Written by Staff | Thursday, February 19, 2015

Share 20 Shares

The article, Women on Trial: One Observer’s View, generated many comments, both favorable and critical of the article. Below are representative comments. Since some of the authors desired that they not be identified, we have chosen to allow each comment to stand on its own.

From the author, Dr. Valerie Hobbs: I am aware that some in the OPC have already complained to editors of The Aquila Report that my report misrepresents the trial. I have three responses: 1. My report was based on extensive notes and transcripts of speeches from the trial. But please note the sub-title of the article. 2. My report was read and commented on, prior to publication, by other attendees at the trial and by one other OPC minister. I am not the only one with such views of the trial. 3. I would be willing to engage with any specific criticisms of points I raised in my article. I can be reached at [email protected]

_____________________

The people who know the whole story need to get it out in front of the public very soon. This story has the potential of being very embarrassing to the OPC if the mainstream media picks it up.

_____________________

Where/how did the author misrepresent the trial? I’m sincerely interested. Can you (even briefly) present another version?

_____________________

So far [a defender of Presbytery] has not yet provided any additional information that casts the actions of the Presbyters in a more favorable light. I would welcome another point of view but simply stating “author’s representation of the trial itself is limited” is not a particularly helpful.

_____________________

I did not post my comment for any other reason than to remind people that there is ALWAYS another side to the story. Hence my citation of Proverbs 18:17. Unfortunately, comments made to the contrary of the article seem to keep disappearing…..even by presbyters who were there.

_____________________

As a former member of that presbytery, and with a limited knowledge of the facts of the case (but enough knowledge to understand the gist), this article smacks of a prior agenda (the author as much as gives us that information up front). When that’s the case, one usually sees things in the severest light possible. It is hard enough when seated as a presbyter to discern amidst conflicting testimonies and debate when you have been with the process from the beginning. But it is well nigh impossible to gain an accurate assessment of the entire flow of things as someone who is visiting and hasn’t had the benefit of seeing the whole thing from its inception. I would not allow yourselves to accept this author’s viewpoint on that basis alone. There is ALWAYS another side or sides to the story. DO NOT RUSH TO JUDGMENT ON THIS PRESBYTERY! Do not be quick to countenance an evil report!

_____________________

The trial was public what is to stop someone sympathetic to the prosecution from writing up there version on the events? There may be facts that the general public are not privy to but if that is the case they should also not have been relevant to the trial.

_____________________

Are you kidding me? I am flabbergasted that an initiative such as this would ever have been imagined, but less prosecuted!

_____________________

Very sad. I am glad Aquila posted this article. This is not representative of my experience as a woman in the OPC church (or PCA where I currently am) but I am not surprised that individual reformed churches/presbyteries with a severe patriarchal flavor would approach a situation this way. I would be interested to see how General Assembly would handle this situation.

_____________________

Please remember Proverbs 18:17. This is only the view of the author. Believe me, a person’s preconceived notions can skewer one’s perception and interpretation of even small things. A jaundiced eye sees everything as yellow.

_____________________

It is wise to consider the verse you mentioned and warnings about accepting a person’s limited observations as truth. However, no man is above reproach save Jesus Christ. Though this appears to be a very complicated case with much time, energy and thoughtful attention contributing to this outcome, I see no way around the fact that a minister has been charged due to allowing his disabled wife to stay home from church. I can’t think of any reason or explanation that would allow this verdict to be just, godly or merciful. I look forward to hearing more from BOTH sides. That said, our initial reaction to this situation should be one of shock, dismay, and followed by truth seeking.

_____________________

Just because there may be ‘other sides’ does not mean that Valerie Hobbs has done anything wrong to express her perceptions and experiences. Well done, Valerie!

_____________________

This article is more than a little disturbing, particularly because there is still room for an appeal. This runs the risk of it being tried in the court of public opinion (with very limited knowledge and a purpose to make a completely different point) and I’d hate for that to get in the way of what the General Assembly might be called upon to do.

_____________________

Please remove the recent report entitled Women on Trial. I think it was very foolish to publish this while judicial process is still underway. The only descent thing to do is remove it at least until the GA has had an opportunity to process the appeal.

