Another entry into the praiseworthy journalism of Molly Worthen is this Sunday’s New York Times Magazine story on evangelical women who insist they “submit” to their husbands despite their daily life looking like every other companionate American marriage. Priscilla Shirer, the main character of the piece, is the daughter of well-known Dallas minister Dr. Tony Evans:
Most evangelical women, even those who say they believe in wifely submission and clear gender roles, live as Priscilla Shirer does — in a balanced partnership that doesn’t look all that different from a healthy secular marriage. A 1999 survey by the sociologists Christian Smith and Sally Gallagher revealed that in 90 percent of evangelical marriages, the husband and wife make decisions jointly. “My husband tends to have a more traditional view of male headship in marriage and the church, and I have a more egalitarian view, that we should submit to one another,” says Brenda Quinn, 44, a mother of three who attended the conference in Denver. “But in practice, in day-to-day living, there is no problem. Just because, intellectually, we disagree about how to read that part of Scripture, in practice, one is weak where the other is strong, and we need each other in our decisions. We seek each other’s counsel.”
Of course, this isn’t news to anyone who has spent very much time at all around evangelicals. Most conservative Christian couples have arrived at some sort of natural sharing of responsibilities that suits their gifts and personalities, despite the theological views on gender roles they might hold. This sort of equal partnership seems just about the only way to make it through modern life; I, for one, don’t understand why they have to ignore the monumental gains feminism has made for women.
David Sessions
David Sessions is the founding editor of Patrol. He covers religion for Newsweek and The Daily Beast, and is a graduate student in the Draper Program for Humanities and Social Thought at New York University. He can be reached at hdavidsessions at gmail dot com.
32 Responses to Evangelical Women Pretend They Aren't Feminists
Leave a Reply
Follow Us
Advertisement
Because that’s what’s preached from the pulpit? (and one wouldn’t want to be completely found in heresy)
Indeed, I remember one of my childhood friends telling me (at 11-12) that feminism is a sin.
This is hardly surprising, and most complementarians would think nothing of it. The vast majority of matters in a complementarian marriage will be settled by agreement or compromise, but for those very few areas where compromise is not attainable, the submission of the wife is expected. That’s a pretty standard view among evangelicals…hardly newsworthy.
Thank you Kevin. I had the same exact thought, but could not put it into words. I read the article and felt like it wasn’t saying anything significant, but only confusing a pretty clear issue by contrasting Biblical marriage and modern marriage without clearly defining either. Where does the Bible say that a husband, in making his decision, cannot speak with his wife and consider her input. Or that if a woman is good with finances, she still can’t take care of the bills because as head of the household, the man is supposed to control everything regardless of her skills in that area. Proverbs 31:22 “She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies sashes for the merchants.” Here a women is praised for being industrious, using her own special gifts to help the household. Sorry, just wanted to get that out.
The big difference for the many complementarians I know from my home church comes with jobs. The guy has to be the leader, bread winner, and the one whose career comes first. Otherwise, they make decisions much like egalitarians. The very thought that I would move so that my wife can attend graduate school would not sit well with them, even if they don’t care who does the dishes.
David, please take a moment to see my response to Mary Worthen’s article: http://www.womenfaithculture.com/?page_id=747
Doesn’t the end of the 5th chapter of Ephesians make it quite clear that marriage is a reflection of Christ’s relationship with us; a relationship where He is head over us. “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church” (5:22-23) This conversation seems a bit misplaced after reading those verses. Look at the word “as” located right before “also Christ is head”. It’s a direct comparison and is done so to show us the structure we are to follow as we are all in submission to God. Verse 25 is the key to all of it as God calls husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. That’s a pretty mighty call and it takes the power and grace of God to accomplish that. If a husband claims to be Christian and attempts to get his wife to submit to something ungodly then I would say that wife has every right to refuse but if the husband is submitting to God (as he should) then what problem should the wife have in submitting to God. To take a complete egalitarian view of Christian marriage means we’d have to take a complete egalitarian view to our standing before God. I doubt any of us would feel bold enough to do that. Lastly, who cares what gains feminism has brought women when we can look at the advancements Christ has brought them? Sorry for the length here or if I have in anyway misinterpreted Patrol’s stance on submission within the confines of Christian marriage.
