PRINT
EMAIL
DISCUSSPutting Women in Their Place
03/23/2008By John Bloom
Sheri Klouda’s lawsuit against Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth was dismissed by a federal judge on Friday, and the news coverage made it sound like she was a disgruntled ex-employee filing a nuisance suit. The facts are a little bit more inconvenient for the seminary and for Dr. Paige Patterson, the president, and they’ve been extensively parsed on the blogosphere over the past year so that there’s little doubt about what happened:
In 2002 Dr. Klouda, a graduate of Criswell Bible College in Dallas, was hired to teach Hebrew in the Department of Theology. She was told this was a tenure-track position.
In 2003 Dr. Patterson became president. She went to him to ask him whether she should be worried about his well known opposition to women in the ministry. He said she had “nothing to worry about.” She pointed out that she had freely signed all Baptist faith statements, including the parts about women, and that she didn’t regard this teaching position as a pastorate—did he? He said no, he did not.
In 2005 it was time for her to be considered for tenure. The administration wouldn’t allow any tenure review to take place.
In 2006 her teaching contract was not renewed. The reason given was that they interpreted a verse in 1 Timothy to mean that no woman can be in any position of authority over a man, and therefore there’s no way for a woman to teach in the Department of Theology because almost all of the students are male.
In 2007 she suffered a series of financial setbacks related to her having to move herself, her invalid husband and their three children to a small college in Indiana while being unable to sell their house in Fort Worth.
She reluctantly filed the lawsuit, and only at the urging of many Baptist pastors. She was not surprised when it was thrown out by the judge, who cited the university’s right to use Biblical reasons to hire and fire faculty.
This still doesn’t answer the moral questions:
- Why did they hire her if she was precluded from working there by a scripture that had existed for 1,850 years prior to her hiring?
- Why did they tell her it was tenure track if it wasn’t?
- Did they lie when they said she was not fired, simply “denied tenure”? You can’t really be denied tenure if there’s no tenure review in the first place. I mean, if you’re gonna fire her because of 1 Timothy, then fire her because of 1 Timothy, don’t make up some b.s. reason later.
Normally our policy here at The Door is to avoid quoting scripture, because the practice is so subject to abuse, especially when the purpose of the quotation is to justify some opinion. But since Paige Patterson is currently the highest-ranking Southern Baptist scholar in the world, this situation calls for some Talmudic dispute, don’t you think?
Paige Patterson once gave me a Bible, by the way, and he wrote on the flyleaf, “Lean not on your own arm of understanding.” Let that be our motto as I say this to Dr. Patterson, brother in the faith:
1 Timothy 2:12 says that a woman should not “usurp authority over a man.” This is the scripture you’ve used to deny this woman a place in the lecture halls of the seminary. But let’s go to the complete passage:
“Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.”
This is not the voice of God, as in Leviticus. This is the voice of a man called “Paul” by the writer, but we don’t really know who it is. Scholars are 100 percent agreed—even the male scholars—that it’s not Paul who wrote this, because the letter has been dated no earlier than the year 120. Therefore, even though it’s written to Timothy, it can’t be the same Timothy who traveled with Paul, for he, too, is dead by 120. In the first collection of Paul’s letters, in the year 200, these so-called “pastoral epistles” (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus) are nowhere to be found, and their relevance, not to mention their authenticity, is still being debated throughout the 3rd century. Thirty-six percent of the words in them appear nowhere else in the letters of Paul, and more than half of those words appear nowhere else in the New Testament. (For example, this is the only place you find eusebeia, the Greek and Roman word for “proper religious behavior” toward the gods, instead of what Paul would have undoubtedly used—faith.) So this letter is obviously written for a particular purpose, and it’s intended to preclude women from teaching the Bible in a particular situation, and later on—at least two centuries later—it’s finally approved by the church fathers as scripture.
And as to usurping authority over the man: A teacher is a servant, Paige. She puts herself at the service of all those theology students. You would see this better if you would observe a first-grade class, but I can assure you the principle is the same at the graduate level. Sheri Klouda was usurping no authority by her tutelage.
Bottom line: In order to read this passage as “All women are to keep their mouths shut at all times,” you’ve got to believe that Paul believed that.
So let’s look at what he said. My turn to pick a scripture. One that we are certain was written by Paul:
“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then ye are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:27-29)
I don’t think I have to parse that passage. I think, in fact, that your eyes will just sort of naturally zero in on the part of it that’s pertinent to this situation. But since you’re not just a servant of the word but a student of it, we should go further.
