The following is the sixth post in our Blog Conference on Women and Ministry during which we’ll be hosting posts written by people from a range of viewpoints with the opportunity for you to interact with the material and discuss the implications for the Church and the gospel. You can read more about the conference by clicking here.
Due to difficulties in locating a final contributor in time we have had to call on Catherine Booth, who passed away nearly 120 years ago! The following is an extract from a larger work that can be found here. It is followed by a short bio of Catherine Booth’s life. Mrs Booth was a woman who achieved much, as a wife, a mother and a teacher/preacher!
Why this exerpt? Several reasons: it is a part of the history of the argument, it shows an articulate female perspective pre-feminism and a part of her argument I (Dave) had not heard of before or thought of myself, and so it seemed good to think about it here!
Enjoy!
FEMALE TEACHING:
OR, THE REV. A. A. REES versus MRS. PALMER, BEING A REPLY TO A PAMPHLET BY THE ABOVE GENTLEMAN ON THE SUNDERLAND REVIVAL.
By: General Catherine Booth.
“…Neither in nature nor revelation is there the shadow of a foundation for this fantasy of the imagination. Prior to the fall, at least, the human pair were equal in nature, position, and jurisdiction over the inferior animals. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.“–Gen. 1:27, 28.
“Here is not the semblance of inferiority or subjection. Woman was a help-meet for man, created to be his companion, assistant, and friend; a being in all respects, save for that of sex, like himself. As is beautifully expressed in the original word by which she is designated, ishshak, being the same word (ish) used to signify man, with a feminine termination, and literally means a she-man. Most of the ancient versions endeavour to express this idea as literally as possible. A few of these renderings will tend to throw light on this part of our subject, and perhaps serve to explode some of the absurd notions so common respecting woman’s inferiority.
“The vulgate Latin renders the Hebrew, virago, which is the feminine form of vir, a man. Symmachus uses andris; a female form of aner, a man. Our own phrase is equally expressive–woman, which is a contraction of wombman, being the generic term with a feminine prefix. Hence we see the propriety of Adam’s exclamation, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.“–Gen. 2:23.
“If woman had been an inferior being, we maintain that these terms would have been totally inapplicable; her nature would have demanded a designation implying some other dissimilarity that the solitary one above referred to. As to subjection there needed none, their wills being harmonized by perfect acquiescence in the will of their Creator, to whom they were each equally responsible. If woman had been in a state of subjection from her creation, in consequence of natural inferiority, where is the force of the words, “he shall rule over thee,” as a part of her curse?
“God treats Eve as an independent, responsible being; amenable to the same law, and subject to the same penalties, as her companion; and, by the terrible sentence passed upon her for her disobedience, Jehovah unmistakably indicates that he held her equally capable of understanding and obeying his law. Even in her present state of subjection as a wife, she is only allowed to submit to her own husband “as it is fit in the Lord;” her own enlightened conscience being left arbiter of that fitness.”
-BIOGRAPHY-
General Catherine Booth (1829 – 1890)
Catherine Mumford was born in Ashbourne, Derby, on 17 January 1829. From an early age she was a serious and sensitive girl. She had a strong Christian upbringing and by the age of 12 had read her Bible through eight times! But it was not until she was 16, after much struggling, that she was really converted. In her hymn book she read the words, ‘My God I am Thine, what a comfort Divine’, and realised the truth of this statement for herself.
At 14 she was seriously ill and spent a great deal of time in bed. But she kept herself busy, and was especially concerned about the problems of alcohol. She wrote articles for a magazine, which encouraged people not to drink.
She met William when he came to preach at her church. They soon fell in love and became engaged. During three years of engagement, Catherine was a constant support to William in his tiring work of preaching, through her letters. At last on 16 June 1855, they were married. Unlike most weddings, theirs was very simple with no great expense. They wanted to use all their time and money for God. Even on their honeymoon, William found himself asked to speak at meetings. Together they accepted this challenge of being used by God before even thinking of themselves.
At Brighouse, Catherine first began to help in the work of the church. She was extremely nervous, but found the courage to speak in children’s meetings. She enjoyed working with young people. However it was unheard of for women to speak in adult meetings.
Catherine was convinced that women had an equal right to speak. At Gateshead, when the opportunity was given for public testimony, she went forward to speak! It was the beginning of a tremendous ministry, for people were greatly challenged by her preaching.
