Venting

OK, I just need to spend some time venting about two things that are bugging me today . . . Oh, by the way . . . Happy New Years to everyone. Any way, the matter at hand.

I am preparing our worship service for next Sunday. From time to time, I am in charge of planning a week so that we can get our teens involved. It's a great idea, only there are certain stipulations that come with participating in worship that frustrate me to no end. Our two rules for participating in worship are this: must be a boy, must be baptized. Both of these criteria are tough for me to swallow, and tough for our youth group to swallow. Total number of youth group members who qualify: 2. Two guys that are great kids, but not our most active, nor do they show the most interest in God. But, because they are boys and because they are baptized they can pass plates, lead prayers, read Scriptures, and do just about whatever they want. The girls can pick songs out, act in skits, and that's about it.

We claim to be a Bible-based, Bible-only church, but will someone please give me some Bible on this? I know the woman's role thing is difficult, but the non-baptized thing is ridiculous. Why would we ever want to restrict someone from praying or reading their Bibles? We tell everyone read, pray all the time, but the only time they are not allowed to do so is in front of the church on Sundays when it may be most beneficial and edifying!?!!? What a bunch of crap. That is about where I have landed on this issue. I have fought and fought to end up here, but this is where I am. I think that the bottom line is that many or most churches have a group of men in leadership positions who are unwilling to give up their power to women. Period. I'm not a radical who has jumped to this position. I have simply witnessed it time after time. We constantly need servers, prayers, and readers, but we limit our pool of candidates on traditional mores that are no longer socially appealing - in fact are socially offensive. But yet we plod on.

I know enough people who think this way to know that their motives are not impure, but neither were many of the slaveowners' motives of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. That was just the way things were done. When all the superficialities are removed, that is the same argument we are left with here: that is just the way things are done. Some people say, "It's divisive, so we shouldn't it do it." If it was divisive for a black person to pray in Alabama in the early 1900's, should they still not have the right? The same logic applies here. If there is not good, foundational, biblical reasons to restrict someone from taking part in a worship assembly - someone who has the gift and the spurring of the Holy Spirit, why would we ever restrict them? Why would we ever limit them?

Churches of Christ must change! Some/many will be uncomfortable, that is why I do not think it should happen each week. Baby steps. But if we really are a unified and open church as we claim to be, why can't these differences bring us together amidst variety instead of divide as we have allowed so many other issues to? We are having a discussion within our churches that those outside of churches don't care or understand. I have seldome met a twenty-something or even a thirty-something who cares about this issue. For us it is over, let's move on. The Bible is far less clear about it than we want to admit. Those I have who are more conservative on the issue are that way because they were raised that way. I have never met an adult "convert" who had a clue why we would waste so much time limiting women's responsibilities in our churches.

For now I am only talking about serving communion, testifying before the church, praying before the church, leading communion devotionals, and reading Scripture before the Church. The issue of women elders and preachers is a more complicated theological issue. However, 1 Corinthians 11 presupposes that women are praying and prophesying in a mixed assembly (This is the straightforward reading of the text, though few want to admit that.) The key to this text is "headship." "Man is head of the woman" we are so often told. Seldom is it added, "He is the head of the woman the same way that God is the head of Christ, and Christ is the head of the church." The male/female relationship mirrors the Christ/God relationship in its headship details. Christ's role in the Trinity is diminished when our male/female relationships are not what they were intended. In relation to this text, when males dominate and control (decisions, positions, etc.) we are saying that this is the way that God is the head of Christ, and nothing could be farther from the truth.

It seems that we must dig deeper theologically than simply head coverings and women leading prayer. This issue is about the Trinity - something that Churches of Christ are utterly unfamiliar with. We need to understand the unique roles that each part of the Trinity plays within it, that will help us understand our roles among each other.

I am appalled by the sexism and discrimination that I see in my church. I pray that God forgives us for it. I also am encouraged by the heart of some, though hesitant, often condescending, and sarcastic, a glimmer of hope and openmindedness is seen on occassion.

OK, that's my vent for today, and I feel much better. Have a good New Year.