us with complementary differences does not mean that He treats us differently when it comes to our need for love, prayerful conversation, forgiveness, and security of relationship, full acceptance, eternal life, and legal rights to His everlasting Kingdom. It is absolutely true that he will receive all who receive Christ. Men and women alike will be saved by believing that salvation is found not by trying but by trusting, and by trusting not in our merits but in Christ’s Mercy. (Jn. 5:24; Rom. 3:23; 6:23; Gal 3:22-29).

And in conclusion I want to state that without love and specifically without the kind of love Paul described (1 Cor. 13:4-7), the differences will not work for one another but against one another. All the faith in the world that one’s ideas rooted firmly on the authority of God’s Word or in the heart of God’s own Spirit is something that will have no profit unless it has love. (1 Cor. 13:1-3) Without this Leadership is worthless.

[Tim Bayly]

Although there’s much that is true here in this comment by Paul, and I appreciate his desire to encourage souls to reconsider sexual complementarity, the truth is presented in a way that it could offend no one. Yet we’re surrounded by sexual impurity, unfaithfulness, and rebellion between the sexes. Thus it’s time to speak directly—or rather, biblically. Illustrating the mollycoddling of rebels that is going on here, I've taken apart one paragraph below for illustrative purposes:

>Headship seems to imply leadership and authority. In (Eph 5:22-25)

No, that’s not nearly biblical enough, although it’s quite popular to say such things today after a host of supposed Bible scholars have engaged in revisionist exegesis, denying the explicit meaning of headship understood throughout church history.

More faithful not to mollycoddle itching ears, but instead to say what has always been said, that “in Ephesians 5, headship **is** leadership and authority.”

>In (Eph 5:22-25) he describes a kind of loving servant leadership.

Well again, the phrase “servant leadership” is carefully calculated to make the husband’s headship more palatable to men today who hate all authority. And one illustration may help us understand this tactic. Would those whose ears are scratched by talk of “servant leadership” agree that a husband who dies for the sake of his wife by spanking his daughter for her disrespectful words and actions toward his wife, and spanks her even while his wife screams abuse at him for that very discipline, recognize this as servant leadership?

Why seek to make the Word of God more palatable, assuming that the Holy Spirit did a poor job being too direct on this hot-button issue? The plain fact is that Ephesians 5 commands the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her, and the wife to submit to her husband who is her head as Christ is the Head of His Bride, the Church.

Talk of seeming implications and servant leadership is not the sort of boldness that characterized our Lord or His Apostles in their Gospel proclamation, nor is it what we need today. It’s time to speak directly and stop being ashamed of the Word of God.

>He asked wives to submit to husbands

Again, no he didn’t “ask wives” to do anything. Rather, he **commanded** them to submit. And if the method of the Apostle Paul is spoken of so mincingly, what hope is there that husbands will love their wives by commanding them to do anything, either? If the Apostle Paul makes a polite request of the women of the church, clearly no husband should overstep his own bounds by ordering his wife to do anything. After all, if the Apostle Paul only “asks,” it would not be “servant leadership” for us to command.

>Paul made an issue of men in headship while discussing the cultural practice of head coverings in the church. Paul was concerned that women not violate the principle of headship by discarding customary head coverings while praying and prophesying. So would ordaining a godly woman have less implication for headship than the head coverings Paul was concerned about?

Again, note the mincing language: The Apostle Paul is “making an issue” of, and is “concerned” about certain matters. He’s not ordering or commanding anything. Rather, it’s the Apostle Paul coming alongside us in servant leadership.

>What is important is that the church does not organize itself in a way that will confuse the order God has built into marital relationships.

Wrong. It’s not the marriage relationship that’s at stake, but the order of the sexes as God created them in the Garden of Eden.

And so, once again, what the Church throughout time has understood to be a matter of the order of the sexes—the Divinely ordained meaning of male and female—is transmogrified into an infinitely more limited question of order in the home. And flowing from this, we have rules (or rather suggestions) for order of the sexes in the church only in order to protect the order of husband and wife at home.

This is ridiculous. The Holy Spirit didn’t command the Apostle Paul to write, “I don’t allow a wife to teach or exercise authority over her husband, but to remain quiet. For it was the husband who was first created, and then his wife.”

Rather, he commanded the Apostle Paul to write “I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. (1Timothy 2:12, 13)

This is the order of the sexes, not the order of husbands and wives in the home and church. And those who disagree need to understand that they stand against the church universal throughout church history.

[Paul]

Your words are true Mr. Bayly. I did give it a soft approach and spoke as to headship as far as husband and wife...Though my thoughts went accross the board to the sexes...Do not get me wrong I completely agree with the fact God made positions for every man, woman, and child. For every person in the church there is a place as part of the body. The hand can not say let me smell nor the arm let me walk....they all work together. None thought of as any less than the other but important just the same.

God does not place women about men nor children above adults.