The Battalion
Thursday • June 11,1998
PINION
eep ’em in the kitchen?
flooring is not among women’s rights when it conflicts with Biblical standards
'omen are capable of
performing almost any
job.
Chris
Colle{s|
aturdai;
litch fa;;
Oef'l
Graphic By Chad Mallam/ The Battalion
ondoning same-sex marriages
ontradicts Christian doctrine
John
Lemons
columnist
o contractor worth his salt would build
a house without following blueprints.
0W- ^ No judge who wanted to remain in the
; judiciary would make a ruling that violated the
5d®w. And no church that wanted to be taken se-
Lfously would act in a way that conflicted with
He Bible.
Or would they?
Same-sex marriages are one of the thorniest
sues facing Christian churches today. It is an
sue that is slowly but surely making itself
°re prominent within mainline Christian de-
ominations today. Throughout the last few
Bears, movements have begun within several
^nominations to accept same-sex marriages. The response of churches
ationwide to this issue will have a profound effect on American soci-
tyand Christianity itself.
Support for same-sex unions in mainline Christian denominations
s that the movement is gaining momentum. Last weekend in
ornstown, N.J., delegates to the Episcopal Diocese of Newark chose
e Rev. John Croneberger as their new bishop. Croneberger supports
rdaining sexually active homosexuals and same-sex marriages,
-roneberger will succeed Bishop John S. Spong who also supports the
nions.
Last September, the Rev. Jimmy Creek, the former head pastor of
,rst United Methodist Church of Omaha, Neb., performed a marriage
fejemony for a lesbian couple. When Creek was tried before a jury of
listers for breaking church law, only eight of the 13 jurors found
,IrT > guilty of actions disobedient "to the order and discipline of the
united Methodist Church." A guilty verdict from nine of the jurors was
e 9uired to remove Creek from the pulpit.
At issue for churches is whether or not their mission to love others
Ve rrides the biblical perspective on homosexuality. Proponents of
^ame-sex unions will be quick to point out that in the Gospels, Jesus
' ever address the subject. However, of the six or so scriptures that do
the issue, none offers an endorsement of the practice.
Show;
If mainline Christian denominations embrace same-sex marriages,
the repercussions will be significant. Americans, on the whole, still
seem to be uncomfortable with the idea. Since the Hawaii Supreme
Court ruled in 1993 that denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples
violated the Hawaii law, more than two dozen states have moved to
ban same-sex marriages. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Mar
riage Act which denies the recognition of same-sex marriages and fed
eral benefits to couples in these unions.
But if many churches, who have long been the moral backbone of
this country, decide same-sex unions are OK, the rest of the country is
sure to follow.
The interesting question, then, is what will happen if churches de
cide that holy matrimony does not necessarily have to be between a
man and a woman — there is no telling. However, every time Ameri
cans have experimented with changing marriage, the results have been
disastrous.
Consider the distribution of the birth control pill in the 1960s. Sud
denly sex was no longer fell solely within the domain of marriage. The
result was an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases. Or, consider
the explosion of the divorce rate that occurred through the 1970s. As a
result, marriage was no longer seen as a lifelong commitment — a
move that has been catastrophic to families.
Obviously, redefining marriage is a risky prospect.
The most significant repercussion for churches, though, will be the
effect of ignoring biblical authority by sanctioning same-sex unions. If
churches throw away their reliance on the Bible, they will in turn lose
their own authority.
Therefore, if they intend to subject themselves to biblical authority,
churches need to gently but firmly say no to same-sex marriages.
While this is an issue that is likely to polarize churches for years to
come, it is also one that will only be resolved by turning to a higher au
thority.
After all, no one wants to live in a house where the contractor failed
to follow the architects blueprints.
]olm Lemons is a graduate student in electrical engineering.
April
Towery
opinion editor
Plenty of
women can
do plenty of
things better
than men.
Plenty of
women have
the biblical
knowledge to
pastor a
church. But
women
should not be
pastors.
When feminism and Biblical
doctrine come to a crossroads,
the Bible wins every time. Gloria
Steinem's got nothing on the cre
ator of our universe.
Equal rights is an important
part of society today. The pro
gression of women is a necessity.
However, one cannot argue with
the truth of the scriptures.
J Timothy 2:12 states, "I do not
permit a woman to teach or have
authority over a man." This is not
derogatory toward women. Jesus
loved women.
In Women, Authority and the
Bible, Roger Nicole writes, "No
book more appropriately sup
ports the dignity and worth of
women than the Bible."
An example of this is the way
Jesus Christ spent time with wid
ows, prostitutes, mothers and
daughters.
Maybe it's "old school" to in
terpret this portion of the Bible
literally. After all, it says women
should not braid their hair. This,
however, simply means that
women should not flaunt their
beauty and their bodies to such a
point they become "a stumbling
block" for the men of the church.
No one is qualified to judge
which parts of the Bible are logi
cal and which are not. The Bible
is without error.
The Bible tells its readers to
not commit murder. They follow
this guideline, because it makes
sense. The Bible instructs Is
raelites to not eat rabbits. Be
cause this is less logical, it is no
less authoritative. The Bible can,
however, be interpreted to adapt
to society. To eat or not to eat rab
bit is a societal adaptation. A
woman pastoring a church is not.
