Girls and Soccer

Girls and Soccer December 6, 2019

By Kelly Edmiston

Last week I got a call from my son’s principal at his school. She tells me that she needs to inform me about what happened on the playground because she feels sure that I will not be happy about the behavior and words of my 7-year old. She goes on to tell me that my son and a group of children were playing soccer and one little girl ended up falling down when my son went over to her, stepped on her foot, and declared for the entire playground to hear that “girls suck at soccer.”

As I get on the phone to speak to my son my blood is boiling, my heart is racing, and I am beginning to sweat. In the form of a long and tight-lipped lecture, I correct his very offensive declaration, pointing out that many girls are good at soccer and demanding that he apologize. He apologized and we moved on.

This situation with my 7-year old son reminds me of the pervasive nature of sexism. Sexism, the belief that women are less than men, is the undercurrent of our society, and sadly, it is the undercurrent of many of our churches. My husband and I did not teach my son this sentiment that “girls suck at soccer.” We don’t use this language nor have we ever expressed anything of the sort. We have an egalitarian marriage, we practice mutual submission and we do not adhere to traditional gender roles. And yet, sexism has implanted itself deep within his 7-year old psyche. Sexism did not originate with our culture or this society. Sexism has existed since the fall. Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and were cast out of God’s presence. Sexism is the result of this sin. And every lingering behavior that reinforces sexism, such as forbidding women access to leadership positions or roles due to gender, is sin. It is sin as grievous as racism.

It is a sin that Jesus seeks to redeem. Consider the story of the women at the scene of the resurrection.

In the resurrection story, (Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, John 20) Jesus first appears to and commissions Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of James and Joanna[1] to go and tell the others that he has risen. This group of women were the first to witness and to proclaim the resurrection.

The women are obedient and return to the apostles to tell them the truth about Jesus. But the apostles do not believe the women. Luke has this interesting little phrase to describe how the apostles responded to the story of the women.

“…but these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.” Luke 24:11 (ESV)

The Greek word here is “leros.”’ It means “folly,” or “nonsense,” or “gush.”

The apostles accused the women of speaking “nonsense.” They discredited them and called them stupid because they were women.

Jesus rebukes the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (24:25) for not believing the women. Jesus appears to the women first intentionally. He knew they would not be believed. However, in his appearing to the women first he has made a strategic and turning point move for the placement of women in the Kingdom of God. Here, and in the events following throughout the book of Acts, Jesus has moved women from property to prophet, from outsider to insider, from no status to equal status.

And yet, in the church there remains a disconnect between our thinking and our doing, between our theology and our practice. This is why sexism is still rampant in churches today.

Consider how, in the church, many times the witness of women is seen as not credible.

You may be familiar with the sexual misconduct scandals over the past couple of years regarding Willow Creek Community Church in Chicago. Bill Hybels inappropriately touched, groped, kissed, offered inappropriate invitations to his home, and had an affair with a married woman. These stories were covered up and ignored.

Vonda Dyer was one of the first victims who publicly accused Bill Hybels. After all of the investigation and the report of Hybels’ guilt came out, she says this:

That she was grateful for the report’s conclusion that she and others who came forward were credible and that it marked the beginning of identifying what happened at Willow Creek and learning from it.[2]

Dyer was grateful that her witness, and that of many other women, was considered credible after all of the investigations were concluded because their original testimony was not.

In a book called “Saved from Silence,” Mary Donovan Turner writes these words:

“The control of power in relationships affects the voice and silence of each group within a system. One in power easily assumes the right to speak. Others are denied that right or must seek permission in order to be heard. In some cases, even when an oppressed voice speaks, especially without the permission of the powerful, that voice is ineffective, because the powerful cannot bear to hear it. Thus, the struggle for voice is not only a struggle to speak, but also a search for an audience to listen.”[3]

– Mary Donovan Turner and Mary Lin Hudson

The women at the tomb were searching for an audience to listen. The victimized women at WCCC were looking for an audience to listen. Women today are still searching for an audience to listen. They are still wondering whether or not their witness will be received as credible.

One thing you can do this week to live faithfully in the Kingdom of God is you can open your ears and listen to the stories of the women in your life. Whether she is in joy or in pain, you can ask her to tell her story, from her perspective just as she has experienced it. You can lean over and ask, “how do you see this” and “how does this feel to you? Perhaps in this we will join Jesus in redeemed and reversing the damaging and pervasive sin of sexism so prevalent in our churches and in our world. [4]

[1] There were more women than these. Mark tells us that Salome was there too. Luke tells us in 24:10 that there were other women. One of the devastating ramification of sexism is that we do not know who exactly was present at the resurrection. Because they were women, they were not all named.

