Take CBE’s survey to receive a free eLearning course! TAKE SURVEY

Published Date: January 30, 2014

Published Date: January 30, 2014

Featured Articles

Featured Articles

Ideas Have Consequences: Faith, Gender, and Social Ethics

The unilateral authority of males is evident in shaping nearly every culture throughout history. Further, when patriarchy is framed as a biblical ideal, it is not only at odds with the teachings of Scripture and the purposes of God’s covenant people, it also becomes a deadly spiritual disease that chokes life all around it. As Jesus said, if the fruit is bad, the tree also is bad (Matt 7:17–20).

This is not to say that gifted men should not exercise authority, but, at the same time, they should affirm the gifts and authority that God grants women as well, working mutually to lead and serve the church and the world. As a balance, it was thrilling to see three women receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011 for their courageous activism in advancing democracy and justice for women. Three days later, a blog appeared by CBE member Jenny Rae Armstrong, who wrote:

I haven’t stopped grinning since I heard the news about the Nobel Peace Prize recipients. You see, it was in Liberia that I first witnessed the true ugliness of gender injustice, first understood that a tiny seed of pride and superiority dropped into the heart of a man would blossom not into a sheltering tree but into an ugly, invasive weed that choked…life…around it.

My “Damascus road” experience happened when I was nine years old, peering out the window of our second-story apartment in Monrovia. Just outside our gate, a woman was curled up on her side under a palm tree, [a] tee-shirt stretched thin across her torso as she shielded her head with her…arms, her knees tucked close to her chest. The man kicking her wore camouflage, and had a government-issued machine gun slung over his shoulder.

I was horrified. It wasn’t that I hadn’t witnessed beatings before—to the contrary, they were common in Liberia. But this was different, an armed man beating a helpless, cringing woman. And I had heard the whispers, the muted conversations adults thought I was too young to understand, about what men with guns did to women.

I heard my father approaching and froze, expecting to be shooed away from the window. But he stopped a few steps behind me and just stood there, watching the scene unfold over my head. Then he sighed, turned, and walked away without a word.

The tectonic plates in my young soul shifted. For the first time, I realized there were some things my father, the strong, sensible, white American male, couldn’t fix. That, if he went out there and did what every fiber of his being was undoubtedly screaming to do, he would only make things worse. To rush into the street and put himself between a murderous mob and a thief was one thing, and he did it on a regular basis. But to put himself between a man and a woman would constitute such an insult that the woman could very well end up dead.

That’s when I realized that violence against women isn’t a social problem; it is a spiritual problem, a highly contagious disease that eats away at hearts, souls, minds and bodies. . . . You can’t address the problem by treating the symptoms—you have to go deep under the surface and neutralize it at its root—the ROOTS! that…pride…and superiority allowed to germinate in the soul.

That is precisely what the women of Liberia have been doing for the last decade, recognizing their God-given worth, claiming their voices, and banding together to demand not just national, but personal shalom, for themselves and the next generation. Consider the words of Leymah Gabowee as she led hundreds of women to the capital…in 2003. She said: “We the women of Liberia will no more allow ourselves to be raped, abused, misused, maimed and killed! Our children and grandchildren will not be used as killing machines and sex slaves!” Liberia still has a long way to go. We all do. But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom, and this hope makes us very bold.1

Armstrong is not alone in her observation. In 2011, Lyn Lusi received the $1 million Opus Prize. At a banquet in her honor, she “threw down a gauntlet,” reporters said, in calling churches to stand with abused women. Lusi runs an organization called HEAL Africa (an acronym for Health, Education, Action, and Leadership) for women and youth in Goma, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the second largest country in Africa. At her acceptance speech, 

[Lusi] highlighted the vital role that churches play in communities in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo…[They] provide what amounts to the only services and social safety net available. They can be the real glue of the society. But she also told a sobering story…as several congregations came together for discussion and training…They did not agree that women who were raped should NOT be excommunicated [from church]…the attitude that women invite, even deserve rape extended so deep [within]…the church communities and leadership that they could not see their way to compassion and support. Where women should be able to find comfort, consolation, and support instead they met rejection and blame. The story points to the crying need for deep reflection and change within Christian communities…the Opus prize will allow her to work for that goal.2

In the last decade, more and more Christians like Lusi are banding together to address the violence and abuse perpetrated on girls and women globally. To borrow a headline from Books and Culture, make no mistake about it, the church today is on a “Justice Mission.” While this may seem like a new and exciting turn of events, the truth is, our Christian and evangelical tradition is one with a deep and successful history of advancing justice in Christ’s name.

