IN SEARCH OF GOD‘S IDEAL WOMAN, by Dorothy R. Pape; Inter Varsity Press, 1976; 361 pp., $4.95. Review by Rev. Jelle Tuininga of Smithers, B.C.
The sub-title of the book is: A Personal examination of the New Testament. That is not entirely accurate, for tho book contains a great deal of biographical material and historical information dealing with the topic of women.
The book is made up of three basic chapters: I. Woman in the Gospels; II. Woman in Acts; and III. Woman in the Epistles. Each chapter is divided into several sub-chapters or sections. The third chapter is by far the longest. That is not so surprising, since it’s in Paul’s epistles where we are faced with the most explicit and didactic material concerning the place and task of women, particularly in regard to the church. The author herself states that “this section proved a much less pleasant, and much more difficult, study than that in the Gospels and Acts” (p. 103), That it is more difficult, I can imagine. Why it should be “less pleasant” I don’t know, unless it’s because Paul says too many things that are awfully difficult to bring into harmony with much of the thinking of the present–day popular Women’s Liberation movement. I get the distinct impression that this is what has “bugged” the author somewhat. Not that Mrs. Pape herself is a “Liberationist.” She has at various points registered criticism of the movement. At the same time, I’m afraid she has been too much influenced by the movement herself. One cannot escape the conclusion that she has “an axe to grind.” That makes the book both disappointing and one-sided. While she seems to come on rather strong and self-confident in the introduction, she does admit at the conclusion that the book “certainly is not meant as an authoritative statement on doctrine, but as useful data for those who are wrestling with the problem of the position of women in the church in these days . . .” (p. 358).
I can only emphasize that first statement of the author’s conclusion, and I hope the fact that the book has the “imprimatur” of the Inter Varsity Press will not be looked upon by evangelicals as an indication that all is therefore well. For all is not well, as I will try to indicate.
In the first place, I find at times what I would almost call a “flippant” attitude toward the Bible. Basically, I believe, it boils down to a faulty view of inspiration–the root, I am convinced, of many of our problems today. Already in the introduction the author states that no one really knows who Lemuel was (Prov. 31), and it is possible that the poem “is a later addition to Solomon’s proverbs. I could not help wondering why God had caused it to be included in the canon of Scripture” (p. 14). As for Solomon, he obviously did not apply the wisdom found in Proverbs to his own life—with his 700 wives and 300 concubines. “In these circumstances, would his advice carry much weight? . . . Like most of us, he found it easier to put all the blame on others, the women in this case and none on his own weakness” (Ibid.).
I find that a very strange way of speaking about the Scriptures! As if those were no more than the personal opinions of Solomon himself. I always thought that God, out of a special concern He had for us and our salvation, committed his holy and divine word to writing, that men of old spoke as they were carried along hy the Holy Spirit? Timothy speaks of “silly women laden with sins” and “old wives’ fables.” “This sounds rather different from any of Christ’s words about women” (p. 103). About Paul’s advice for the women to be silent and ask their husbands at home: “We can be thankful today it is not considered immodest for a woman to question the speaker afterward or to phone the minister . . .” (148). On I Timothy 2:11–14: “This English version certainly seems to limit a woman to being a perpetual bench-wanner, forever learning but never having an opportunity to pass her knowledge on. . .” (149). (Cf. also p. 222 to the same effect.) Again: “Paul’s letter to Timothy was personal. His view on woman’s not teaching does not appear in any other New Testament document. . .” (Ibid.). On that same basis the virgin birth has been denied –only one gospel mentions it!
You see what I mean by a faulty view of inspiration? That certainly has never been the way the Reformed tradition has spoken about the Holy Scriptures. There’s a lot of debate nowadays about who said what: Did Matthew say this, and did he harrow from Mark, and was Mark depending in turn on “Q,” and what now were the actual words of Jesus? As if it makes any difference who said it! It’s in the Bible, isn’t it? And we “believe without any doubt all things contained in them” (Holy Scriptures) don’t we? Or do we? What does it matter who said it, as far as its authority is concerned? Mark‘s words or Paul’s words are as good as Jesus’ words—they are all the words of God. And all this argumentation as to who said it or who borrowed from whom is so much useless speculation.
One of my professors used to say that he disliked a “red-letter” edition of the Bible (Jesus’ words in red), because the entire Scriptures spoke of Him. He was right. But now we‘re going back to a red-letter edition that is far more dangerous. It is important to sec the unity of Scripture, to compare Scripture with Scripture, to realize that it cannot contradict itself, and that it is therefore wrong to try to pit Scripture against Scripture. So it’s not Paul versus Jesus or Paul versus himself (a la Jewett) but Paul and Jesus and Paul compared with Paul. Galatians 3:28 in no way contradicts what is said in I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2, and may not be construed that way. What Paul teaches in Galatians 3:28 is that faith in Christ Jesus transcends all social, racial, cultural, and sexual differences. All men (mankind) are equal in Christ, just as they are equal before the face of God. The Bible teaches that with unmistakable clarity. But that is something entirely different than to say that in all other respects they are also equal. Children are not equal with parents, and women are not equal with men, and never will be this side of heaven, God created distinctions and differences among men, and we must recognize them. But that is not (I repeat: not) a matter of inferiority or discrimination, And it’s high time we get that straight for once. More than once the author of this book mentions that word “inferiority,” as if that was or is the issue, cf. pp. 23, 183, 249. She concludes on page 358: “We found no evidence [in the Bible, J.T.] that all women are inferior to . . . all men.” Of course not! That’s not the point, and never was. Differences in sex, in task, in office, in social position, do not (necessarily) mean inferiority. Does the fact that children have to obey their parents make them inferior to parents? Or workers to boss, or wives to husbands? Let’s get rid of that silly notion once and for all! That is not the issue at stake in the whole debate about women in the church. In the history of the church women may have been,. and often were, looked upon as inferior, but Paul’s advice to women to be subject to their husbands or to be silent in the church has absolutely nothing to do with discrimination or inferiority. And so it’s time we stop using these loaded terms from the Women’s Lib movement.