_____________________

I confess I have trouble with charging a pastor for these “crimes.” I thought that wives were subject to their own husband, who should protect her. Sounds like he did just that. I remember one godly Christian woman I knew well, married to a very well known minister, telling me She didn’t want to work in CE in a church anymore because Christians were too mean….imagine.

_____________________

Feminist* has already been slung (by a man) at Valerie Hobbs in this comments thread. This word is used in Christian circles to impugn Christian women who speak up about the injustices being done to women in the church. Well done Aquila Report. Well done Valerie Hobbs.

_____________________

The language of this report shows that this woman has a feminist ax to grind. I think 1 Timothy 5 needs to be followed: do not receive accusations against an elder without multiple witnesses. People can even deceive themselves and use language to slant things. Is there a corroborating witness? Whatever seems clear may be lie or slant. Leftism is known for this. Human beings are known for this. Hence, 1 Timothy 5:19. This is why we should not receive it. I wonder how I would have seemed if I picked up a vibe of someone with an agenda attending a presbytery meeting. Maybe I might have seemed tense and less welcoming. Also, I wonder if there were others who treated this woman with decorum but whose kind treatment she intentionally left out of her account. The Aquila Report needs to consider 1 Timothy 5:19 in their editorial policy. Should The Aquila Report give a forum for uncorroborated accusations no matter how true they sound?

_____________________

Remember — the world will be increasing intolerant of biblical male-female role distinction as they are of the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality. And the left will increasingly try to use the coercive force of the state to oppose the Bible, force churches to compromise or confiscate their property and voice. The puritans were kicked out of their churches by the government of their era. The Presbyterians faced the Killing Times in Scotland. Are you ready? This incident is a reminder for us to seek to be above reproach while not compromising.

_____________________

What elder is she accusing? What is she accusing the elder of doing? What does I Timothy 5 have to do with it? Dr. Hobbs mentioned no names and more than once said that she was reporting her impressions. And how do we jump to the Killing Time?

_____________________

And yes there are corroborating witnesses and she did in fact mention several times the men who treated her with “decorum”. Slow down. Take it all in. I know the author and she upholds the Bible and the doctrines of the OPC, which is WHY she is concerned about these issues.

_____________________

The Aquila Report has done well to publish Valerie Hobb’s report. Why is any woman who questions how women are treated by some males in the church automatically labeled a feminist? I believe men and women have different roles, men only are to be elders and I am submissive to my own husband. But I also am critical of how certain groups (such as staunch patriarchalists) view and treat women. That doesn’t mean I am a feminist, it means I disagree.

_____________________

To say there is no hint of feminism here is not to recognize hints, even not so subtle ones, of feminism. Calling this piece “feministic” is not an “ad hominem” argument; that is, I am not saying her arguments or assertions are incorrect or baseless because she at least sounds like a feminist, and at least plausibly is one. I am simply saying that what appear to be typically feminist concerns are at the forefront of the issues she chose to focus on.

As a starter, let’s note some similarities between this article and a textbook from my college course in radical feminism. In Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices: An Introduction to Women’s Studies, Hunter College Women’s Studies Collective, Oxford College, 1983, we read, “Women’s studies examines the world and those who inhabit it in the light of women’s own experiences of the world. It complements and corrects established disciplines as well as constituting a discipline of its own [p. 16]….Women’s studies is not simply the study of women. It is the study of women which places women’s own experiences in the center of the process [p.1].”

In this article this author places the central focus on her experiences as a woman, and on the treatment of women, consonant with the stated aims of the radical feminist text cited above. She says, “However, my interest is also deeply personal, having grown up in the Reformed Christian church in the USA and experienced firsthand the fruits of a particular view of women. And so I attended the trial to witness and to record these matters as a Reformed Christian woman, as part of my conviction that matters affecting women should be witnessed by women.” Right in line with the feminist text, Dr. Hobbs is interested in studying this trial not with respect to the legal matter regarding the accused, which is quickly acknowledged but not adequately dealt with, but with women’s own experiences at the center of the process. Her stated purpose in her report is to demonstrate “the repeated denial of a woman’s physical self and the elevation of her spiritual, domestic, idealized self.” She is interpreting this case through a feminist paradigm of academic evaluation. She wants women’s experiences at the forefront, interpreted through a feministic presuppositional framework.