Early evangelicals

The early evangelicals were quintessential social reformers, and we have them to thank in large part for abolition and suffrage in the United States. The early evangelicals from North America and beyond were also responsible for the largest missionary impulse of all time—what we now call the Golden Era of Missions. Perhaps it was golden not only because of the sheer numbers coming to faith.3 It was also golden because the theological convictions that drove the early evangelicals included a passion for the gospel that embraced social action. As historian David Bebbington notes, these early evangelicals believed that “those who had crossed the deepest line in life,”4 from spiritual death to life in Christ, were expected to lead a holy life and to make the world a more just place. In many ways, today’s younger evangelicals are the true offspring of an earlier evangelical tradition, because for them evangelism is inseparable from social action.

These early evangelicals, like many evangelicals today, were devoted to causes such as the abolition of slavery and dismantling the global sex trade. For them, social justice is the fruit of their own Christian conversion. They, too, recognized the roots of gender abuse. After decades of rescuing sex slaves, the early evangelicals believed that their efforts, though necessary, would inevitably fail without addressing the spiritual or philosophical issues that were continually ignored in their work rescuing girls forced into brothels. The early evangelicals perceived an integral relationship, an inescapable link, between a view of females as innately inferior and their marginalization and abuse. Those in positions of power often legitimate their domination by defining their victims, those they abuse, as inferior by birth. This is key: it is often the voice of religion that provides the most exalted, convincing, or irreproachable devaluation of people groups, whereby their subjugation is justified. If you can devalue a person based on a fixed and unchangeable condition like gender, ethnicity, or class, it is a small step to their marginalization and abuse, as history makes clear.

The spiritual roots of abuse consist of this: Religion has consistently declared that women are, in their being, inferior to males. It was precisely this issue that the early evangelicals challenged more than one hundred years ago. To end the sex trade meant that they had to show from Scripture not the devaluation of females, but that girls and women were equally created in God’s image. They were equally responsible for sin and equally redeemed by Christ, and that destiny does not follow biology. Rather, destiny follows our spiritual rebirth in Christ. Their biblical challenge was aimed not only at Christians, but also at the many religious and philosophical traditions that have declared females inferior at birth. The following examples show the capacity of religion and philosophy not only to devalue females, but also to drive worldviews in which the daily lives of females are made wretched—because ideas have consequences.

Non-Christian views on gender

Consider that, in the ancient world, Aristotle posited, “the male is higher, the female is lower [being], the male rules, the female is ruled [purpose].”5 In line with this school of thought, in the Greek world, girl babies were abandoned far more than boys; the paterfamilias excluded females from social gatherings of males, political and philosophical determination, and control over children, property and self;6 and marriages were not monogamous. Ideas have consequences.

Also, consider the ancient link between the value given females and the daily lives of women in Brahmanism. According to the writings of Manu, a Brahman social commentator, and also Pandita Ramabai, a Christian convert of Brahman caste, females were believed to possess a temper or nature that is mutable or inconstant.7 Females are also said to be destitute of strength and also of knowledge. They were considered as impure as falsehood itself, and this was viewed as a fixed rule.8 Ideas have consequences, and religious ideas have enormous consequences. In many Brahman cultures today, females are forbidden to read the sacred texts.9 They are accountable to male authority throughout life, to their fathers, husbands, sons, and grandsons.10 The gods are rarely evoked for the birth of girls. Ultrasound is used to select for gender. Girls remain sex slaves in Hindu temples. They are called devadasi, or devil’s whore, a term that illustrates their presumed moral inferiority.

