Last Friday, John Woodhouse, the principal of Moore College, encouraged the students in chapel to think seriously about the role of women in ministry. He rebuked us for not coming to firm conclusions on this issue, saying that we did the women of our congregations a great disservice by being unclear. John outlined his position that, while valuing the equal status of women, denied them a role in preaching and teaching, as this was chiefly one of pastoral oversight, and in his view the Bible prescribed this role only for men. John urged conversation on the matter, and repeatedly emphasised the need for graciousness in difference. However, there were three strategies in his presentation that mitigated against this graciousness. Firstly was the continual use of the ‘world’ and it’s perceptions of male and female relations as the main foil for his argument. While John may not have meant it, this strategy instantly places those who disagree firmly on the pagan side of the equation. While the secular world may very well have different concepts of male and female relations, the argument against christians from secular failure holds about as much weight as charicatures of the conservative position as wife beating mysoginists. None. Neither of these rhetorical strategies do justice to the fact that there are faithful christians on both (all) sides of this debate. It essentially is the argument ‘I’m right because I’m a christian, therefore you are not a christian’.
The second unhelpful strategy is related to the first. John set out ‘the biblical data’, without argument or much comment on each passage (admitting the limits on time). This, combined with the allusions to the ‘world’, gave the impression that those with a non-hierarchical view were motivated by capitulation to the current worldview rather than faithfulness to the Scriptures. Again, this may be true at the level of the pews. But these things were said in a theological college, where we were being encouraged to think. The proponents on a non-hierarchical complementarianism are no exegetical or text critical lightweights. They include the likes of Gordon Fee and I H Marshall. If we are genuine about thinking this issue through, then carefully engaging with a book like ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ is a must. These guys love Jesus and really do know their stuff. Having read them, it is far harder to nonchalantly plant your flag in the ground and claim the biblical high ground.
The third unhelpful strategy was the timing of the talk. It came one day after the ACL recruitment meeting, with John as one of the ACL’s guest speakers), and only days before the opening of the Sydney Diocese Synod, where womens ministry will again be debated. The reason given for the talk was the integration of Mary Andrews College (Womens) with Moore College. However, the two colleges have been integrated for ten months.Thus in a fairly charged environment, John put forth as normative for the College a policy which is more restrictive than the current diocese position (Which has provision for females preaching). Hardly opening up the floor for debate.
What has the result been? I can only speak from a very limited position, but from my view the result has been lacklustre. Those who agree with John had their views confirmed with very little in the way of argument. Those who disagree have either viewed this as an attempt to polarise the college, and so kept their heads down; or alternatively have capitulated
‘It’s not worth losing the opportunity to do gospel ministry in Sydney over this issue’.’
But is this the case? If John, and those who follow him, are wrong on this, then not only are we depriving the church of the work of leaders gifted by God to build it up; we are placing an uneccessary (and huge) stumbling block for the gospel in the way of 50% of the worlds population.
Either way, someone is going to lose (or already is denied) the opportunity to have a preaching ministry in Sydney.
7 Defining Moments in Your Sermon Preparation
7 hours ago
37 comments:
we are placing an uneccessary (and huge) stumbling block for the gospel in the way of 50% of the world's population.
Why do only women care about this issue enough for it to be a stumbling block? (Why do all women care about this issue enough for it to be a stumbling block?). 50% seems arbitrary.
Otherwise, great post. Do you agree with John that remaining "undecided" is a disservice to the church?
Good point about percentages! It really is a problem for a wide section of the community
I think John has a point about a lack of thought out positions on both sides. Most students haven't bothered looking at the issue in any detail, and simply rehash the party line. I can only assume that this continues into the parishes. So, being ignorant is more of a problem than being undecided. I think there is a difference between 'being undecided' and noticing real ambiguity or room for movement. It may be that after thrashing through the exegesis, more than one position is justifiable. As I said, John did speak about our reticence to talk about the issue, though the way the conversation was framed shut things down. I'm somewhat undecided, although I have a natural tendency to disagree with anyone who threatens me, so I need to spend some time with the conservatives arguments.
Hey Mike, this is one of your best written posts yet. Well done.
I agree with Matt. Best post ever.
I do think remaining undecided is a disservice. I also think it takes men to discipline men. Women are not equipped for this role.