[2] https://www.christianpost.com/news/vonda-dyer-bill-hybels-accuser-who-was-called-a-liar-rejects-willow-creek-apology.html

 

[3] Turner, Mary Donovan and Hudson Mary Lin, Saved from Silence; Finding Women’s Voice in Preaching.

[4] This is a part of a sermon I preached recently. You can listen to the whole thing here. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kingdom-of-god-women/id1139391673?i=1000457808430

 


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Wes

    “And every lingering behavior that reinforces sexism, such as forbidding women access to leadership positions or roles due to gender, is sin. It is sin as grievous as racism.”

    I come here to read different perspectives than my own, but the frequent vilification of anyone who disagrees with any point of the egalitarian position is tiring. The reductionism behind “complementarian = sin” (or “domestic abuser,” as we’ve seen before) is neither thoughtful nor helpful.

    Summarizing positions you disagree with as “sin” is simply a mental trick you use to dismiss those positions/interpretations without engaging with them on substance. Indeed, as an attorney who daily sees all sorts of arguments play out, it is my experience that folks resort to vilification only when they can’t win on the merits.

  • Kelly Edmiston

    Thanks for your

  • Kelly Edmiston

    Thank you for your comment. My aim is to tell the truth. Part of that is to call sin sin. Racism is sin and many people were offended by this in our recent past. Sexism is sin. It just is. My aim is to push against those systems by telling the truth.

  • Justin

    If only he was wrong. This instance that men and women are equal at all tasks make all the rest of the arguments harder to accept.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4389760/USA-women-s-team-suffer-5-2-loss-FC-Dallas-U-15-boys.html

  • kelly edmiston

    2 minutes ago
    Thank you for your comment. My aim is to tell the truth. Part of that is to call sin sin. Racism is sin and many people were offended by this in our recent past. Sexism is sin. It just is. My aim is to push against those systems by telling the truth.

  • Al Cruise

    Give us examples where complementarianism has worked out well for the good of everyone. Show us historical cases . Especially point out where it has worked out well for everyone in the case of religious leadership over many generations. Would like specific names and times. Just to give you a heads up , don’t argue about specific individual marriages, for every complementarian one I can point out an egalitarian one. Yes the author is correct in saying that complementarianism is a sin and she brings very strong theological teaching as to why.

  • kelly edmiston

    Thanks justin. The point is not equal in tasks, like soccer. The point for egalitarians, is equal in value and equally able/gifted for the tasks of leadership/ministry. However, in this particular point, there are many 7-year old girls who legitimately better at soccer than my 7-year old son. Not equal to him, better than him. The point is that sexism is rampant and can be found in children even when raised in egalitarian households.

  • Bob Wilson

    Wes, I find the assumption disingenuously unrealistic that naming something as “sin” is a “mental trick” or effort to avoid “engaging the substance” unless each time the substance underlying that belief is also presented. It seems to me the arguments for that belief have often been presented and argued on this forum, and anyone is welcome to challenge that view.

  • Al Cruise

    It’s seems to me that pro complementarians are basing their arguments solely on physical strength, and then using scripture to hide behind. Like this comment above.

  • LT

    What if it wasn’t sexism at all? What if it is simply the general reality of life? There are girls that are better than boys at soccer. But most are not. Having coached for over 20 years–both girls and guys–from ages 6 to high school, I can attest that as a general rule, “girls suck at soccer” compared to boys. It’s not sexist to say so. I think one of the problems of modernity is the idea that we have label everything in some sort of gender based ideology. No longer can one simply state the obvious. We have to genderize stuff.

    A son shouldn’t say stuff like that. But not because it’s sexist. It likely isn’t sexist at all. They shouldn’t say it because it unkind, ungracious, dishonoring to the image of God in mankind.

  • LT

    >>>Sexism is the result of this sin. And every lingering behavior that reinforces sexism, such as forbidding women access to leadership positions or roles due to gender, is sin. It is sin as grievous as racism.<<>>The apostles accused the women of speaking “nonsense.” They discredited them and called them stupid because they were women.<<>>Jesus rebukes the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (24:25) for not believing the women.<<<

    Again, this is not in the text. Jesus rebukes them for not believing the prophets.