Consider the relationship between the value assigned to one’s being and the treatment or purpose of women in Islam. According to Sahih Bukari, an Islamic social commentator, “The character of women is like a crooked rib, a crookedness that is inherent and incurable.”11 The Qur’an reads, “Men have authority [purpose] over women because God made the one superior [being] to the other.”12

In many Islamic cultures, though not all, females are held under male authority for their whole lives. Honor killings by male family members are not uncommon because the character of females is viewed as promiscuous. Genital cuttings are often performed to preserve marital fidelity. Females are not viewed as reliable witnesses. Females are denied medical treatment when female healthcare professionals are unavailable. Females are frequently excluded from public education and from working outside the home.13 They are not viewed as trustworthy.

Other groups have suffered a devaluation made at the level of being. Consider Nazi Germany. Before the Nazis could convince Germans to round up Jews and send them to death camps, they had to redefine Jewish being as distinct from that of the Aryan race. Triumphantly, the Nazis declared: “. . . there are only a few people left in Germany who are not clear about the fact that the Jew is not, as previously thought, distinct from ‘Christians,’ ‘Protestant’ or ‘Catholics’ only in that he is of another religion, and therefore German like the rest of us, but that [they] belong to a different race than we do. The Jew belongs to a different race; that is what is decisive.”14

Remember also the devaluation of African Americans that supported the institution of slavery in the United States. According to Thornton Stringfellow, a prominent Virginia Baptist and an influential proslavery Bible exegete, “The African race is constitutionally inferior to the white race.”15 As a result of such thinking, French humanitarian Comte A. de Gasparin observed, “Slavery, in the United States, is founded on color, it is [based on the belief in] the native and indestructible inferiority [of] race.”16 Though defended by Christians in the South and elsewhere, slavery mocked biblical morality in manifold ways. Marriages were ignored, girls and women were defiled, and murder and maimings were common. The Emancipation Proclamation did little to eliminate ethnic abuse because the root—the devaluation of African ethnicity—had not yet been addressed. Though freed by legal decree, African Americans quickly encountered Jim Crow laws.

The United States Civil War did not end ethnic violence because slavery was only one manifestation of a spiritual illness: that ethnic superiority was posited as a biblical ideal. In fact, it would take many years before the U.S. was even made conscious of its own religious constructs that fueled oppression and injustice based on skin color.17

Ethics Daily published an apology for segregation practices that were once viewed as a religious ideal. Reporting on a social shift that may represent a larger leap than the election of an African American U.S. president, it noted that Bob Jones University, perhaps the most fundamentalist and segregated Baptist school in the world,18 has apologized for its practices and policies of racial segregation. In 1986, a member of the Bible department at Bob Jones had articulated the school’s position. Separation of the races, this faculty member wrote, was God’s design. The school was submitting to the authority of Scripture in its policies, it said. Now, the school says something other than “biblical obedience” shaped its racial practices. The statement reports that policies were “characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. . . . We conformed to the culture rather than provide a clear Christian counterpoint to it. In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandments to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry.”19

The failure to interpret Scripture accurately so as to regard African Americans as equal members of the human family made it possible for slavery advocates to ignore the profound ways in which slavery transgressed biblical ethics. Our value of human beings shapes our ethics, an observation made by the early evangelicals working to end the slave industry.20

Devaluation of women in the Christian church

Women missionaries of the 1800s concluded that, for too long, they had been addressing merely the social symptoms of sex trafficking. While their efforts were necessary, they were inevitably insufficient without attacking the root—the belief that males are innately superior, a notion embraced as a religious ideal. For Christians, particularly, the gender teachings and practices of the church were based on the idea that females are innately gullible. Consider a few examples from early church history:

  • John Chrysostom (AD 347–407) contended, “The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach . . . for the sex is weak and fickle.21
  • Augustine (AD 354–430) agreed, “Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men.”22
  • John Knox (1514–1572) continued, “Nature, I say, does paint [women] forth to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish; and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel . . . [thus] a woman’s place is beneath man’s.”23
  • John Calvin (1509–1564) did not disagree, explaining, “Woman should not hold authority over the man; for the very reason, why they are forbidden to teach, is, that it is not permitted by their condition.”24