Your thoughts on the 'world' were very perceptive, but I find it strange that Christians only 'found' justification for female preachers in the Bible this century.
Time for some manly decision-making.
Matt, Mike, thanks...although it's key feature is that it isn't simply a quote from elsewhere....hmm
Well, then... more!
Where do you see the preaching thing fit into that Bully? BBC still has female preachers right?
Women shouldn't preach to men. The Bible's quite clear, and there are practical, detrimental outcomes. It alienates men and the focus of the church becomes imbalanced towards comfort and maintaining the status quo rather than pioneering work, strong leadership at church and at home, and male comradeship. This last one especially is a strength in eastern Christianity, Judaism and Islam. We are a bunch of girls compared to them. Strong male, sacrificial leadership is rarely modelled. Solomon better stop capitulating to his idolatrous wives or there will be hell to pay - oh wait. The Babylonians are already at the door. Samaria (Europe) has gone under and her whoring sister Jerusalem (UK/USA) is surrounded up to the neck. Good thing we sent the women (male and female) out to fight for us.
Re BBC
Nearly all the strong, vocal, keen spiritual members are women. Men take a backseat.
I passed around the book 'Why Men Hate Going to Church' and it went down reasonably well. I also challenged the men during a recent 'testimony' serivce to take the lead more, and the response was tears in some cases.
Change is coming hopefully, very slowly. How do you say to strong women in leadership 'time to go' when you have no men to take the lead?
Doug Wilson's church has a monthly Sunday night men only service where they sing the war psalms and train leaders.
We need that sorely. I suggested we have a split service once a month but the answer was no.
James Jordan wrote: 'People who sing the psalms as real war chants, as war dances that precede battle, don’t have problems with assurance and don’t have time for scholasticism.'
Change is in the air. You can see it with Al Stewart, Driscoll, etc. but it will take a long time. Girly Christianity goes back 150 years.
It alienates men and the focus of the church becomes imbalanced towards comfort and maintaining the status quo rather than pioneering work, strong leadership at church and at home, and male comradeship.
Woah! On what are you basing these claims? I take it there is a (contested) exegetical argument for the biblical claim, but it seems once you make these kinds of arguments, you are open to equivalent arguments the other way (male preaching alienates women, lacks emotional intelligence, is more polemic than pastoral, etc. etc.). It seems to me that both sets of claims rely on gender caricatures that are not true of all (or even most?) men/women.
Byron
Thanks for your reply.
David Murrow has some stats here:
http://www.churchformen.com/allmen.php
and a quote:
"A study from Hartford Seminary found that the presence of involved men was statistically correlated with church growth, health, and harmony. Meanwhile, a lack of male participation is strongly associated with congregational decline."
and a bit of history here:
http://www.churchformen.com/formen.php
Doug Wilson (more of a theologian) has a lot of material and some helpful books at www.dougwils.com
"St. Paul bars women from rule in the church. So should we. Paul teaches that men are head over their wives. So should we. Luke teaches that a woman can function in a household without a head over her. So should we. The writer of Judges, without blinking, tells us of the faithful rule of Deborah, a mother in Israel. We shouldn't blink either, not if we begin and end, where we should, with the Bible."
With all due respect, it's got nothing to do with gender caricatures. I'm talking about strong, tender, sacrificial male leadership, not domination. This kind of leadership does not alienate women.
Our culture envelops us to the point that even its Christian critics struggle to be objective. It’s hard to see the air we breathe, hard to identify the cause of marital breakdown, abuse, delinquency, homosexuality, suicide, cultural disintegration and spiritual sterility when we think biblical gender roles are sexist.
As far as exegesis goes, the Adam-initiate/Eve-respond pattern is laced through the Bible like DNA. This goes way beyond the pathetic proof-texting of the current debate. Even Paul ties ruling at home and at church together. None of this "we are all the same in Christ" rot. We have quite different jobs to do:
Men and women have obvious physical and psychological differences, but James B. Jordan says these are only secondary. Our ‘liturgical’ distinction is primary, our stations in service of God, and the outward differences simply reveal our equipping for the complementary spiritual stations. You can read his articles here:
James B. Jordan, Liturgical Man. Liturgical Women, RITE REASONS, No.s 86 and 87.
http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-86-liturgical-man-liturgical-women-part-1/
Biblical Horizons » No. 87: Liturgical Man, Liturgical Women — Part 2
This really isn't a complicated issue. And it has nothing to do with tobacky chewin, huntin', shootin' or fishin'. The challenge for the future is to be (or raise) men who are shepherds and not wolves, innovators and protectors, not exploiters. We men need godly men to follow, but we don't even know what masculine piety looks like. We had some African men speak at our local high school scripture. The male students loved them and wanted them to come back. I reckon it was the first time they'd met real men, Christian or otherwise.