    Why can we not just read the Scripture and believe it? Why are we compelled to add to it or change it?

  • kelly edmiston

    Thank you LT. Forbidding women from leadership in the church, for any reason and for any role, is based upon their gender. This is sexism. This is the pretty simple jump that egalitarians make. People who hold to patriarchy call that sexism “God way” or “God’s design” and that is where they get away with scooting around it being sin. This is the same argument used to keep black people out of white churches in our very recent past. It was “God’s design.” Black people were “made different.”

    The apostles absolutely discredited the women’s story due to their gender. Once Peter came back with the same testimony, they believed it. Jesus is making a strategic move in continuing to elevate women in his ministry here. This would be a hard case to argue against. Culturally, women were property, less than human and would have not been credible witnesses in any context. If you would like to hear me flesh out the “trajectory” argument in terms of the role of women in the Kingdom of God, I encourage you to listen to my sermon. It is linked in the article and the article is a short summary of it.

    Jesus does rebuke the disciples on the road. He rebukes them because he has already explained his death and resurrection, it has been prophesied about and the women told them so. It is not one or the other, but it certainly is a rebuke. Assuming that Jesus would have been hurt at the dismissal of the women that HE chose to be the first to proclaim the resurrection is a very safe assumption.

  • kelly edmiston

    I agree, Bob. Calling something “sin” is not a mental trick. It is a prophetic voice inviting the church to repent. It is painful to see our own sin and we have a lot tied up in it. We easily get defensive, but we need to look at those reactions, and ask why?

  • kelly edmiston

    This is a good point, Al. It is interesting to think about this conversation in light of human flourishing. Thank you for your contribution.

  • danaames

    Dear Kelly:

    I’m a mom of 3 (all in their 30s now) and for the past few years have worked as a substitute teacher, mostly in middle schools, so I’ve seen some things…. It’s true that what your son said is a reflection of the sexism that really does exist. However, I wouldn’t characterize your son as sexist, and I believe sexism per se is not something he actually even thinks about, so please don’t be worried about that at this point. I think right now he’s suffering from the effects of peer pressure. As you and your husband keep talking with him, as he matures and is able to articulate in his own mind the contrast between what he experiences at home and the nonsense (really, non-sense) of a lot of what happens at school, he will have the inner strength and regard for others that will keep sexism from becoming rooted in him. To me, it’s more immediately problematic that he took the action of deliberately stepping on her foot, and I know you will have addressed that. Again, I think that for some reason he was trying to ingratiate himself with what he considers, even at his age, to be “the right people” (who may not even be his actual friends at school).

    There are still many false messages expressed in our culture about “masculine” and “feminine” characteristics. You can counter these messages with good communication with your children, and of course the way you and your husband deal with life will also counter them. I remember when, watching TV with my son when he was a teenager, the opportunity arose for a discussion about the difference in costuming between male and female superheroes and a bit about what might be behind that. It was quite interesting to watch his face as the scales fell from his eyes 🙂 He also had what was an advantage, though it was difficult for him at times going through school: he was coordinated but had absolutely no interest in organized sports; so it was easy for him to understand the fallaciousness of those false messages.

    Be patient with your son, and with yourself, and look for issues that may not be immediately obvious on the surface when these things come up.

    Kind regards-
    Dana

  • Aaron

    “Sexism has existed since the fall. Adam and Eve disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden and were cast out of God’s presence. Sexism is the result of this sin. And every lingering behavior that reinforces sexism, such as forbidding women access to leadership positions or roles due to gender, is sin. It is sin as grievous as racism.”

    I find this statement troubling. If I were to agree with you, would I then have to declare YHWH guilty of the sin of sexism? Would this then mean that YHWH commanded and condoned sin when he instituted an all male priesthood in the OT?

    Or what about kings and dynastic succession? Each king of Israel and Judah, for whom there was dynastic succession, with the exception of the wicked queen Athaliah, passed on the kingdom to his son. Was this also a sin, as it reinforced sexism “by forbidding women access to leadership positions or roles due to gender?”

    Beyond this, why were male animals so often specifically commanded to be sacrificed if to distinguish between sexes for particular roles is sinful?

    It seems problematic, to say the least, to declare something so clearly taught by YHWH and adhered to in the OT to be sin, without exception. If we were to take your declaration as fact, it seems like we would have to be okay with saying that YHWH, for centuries, led–by explicit command–his people into sin and the perpetuation of that sin.

