Hillary
The Black Church, Women and Authority
Adam's Rib
While researching art for this piece, I came
across some photos on Mrs. Clinton’s website
from something called African American Men For
Hillary Clinton, where I found a curious photo
of well-dressed black men preening for photo ops
with the senator. Which didn’t seem odd until I
considered the fact that many if not most of
these men likely attend some church somewhere,
and black churches are terribly repressive to
and exploitative of women. In the black church,
women do most everything while having authority
over almost nothing. I’d guess the overwhelming
majority of our churches still cling to the
literal letter of the King James version of the
bible, which not only presents a patriarchal
system while being condescending to and
repressive of women, but also has many places
where gender neutral statements ("man") are
taken, by us, to mean, literally, “men” rather
than the intended "mankind" or "humanity."
The foundation of female repression in our
culture is the teaching that men—gender
specific—are made in the image of God. Which
presumes women are not. Which is faulty
exegesis. Genesis 1:1 doesn’t say God made “A”
man in His own image, it says God made “man” in
His own image. The word “man” can indeed mean
“male,” but it can also mean “human,” as in
“species.” Women are part of the human species.
Humanity—gender neutral—was made in God’s image.
The story of the Garden of Eden, in the first
chapters of Genesis, teaches us the male gender
of the species was formed first, and that God
felt it was not good for man (gender specific)
to be alone, and so created the female gender of
the species.
God, however, is not a male. Is not a female.
God, by syllogistic argument, must be beyond
gender, has no sexual organs, no hormones, no
use for such distinctions. We call God “Him,”
and “God The Father,” because God is the
originator of all things, the creator of
everything. We call Him “Father” because He is
the progenitor and creator, not because He has
male sexual organs or a Y-chromosome. Could we
call God “Mother” as some religions—specifically
Wiccan belief—do? Well, I suppose, but it would
be doctrinally incorrect. Female—in concept and
execution—did not exist until God created it.
Therefore, God precedes female. Calling
God “Father” does not assign a gender to God, as
“Father” refers to “Creator” and not to gender.
Calling God “Mother” assigns a specific gender
to God, which limits His holiness. Limiting
God’s holiness is, by definition, blasphemy.
Still, these are eccentricities of language more
than doctrinal precepts. God knows our motives
and our hearts. I’m pretty sure you can call God
whatever you’re comfortable with, so long as you
do so with reverence, with fear, and with an
open heart. If you’re making God a “she” just
because you’ve got a beef with men, then you’re
dragging your emotional baggage into places it
doesn’t belong.
All of which brings us back to Senator Clinton
and those guys.
Kumbya: They would never allow her to pastor.
The Gentleman From Illinois
There they were, jockeying for position, waiting their turn for
a photo with the senator. All I could think of was, how can
these man support her for president when they’d never let this
woman pastor their church? Never let her chair their deacon
board? Never submit to her authority in spiritual matters, but
we’ll salute her as president of this nation? Aren't we
Christians supposed to be voting our convictions?
As Christians, how do we respond to women in leadership? If you
believe most conservative black Baptists, we don’t. The Church
of God In Christ, for example, has strict rules about what roles
women can and cannot have. They license women evangelists but do
not ordain women pastors. To their credit, women do in fact
wield a great deal of power within the COGIC church, so long as
her covering is, ultimately, a male. This is an extrapolation of
very bad exegesis, a confusing of “mankind” for “male” and a
misappropriation of pastoral instruction given to specific women
who were disturbing worship services.
Many women preachers I’ve heard her spend an inordinate amount
of time complaining about their plight as female ministers.
I am not against women preachers or women ministers. I am
against any minister—man or woman—who is all talk and no action.
I am against women ministers who seem to be competitive of male
ministers, who adopt the worst traits of male ministers—the
arrogance, the laziness, the above-it-all haughtiness.
I am against women pastors whose ministry becomes so unbearably
and oppressively feminist that it becomes oppressive to men.
Maybe these pastors think they are turning the tables on men,
giving us our just desserts, but they are, in fact, practicing
witchcraft. Witchcraft, despite what Samantha Stevens may have
told you, is the act of perverting God’s truth. God preceded
mankind, preceded The Man, who preceded The Woman. The
patriarchal system is the way God set forth. By that, I don’t
mean we should ever be oppressive to women, but I do mean women
must never oppress men or treat me as an after-thought or as
some kind of nuisance. Women pastors I’ve met, here, decorate
their churches in gaudy, feminine flourishes. The men are
subservient first and foremost to the female pastor and then to
the female pastor’s seconds, many of whom are themselves female.
These are churches that feel cold and unwelcome and stink of
cheap perfume. They may be havens to black woman, tired of being
oppressed at mainstream churches, but the upside-down,
inside-out nature of assigning a gender to God has the stink of blasphemy about it. Lady
pastors: at the very least, you must make the sanctuary God’s
house and not yours. Make it gender neutral and welcoming to
everyone. By stressing all that pink and mauve and all that
floral stuff everywhere, you’re creating a place that feels
hostile, like I just wandered into the ladies’ room.
Opening Doors Obama Walked Through:
Clinton, besieged by Obama wins, breaks down
momentarily, Jan 7, 2008. Would America vote for a black man before a woman of any ethnicity?
Yes, Ma'am
Women preachers who preach God’s word and not their personal
hang-ups are certainly welcome. Women pastors who are genuinely
called of God, and are not just out to prove some point or press
some agenda, are indeed welcome. I don’t much care for wives who
press themselves into becoming “co-pastors,” as it rarely feels
genuine. I would rather sister girl go get her education and go
serve someplace else, learning her chops under a pastor she is
not sleeping with. That seems a fairer and more credible path to
the pastorate than simply being made pastor by your husband (or
by his influence). What no one wants to tell the
wife-as-co-pastor is she has no credibility. Nobody believes
she’d be a pastor if her husband didn’t make her one. Let her go
off and serve under someone who is not her husband, let her earn
her credential the way everybody else does.
Beyond that, I have absolutely no problem with submitting to
women in authority. Female cops, female judges. Would I serve
under a female pastor? It’s possible, I suppose, but I first
would need to be sure she was, indeed, called to pastor and not
just up there showing out. The tougher test for women pastors is
not about any misogyny on my part so much as it us about my
personal observation and experience. Female pastors can be just
as cranky, just as self-absorbed, just as ignorant and just as
wrong as any bad male pastor. But she brings the added baggage
of her hang-ups with men and her agenda to prove she’s just as
good as we are.
Which, if it’s true, if she truly is as good as I am, she has
nothing to prove. I am not in competition with anyone. I have
absolutely nothing to prove to anyone. God is not about
competition. God is about love. About our sharing our gifts for
the building of God’s kingdom.
Will I be voting for Hillary? I don’t know. That’s probably a
different essay.
Christopher J. Priest
20 November 2012 Page One
25 November 2007 Page Two
editor@praisenet.org
TOP OF PAGE