We should ask the question: Why would the church put the name of Paul on the Pastoral Epistles? Why would they be addressed to Titus and Timothy, two deceased people who were known to be beloved associates of Paul during his lifetime? The answer seems obvious, but I’ll go ahead and say it: Because, at a certain point, two or three generations after Paul was dead, people were using the words of Paul to justify wildness, possibly even heresy.
The Pastoral Epistles were attributed to Paul so that the church could enforce discipline. Even though they’re supposedly personal letters, they read like a rule book. I don’t mean to say that they’re inauthentic, because they were eventually included in the canon, but they were not part of the early zeal of the church, and they were certainly not written by any contemporary of Jesus. They were put together in response to various out-of-control situations, some of them apparently engineered by women. This was housekeeping.
Now let’s look at my book, Galatians. When you read one of the authentic letters of Paul, what do you feel? You feel many things, but you never feel under the law. What I feel is a breaking and a “breaking loose,” a movement inward and outward at the same time. I feel the power of the verse that you penciled into my Bible, the breaking away of my stubborn arm of understanding. And one constant through these amazing passages is the presence of women. It’s a woman who greets Paul at his first church. It’s women who maintain the churches he leaves behind. It’s a woman who carries the “letter to the Romans” ... to the Romans. And in that letter to the Romans, I think you’ll also agree, Paul declares his personal hatred of rule books.
Before you answer, Paige, lean not on your own arm of understanding.
Southwestern Baptist School of Preaching would be the proper name for this school. I think it is a misuse of words to refer to it as a Seminary. And, I believe that they are worshiping the Bible more than God. Thus, the word theological should also be dropped from their title.
BUT...they have their right to run their school as they see fit.
I only wish they would stop abusing the Bible by worshiping it.
I remember that, back in my Southern Baptist days, most of our preachers graduated from Southwestern, and all their sermons sounded pretty much alike-like hearing the same sermon every Sunday. Needless to say, I wasn't really impressed by their homiletics!
Nice post, process deist. Yes, last month I've been thinking how much "idolatry to the book" is there in the evangelical world...
So what did Paul mean when he said for women not to teach men? I think the writer of the comment should have stuck to the point that they misrepresented her position to her upon hiring, not that women should not be allowed to teach men. If you disagree go listen to Gloria Copeland and Joyce Meyers for a clarification.
Thou Shalt Have No Other gods Before Me.
That includes yourselves, boys.
a very lovely answer...
greetings and hugs from Colombia
Thank you for spreading the word on this. It does not follow the way of the Christ to act as they have in this instance and many others. Such irony, when Christian authorities cannot even see their in ability to follow the Christ, the meaning of "Christian."
When will standards be in place that require pastors and pastors in training to actually be educated on scholarship that is hundreds of years old? Disagreement is one thing, but lack of awareness and basic education is a whole different level of ignorance.
As usual the Bible is being used to the benefit of someone's agenda, in this case, the agenda of Paige Patterson and the "Southwestern School of Baptist Preaching" (to quote Process Deist). Patterson (I refuse to use the term Dr. because I find him far too ignorant to have earned that privilege) has taken a Bible passage and used it OUT of context, OUT of historical setting, and it causes me OUTrage.
I'll let you guys take the fundy squibs to the woodshed today,
I have been wondering to myself why I've found the Door so special in the vast wasteland of on-line Christendom. One reason is, Mr Bloom is right- They don't use scripture in their articles. Brilliant. They reason, use logic and wit, taking for granted we know the part of the bible they might or might not be referring to. Brilliant. They treat us like literate adults. Nothing kills a good conversation like "It's not my opinion, brother, It's the holy word of God."
And anyways, you don't have to be a scholar to see the misogynistic tendencies of the Southern Baptist Convention.
"Misogynistic tendencies"? "Tendencies"? I'd say they passed "tendencies" some time ago!
It cheeses me off too! If the details of this article are to be believed, doctrine, scripture and theology are not the issue. The issue is integrity and being men of their word, as well as men of the Word, rather than being disingenuous, cowardly, politiking hacks.
And consider this: If we truly are not to allow women to teach men, what of the thousands of women who have taught, many of them skillfully and faithfully, the Bible and the Christian faith to many thousands of boys who, according to my understanding of biologiy and human growth and development, one day become men? I'm one of those men who was taught well and faithfully by women in Sunday school and Bible school, and I thank God profusely for them!