Additionally, in the second paragraph of her article Dr. Hobbs writes, “What I aim to show in this report is that central to the trial itself and to my experiences therein are the repeated denial of a woman’s physical self and the elevation of her spiritual, domestic, idealized self.” Once again, her aim is as feministic as the day is long: women’s experiences are central to events and are to be the main focus.

One can also certainly say that the academic milieu in which Hobbs teaches is self-professedly feministic, as demonstrated by these testimonials of English department faculty and PhD candidates as to why they are feminists.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist…

As mentioned earlier, one of Dr. Hobbs’ academic interests is certainly consonant with the concerns of feminists, as quoted on her academic page at the University of Sheffield’s School of English website, “A new area of interest for me is the discourse of North American Reformed Christians, particularly the ways in which members of this community talk about gender roles.”

In her article, Women On Trial: One Observer’s View, we find this interest in gender roles connected with the kinds of language used by Reformed Christians with respect to women. “For several years, I have been researching the kinds of language used by Reformed Christians to characterize women and their roles in the home, church, and society. As this trial involves not just the defendant but also his wife, I attended to observe the kinds of language used to speak about the defendant’s wife.” While I agree that men should treat women with the utmost of respect and dignity, I do not believe that a feminist methodology is the correct paradigm to attain this goal. The feminist paradigm wants to correct all models, the biblical one included, under its all embracing worldview. Feminism wants the whole pie, not just a single slice.

Why am I so concerned about this article? Is it because Reformed Christian men can never be boorish, or treat women high handedly? No, because sadly we sinful men can do just that, although I know that in Christ we are prayerfully seeking to love them as Christ has loved the Church. Rather it is because the radical feminist perspective present in the whole trajectory of this article, the feministic methodology and assumptions which are unquestionably accepted by many through decades of aggressive cultural infiltration, is harmful and opposed to a Christ centered and biblical way of viewing women, and all else. Feminism posits as one of its foundational assumptions the notion of the radical independence of women from men. This assumption is based upon the view that throughout history women have suffered the systematic silencing of their voices so that every category of life has come to be seen and defined through the lens of men’s experiences and viewpoints. This systematic silencing amounts to a patriarchal oppression which now must be resisted and overcome, primarily through the study of women “which places women’s own experiences in the center of the process.” Again, according Women’s Realities, Women’s Choices, the feminist movement can provide a framework for evaluating other academic disciplines, for “women’s studies courses expand your perspectives on what you are taught in other courses, providing you with a basis for evaluating what you are taught and for relating such knowledge in a meaningful way to your life.” In fact, applied to the Bible, a feminist biblical hermeneutic is but the logical outworking of a full world and life view in which women’s unique experiences are central. Rather than reading the scriptures in order to see the great redemptive works of God in Jesus Christ shining in regal splendor from every page, proponents of a feminist hermeneutic are primarily and centrally interested in what scripture teaches about women and women’s experience. Thus the bible’s Christocentricity is replaced with a gynocentricity which places women and women’s experiences at the center of biblical inquiry.

That is why the feministic appearances of this article and its author are of such a concern to me. Please, think about what you are reading and know the source from which it springs.

_____________________

As a ruling Elder in the OPC Presbytery of the South East and participant in the trial, I just read with great interest the article in The Aquila Report. I would like to begin by thanking you for attending the trial and writing the report, and would like to state, on the record, that I believe your report of the trial is accurate. Please pass this on to your editors.

Second, we sat at a table together during the Friday dinner meal and I hope that I made you feel welcome. If I did not, I sincerely apologize and ask for your forgiveness. I read with deep regret that you did not feel welcomed by every member of the Presbytery. Personally, I was truly glad to see women attending the trial. I invited my wife to attend, but she expressed that she had no interest in the judicial proceedings. I believe it would benefit the Church if more women were interested in Presbytery matters. As my wife points out, it is hard to gain interest without a vote, and we want to be faithful to the scriptural requirements for church office, which in my mind are very clear.