On eof the sentences in my previous posts should read “then what problem should the wife have in submitting to her husband” as opposed to saying “to God” although they truly do go hand in hand.
I don’t think you’ve misinterpreted Patrol’s stance, mostly because I don’t think Patrol, as a blog, has a stance. What I think you may have done in regards to interpretation is assumed that there is only one way to interpret the Ephesians passage and that you know it, thus disregarding the fact that there are in fact many accepted interpretations. From there you claimed that because you have access to the right answer, the conversation is misplaced. That, I think, is the problem.
There is only one way to interpret this Ephesians passage; the right way. The Bible puts forth objective truth that we do not project our ideas onto. We find its meaning and then apply it. As Christians we are called to study the Word of God, which is the same yesterday and today and forever. The Word being Christ, does not change and Jesus is not different according to who’s talking to Him. Sorry to exhaust that point, but that being said, it does no good really to have someone present an argument from scripture that addresses the issue and simply say that is your interpretation among many. Lets find “the interpretation” and see what affect the actual interpretation has upon the issue. That being said, what is wrong with the above interpretation of Ephesians presented. To me, that would be a constructive step.
Hey guys – Greg, you got at my point exactly, sorry to have not made it more clearly. I just wanted to indicate that though each of the individual writers on Patrol have particular stances on many subjects, Patrol is merely the platform and doesn’t take official stances. Maybe its a bit of a minor point, but I think its an important one to make.
As for the matter of interpretation, I will say this: any time words are written on a page and constructed into sentences and paragraphs, they must be interpreted. The words, themselves, have no meaning outside of interpretation. So, to suggest that the Bible is somehow an exception to that rule, to believe that these words which have been passed down and translated for millennia are not able to be interpreted in many different ways, strikes me as naive. If the “Bible puts forth objective truth that we do not project our ideas onto” as Brad suggests, we would not need theologians, or pastors, or brains.
As to my interpretation on this particular passage, suffice it to say that it is probably different from yours, but (and I’m sure this won’t be satisfactory to you) I’d rather not get into that issue here.
Fitz, I am sure you would agree if it said there was only one accurate interpretation to what you wrote above. Correct? I could come to a different conclusion than you intended but when it is measured up to what you had in my mind it can be refuted. The very message you wrote defeats your point because to take you at your word would mean I can define your reply as I see fit. Why would God share His word with us but do so in a way that left it open not just to multiple interpretations but as you’re putting it contradicting interpretations that are equally valid. God is not a relativist. He has a point, a single point, to each of the things He says just as you do. You aren’t offering me a choose my own adventure story when you comment here. You have ideas that you share. If we differ in this area than I would say we’ve found a pretty large difference in our views of Christianity. Paul wrote to Timothy stating, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16) How could this be if all I have to say is “That’s just your interpretation” whenever the light of correction is shining on me. You say if this is so then “we would not need theologians, or pastors, or brains”. You speak correctly. We don’t need those things. John writes in his first epistle, “But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him” (I John 2:27). We don’t need any theologians or pastors just like we don’t need vitamin supplements. These things certainly help though. As for the brain; I doubt you need me to state a case for its benefits. We are to be taught scripture. We are not to figure it out on our own. Paul makes that clear in his first letter to the Corinthians chapter 2 (verse 14 specifically).
Lastly, and sorry this is long, you claim you’d rather not get into a Biblical discussion on a blog that claims to be an ongoing review of Christianity. I’d say if we can talk about anything here it should be scripture first and foremost. I’m confused by your stance on the Bible and your refusal (inability?) to support it.