Catherine found the courage to speak to people in their homes, and especially to alcoholics whom she helped to make a new start in life. Often she held cottage meetings for converts.
She was also a mother with a growing family of eight children and was dedicated to giving them a firm Christian knowledge. Two of them became Generals of The Salvation Army.
In 1865 when the work of The Christian Mission began William preached to the poor and ragged, and Catherine spoke to the wealthy, gaining support for their financially demanding work. In time she began to hold her own campaigns.
When William Booth became known as the General, Catherine was known as the ‘Army Mother’. She was behind many of the changes in the new movement, designing a flag, bonnets for the ladies and contributing to the Army’s ideas on many important issues and matters of belief.
When she died in 1890 it was a great loss. Her life had been a challenge to thousands who remembered her as an untiring soldier in God’s Army.
>> Final post on September 14th – The continuing discussion and implications for the church.
Related posts:
- What is Submission? – Ephesians 5:21-33 – Blog Conference Post #2
- 1 Timothy 2:11-15 – Universal sin or an Ephesian situation? – Blog Conference Post #4
- Final Thoughts for the Continuing Discussion – Blog Conference Post #7
- Women Elders? – Blog Conference post #1
- Women and Men: Equal but sometimes Different – Blog Conference Post #5
I’m sure this will come as a shock, but I think Booth makes excellent points.
However, I and many other egals take issue with the idea that Eve was cursed at all. While both Adam and the serpent were told, “Because you have done this”, Eve was not. What God says to her is disputed (pain in childbirth vs. Bushnell’s argument from the LXX that it should read “a snare has increased your sorrow”), but either way, the fact remains that Eve was not cursed. Note also that the cursing of the ground draws a direct parallel to the ground only Adam and the animals were made from, and everything associated with that ground was cursed because of Adam. The serpent’s curse only affected serpents.
Another issue is the “elephant in the livingroom”: that the One who would crush the serpent’s head would come only from the seed of a woman. Why? Is not Eve being greatly honored in this pronouncement? And would God immediately turn and curse her with divinely-mandated servitude to the man who failed to either lead or “cover” her, had he been given such a charge? Is Adam to be rewarded for such a sin of omission, and is Eve to be cursed for being the victim of a powerful deception?
These questions are rarely addressed by comps, but experience tells me I wouldn’t be surprised at their responses. Just sayin’.
When I was in churches which only taught comp teaching and I didn’t know there were any other biblical options – it really puzzled me that there were people teaching that the ‘curse’/consequences of sin (whereby the relationship between man and woman was damaged) was to continue today.
Why was this relationship not restored in the church by Christ?
It is interesting that this point was brought up over 100 years ago – long before feminism of the 1960-70′s!
Amy, If you think about it, many have been teaching the consequences of sin as Christian virtue even after redemption!
It is also instructive that NT Christians would have read Gen 3 completely different than we do today. They would have understood that God was telling what would happen. Not a command. And that Eve would “turn” toward her husband (and away from God) and because of that, her husband would rule over her.
Here is a chart link showing how ‘teshuqa’ was translated in the earliest manuscripts and another link about teshuqa:
http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2018.htm
http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2017.htm
Are they teaching women to sin by telling them to turn toward their husbands for what they need to turn toward God for?
Glad you mentioned that, Amy. Many comps seem to wish to rewrite history and make equality a case of “bowing to culture”, even though culture has been overwhelmingly patriarchal for most of history (a fact which they turn around into a divine mandate!).
Lin,
Thanks for the links and encouragement. It is amazing though that simply reading the passage and some basic logic can refute the comp view. I suspect a lot of people do not read the passage but read the superimposed teaching on the passage when they ‘read’ it. Also some translations are not helpful as the links make clear.
You said:
Are they teaching women to sin by telling them to turn toward their husbands for what they need to turn toward God for?
Very interesting that that this passage is used in a similar way to Eph 5 where women are told husbands are the head for them instead of Christ the head of them as part of the body. Is not Christ capable? Are not women somehow fully a part of the body unless perhaps they are married?
Anyway thanks again both Lin and Paula. God has been speaking to me during this conference – I am glad to be learning so much.