Murrow says something like: "Men will only follow a woman if they face getting fired or a court martial." That's reality, and it's the way God made it. Men initiate, women complement and complete. That's why they live longer!
I think I can make these claims based on statistics, experience and Scripture.
Sorry for ranting.
Blessings,
Mike
Hi Bully, thanks for the rant. As I said, I'm somewhat undecided.
You're focus on responsibility and service beats apathetic appeal to authority any day of the week
But.
If the non-hierarchical exegesis of Paul holds up (which it may or may not, and they do address all the texts you mentioned, rather than simply prooftext , at least, the good ones do), the rest of your argument seems to come from three strands.
One is that the world has got it wrong, and so therefore 'we' have got it right. Not a very tight argument, since it relies on there only being two options.(see post)
And secondly, that involved women must mean uninvolved men. While statistically this may be the case, and I applaud your many efforts to get men to take some responsibility, we can hardly blame the ladies here. The non-hierarchical guys certainly aren't pushing for men to have less involvment, and I don't know that it has to be an either/or. The same could be said of personality types, or even ethnic groups in ministry, that promoting one diminishes the other, yet surely we want to promote a variety there too. (in fact the experience of missionaries working with local leaders would be fascinating to hear, since I can only assume that when a culture starts to have it's first preachers, there are elements of their ministry we would see as ineffective) Again, if the N-H-C reading of Scripture stands, would it not be desirable to promote effective teaching ministry among all gifted people in the church.
Your third argument seems to be that men can't deal with it. Again, if the N-H-C exegesis is correct, this would be attributable to their sinfulness.
As for interpreting 'authority' as 'initiative', I like it, but I don't quite get how a woman teaching/preaching usurps this. Practically I don't think that it is what most conservative complamentarians mean by authority either
Quick reply...
Any attempt to give women 'rule' in the church assumes the church has got it wrong for 1900 years. I would definitely put the other view 'outside' the church in the world. You can't wipe out the argument from Scripture very easily and without some tricky contortionism.
Involved women? No, ruling women. And I don't blame the ladies. The reason we have a problem at all is because they currently have more balls in many cases.
Personality types and ethnic groups are irrelevant. We are talking about something that goes right to the heart of the created order and its symbol of God's ultimate purpose for us.
There are always going to be exceptions to the rule, such as Mary Slessor's success as a single missionary in Africa. She succeeded where male missionaries had failed because they did not see her as a threat. But surely this is like arguing for 3 thousand abortions per day in the U.S. because 37 women died from backyard jobs before Rove vs Wade? There IS a rule, and for good reason.
Women can teach. They can teach women and children, which is a complementary role to that of men. But from my own experience, women are much more susceptible to error. I'll tell you some stories when I see you about things I have heard at church.
Re authority and initiative: the biblical pattern supports this. God is the 'prime mover' who gives His word to Adam, who then shares it with, and protects, Eve. This pattern recurs hundreds of times in both narrative and typologically throughout the Bible. I can send you the latest draft of my book for a look.
The velour goes on the INside of the car. The Duco goes on the outside. That's why we have wet Christianity. ; ) Keep the world's fender-bending gender agenda outside. It wasn't the Bible that inspired this debate.
One more thought (I am cutting out pneumatic tool pictures today and it's very boring)
This debate is just another symptom of the gnosticism concerning the biblical creation narrative that infects evangelicalism.
And the debate over Paul's clear instructions is only possible when you approach it the way these people always do:
- Limit it to the culture of the day so it becomes irrelevant to us
- Make out we are smarter than they are (which also subtly denigrates Scripture)
- Produce a hazy fog by casting doubt over the meaning of every word in the original text and bogging any decision down in reams and reams of superior sounding claptrap and denominational machinery
- Refuse to discipline anyone who breaks the existing conventions, but initiate disciplinary action against those who want to uphold them
- Distort the issue by portraying those who uphold the biblical standards as unloving and old fashioned.
