A Georgia Baptist pastor interviewed

on the news stated that the decision is not based on a cultural bias against

women, but on the literal interpretation of the inspired and infallible

word of God in scripture. He claimed from the Bible, we should follow

God not men.

First, the Southern Baptist

Church is a male-run organization, and their literal interpretation is

just that, an interpretation. There are many interpretations (even literal

ones) of the Bible that are non-restrictive and freeing to women, even

when concerning so-called restrictive passages.

Second, the Bible is not the

infallible word of God, for no one can completely "capture"

God is in written or spoken word. Language itself is a barrier. And while

the Bible itself is "inspired," it is not dictation from God.

The final product has through a long line of men's (male) hands, from

author to scribes to various translators. Many varied interpretations

of the text follows.

I add here that the authorship

of some of the book and letters of the Bible are in question. The Harper

Collins Study Bible states, "Nowhere do the undisputed Pauline letters

call for the subjection of wives (women)." Also, the biblical canon

itself is a male selection from various writings.

Third, alleged restrictions

in the Bible itself show evidence of being based on the sexist customs

of their times. The Quest Study Bible suggests some of these verses recommended

things "to help the church gain integrity in the community."

The book, "Women and Religion,"

concurs that the subordination of women could be "used as propaganda

to convince Gentile audiences that Christianity was not subversive of

traditional domestic life. The post-Pauline epistles bear witness to this

change."

Also according to "Women

and Religion," most scholars agree that male Christian writers became

increasingly restrictive of women around the first century as hopes for

the early arrival of the kingdom of God diminished. The later church lost

the vision to live as though the kingdom were at hand, reconciling the

theology of equivalence in Christ (their faith), with the practice of

women's surbordination (the customs of the world).

The later church reconciled

the two apparently divergent messages as follows. It "maintained

a status-quo ethics on the social level through the subordination of women,

and it affirmed the vision of equivalence on the spiritual level by projecting

it as an other-worldly reality. Throughout the history of the church this

has led to complex and confused theological arguments, with their consequent

social distortions."

No wonder we all disagree!

I would propose to let God be God. The book is not the God. Let us reclaim

the words from the Bible that we should follow God and not men, in the

original spirit and vision of the church.

Frana Sullens

Tyrone