Paula,
Im interested in what you talked about in relation to the ‘curses’ Perhaps you could clarify. Are you saying that Eve wasn’t punished for her sin? Also do you see the curse of the serpent in reference to Satan? Therefore do you understand Genesis 3:15 to be the first reference to salvation as some commentators suggest. Or do you just read it literary that snakes and humans are in conflict.
You talked about Eve being greatly honoured in this passage, therefore why would God mandate her to serve her husband. I can’t help but think that are holding women above men (not equal or below) and that God wouldn’t make such an institute. Are you then claiming you know the full will fo God. You seem to argue here from ‘fairness’ not the passage. Feel free to correct me! It seems to remind me of the election/free will debate where Arminians tend to argue on the ‘fairness’ line e.g how can it be fair that God chooses some and not others? We shouldnt fall back on the ‘fairness’ argument because we are not God. Paul addresses that in Romans 9.
Amy
you said “Very interesting that that this passage is used in a similar way to Eph 5 where women are told husbands are the head for them instead of Christ the head of them as part of the body. Is not Christ capable? Are not women somehow fully a part of the body unless perhaps they are married?”
What do you mean by this? I would think Eph is pretty clear! I presume egals have to try and re-interpret what ‘head’ means to fit into their theology. You same totake headship negetively, where the passage makes clear what it looks like- loving her like Christ loves the church.
What then do egals make of 1 Corinthians 11:3? It even talks here that God is the head of Christ? How does that work if their is no ‘headship’. But now we are onto the trinity.
There is an authority aspect of male/female relationships in the bible. Again in verse 11 and following of Cor we see how that pans out. We need each other. We function properly together, but there are certain ‘roles’ if i can use that term that can not be denied.
you also said “Is not Christ capable?”
what do you mean by this? Christ is only capable to do that which is His will. If (and i use the term if deliberately) God has placed Men as the head of Women, then he is not capable of altering this, because then he would be changing His mind so to speak. I don’t see this as a good argument, because Christ is ONLY capable to do things which are right according to His will and plan. Christ is NOT capable to do this outside of Himself and His revelation of scripture.
You talked about un-married women somehow not part of the body. I think egals need to realise that the marriage metaphor is used consistently throughout scripture, both OT and NT. This is an example of how we should function, not of who is included. Likewise elders don’t have to be married and have kids, but Paul uses the metaphors to show how society and church should function. Egals seem to get caught up on these issues to support their claims, but the usage is clear in my mind.
Gab,
I am glad you ask these questions – I can see that my comment assumed knowledge of the egal understanding of these passages which wasn’t so smart to do in the context of this conference! So I will attempt to explain what I meant…
I do not profess to be greek scholar but my understanding is this. The greek word kephale is used in both Eph 5:23 and 1 Cor 11:3. This word is correctly interpreted as head not headship. Head here can be interpreted as ‘source’ (like the head of a river, or a a physical/biological head. I think the meaning source fits well here because Adam was the source of Eve (she was made from his side). I think this is beautiful imagery for marriage which implies a special, one-flesh connection between husband and wife.
I understand that the greek word Paul would have used if he wanted to mean authority type head would have been ‘archon’.
I truly do not believe this is reinterpreting the bible but rather looking at its intended meaning.
I think it is a valid argument that Paul used “kephale’ to encourage husbands to see their wives as a part of them and therefore help them along with the idea of unity/submitting to one another of Eph5:21. I think this because of my understanding of the customs of the times whereby husbands did not generally see their wives as equal to them.
I think the misunderstanding of the word head to mean authority in Eph5 and 1Cor11 suggests that women need to be under the authority of the husband as well as the authority of Christ. Some complemantarians call this headship a need for ‘spiritual covering’ for the woman. This suggestion to me says that Christ alone is not enough for the woman. Hence my questioning of this logic by saying ‘Is not Christ capable?’ In this line of thinking a single woman is not ‘covered’ which leaves the question is she fully a part of the body? Of course I believe that she is as I do not believe ‘spiritual covering’ is a biblical concept!
Of course I believe that Christ is capable!! I even believe he is capable of doing things that are not his will (Matt 26:39). The Revelation of Scripture does not dictate what God will do. Rather Scripture tells us about what God has has done, is doing, will do. i.e. Scripture is not God but Jesus is! John5:39 – Jesus is greater than the Scriptures he is able to save but the scriptures cannot . Of course the Scriptures provide us with information that can lead to salvation.