Third, regarding the restrooms, I have never been comfortable with how our Presbytery repurposes them during the meetings. When we hosted the Presbytery, my wife coordinated the arrangements and we discussed what to do. In our facility, we have two larger rooms with multiple stalls and two “unisex” handicap equipped single person rooms. The women coordinating our hosting of the meeting elected to designate one of the unisex rooms as a woman’s room and repurpose the women’s room because they expected over 100 men and less than 20 women to attend and were concerned that during short breaks the lines would be too long. Personally, I’m not sure this is necessary. Your article gives us something to think about.

As one of the four dissenters, I will follow, with interest, your continued reporting on these matters, and would be happy to correspond with you further regarding this matter. Grace to all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ!

_____________________

Reading through the article and comments I keep coming to the Scripture and that which has already been quoted, Proverbs 18:17, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” The first one to make a case here would be the men who brought the charge right? It is good and right for us as believers to question decisions made by those in authority when we sense there is something “off”. If we are wrong, we apologize with humility. It is also right for us as believers to examine in this situation the author’s intent and declarations and observations and those who were there and support her.

_____________________

My issue is when “most” men in authority agree, that does not necessarily make it right. And it is not wrong for a member of a church to write an article about an issue she believes is of great importance which questions the way God-appointed men handle a situation such as this. You are right that my assessment is fallible. I am inserting other knowledge of this case into my stance. I guess this is twofold: the author’s observations and the trial itself. I mixed the two, and I shouldn’t have and apologize for it. I do think these issues in general are important and worthy of examination.

_____________________

Wow since when did the Aquila Report give way to gossip, impugning motives, endorsing undertones of rank feminism, all the while publicizing an article full of caricatures and bias? Not to mention the assault upon the bride of Christ by destroying unity within the church by illustrating a one sided argument against biblical advice (c.f. Prov. 18:17) that clearly violates the 9th commandment!

_____________________

I am intimately familiar with all involved. In fact, the defendant was one of my beloved seminary profs. This trial has been very taxing on everyone involved. Rest assured, the defendant and his wife are dearly loved and cared for. Furthermore, it is not at all helpful to them or the presbytery to discuss the details with a possible appeal pending. At last, Dr. Hobbs has violated the 9th commandment, impugned the motives of some of the most God loving, Christ exalting men I know. Furthermore, there is no line in the sand, the Bible is very clear on lying, gossip, and impugning motives.

_____________________

Nope. Not buying it. Exposing abuse isn’t gossip. Exposing abuse honors God. It doesn’t embarrass Him. Motives should be questioned. It s RIDICULOUS that the OPC thinks they know better than this woman’s MDs or that they think the only way to fellowship is in a church building.

_____________________

It is good to hear they are dearly loved and cared for. Truly. I know Dr. Hobbs spoke with the defendant, and he did not dismiss her observations. She deeply loves and is concerned for his well-being and that of his wife. Christ- exalting men can fail. The defendant and the men accusing him are fallible. As are we. I will give you gossip and impugning motives but not lying. Her report is backed by many, and will be revealed in time. I am a truth seeker. When issues such as these are brought before us I hope they will be disproved. I hope and pray what I believe to be true is in fact a misrepresentation, because I cannot fathom a minister charged with such things. I am completely open to being proved wrong. However, I am concerned, and my concern is founded on many similar observations…An abuse of authority. Whether Dr. Hobbs utilized the correct avenues for expressing her concern, I still believe this issue needs to be circulated and examined.

_____________________

You do realize that publicly accusing someone of gossip, impugning motives, undertones of rank feminism, and destroying the unity of the church could possibly be … a violation of the 9th commandment, right? Especially that last one; destroying the unity of the church is a pretty serious charge. Are you sure you want to stick by that one?