  • muzjik

    And those who disagree with any point of complementarianism are accused of rebelling against God, dishonoring His Word, and “upsetting the divine order of authority and submission” (recent (John MacArthur quote)…which is equally tiring and, likewise, neither thoughtful or helpful.

    But I appreciate your final sentence and agree wholeheartedly that those who resort to vilification (as MacArthur certainly did) only do so because they can’t win on the merits.

  • Wes

    Yes I agree we see this tactic coming from both sides (it pops up in debates on virtually every disputed topic). It isn’t constructive.

  • kelly edmiston

    Dana, this is gold. Thank you for your wisdom. I hear you!

  • kelly edmiston

    Hmmm..this is interesting. So you would call YHWH a sexist bc of this preferential treatment of men for leadership? No, I would not. Sexism is a result of the fall, meaning that God create male and female equal, and equally imaging God. When sin entered, there was a disconnect between humans and God and between man and woman. In the ancient world women were seen as property. God was working and moving and even using women in counter-cultural ways throughout scripture. But no, I do not believe that bc God did not appoint a woman to be a high priest, that that makes God sexist. I believe there is a redemptive trajectory happening…god is revealing the truth, the equal and rightful place of women alongside men all throughout the counsel of scripture. Did the fact that God commanded the Israelites on how to treat their slaves make God a proponent of slavery? No. Does the fact that God chose Israel over other nations and condoned violence toward those nations for Israel’s protection make God only a lover of Israel? No. It is a movement, a direction, God is revealing God self and Gods ways to Gods people over time.

  • Al Cruise

    It goes beyond human flourishing to what really builds the Kingdom of God.

  • Marshall Pease

    “Vilify” is kind of a nasty word, I wonder why you think Kelly’s argument is “abusive” or “disparaging?” All are sinners, all deserve accountability and encouragement. How should she make her argument in more acceptable-to-you terms, would you say?

  • Wes

    Calling complimentarianism a “sin” is disparaging because it allows someone to discount the complimentarian argument without engaging with it on the merits. All are sinners, yes–but not everything is a sin. More specifically, just because you disagree with someone on a theological point, that does not justify calling belief in the opposing point a sin. Instead of calling the complimentarian position a sin, she should focus her efforts instead on arguing against the complimentarian position.

    That’s a much more nuanced argument to make than simply calling the position a “sin,” and Christians in good faith can reasonably arrive at different conclusions without casting stones at one another. But instead of doing the hard work of argument, persuasion, and reason, the author resorts instead to condemnation. That’s not a respectable way to make a point. It certainly isn’t charitable, helpful, or constructive.

  • Marshall Pease

    Sounds to me as if you want people to agree that you are not a sinful creature before engaging with you. I do see that as a besetting (excuse me, no other word will do) sin of this age … it rules out the possibility of repentance. Even Paul made mistakes, Romans 7:14-15

  • Wes

    I am a sinner, I’ll readily admit. But I do not believe a theological position with respect to complimentarianism/egalitarianism is itself a sin, as the author suggests. The suggestion that I’m trying to convince anyone that I am not a sinner is quite silly and does not logically follow from anything I’ve written here.

  • kelly edmiston

    Thanks again, Wes. I deal with the Complimentarian argument in many other places. I would be happy to send you some sermons or articles or papers. I did a lot of work on this during my M.Div. I have a lot of experience debating and debunking the arguments. My work to do, these days, is to tell my story as I have experienced it, and from my perspective. All discrimination, including sexism and racism is sin, no matter what theological gymnastics you try to do to get around it. Calling this out is part of what is mine to do. I am making this assumption as I am telling my story. For those who are complimentarian, my hope is to shed light on the person and detrimental effects of it. When people can put a face and a name to the oppressive views that they hold, then they have to deal with it on a different level. This is important. This is also why telling the stories of women leaders and pastors is part of my work.

  • patriciamc

    Justin, you’re assuming a male norm in sports. If women aren’t as strong as men, then they automatically aren’t as good in sports, which is actually apples and oranges and reflects the sinful view that men are better than women. I hope you don’t think that girls have cooties too.

  • LT

    Thanks, Kelly.