As to 1Cor11:3 the word for the head of Christ is again kephale – a similar concept of oneness in the Godhead as to oneness in marriage.
I hope this helps you to understand my viewpoint and apologies for the confusion.
gab,
Right. Remember, God said “Because of what you did” to both Adam and the serpent, but not to Eve. What God says to her is not because of what she did, but what the other two did.
And what was God’s original statement? “When you eat the fruit you will…” what? DIE. Both Adam and Eve ate, and both became mortal when they sinned. What God ADDS is due to another event: Adam’s blaming God and Eve while not even mentioning the serpent. So both of them were punished for the sin of eating the fruit, but only Adam and the serpent were punished further for their “roles” (couldn’t resist!) in getting Eve to eat it and blaming the whole thing on her and God.
I think the serpent was under the control of Satan in some way, though I have read arguments that disagree. So yes, I do see that ref. as to salvation, the Seed of the woman being the Savior who would crush the “seed” of Satan. So of course I don’t think this is about fear of literal snakes at all.
He didn’t mandate it. “You will” is not anywhere near “I have decreed”, but is simply a prediction of the consequences of the choice she will make.
Why not take CBMW’s word for it then? They say that hierarchy is determined by order of creation, and since humans were made last, then last must be greatest. Therefore, by their own reasoning, Eve is greatest.
But in contrast to CBMW, I do not hold women above men, but that they are equal. I do not assing hierarchy where scripture does not say so clearly, and it is not found in Genesis before sin. What God would or wouldn’t do is irrelevant, but only what is clearly stated: that both male and female were given dominion over animals, and that the Savior who would “pay back” the serpent was promised only through the woman, which is a great honor (ref. the hope of all Hebrew women to be the mother of that promised Savior).
Not only doesn’t this outrageous accusation not follow from the previous statements you made, but I can turn this back on you: that YOU claim to know “the full will of God” because you think you have “plain reading” on your side. It is such an attitude that makes me reluctant to continue trying to communicate with male supremacists.
Another false and ridiculous accusation.
Sorry gab, you come across as more of a mocker than someone genuinely interested in discussing this issue which has torn the Body apart. Women are fully human, full heirs, with all the rights of adopted children. Get used to it.
Just a general reminder to us all to play nicely! Please avoid sarcasm, accusations of motives and telling people what to do!
That said, I have been really enjoying following all the comments!
One problem I see with 1 Corin 11:3 is that this passage on headcoverings is used to support everything from human hierarchies to ESS. But since it is translated so badly most do not understand that Paul was actually saying that women DO have authority over their own heads. The words ‘symbol of’ in verse 10 were added by translators. Paul even goes further to remind them AGAIN about judging the ‘angels’ he mentioned in chapter 6.
This means the entire passage is misunderstood. And because of that, each verse is proof texted and taken out of the full context which is misunderstood thanks to the translators adding words.
And what is more, verse 3 is used to TRY and prove something that verses 11 and 12 make obvious is not the point of the passage:
11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.
Verse 11-12 makes Source the obvious definition for verse 3.
So, proof texting in this passage is dangerous stuff. But many very well known theologians do just that and I have seen verse 3 used as the foundational verse for ESS!
In any event, verse 3 is not communicating a hierarchy because of its sequence. Man would not be listed first. God would be listed first. So hierarchy is not what it is communicating.
Body metaphors are used throughout this letter. Remember, the eye (on the head) cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you.
It is a metaphor of unity. Amy is right. Had the Holy Spirit wanted to communicate hierarchy, there are plenty of Greek words He would have used to clearly communicate authority over in these passages. But He did not.
gab,
you wrote:
“ou talked about Eve being greatly honoured in this passage, therefore why would God mandate her to serve her husband”
He did not mandate she serve the husband. He said it would happen because of sin. That the women would turn toward her husband (away from God) and because of that, the husband would rule over her. It is a consequence of sin. But now we are redeemed! We should be striving to live in our redemptive situation.
Think about it. Men work in air conditioned offices now. Would that be sin since God ‘mandated’ he toil with the earth?
Note: Only the ground and animals are cursed. What God is telling Adam and Eve are the consequences for sin. It is not a command. Else, you are in sin for not toiling on the land. Perhaps even for using fertilizers and pesticides if you are a farmer.