Paul instructs men to greet one
another with a holy kiss. Today, this
may be misconstrued, so men greet
one another with a handshake. It is
an adaptation by society.
The Rev. Julie Pennington-
Russell will assume her role as
the senior pastor of the Calvary
Baptist Church in August. This
marks the first time a Southern
Baptist congregation in Texas has
voted to employ a female pastor.
Pennington-Russell is most
likely a qualified pastor. She may
very well know the scriptures
well enough to quote them. She
may be a better pastor than many
male pastors. But Pennington-
Russell should not be a pastor.
Ephesians 5:22-23 states, "The
wife is to be in submission to her
husband. As Christ is the head of
the church, so the man is to be
the head of his home and family."
Let's keep in mind submission
does not equate inferiority. The
president of General Motors does
not feel inferior to the chair of the
board. They discuss issues and
work them out together, but the
chair makes the final decision.
A man who lords over his wife
is at fault. A woman does not
have to be a slave to her hus
band, but she should allow her
husband to make financial, fami
ly and spiritual decisions for the
household.
My parents moved to Col
orado a year ago. My mother
was scared of starting a new life,
living in a town where she had
no friends and leaving her
daughters behind. She and my
father discussed the move every
night for months. They prayed
together and looked at the issue
from every angle. My mother
gave her input as to what she
thought would be best for the
family. But my father made the
decision to move.
Similarly, in the church family,
women have a voice. They are
given a role in the church if they
want one. They pray with and for
the men. They participate in the
church functions. They sing in
the choir, and they vote in church
elections. But it is men who are
the leaders — the deacons, the el
ders, the pastors.
The issue is authority. Women
should not be in a position of au
thority in the church. Being in
submission is not a bad thing.
Male pastors submit to the elder
board. The elder board submits
to the Holy Spirit.
Submission is simply appreci
ating the decisions of another, al
lowing someone else to make the
last call, respecting authority. It
doesn't have to connotate a
slave-like, dinner-on-the-table-by
5 p.m., apron-wearing, June
Cleaver-esque housewife.
Women are ready for progress.
But women have also got to ad
mit that there is a limit to what
they can and cannot do, what
they should and should not do.
Not because I am weak, but
because of the way I am de
signed, I have no doubt that al
most every male on this campus
could bench press more than I
can. People have to accept that
men and women are not the
same. We are designed different
ly, and we have different roles in
society.
Jesus Christ himself said he
only speaks the words of those
who send him.
Women have rights, and women
have plenty of opportunities. Sub
mitting to authority is simply al
lowing someone to be in charge.
In Hard Sayings of Paul, Man
fred T. Brauch writes, "The 'sub
mission' enjoined on women is
most likely a submission to the
elders in the church, who are
guardians of the truth and or
dered worship. The prohibition
against their teaching is occa
sioned by their involvement in
false teaching.
"Finally, the prohibition
against 'authority over a man'
must be understood within the
context of their rejection of the
authority of others, probably the
male leaders in Ephesus whose
orthodox, authoritative teaching
is being undermined by their
heretical views."
Every statement in the Bible
brings with it context and oppor
tunity for interpretation. The
Bible is error-free, but some pas
sages do require interpretation.
The passage regarding the male
role in the church should not be
offensive, but rather a guideline
to employ in our churches.
April Towery is a senior
journalism major.
Unrversy&i
mail call
la^° nse J°h n Lemons June 3
tWesfor Dixie column:
Having just read Lemons' col
umn on the Confederate flag con
troversy, one has to wonder if he
has become lax in his research
and writing abilities as a grad stu
dent in electrical engineering.
Several times in the piece.
Lemons makes blanket state
ments that are factually untrue re
garding the perception of the
Confederate battle flag.
This is not merely a matter of
opinion, but rather an empirical fact
that has been measured and reported.
For instance, he states, "The ma
jority of Aggies, however, if asked
about the Confederacy, will think of
only one thing - slavery." Is this true,
or is this merely his opinion? Is there
a poll to back this up? He continues,
"Unfortunately, when most Ameri
cans look at that flag, they see some
thing very different. They are re
minded of slavery, Jim Crow laws
and lynchings, atrocities that scar
the United States even today."
This is laughable considering the
empirical evidence. In 1994, a Louis
Harris national poll concluded that
88 percent of Americans are not of
fended by the battle flag, including
68 percent of all black Americans.
This overwhelming majority is
twice the percentage that elected Bill
Clinton.
The 11 percent of all Americans
(as well as the less than one third of
black Americans) who were in fact
offended are hardly a majority.
Extensive regional polls in
Georgia, South Carolina and Mis
sissippi yield very similar and
statistically consistent results.
I'm sure Lemons must have had
to take a statistics class somewhere
along the way of his education. He
should understand that "most" and
"majority" mean 50 percent or more.
The reality is that the people who are
offended by Confederate flags are a
small, albeit loud and politically
powerful, minority - not a "majori
ty" as claimed by Lemons.
Larry L. Beane II