    Scripture makes a clear and unequivocal statement regarding women teaching and exercising authority over men in the church and Scripture gives no reason to suspect there is a cultural meaning to it and gives no examples that contradict it. For you to call it sin to obey that commandment is strange, to say the least. That brings us back to exegesis, and again and again, the egalitarian case has failed exegesis, most often not even attempting a serious interaction with the text. We routinely see special pleading, ignoring of the argument of Scripture, and reading into Scripture things that are not there. For me, one of the most frustrating things about this conversation is the fact that people are so totally unwilling to talk about what Scripture actually says and what the arguments of Scripture actually are. Everything becomes an exercise in why it doesn’t really mean what it says.

    It’s not at all the same argument that was used to keep black people out of white churches. Everything in Scripture about the church teaches that racial division is sin. Everything in the Scripture about women preaching or exercising authority over men teaches that women teaching or exercising authority over men is sin. There is not one biblical argument in support of women teaching or exercising authority over men. Every attempt is a stringing together of passages combined with ignoring or special pleading. The argument for an racially inclusive church is the same argument for complementarianism–the Bible says so. It is you who are making a different argument. You want to take the words of Scripture concerning racism (and you should) but you don’t want to take the words of Scripture concerning women teaching or exercising authority over men in the church.

    The Bible condemns racism with the same strength and clarity that it forbids women teaching and exercising authority over men in the church. Why do say one is culturally bound and the other is not?

    I appreciate the suggestion of you sermon. Did you improve on Webb? Because that was not convincing as an argument and I have seen no improvements on that yet.

    In Jesus’ rebuke of the men on the road to Emmaus, he doesn’t mention the women. He mentions the prophets and the OT. To assume something about Jesus’ response is not exegesis at all. But here again we have the dispensing of what Scripture actually says in pursuit of a point to make. That is the tenor of the whole broad discussion on women in ministry. The conclusion has already been decided. You just have to figure out how to make Scripture say it.

    As I told Scot (who I greatly enjoy in many areas and have benefited from), he would never accept the kind of exegesis and explanation he makes for egalitarianism from a student regarding any other topic.

    Obviously we have strong disagreement on this and we will not solve it here. My encouragement to you is go back to Scripture and what it actually says. Put aside the mystical notions of leading and the prevailing spirit of the age and look at the text. What does it say?

  • kelly edmiston

    Hi LT. I don’t know why Patheos is not releasing your comments. Here is the one I just received via email notification. I am posting it here.

    Thanks, Kelly.

    “Scripture makes a clear and unequivocal statement regarding women teaching and exercising authority over men in the church and Scripture gives no reason to suspect there is a cultural meaning to it and gives no examples that contradict it. For you to call it sin to obey that commandment is strange, to say the least. That brings us back to exegesis, and again and again, the egalitarian case has failed exegesis, most often not even attempting a serious interaction with the text. We routinely see special pleading, ignoring of the argument of Scripture, and reading into Scripture things that are not there. For me, one of the most frustrating things about this conversation is the fact that people are so totally unwilling to talk about what Scripture actually says and what the arguments of Scripture actually are. Everything becomes an exercise in why it doesn’t really mean what it sa ys.

    It’s not at all the same argument that was used to keep black people out of white churches. Everything in Scripture about the church teaches that racial division is sin. Everything in the Scripture about women preaching or exercising authority over men teaches that women teaching or exercising authority over men is sin. There is not one biblical argument in support of women teaching or exercising authority over men. Every attempt is a stringing together of passages combined with ignoring or special pleading. The argument for an racially inclusive church is the same argument for complementarianism–the Bible says so. It is you who are making a different argument. You want to take the words of Scripture concerning racism (and you should) but you don’t want to take the words of Scripture concerning women teaching or exercising authority over men in the church.

    The Bible condemns racism with the same strength and clarity that it forbids women teaching and exercising authority over men in the church. Why do say one is culturally bound and the other is not?

    I appreciate the suggestion of you sermon. Did you improve on Webb? Because that was not convincing as an argument and I have seen no improvements on that yet.

    In Jesus’ rebuke of the men on the road to Emmaus, he doesn’t mention the women. He mentions the prophets and the OT. To assume something about Jesus’ response is not exegesis at all. But here again we have the dispensing of what Scripture actually says in pursuit of a point to make. That is the tenor of the whole broad discussion on women in ministry. The conclusion has already been decided. You just have to figure out how to make Scripture say it.

    As I told Scot (who I greatly enjoy in many areas and have benefite d from), he would never accept the kind of exegesis and explanation he makes for egalitarianism from a student regarding any other topic.