Two things: 1.) The first sentence above should read “…would agree if I said there was…” I hate spelling mistakes and/or misplacing words. 2.) To be fair, I should have ended my reply differently. You have not yet been given the option to defend your stance on Biblical “interpretations” so I shouldn’t not have linked that with your absence to your interpretation of Ephesians 5. Sorry about that. I would like to hear your interpretation of Ephesians 5 though I’d rather hear a reply directed to your views on Bible studying/ God’s purpose in giving us His word.
Hey guys, it’s late and I have Harry Potter on the brain. I really appreciate your eagerness to interact with me on this topic and if I was at a different point in my life (fewer jobs, more free time) I’m sure I’d be all for getting into this with you. But, as it is, I think we’re speaking different languages. To that end, though, I wanted to paste a link here that might provide some insight into where I’m coming from, ie, I’m not just making stuff up here. Here’s an entry from Wikipedia that discusses words as signs in semiotics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(semiotics)
I’m sorry if this seems like a copout, and I’m sure it’s not a satisfactory response. Perhaps sometime this weekend I can find the time to gather and write some thoughts in full. Maybe, then, we’ll move it over to Patrol’s Facebook wall or something.
Fitz, while I certainly appreciate any time you give to this I also wonder why you can’t just use that time more wisely. Neither Brad nor myself are speaking in any mystery. You can read the posts we have here and see the questions we are asking. Not to mention it probably doesn’t take more than 3 minutes to write any of the comments found beneath this article. The reason I think it is important for you to speak (and important to keep this here as a single string (we don’t need to move to facebook since you can answer us in one comment) is because whether or not you’d like to admit it, you’re calling God into question; specifically His word and His ability to protect it and maintain it. The Bible says God is not the author of confusion. You are being quite confusing. Now, I realize you can dismiss any part of the Bible that you like based on your love for semiotics (knowledge puffs up?) but you have to realize that if it were the way you claim it is then nothing could be trustable in the Bible and we would have a pretty confusing mess. Keep in my, God claims that He magnifies His word above His very name. I appreciate your link but I think it is just as silly as what you’ve been writing. The fact that the article can convey information shows that words are doing a pretty good job. I’m not getting the impression that you lean on the word of God as a trustworthy source of truth. It seems as if you may pick and choose what you wish. Could you please re-read our questions and at least answer 3 of them. Kindly said as possible: for someone who speaks of having little time you are certainly making this last longer than it has to.
I’m afraid we are coming from two completely different places, which is what makes this conversation particularly difficult. I will attempt to reply as you ask, but you have to know that even in doing so, I am operating on the knowledge that words are symbols, assigned meanings – which can and do change often – and that rather than harm the validity of the Bible or lessen the impact of God’s chosen medium, it strengthens it. Certainly the creator of language knew what he was doing when he revealed himself in it. And certainly he created language, like he created all things, to grow, evolve, and change.
That being said, you ask for my interpretation of the Ephesians passage, so I will oblige you. In the section on Wives and Husbands, I believe Paul is offering a beautiful and apt metaphor for the relationship between Christ and the Church. I believe this, because, after he gives the metaphor, he tells us that he has done so. “This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church.” The example Paul uses is grounded in his knowledge of the world, that is, a patriarchal culture in which women’s roles both in private and public life was severely limited. And, in many ways, that outmoded perception of gender roles is unrecognizable to us today; I hardly believe you would suggest that woman must not have short hair, nor wear jewelry, as Paul does elsewhere.
Nevertheless, the beauty of language and interpretation is such that we can reach back to Paul’s time and understand his metaphor. We can say, “Just as women in Paul’s world had a role of submission to their husband, so must we, the church, submit to God.” None of the impact of Paul’s message is lost here; it just takes a bit of work to understand his metaphor. If we are to find any advice about marriage in this passage, I suppose the only place we see it is in the final verse of the chapter, after Paul has made clear that he was speaking in metaphor, he adds, “However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” Good advice, to be sure, despite coming from a man who didn’t seem to be to keen on marriage.