_____________________

I appreciate it that you toned down from destroying the church’s unity to “causes division,” but my main point was: if you retaliate that way, you’re flirting with the exact same offense. Her error (as you see it) would not excuse yours, would it? Besides, “vigorous disagreement,” which is bread and butter to Presbyterian ministers, isn’t division in the church. I’ve been reading the responses of those who don’t know the details, but also of those who do know the details. Many of the latter lend credibility to Dr. Hobbs’s concerns if you ask me. You’d think she was Mary Queen of Scots trying to restore Catholicism in England.

_____________________

Good points – wait for more facts and consider how our discussion may do more harm to the defendant and his wife. I hope I haven’t blasted anyone; I know for sure I haven’t blasted an entire body of ministers based on one witness. The author speaks very highly of many ministers there, and there are corroborating witnesses. This is a tough situation – both sides have valid points. Sides meaning whether or not this whole conversation is godly and edifying. People on both sides are quick to judge. Your comments are intense, and while I find truth there it may be better received in a different spirit. When ministers of the gospel are criticized it is good and right to voraciously defend them. It is also good and right to question perceived abuse of authority. Whether or not we agree with the author’s intent, many are thankful the issues have been brought to light. If anything, you have motivated me to pray for this minister and his dear wife and for the Truth to be revealed and for The Lord to teach me how to speak with more humility.

_____________________

It would be a violation of the minister’s due process for the Presbytery to tell ‘their side,’ especially if there is going to be an appeal.

_____________________

I cannot begin to adequately express how thankful I am for your perspective and article. You are a breath of fresh air, and the neutrality of your discourse is absolutely lovely. Facts are such wonderful things when they are allowed to bubble to the surface in their own glory. Thanks for all your work. This topic is dear to my heart. My wife’s faith was been badly damaged by the time see spent in a “toxic” reformed environment. The Reformed faith is still very near to my heart but more light needs to be shed on some of it “dark corners”

_____________________

Great article Valerie – I have to say it is utterly ridiculous that the OPC should even have a trial about such an issue. It’s a waste of time, utterly hypocritical and demeaning for the woman concerned. It is horrifying this man has to justify his actions and decisions in this way. I am proud of you and commend you for taking this on – your observations are astute and correct. I have lost all patience w/ this archaic misrepresentation of Scripture that is used to justify a misogynistic view of women. These men have much to answer to in eternity.

_____________________

Well written article, thanks for sharing the link. Curious how the personal attacks on you are manifesting- emails, phone calls, public forums? Their behavior toward you was utterly appalling, though none of it surprises me. It does makes me sad- I attended there for a year and was quite fond of the pastor, his wife, and their family. I couldn’t say as much for some of the elders/members.

_____________________

My name is ______ and I read your article on The Aquila Report. I graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary (mostly OPC and PCA) and currently serve at a relatively large PCA church in the states. I just wanted to thank you so much for attending that trial and for sharing and publishing your observations. Reading it had me on the brink of tears. It’s a tough issue because I genuinely believe they “mean well” but even personally I have countless experiences of feeling shut up and discounted by men in the church and in academia. Men as the norm and women as “other” really hits the nail on the head. I work in a Korean-immigrant context where there is already a strong male-dominant hierarchical culture in place. At this point in my life I had resolved to bear it with a smile, not wanting to start trouble. But I’m starting to think it would be really wonderful to hear more and more female voices, especially from the Reformed world: what they have gone through and how they have dealt with similar issues. I’m sure there is so much hurt and need for healing, but mention “women issues” and you’re painted as a feminist. It really ought to be a “church issue”. All to say, Dr. Hobbs, thank you for standing firm and giving us hope and encouragement.

_____________________

You don’t know me, but a friend of mine (____, I’m copying her in) just forwarded me your recent article in the Aquila report. ____ and I attend a PCA church _____. Thank you so much for your courage and diligence in attending the trial, taking notes, and writing the article. The themes of ignoring women’s needs and experiences rings very true for [Name] and me in a wide variety of our experiences in our congregation, especially in the case of single women and even extending to the neglect of women in abusive marriages in favor of emphases on “unity” in marriage and on male headship (which is not to say our church leadership isn’t wonderful in other ways!). In any case, your article is a much needed voice in the OPC, thank you very much. I hope you will continue observing, studying, and writing.