Even a leader of a megachurch movement in Seattle wrote in 2010,

when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men…[W]omen who fail to trust [Paul’s] instruction…are much like their mother Eve…Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them…and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality.25

Teachings like these represent a longstanding patriarchal influence in Christian culture suggesting that women are constitutionally inferior to males. The early evangelicals, especially women involved in opposing the sex-slave trade, observed that Christian teachings such as these were used to reinforce the superiority of males and placed girls at risk. Women like Catherine Booth, Josephine Butler, and Katharine Bushnell challenged the superiority of males as a biblical ideal. Who are these women?

Catherine Booth (1829–1890) was cofounder of the Salvation Army. She endeavored to free girls from prostitution in London’s East end. She also worked to raise the age of consent from thirteen to seventeen years. Josephine Butler was a British activist and prominent evangelical humanitarian who worked with Parliament to assess brothels established by the British military in India. Katharine Bushnell (1855–1946) worked as a physician and activist and missionary who shut down brothels throughout the United States. Bushnell, together with Josephine Butler, perceived the need to expose the spiritual teachings that maintain claims of male superiority, which they believed drove the sex industry. Bushnell was perhaps the greatest champion among the early evangelicals of gender equality and justice, both in her teachings and practices.

The youngest graduate of Chicago Women’s Medical College in 1878, Bushnell served as a medical missionary to China, but returned home to head the social purity department of the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) in 1886.26 As part of her work with the WCTU, Bushnell interviewed girls enslaved in sex camps at the iron mines of Michigan and lumber camps of Wisconsin. She entered these camps to gain firsthand accounts, which she compiled and delivered to the state legislature as an expert medical witness. Arriving to give her testimony, she once was met by an angry mob at a Wisconsin courthouse, enraged that Bushnell was pressing for the equality for females at a time when the value of women had not been taken up systematically as a biblical ideal. Bushnell’s efforts in court were successful and led to a bill, dubbed by newspapers as the Kate Bushnell Bill, which sent men to long prison terms for enslaving girls in Wisconsin, where this crime was particularly heinous.27

From there, Bushnell traveled to India, where she infiltrated brothels established by the British military in order to garner and retain British soldiers and officers. Her autobiography describes how she

…walked through the lines of encampments…[and] went on to the little tents for women…and took their testimony…hearts melted and tears flowed, and they were eager to tell us how they had been brought against their will, or by trickery or thoughtlessly, into such a horrible life. More than once…they would not let us [go] till they prayed…to help them to get out of virtual imprisonment. We interviewed about 500 such pitiful creatures.28

In discerning how these girls were forced into prostitution, Bushnell asked hard questions about the complicity of Christians in the injustices these girls suffered. She asked:

How can officials of high standing as Christian gentlemen be so indifferent to the wrongs of women and girls, so complacent in the dealings with the sensuality of men and so ready to condone their offences against decency? [Men had sent orders] to under-officials to secure “younger and more attractive girls” for the British soldiers…

Sir John Bowring, who wrote those beautiful hymns like “Watchman, Tell Us of the Night” and “In the Cross of Christ I Glory,” by his legislation at Hong Kong, brought into existence an ordinance making it punishable for any Chinese girl to live but with her owner, who kept her for immoral purposes…acts which cannot but seep hundreds, perhaps thousands, of girls into prostitution.29

Her challenge exposed the moral failings and the horrible consequences that follow when leaders are indifferent to the sufferings of females.