Now, as I’m sure you will resist this interpretation, let me attempt to show you how you have already embraced it. In Chapter 6, Paul goes on to suggest how children should behave toward parents and, then, how slaves should behave toward masters. Certainly you know that for centuries this passage was used to justify slavery, which, I hope, none of us would attempt to do now. Rather, how do we understand it? Of course we acknowledge that there was slavery in Paul’s time and as he believed Christ’s return was immanent he recommended a course of obedience, and, again, took the opportunity to liken the real life example to obedience of Christ. Why is it that in this instance we can recognize that Paul was speaking as a citizen of the first century world, but not do the same when he speaks about the role of women? Can you imagine this same conversation about context, metaphor and meaning taking place in the South, pre-Civil War.
Sorry for the length…it’s kind of what I was afraid of. But I hope I adequately answered your questions. Keep in mind, though, this is just my interpretation.
“Why is it that in this instance we can recognize that Paul was speaking as a citizen of the first century world, but not do the same when he speaks about the role of women?”- I think one indicator of there being a difference between the two (slavery and marriage) is that slavery isn’t an institution that God instated near the beginning of time where as marriage is. Based on your reasoning you now have a skeleton key by which you can unlock any interpretation the present day culture desires. Most times when people are offended by the idea of a wife’s submission they do so with a not so clear understanding of what that submission truly is. When viewed through the lense of “my” interpretation of Ephesians 5 (see my first comment) there is little reason for offense. If we are to find an offense in a wife’s command to be submissive then we should be able to find offense in Christ’s command for all of us to submit to Him. A primary function of marriage was and is to exemplify the union between God and mankind. I don’t stand for this viewpoint because I want to defend manpower. I stand because I want to defend a point I believe God made. Submission doesn’t mean husbands always get to choose where the family eats dinner or that the woman can’t work. Often it is a straw man that is dismissed when talking about Christian marriage as opposed to the idea of marriage I believe God initially had in mind.
A question I see as important comes to mind after reading this line: “Certainly the creator of language knew what he was doing when he revealed himself in it. And certainly he created language, like he created all things, to grow, evolve, and change.” Are you claiming that the word of God has changed over time and that God always intended it to?
I’m claiming that the way we read and understand the Bible has, should, and will continue to change over time.
Fitz, this is where we take different paths: “Certainly the creator of language knew what he was doing when he revealed himself in it. And certainly he created language, like he created all things, to grow, evolve, and change.”
I agree with the first sentence and couldn’t disagree more with the second. I’d say a greater glory would and should be attached to the fact that our all-knowing God was able to deliver His word in a way that transcends times and cultures while still keeping His singular motive(s)/truth(s)/intention(s) fully intact. An example you could have used is the sacrificial system which Christians no longer adhere to. The author of the Hebrews epistle makes it quite clear though that that particular “type” is no longer necessary since the Messiah Himself has become that Sacrifice. Why would the New Testament speak so clearly on something that should be laid to rest but then continue the use of marriage’s reflection of our relationship with God?
I can completely understand and agree that Paul (and other writers of the Bible) was talking to people of a particular culture and a particular time, but your claim seems more like searching for a loophole and then sneaking all of your hearts (or all of a particular culture’s hearts) desire(s) through it. You can’t just assert that because one thing is outdated (slavery) we are free to find other things and label them “outdated” as well. The investigation you would need to undertake in order to come to the conclusion you reached would first center itself on the entire Bible’s stance and description of marriage and the weight that is placed upon it. Then, you shouldn’t just study the history of slavery as the world has experienced it, but the specific slavery upheld and practiced within the Hebrew community where God would certainly have called for just dealings and the opportunity of freedom during the Year of Jubilee. It seems as if you are taking the worldly view of slavery to justify it being invalid for our time of life so you can then move on to other things and dismiss them as you see fit. You’ve got to realize that this method of letting culture define the Bible has been a practice throughout the history of Christianity and I would say it has always been opposed by those we would consider “Champions of the Faith”. The Bible should define the culture, not the other way around.