I was trying to be sensitive so as not to scare away the SBC folks who may be on the edge of deliverance. I do have some stronger words I use on occasion.
One such occasion recently was my daughter asking about this very topic, why some churches don't let women teach. She does not take kindly to people who try to say women are in any way inferior to men. I would like to think of that as a gold star on my parenting report card "Train up a child in the way they should go..."
I am very intrigued to read this just for the analysis of Scripture. I definitely get why the Burg rarely delves into this stuff, but I think it was worth it this time. At least now I can stop giving Paul such a hard time. But in a more legalistic note, I can't figure out why this prof couldn't get this suit through... the logic the college is operating by isn't exactly ironclad.
Keep in mind that SBC churches are autonomous; and some don't adhere to the 2000 BF&M. Some of us still believe that God calls people to ministry, both men and women. And yes some of us are secure enough in our masculinity to welcome woman as leaders and clergy within His Church. I remember when Paige was installed as president of SWBTS; I cried for days, tore my clothes and poured ashes on myself. (I really had to search for ash trays to empty, with all the health nuts and everything)
I'd think the ashes would be easy to come by with what must be the cigar smoke filled back room where these boys make manly decisions. oh! Oops! I'm mixing up politics and religion again!!
The correct translation, I believe, is "I shall not suffer a woman to teach or be in authority over the man." "The", not 'a'. In the context of the passage, who is 'the' man? I think it has to be her husband. A 1st century meeting would have looked a lot more like a home group or synagogue meeting than a modern service with a single celebrant.
We know that by ca. 150 AD. bishops were the celebrants, & that presbyters (elders, later 'priests') were deputized to perform the Mass, since the bishoprics had gotten bigger & the bish couldn't make it to each assembly each week. And some of these were women, which was not abolished till ~ 600 AD. (!)
Also check the 'credits' at the end of Romans, where 'Junia' is named among the apostles at Rome (apostle = 'one who is sent forth', & about 40 + people are so designated in the NT. The 12 Apostles are usually clear from context). Latin is very structured and Junia is not repeat not a male name.
Great point! I recently read about Junia and some translations have actually changed the name from it's feminine form to a masculine form to push the "problem" of a female apostle under the rug.
That passage in 1 Timothy has driven me crazy for a while now. I can't find any good explanation for it, other than the one Joe Bob gave, that it may not have been written by the actual Paul and written to a specific situation of apparent female unruliness. If Paul wrote it, what on earth does he mean when he says that women 'will be saved through childbearing'? He must have been a Mormon.
Good to hear from you again NathanA.
The apocrypha puts it even more eloquently:
'for from garments comes the moth, and from a woman comes woman's wickedness. Better is the wickedness of a man than a woman who does good, it is woman who brings shame and disgrace.'
(Sirach 42:13,14)
Yes, blame the woman. It always makes me feel better.
southern bapist: the offical religion of redneck america.
Please be careful with your judgement
You can pick your friends, but you can not pick your fellow Baptists. Some of them need our judgement.
Riddle me this, Paige -- who incidentally shares the same name as my niece...
Why is it that a woman can have "authority" over a man if she is his boss in the "marketplace" and yet not in a church?
So SRebbe, are you saying Paige's views toward women stem from the fact he is trying to earn his man card while carrying this female name with him all these years. Maybe you're right. Maybe he is driven by memories of getting kicked in the balls when he was young because of his name.
If Madam Flog has taught me anything at the Folsom Street Fair it is that it is good for the woman to be in charge.
I think he gets secretly tied down at night. "Please ma'am, may I have another."
excuse me... "mistress"
I bet he subscribes to spank magazine. He's probably putting a spit shine on the ole wing tip as we speak.
Dang. Y'all suck. Buncha women's libbers. Next you're gonna tell me women have brains.
While I agree that the actions of the seminary smell, Mr. Bloom has stated that scholars are in "Scholars are 100 percent agreed—even the male scholars—that it’s not Paul who wrote this, because the letter has been dated no earlier than the year 120." This is simply untrue.
This is an area that is still being debated as for both the date of the letter and the authorship. For a simple explanation of both the positions, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy
If the 'Pastorals' were written in the first century then it seems logical that Marcion would have included them in his 'Cannon' (c.130-140). Plus he did not mention them in his treatises.
