For many years, I have respected former President Jimmy Carter's tireless efforts in support of human rights all over the world. His work has been invaluable. That's one reason I've always been puzzled by his adherence to a religious sect that puts women in a second-class and inferior status. He has always been a Southern Baptist.
Southern Baptists, along with many other fundamentalist sects of christianity, teach that women should be subject to men, rather than being equals -- especially in marriage and in the church (no matter how knowledgeable or talented, a woman cannot be a minister). How can someone who believes in human rights and equal rights believe in such a teaching? They can't.
It seems that Carter has been struggling with this question himself, and has severed his ties with the Southern Baptist Convention. He calls his decision "an unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service."
He goes on to say, "This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities."
This was a courageous decision on the part of Mr. Carter. It is easy for an atheist like myself to see the inequity that many religions teach. But it is much harder for a believer, who remains a believer, to see the truth about the unfairness and inequity to be found in his own church. I applaud Mr. Carter for his action and for his honesty.
Mr. Carter has written an excellent essay detailing why he felt it necessary to disassociate himself with the Southern Baptist Convention. I urge you to read the entire essay. It's a moving appeal for the rights of women everywhere.
As Mr. Carter says, "It is time we had the courage to challenge these views."
Every time my mother urges me to go to church, I tell her that I can't.
ReplyDeleteI go on to tell her that I can't go to a church that believes that women are subservient to men - that they are here to serve men.
KeyRose,
ReplyDeleteThe Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines "subservient" as 1) useful in an inferior capacity; 2) serving to promote some end; and 3) obsequiously submissive [Emphasis added]
This is what the 18th Article of the Baptist Faith and Message says about the role of women in marriage:
"The husband and wife are of equal worth before God, since both are created in God’s image. The marriage relationship models the way God relates to his people. A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect, and to lead his family. A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."
You're certainly entitled to disagree with the Baptist position on the husband as the head of the family; I personally think my wife is much better equipped to head our family than I am, and I defer to her on most (if not all) things. But to say that Southern Baptists views women as "subservient" (i.e. inferior to men) is a mischaracterization.
If a husband, as "servant leader" of the family, is to model himself after Christ, he would be ready to sacrifice everything, up to and including laying down his life, for his family. Who's serving whom in that situation?
CT-
ReplyDeleteSubmission and subservience are not synonyms for equality, and all the fancy explaining in the world won't make them so.
jobsanger-
ReplyDeleteYou obviously never served in the military. As a Master Sergeant (pay grade E-8), I was in every aspect equal to my company First Sergeant (also an E-8), but he was in a position of authority over me by virtue of his assignment. My pay and benefits never suffered as a result of me "submitting" to his authority. On the contrary, the good order of the unit was maintained. Had I challenged his authority, mutiny could have broken out.
The bottom line is this: somebody has to be in charge, or else chaos will ensue. In the ideal scenario described in the Baptist Faith and Message, the husband submits to Christ, and in so doing puts the needs of his family ahead of his own personal wants and desires. To the extent he's able to this, the wife will feel confident that her husband has the family's best interest at heart and can safely "submit."
Again, this is an ideal. We're all human, but it sure beats endless power struggles based on counterproductive self-interest.
Since he had the greater authority, you were not equals.
ReplyDelete