If what you’re claiming is true then the authority of Scripture is lost. We would need some other piece of writing to help us decipher the correct way of living a Christian life. What you are proposing is “we” define what the Bible says, when in fact the Bible should define how we should be. The whole Bible would fall to pieces (and Christianity along with it) if the “meaning” of the Bible (the heart or intentions if you will) actually changed over time. It would no longer be the reigning authority that we go back to “correction, doctrine, reproof, instruction” as Paul stated in II Timothy 3:16.
Closing question, is my interpretation of Ephesians 5 included in the “many acceptable interpretations” you mentioned above?
Greg, I’m sorry, the concept that language must be interpreted to be understood (and that this will lead to many simultaneous understandings) is not a difficult or particularly new concept. And, I believe, it is one you inherently accept in life, otherwise you would not be able to function. But you have created some very high stakes here…the Bible and Christianity would fall to pieces…so I understand your resistance. If I felt that the Bible was so fragile and that language wasn’t so powerful, I might share your hesitance to allow this idea to permeate. Anyway, I’m sure there will be another debate down the line, but I’m bowing out of this one.
Fitz, I’m sorry, the concept that nothing can simultaneously mean opposite things is not a difficult or particularly new concept. You’ve juggled the debate this whole time with semantics. The Bible is not fragile. I never said that. If you valued accurate interpretations at all you would have realized that. I was claiming your view of Biblical interpretation would make it fragile. You’ve conveniently and continuously misinterpreted the things I’ve said. You’re literally doing the very thing I’m claiming is dangerous in this one small conversation. You wanted a way out and your interpretations gave you one. Good day.
I shouldn’t have written that line about you wanting a way out. It’s an assumption that I have no way of verifying. If I knew how to edit it I’d erase it. Sorry for it. I wouldn’t be so adamant if I didn’t see this as a foundational issue but I believe it is. I do appreciate your time here and wish I had ended with a more caring second to last line.
Also, let’s keep in mind that your original point was amazement that I or anyone would think there is only one acceptable interpretation to Scripture. Now, you’re point seems to be more centered on there being an ever changing interpretation. Is it both? If scripture can mean more than one thing, as you’ve claimed, and those multiple interpretations can change over time how in the world do you keep yourself from utter confusion?
Hey Fitz,
You made two statements in your above response that are flawed, and I’ll do my best to explain why.
First, the following statement.
If the “Bible puts forth objective truth that we do not project our ideas onto” as Brad suggests, we would not need theologians, or pastors, or brains.
How does a car engine work? I could walk up and take my best guess to explain it, but in doing so I might not accurately describe its true functioning. I could look at one part and say, “oh, that part does this!” What if the part doesn’t do what I say it does? Does that part now change it’s actual functioning? No, it had a purpose and means of functioning before I got there. What would be great is if I had a mechanic, or better yet, the designer of the engine there to talk to about it. He could walk me through the designed function of the part, and then I could understand, and if I really got it, maybe walk away and build my own engine. What if, however, I simply stuck with my idea as to how it worked saying that it had no functioning before I got there. What if someone said, “Any time there are screws connecting parts, which make components, which create machines there is no designed function until someone shows up and gives the conglomeration of parts a purpose in functioning.” I would walk up and say, “No, that engine works in this way, and I know that because someone who understood it better than I showed me, a mechanic. Or in our case a Pastor or more experienced Bible scholar.