Be careful whom you credit with scholarship, some were handed Doctorates in Theology from places such as Luthur Rice Seminary and other such questionable 'Universities'.
To be honest, present day Christians should acknowledge their pseudonymity.
I once was a student under Dr. Jouette M. Bassler, and I recommend her scholarship on Pauline theology. Wiki is a bit weak.
Alan:
I should have used the term used by Howard Clark Kee, that scholarship is "nearly unanimous" in rejecting the attribution to Paul. I'm not challenging the fact that the letters are canonical, I'm just saying that they're not Paul's. To quote Kee in his summary of current scholarship in The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, "Someone who tried to pass off such works today would be called a forger, but antiquity provides many examples of intellectual enthusiasts who wrote in a great master's name." The most extensive dating of the various letters has been carried out by the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas. The director of that Institute, L. Michael White, is equally certain from the scientific evidence when he writes: "Some have argued that [the Pastoral Epistles] were written by a member of Paul's circle and close to Paul's own time, but the weight of evidence from their language and glimpses of their internal situation points to a much later date, perhaps in the 120s to 140s. A date as late as the 170s has been proposed, but it is not widely accepted."
John Bloom
More than not having a theological leg to stand on.
Paul was a Apostle after the fact.
Jesus' opinion over rules him.
Something the Roman Catholic Church also should notice.
Jesus Visits Martha and Mary
38 As Jesus and the disciples continued on their way to Jerusalem, they came to a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him into her home. 39 Her sister, Mary, sat at the Lord’s feet, listening to what he taught. 40 But Martha was distracted by the big dinner she was preparing. She came to Jesus and said, “Lord, doesn’t it seem unfair to you that my sister just sits here while I do all the work? Tell her to come and help me.”
41 But the Lord said to her, “My dear Martha, you are worried and upset over all these details! 42 There is only one thing worth being concerned about. Mary has discovered it, and it will not be taken away from her.”
Well John (or in this context you sound more Like Billy Bob Harris) you got it wrong but right.
All the Crap about Paul not writing the pastorals sounds like theology from the History channel, so much the trustworthiness there.
120 years after Paul's gone says who? Think you might find some problems with that position unless you are willing to say I a quote parts of the Bible so I can be a fad Christian.
Now to the crux of the matter. The part you got right. She should have had her tenure if she was fulfilling her duties as a Teacher of Hebrew.
Now the part you get wrong...
The text when you and every one else look at the Greek should lead you to a better as in more correct translation. That translation would be "Wife over a husband".
1 Tim 2:11-14
11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.
12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
NASU
Same Greek words for those titles all through the New Testament even about Mary and Joseph except here. Gee I wonder why? Male domination, sure. Prejudicial translations are in several places in
English speaking Bibles today.
Even the context that "Paul the Apostle" uses is within the first husband wife situation. Adam and Eve.
No one else for Eve to have authority over in town at that time.
I would say the historical crap you put out in the article against Paul's authorship is more damning (Jeremiah Wright word excuse me) than anything else.
Good newsworth article showing the traditionalist as flat on their backsides, but horrible New Testament textual and document evaluation. Try a little Bible study and less Union Theological Seminary Bill Moyers Theology. He is a good Baptist right?
nope, it was Adam, then Lilith, then Eve.
One guy and two girls.
How was he able to keep up?
Oh! Wait a minute, I get it.
Eve had him during the day and Lilith was the night wife.
Lilith got nights because she would do A to M.
You mean Lilith never learned her ABC's past M? That's pathetic.
She tried to tempt Adam with a zucchini.
Satan told her to use an edible object that began with the first letter of the alphabet. Turns out she not just orificially dyslexic.
viagra...oh, wait. You meant keep up the work of two wives...see, I thought you meant keep it...nevermind.
I love this sort of debate - watching the established "christian" religions tear themselves apart.
The **idiotic** (mis)interpretations of the ancient good book to reach modern political goals is a particularly amusing outrage.
Apparently "thou shalt not lie" is subservient even to men who would have women subservient.
This is what happens in organized religions - individual lives upset, families torn apart, rampant racism and sexism justified and a thousand other outrages. Who in his or her right mind would allay himself with such anti-christian organizations?
Movements become organizations and organizations become intuitions. It happen with anything in human history because a movement must organize to sustain itself. The civil rights movement in the United States for example, I guess you know this because write like some one form the United States.