What is more, it’s time we realize that “Christian feminism” is as much a contradiction in terms as “Christian male-chauvinism.” The two exclude each other, Scanzoni, Hardesty and others notwithstanding. That is another elementary lesson some of our Liberationist enthusiasts ought to learn. Don’t try to baptize feminism with Christianity.
There are examples of questionable exegesis in the book also. Elizabeth’s barrenness and reproach is not seen at all in the light of O.T. Messianic hope (p. 27); Paul should have had compassion for the slave girl in Philippi, as Christ would have had, instead of becoming irritated and angry with her (97, 98); regarding Psalm 51:5, “we can only conclude that there was something irregular about David’s birth” (271) that’s the weirdest I’ve heard yet; “as even the law says” (I Cor. 14:34) is a reference not to Genesis, but to the oral rabbinic law (146), and Peter incorporated that into what he said about Abraham and Sarah too (288). One can question whether this is worthy of the name exegesis.
What is Pape’s personal view regarding Paul‘s teaching in I Corinthians 14 and I Timothy 2? That it is not God‘s permanent command, but written only in connection with the circumstances of that day (pp. 158–160). She tries to bolster this view by using other biblical references—foot washing, the eating of blood (Acts 15), Paul’s advice to Timothy to use a little wine for the stomach, etc., all of which arc ignored by evangelicals today. The fact that she has to use these examples reveals to me more the weakness of her position than anything else. That is not using the Bible seriously.
At times the author is guilty of setting up straw men and then knocking them down. For example, the heading of subchapter 12 reads: “Woman‘s Church Role: Mute Benchwarmer?” After such a biased beginning, it’s hard to say anything unprejudicial. Also, as in other books of this nature, man’s “headship” over the woman and her subjection to the man (particularly in husband/wife relationships) is often seen in terms of boss/slave—a domineering husband who lords it over his helpless wife. But that is a secular view of authority and headship, and has nothing to do with the Bible’s view of things. Once Paul is read in terms of such a view, then of course it becomes necessary to relativize him somewhat. But then we’re only knocking down a straw man, and the sooner we realize that, the better. That’s again not to say that husbands, even Christian husbands, have always understood their role correctly. But we don’t correct one evil by perpetrating another. Here Larry Christenson is right (quoted by the author with approval): “A husband who fails to lecture his wife on her duty to be submissive to his authority has already yielded up the ground of his authority.”
After a good deal of egalitarian emphasis whereby the author seeks to show the equality and similarity of male and female, it strikes one as a bit humorous to read the almost grudging admission: “God did create two sexes, however, and obviously with some purpose. So we shalt now try to discover. . .” (168). It reminds me of a letter I once received from a recently married girl who was quite enamored with Women’s Lib After describing in some detail how they were going to do things together as husband and wife, and not stick to the traditional roles, she added, again somewhat humorously, “Of course, since my husband can’t bear children . . .” she would, after all, have to assume that role. How ridiculous can we get? In her better moments the author says belter things too:
It is interesting that in a secular survey of families in Hamilton, Ontario, the happiest families were generally those where the husband was regarded as head of the home.
A wife usually has her own special creative joy and responsibility in the bearing and upbringing of children. . . (284)
God’s ordinances prove to be right after all! Notwithstanding all our desires and efforts to change them.
Let me give a few more good quotations from the author to show that, in spite of herself, she has some important things to say:
. . . some women have refused self-subjection to husbands because of a false view of emancipation. This seems true especially today when so much stress is placed on individual rights. Some forget that true emancipation comes only from Christ and that his desire is that all his followers live in a spirit of meekness, “submitting themselves to one another.” How much more, therefore, should a Christian wife submit to the man she has chosen in love (290).
When children arc in the 11Ome, they are the wife’s primary responsibility (329).
I am afraid most people will find that if they have not done much with their children in the young and often rather tiresome stage, they will lose communication with them in the teen years (335).
No, the book is not all bad. In fact, all women (and men) should read subchapter 20, “Woman as Mother.” An excellent chapter, the best in the book. It contains a lot of good sound advice for mothers, also about bringing up children. I wish I could be as enthusiastic about the entire book.
Can we find God’s ideal woman? That question is left unanswered and open-ended, probably wisely so. Common or practical sense even seems to take over toward the end of the book in connection with women in the special offices of the church: “I have recently heard of a husband’s being minister in one church and his wife assistant minister in a neighboring area, but marriages or churches which can successfully survive such an arrangement for long are rare, I believe . . .” (p. 359). A bit more of this ordinary plain common sense on many of these questions, also with respect to what the Bible says about them, would have prevented many of these books from being written. Too many arc a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing, or making a mountain out of a molehill. It is to be hoped that we will regain some of this Christian common sense and spend our time on something better than writing (and reading!) long reports and hooks that get their impetus from the (passing) spirit of the age, and too often imbibe large doses of that spirit.