Second. (I’ll keep it shorter)
“..to believe that these words which have been passed down and translated for millennia…”
Are you suggesting by saying this that somehow we don’t have the original text? We still have the Bible in greek and Hebrew and just about every Bible, take the King James for example, has been translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew. It has not been a long game of telephone which many people believe or suggest, and in doing so make it seem like the meaning of the Bible has become more vague over time, and therefore more subject to “interpretation”. Year and Year of past time, and “translations” do not make the Bible harder to understand. Its objective meaning is still clearly visible when studied, just like the functioning of a Engine that has one way of running.
Here is where your mechanic metaphor breaks down. Words don’t have “a purpose and means of functioning before I got there.” They are by nature meaningless symbols to which we assign meaning. They have no function on there own, aside from the function that I assign to them. This is just how language works.
To Greg: You can define my reply as you see fit. And, I am certain that you have. It may be that our meanings align, but then, that may not be the case at all.
Fitz, you’re amazing. I can define your reply as I see fit but it has no power over the message you intended; now does it? In fact, I didn’t even attach a definition to your reply. I merely said you had a purpose in what you wrote and that I have no power to change what you meant although I can certainly come to the wrong conclusion. Did you already disagree with what I wrote before you even started reading it? You’re a clever guy, I doubt the point I’m making here evades you. As for words not having meaning before you approach them, how about I holler down from a building you’re standing at the bottom of, “Rocks falling”. Tell me you won’t move. You say, “They are by nature meaningless symbols to which we assign meaning.” With all due respect, you’re either playing dumb or selling mankind short. Once we define a term it is pretty easy to figure out how to use it. You often speak quite vague and never reply to specifics. If you are correct than you should be able to get your hands dirty, dive into the conversation, and make sense out of what you claim. Instead, you often share some reason why you don’t have to elaborate at all. “Words don’t have “a purpose and means of functioning before I got there.” What are you talking about. An envelope isn’t waiting for you to accept its friend request before it can continue being what we all know it is. If someone you loved left you explicit directions as to the specific help they need and the specific location they could be found then I’m fairly certain you could figure out what the words meant and come to the rescue. I doubt a different interpretation would change the location of the person in distress.
Does the Bible have a purpose and a means of functioning?
Words have a purpose Fitz. We use them to convey thought. Before you read this, I put these words together for the purpose of convincing you you are not seeing this correctly. If you go tell someone else that the words in my post here said that I hate dogs and want to kill them I would be justified in saying you misrepresented the message I was trying to convey in this post. That is not a difficult concept.
I’ve got to be honest with you, Fitz, I’m at a loss here. I don’t think I stretched the imagination too far in coming to the conclusion that Patrol (or David solely) holds a view or a stance that is in opposition to what I laid out as “my” interpretation of Ephesians chapter 5. If Patrol doesn’t have a stance on the issue or a view than I would guess it also fails to have a point in this particular subject. I don’t think the article fails to have a point nor do I think David fails to have a view which makes me wonder less if you really do/don’t have a stance and wonder more if you just want a reason to not have to address “my” interpretation. As for that bit of scripture, I really don’t see how open it is for “many” different interpretations. Sure there are some ambiguous portions of scripture that require much prayer and studying but I don’t see how this is one; unless someone wants it to be one. Regardless, could you please share your interpretation on that particular passage?
Way I see it, if husbands who hold to the more conservative view of submission were to follow Christ’s example of how He treated His “Church” while He was on the earth (eg. washing their feet, last shall be first, and ultimately sacrificing His life for us) we would end up with the net result of an egalitarian marriage. So why not just cut to the chase.
“Both appraisals overlook the messy interaction between ancient Scripture and modern life.”
I read the above quote in the article referenced above. It seems that the author feels scripture is unclear when it comes to instructing us in our marriages today. As if modern times provide situations that the Bible cannot speak to, which ultimately means, God cannot speak, or at least not clearly. Could you please provide one example or situation that might come up in a modern marriage that the Bible could not speak to?
[...] discussion (which I’ve been involved in) transpiring in the comments section of Sessions’ post on Molly Worthen’s New York Times Magazine article. This debate shows that the translation of [...]