After decades working to end the trafficking of girls, Bushnell believed that God had called her to turn her efforts from dealings with the symptoms to addressing the root causes, the ideas derived from a misreading of Scripture—namely, that females are the cause of sin and are, therefore, in their being, inferior to males. It was this idea that drove the sex industry, Bushnell reasoned. She realized that nothing would change

…until men come to understand that a woman is of as much value as a man; and they will not believe this until they see it plainly taught in the Bible. . . . Just so long as men imagine that a system of caste is taught in the Word of God, and that they belong to the upper caste while women are of the lower caste; and just so long as they believe that mere FLESH—fate—determines the caste to which one belongs; and just so long as they believe that the “he will rule over you” of Genesis 3:16 is [prescriptive—or part of the moral teachings of the Bible, rather than descriptive—describing life in a fallen world]…the destruction of young women into a prostitute class will continue.30

Bushnell spent many years learning Greek and Hebrew in order to research every text in Scripture, more than three hundred passages, that addressed gender. Bushnell published her findings in a book entitled God’s Word to Women, completed in 1919. It remains in print today. For Bushnell, the value of females is established in the early chapters of Genesis, where identity shapes purpose.

Both Adam and Eve were equally created in God’s image;31 therefore, both were called equally to be fruitful and to exercise an equal dominion in Eden.32 Their creational destiny to share authority is disrupted by sin. Bushnell notes that Eve was not the source of sin,33 and that God does not curse or punish females because of Eve.34 Rather, it was Satan, not God, who inspired the domination of men over women.35 God extends leadership to those who do what is right in God’s sight regardless of their gender, birth order, nationality, or class.36

In assessing the teachings of the Apostle Paul, Bushnell argued that the apostle supported the authority and leadership of women, provided that their leadership was neither domineering nor abusive (1 Tim 2:12); that those who teach must understand and advance the truth concerning the gospel (1 Tim 2:11–12; Acts 18:26; Rom 16:1–5, 7, 12–13, 15); and that, when women pray and prophesy in public, they should not be disruptive, either by their clothing or their chatter (1 Cor 11:5; 1 Cor 14:34). Ultimately, Bushnell concluded that women’s value is not measured by the fall, as so many theologians have argued throughout history. Rather, human value is measured through Christ’s completed work on Calvary. To be consistent, a correct interpretation of Scripture as it relates to “women’s spiritual and social status”37 should be determined in the same manner as “man’s spiritual and social status,” based on the atonement of Jesus. To quote Bushnell, “[We] cannot, for women, put the ‘new wine’ of the Gospel into the old wine-skins of ‘condemnation.’”38 The cross is good news for men and women. It is the cross that brings reconciliation and holiness to the whole human family.

Bushnell’s analysis of Scripture did something that had never been accomplished before in history: she provided a biblical worldview in which women were, for the first time, systematically viewed not only as equal by God’s design, but also as created fully in God’s image. What is more, she also argued that Scripture teaches that both men and women are equally responsible for sin, and both men and women are renewed by Calvary. In short, she offered a theological remedy—a biblical idea to replace the flawed, hierarchical one that women are inferior to men—and, in so doing, she parts company with previous generations of Christians who had imbibed patriarchy as a biblical ideal, thereby advancing a spiritual caste system that has choked women and girls for centuries.

Religious teachings on gender have vital implications for the gospel because they reveal a worldview that either accurately or inaccurately represents the moral teachings of Scripture, ideas that have enormous consequences in the daily lives of females. Whether we realize it or not, our treatment of females and how we justify that treatment biblically constitutes a worldview that provides a rationale for justice, or, worse, injustice. For readers to gain an appreciation for the achievements of Kate Bushnell, consider the vast extent of the patriarchal worldview she challenged.

Choosing the right worldview elements

A worldview will always include four basic elements, as Alan Myatt has so ably shown:39 (1) knowledge or epistemology; (2) being or ontology; (3) value or ethics; and (4) purpose or teleology. These four elements have a dynamic interplay with each other. When one is inaccurate or deficient, it throws the whole system out of balance. The patriarchal worldview argues as follows:

  • Ontology or being: It claims that males, in their being, are superior to females. Purpose follows being.
  • Teleology or purpose: It supposes that the destiny of males is to hold ultimate authority over females, and the destiny of females is to submit to the authority of males. Given their natures, females in marriages, families, churches, and communities are created to be submissive to males. (Of course, if you follow this flawed logic, you might ask why females should even hold authority over children or other females, as is so often required.)
  • Epistemology or knowledge: It proclaims that God has revealed, through Scripture and nature, that males are superior to females in their being and should therefore hold authority over females the whole of their life.
  • Ethics: Though said to advance social wellbeing, patriarchy or unilateral male authority has been noted as the cause of unhappiness and abuse in families and communities as studied by nongovernmental organizations, counselors and therapists, law enforcement officials, and social scientists.40

This is the essence of a patriarchal worldview, which encountered a biblical challenge by Kate Bushnell. She and her coworkers realized the danger it posed for females as it reached its logical conclusion in its lack of ethics or justice.

Bushnell offered an epistemological or biblical remedy to a flawed view of ontology or being. Hence, an egalitarian worldview argues as follows:

  • Epistemology or knowledge: God has revealed, through Scripture, that males and females are equally created in God’s image and have equal authority in caring for the world as God’s regents (Gen 1:27–31). They are equally responsible for sin (Gen 3:13–17) and equally redeemed in Christ (John 3:16; 2 Cor 5:17). Both are gifted by the Holy Spirit for service (Rom 12:6–8; 1 Cor 12:7–11; Eph 4:11–12) and called to use our gifts for Christ’s kingdom (2 Tim 1:6).
  • Ontology or being: Scripture extends equal value and dignity to males and females. Christian faith does not view males as superior to females, and gender does not create a caste system or hierarchy of value.
  • Teleology or purpose: Biology is not destiny. Rather, God calls and gifts all Christians to service and leadership, based not on their gender or ethnicity (which are fixed and unchangeable qualities), but on their character, their intimacy with Christ, and the gifts God gives each for God’s pleasure and purposes.
  • Ethics or justice: The dignity and equality of males and females are biblical ideals that not only open positions of leadership and authority in church, home, and society to both genders, but, in doing so, overcome privilege and marginalization based on gender, thus minimizing opportunities for superiority, dominance, and abuse of males over females.

This egalitarian worldview, articulated by Bushnell, has remained intact to this day, with egalitarians and Christian scholars enthusiastically embracing and enlarging upon Bushnell’s views. What is more, Christians in the last few decades have observed, as did Bushnell one hundred years ago, that the church will remain a weak vessel of justice until Christians interpret Scripture without reading a cultural devaluation of females into its pages. Bushnell understood, along with Christians such as Jenny Rae Armstrong, Lyn Lusi, Pandita Ramabai, Catherine Booth, Josephine Butler, Katherine Bushnell, the early evangelical women, and all the supportive women and men to the present day, that, unless we as Christians make clear the equal value that God holds for females, the church will remain complicit in the destruction of girls and women. The social problem of gender abuse and injustice must have a biblical remedy so that Scripture is no longer used as a tool of devaluation that leads logically to the domination of males; that the “he will rule over you” in Genesis 3:16 is not prescriptive, or part of the moral teachings of Scripture, but is rather descriptive. It describes the consequences of human sin—consequences that should therefore be opposed by the church. Ideas have consequences. We must embrace valuations that are consistently biblical so that positive consequences will follow.