    Obviously we have strong disagreement on this and we will not solve it here. My encouragement to you is go back to Scripture and what it actually says. Put aside the mystical notions of leading and the prevailing spirit of the age and look at the text. What does it say?”

    I am posting it here because this perfectly sums up the unexamined complimentarian argument and it is important for all of us to hear this.

    You say, “Scripture makes a clear and unequivocal statement regarding women teaching and exercising authority over men in the church and Scripture gives no reason to suspect there is a cultural meaning to it and gives no examples that contradict it.” Tell me, what does it mean to “exercise authority over men in the church?” Is this in any setting, such as a children’s ministry setting? Or should we not have children’s ministry because there is no examples of it in scripture? Is this all men of all ages? What is the magic age that a young person becomes a man? Is a woman not to exercise authority over a 5-year old boy in her Sunday school? Should a woman who is leading a volunteer training or a meeting right before the service not exercise authority over the men who are her age or older? What about in the case of prayer? A woman who is engaging in healing prayer or pastoral counseling. Should she not perform these ministerial duties to men? Should the only people on staff who exercise any spiritual authority over anyone else strictly be men? Most complimentarians would say, women can excercise authority over a man if he is under the age of 12. But Paul does not say this. This adolescent idea is a contemporary cultural reality and did not exist in the first century. Complimentarians have made their own rules regarding what authority and women leading in the church should look like. This is simply nonsense. It doesn’t hold up to even good common sense. Now, about exegesis. Exegesis is the process by which we interpret the text from it’s original source (language, context and history) and apply it to today. From interpretation to application. Have you read Paul in the greek? Have you studied the historical context of the two (or 3?) passages that forbid women from leading and preaching? I trust you have read the Blue Parakeet?

    You say:
    “There is not one biblical argument in support of women teaching or exercising authority over men. Every attempt is a stringing together of passages combined with ignoring or special pleading.” What about Junia? What about Phoebe? What about Priscilla? In the OT, what about Miriam? What about Deborah? All of these women exercised authority over men as they led the people of God in significant ways. These are not difficult cases to make.

    Have you read Exodus 21 or Philemon? Does God condone and promote Slavery because God has lots of instructions on how to deal with slaves? Or is this a cultural condition? Have you read Leviticus 15? Does God forbid sex when a woman is menstruating? What about wet dreams? Do these restrictions stand today or were they cultural conditioned mandates?

    If a woman is to remain silent in the church, as Paul instructs in 1 Corinthians 14:34, should she also cover her head in worship as in 1 Corinthians 11:6? Should she also speak in tongues in the service and have it interpreted, 1 Corinthians 14:2 ? Where is the prophecy happening in your church, 1 Corinthians 14:5?

    Where in the bible does it say that a woman exercising authority over a man is sin? Where does the bible say that racism is sin? It doesn’t say this.

    I have taken the task of exegesis very seriously. I have studied in depth through my M.Div and in 13 years of pastoral ministry. The great irony of this fundamental complimentarian argument is that you are the one not being faithful to the task of exegesis in your neglect of the historical and literary context of the 3 verses you have proof-texted to forbid women access to leadership roles in the church. You have been “picking and choosing” which verses to interpret literally and which to chalk up to culturally conditioned. This is lazy exegesis. And this view, that “Scripture makes a clear and unequivocal statement regarding women teaching and exercising authority over men in the church and Scripture gives no reason to suspect there is a cultural meaning to it and gives no examples that contradict it.” is simply un-true, even by scholars who hold to a complimentarian theology. But in summary, this view of complimentarianism is damaging. It is oppressive. It is wrong and it has been used abusively to women all over the world. It is also dying, by the way. The John MacArthur’s of the world and his followers, are a fading breed. We, the complimentarian church, will look at this issues of sexism in 50 years the same way they look at racism that long ago and will be ashamed.

  • JK

    Here you have publicly shared your 7YO son’s bad moment, labeled it sexism, and linked it to Bill Hybels.

    With friends like these….

    I would take this down, for his sake and yours.

  • jeff q

    Kelly, you infer that the women’s testimony was dismissed only because they were women. Really? The gospels repeatedly and explicitly point out the disciples’ inability or refusal to believe Jesus’ own testimony regarding his death and resurrection. Sexism? I don’t think so.

    Then there is Thomas. Did he refuse to believe the apostles’ testimony that Jesus was alive because the messengers were men? According to your logic the messengers’ gender is the only factor determining acceptance or rejection of the testimony. Did you learn anything about eisegesis in seminary?