_____________________

I just read your article. I’m so impressed with ability to write objectively…I think if I had tried to write this it would have come across as some angry manifesto great job! Thanks for writing your article on women that Aquila linked to. It was a great article, well thought out and articulated. I’m sure you are catching a lot of flack for it. I’m grateful the pca church I am in values and seeks out women to serve and lead in the church in other capacaties than food and babies, lol. But I’ve noticed a disturbing trend, especially in the OPC toward patriarchy, quiverfill, courtship and the stifling degredation of women that stuff brings. It disturbs me to no end that people like [name removed] are tolerated in the OPC. Anyway, just wanted to encourage you! Keep bringing it on sister!

_____________________

I read about you a few days ago on ” Cry for Justice’ and thought of writing to you. I have been concerned for some time about how women are treated in Reformed churches. I was reminded to do so when I read your account about the trial in the O.P.C on the Aquila Report this morning. My husband was once a delegate from our church at the O.P.C Synod in Philadelphia. I traveled with him and he urged me to attend their Synod meetings, saying that I would find them interesting. I was given some strange looks and one young minister approached me and asked what I was doing there. He was quite rude and said that he could not understand why a woman would want to attend these meetings. This is a very important issue. I have been tempted to think that the Lord finds the treatment of women for whom Christ died, worse than women ministers but I don’t say that aloud. May the Lord encourage you in your studies.

_____________________

Thank you for your article: “Women on Trial: One Observer’s View.”As a minister in the OPC who will be attending GA this year, I need to limit my response as I expect to be hearing the appeal. That said, I am glad that you have drawn attention to this problem in the OPC and other conservative Reformed churches. I honestly can’t imagine any scenario (other than a wife complaining about her husband) that would lead to a trial at Presbytery let alone to a conviction. Thank you again for your article. I hope that it will be helpful in fostering fruitful dialog and even repentance.

_____________________

I am an OP minister, and I wanted to thank you for your article submitted to the Aquila Report. I thank you for saying the truth and saying it with charity and clarity. There is no doubt in my mind that the culture of the OPC needs to change regarding women and how they are treated. Obviously not all OP ministers treat women in the way your article describes, but it is surely true that that kind of treatment continues because most ministers have been silent about it: Private kvetching is no substitute for public admonition and rebuke. Thank you for doing both and for doing it in such a winsome and Godly way. The Lord’s blessings on your academic labors.

_____________________

I’m writing to say how thankful and encouraged I am by your paper documenting the OPC trial. It is a difficult and sobering piece to read. Yet, as difficult as it is to read, you are giving us needed perspective. Your article turns the community mirror to an angle providing visibility on a gender blind spot. And it’s a blind spot that too often has resulted in well-intentioned ministering while running women and ethnic minorities off the road. I plan to use your article next week as a case study for our leaders. In short, your work and gifts make us a better church!

_____________________

This morning a good friend of mine, ______, forwarded me the article which you wrote on the OPC trial in North Carolina. While I was not present and am only vaguely aware of the details (I am assuming it was the trial of __________?). I found your description entirely believable. By the way, the OPC is my denomination. To be honest, I think some of what you describe is probably down to the social ineptitude of some of those involved but I also think you rightly touch on something which is more deeply embedded in the culture of many conservative Reformed churches: a deeply paternalist attitude to women. It is why I describe myself as ‘barely complementation’ — the issue for me is ordination; I suspect for many others that is part of a much broader cultural mindset. Anyway, I am writing simply because I am sure you will get some negative pushback and I wanted to make sure you knew that your concerns do resonate with some of us and to offer some thanks and encouragement.

_____________________

I was at every meeting of the trial, and have been a member of that court for about 15 years. the aquila report posted a honest critique of our work, which is necessarily open to public scrutiny. the BOD calls it sitting “with open doors,” and ordinarily requires it. in another age the work of presbytery might have been reported in the news papers, editorials, and magazines. our work is under the microscope now (thankfully). the author of the Aquila report’s essay witnessed, researched, documented, wrote, and published. in light of the appeal, every move made by presbytery in the prosecution of this case will be reviewed in the light. presbytery is in the doc now. in kindness, there is no shame in what the author did.