  1. Jenny Rae Armstrong, “Exciting News,” The CBE Scroll blog, Oct. 10, 2011, http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2011/10/exciting-news.
  2. Katherine Marshall, “The Modest Heroine of the 2011 Opus Prize: Lyn Lusi, Huffington Post, Nov. 8, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-marshall/lyn-lusi-opus-prize_b_1…. Elizabeth W. Andrew and Katharine Bushnell make the same point, namely, that the British also blamed the victims, declaring girls confined in brothels as immoral: “. . . this form of villainy is always excusing itself by slandering the oppressed women. . . . Most of these women are prostitutes by caste . . . ” and caste determines destiny. The Queen’s Daughters in India (London: Morgan and Scott, 1899), 54.
  3. Dana L. Robert, American Women in Mission: A Social History of Their Thought and Practice (Macon: GA: Mercer University Press, 2005), ix.
  4. David Bebbington, Evangelicals in Modern Britain: A Brief History from 1730s to the 1980s (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 5.
  5. Aristotle, Politics 5.3.
  6. Sarah B. Pomeroy, Goddesses, Whores, Wives, and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity (New York, NY: Schocken, 1995), 79ff.
  7. Manu IX:15–17, http//www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/Hinduism/dharma/manusmriti.asp. See also Pandita Ramabai, The High Caste Hindu Woman (New York, NY: Revell, 1901).
  8. Manu IX:15-17. See also Ramabai, The High Caste Hindu Woman, 79.
  9. Manu IX:18. See also Ramabai, The High Caste Hindu Woman, 81.
  10. Manu IX: 2–3.
  11. Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English translation, vol. 7, Hadith no. 1113–14 (Alexandria, VA: Al Saadawi, 1996).
  12. The Qur’an, with notes by N. J. Dawood (London: Penguin, 1990), 64.
  13. Nicholas Kirstoff and Sheryl WuDunn, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide (New York, NY: Knopf, 2009), 149ff.
  14. “Our Battle Against Judah,” Aufklärungs- und Redner-Informationsmaterial der Reichspropagandaleitung der NSDAP, Lieferung 20 (August 1935), trans. Randall Bytwerk, in Nazi Propaganda Archive, http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/rim3.htm.
  15. Thornton Stringfellow, quoted in Mark Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2006), 62. Stringfellow was a Baptist from Virginia who offered some of the most influential biblical arguments supporting slavery.
  16. Comte Agenor de Gasparin, The Uprising of a Great People, trans. Mary Booth (New York, NY: Scribners, 1862), 103-04, and as quoted by Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, 119.
  17. See Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.
  18. Bob Jones University did not permit interracial dating.
  19. Robert Parham, “Bob Jones University Apologizes for Racial Policies,” Ethics Daily website, http://www.ethicsdaily.com/news.php?viewStory=13489, accessed June 1, 2010.
  20. Noll, The Civil War as a Theological Crisis, 73.
  21. John Chrysostom, 1 Timothy Homily 9, emphasis added.
  22. Augustine, Anti-Pelagian Writings 10, emphasis added.
  23. John Knox, The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, emphasis added.
  24. John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Timothy 2:11–15, emphasis added.
  25. Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church, Seattle, WA, quoted by Denny Burk, “Mark Driscoll on Women in Ministry,” July 5, 2007, http://www.dennyburk.com/mark-driscoll-on-women-in-ministry-2, accessed March24, 2010, emphasis added.
  26. A timeline of the life of Katharine Bushnell is available online at http://godswordtowomen.org/gwtw_bushnell_timeline.pdf.
  27. Katharine Bushnell, Dr. Katharine C. Bushnell: A Brief Sketch of her Life and Work (Hertford, England: Rose and Sons Salisbury Square, 1930), 4.
  28. Bushnell, Brief Sketch, 9.
  29. Bushnell, Brief Sketch, 12.
  30. Bushnell, Brief Sketch, 14.
  31. Katharine Bushnell, God’s Word to Women: One Hundred Bible Studies on Women’s Place in the Church and Home (Minneapolis, MN: Christians for Biblical Equality, 2003), 9ff.
  32. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, 10.
  33. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women 39ff.
  34. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, 39–48.
  35. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, 43–75.
  36. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, 66–75.
  37. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, 169.
  38. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, 169.
  39. Alan Myatt, “On the Compatibility of Ontological Equality, Hierarchy, and Functional Distinctions,” The Deception of Eve and the Ontology of Women, CBE special edition journal (2010): 29–33.
  40. See Associated Press, “Baptists Have Highest Divorce Rate,” Dec. 30, 1999, http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/rbaptisthigh.html, accessed January 30, 2014. See also Andrea S. Larsen and David H. Olson, “Predicting Marital Satisfaction Using Prepare: A Replication Study,” Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 15, no. 3 (1989): 311–22, https://www.prepare-enrich.com/pe_main_site_content/pdf/research/study2.pdf, accessed January 30, 2014.