Do you know what else happens in organized religions? The exact opposite of everything you listed. Also thing like the hungry fed, new finical and social opportunities to lift people out of poverty. All kinds of crazy things that happen when people do the core things of the religion as opposed to people using a religion to justify there own power. Those are two differnt things.
you should know this you mentioned politics.
Many things in the article trouble me... Especially the statement that "scholars are 100 percent agreed that Paul did not write this." This is totally inaccurate. The scholars with a presupposition against the Bible as the word of God may say this, but not those who hold to the historic fundamentals of the faith.
As Scripture it is the inspired Word of God. What the Lord said directly in Leviticus, or what Jesus said in the gospels, is no more or less the Word of God than what Paul or Peter wrote in their epistles.
Some look a these texts and say they were simply "cultural." However, when determining if something is "cultural" verses something that transcends all cultures depends on the context. Paul states that the reason for this instruction is that "Adam was formed first" and "Eve was deceived." This is true for all cultures. (Of course, since you probably don't believe in creation or the literal existence of Adam and Eve then you can throw that out.)
This low view toward the Scripture results in an "anything goes" morality. We already see homosexuality being accepted into the mainstream despite the Bible's clear teaching on the matter. Why not allow pre-marital sex and adultery? That prohibition is "old an out of style."
While I appreciate much of the humor of The Door, when it crosses the line to teaching heresy and a low view of God and the Scriptures it has gone too far.
Let's think about the letter written to Timothy...does it fit with the whole? Is it accurate? No.
Adam was formed first, but as a part of something also called 'Adam'.
They were two, yet one. It wasn't until the fall, when 'Adam' the male, renamed his counterpart as Eve. The mother of all living.
He took the glory from God and gave it to 'Eve'. This is a result of a fallen tinker (brain).
The fact that 'Eve' was deceived and therefore fell into transgression does not negate that Adam the male transgressed overtly.
Both were banned from the garden.
With this logic, Adam the male ought not to be allowed to have any office of accountability, after all, Adam the male overtly sinned, without the benefit of being fooled.
If Adam the male's sin was different than Adam the female, then wouldn't Christ the second Adam have a different sort of sacrifice for her, when He declared His work finished, did He forget that Adam the female had been deceived and still had some stain left that she had to bear on her own or be purged by the pain of childbearing? Is earth a purgatory for women?
If there is a question, let it be that we question our understanding of who we are in Christ. Male, female. Let the springboard of our actions be from knowing this truth. Who am I in Christ.
Let me repeat here what I said above, lest you don't see it.
I was not challenging the canonicity or authority of the Pastoral Epistles, just the attribution to Paul. To quote Howard Clark Kee in his summary of current scholarship in The Cambridge Companion to the Bible, "Someone who tried to pass off such works today would be called a forger, but antiquity provides many examples of intellectual enthusiasts who wrote in a great master's name." The most extensive dating of the various letters has been carried out by the Institute for the Study of Antiquity and Christian Origins at the University of Texas. The director of that Institute, L. Michael White, is equally certain from the scientific evidence when he writes: "Some have argued that [the Pastoral Epistles] were written by a member of Paul's circle and close to Paul's own time, but the weight of evidence from their language and glimpses of their internal situation points to a much later date, perhaps in the 120s to 140s. A date as late as the 170s has been proposed, but it is not widely accepted."
John Bloom
This kind of legalism is what I call:
HOLY CRAP!
My two cents, specifically on the line "100% of scholars agree."
Now given, this site is filled with a mild sense of satire and surely one assumes that 100% is an accuract figure. But for those who articulate that the Pastoral SHOULD be attributed to Paul, what textual/historical evidence do you have for thinking that? Does that mean that the Bible is no longer God's word? Nah it just means that we now think Paul didn't write the thing. It doesn't change its state as scripture (it has been affirmed for about 1500 years as such) but it does mean we think someone else wrote the thing. (I've yet to meet an academic who articulated on historic/textual grounds that Paul wrote the pastorals by the way, does anyone know someone who does articulate such a point?)
In general the whole thing makes me rather sad. Good for Taylor though, glad they got something out of this crummy deal.
I apologize for being late to this debate. I've posted my references for the "100 percent" statement above. I should have said "almost unanimous," as Howard Clark Kee does. . . . John Bloom
It has been proven that 47% of statistics are made up. Jeebus, people... adventures in missing the point here.
Post new comment