Same old same old. And it has rendered western Christianity sterile. Our kingdom will be taken away.
We men have failed to rule the house of God. We have failed to image the Father to a father-hungry culture. We have failed to image the Bridegroom to a people waiting at the altar. We have failed to image the Judge to those desperate for absolutes.
And we vacillate, and vacillate...
Thanks mike, maybe I'll start putting up some of the non-hierarchy exegesis and we can nut it out. Like you say, this goes to the heart of the created order and God's purposes for us. Getting male female relations wrong is a serious issue and shows a serious misunderstanding of community and humanity (though I'm sure you'de want to chuck in Jesus and the church there, these two issues being utterly related).
Now, is it rule, or initiative that takes priority in your thinking. Or both, I guess that is ok too, just want to be clear.
I'd love to see the connection and distinction between rule and preaching too. Do all rulers preach? Do all preachers rule?
The car analogy thing kind of missed me, mostly because I forget what velour is. As a gendered person, even in Christ I know I am already bent by the world in a myriad of ways, so simply sitting in the status quo isn't going to help much in living for the new age. That's why I'm looking into this a bit.
I feel the weight of church history greatly. And I think your right, it's only if we are compelled by the scriptures to move against that tradition that we should. You rightly point out that that should involve not just Paul, but the other epistles, the gospels and the Old Testament too, so hopefully I'll get to all these witnesses and be able to tie it in to what Jesus was and is up to.
"non-hierarchy exegesis"
That would be very helpful. I don't even know what this is in any detail.
Wow it's like old times. I'll have some banana bread too thanks.
I'm trying to avoid terms like egaletarian and patriarchal. They're too loaded. Both sides (at least in the evangelical camp) seem to want to claim 'complementarian' as their own, one with a hierarchy and one without. I'll probably focus on the church practice stuff rather then the home stuff. It seems the people who are really serious about hierarchy want to frame that in loving service, and the people who are keen on Non hierarchy want to frame it in mutual responsibility. Well thought through practice of either appears to look almost exactly the same in the home. The choices in the church probably blur too, but there are clear cut lines of distinction, so that is where I'll focus.
Sounds good.
...and the banana bread?
what happened at Synod
I heard a sermon by melbourne preacher Cath McKinney last week. She didn't preach on anything to do with gender, just a normal sermon focussing on a passage in the Old Testament.
I was staggered. It's difficult to describe what it was about her exegesis that I found so different and enriching. But there was something distinctly feminine in her exploration of the scripture, and it opened up a whole new universe to me about Old Testament prophecy.
Mike Bull says Women aren't 'equipped' to teach men. I disagree after this experience. There's no mistaking wisdom when you hear it, no matter who's mouth it comes from. I felt humbled and enriched, but more than that, cheated - it's a sad thing that for so many years men and women have been denied articulate feminine perspectives on scripture. Who wouldn't want to hear the Woman at the Well's account of her meeting with Jesus?
Reading through the strongly-held views of commenters here (okay, one particularly strongly-viewed person), I'm curious as to what people consider influenced their positions in this issue. I think it's funny how at Synod and elsewhere people tend to cite scriptures to back up their views, and yet at the same time I'm guessing it's from our very personal experiences that we establish and cement our views to begin with.
Nice blog, by the way. Chris Taylor sent me the link (I'm his housemate). peace
Hi Tim
"Mike Bull says Women aren't 'equipped' to teach men."
I think I was referring not so much to doctrine (although that's a big issue) or wisdom as to discipling men. It's not about whether women have something to say. It's about leadership, and the biblical pattern really isn't that hard to discern. The study I quoted showed a correlation between denominational decline and male participation. And I would certainly link a decline in male participation with a feminine focus on nurture over challenge. We are so used to it, we don't even see it.
Great post Mike, great comments.
There's a lot of talk about 'male' leadership. But defining biblical 'maleness' strikes me as one of the key problems.
Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, self-control. These are precisely feminine in this society (in my opinion). Perhaps the femininity of church arises from appropriate challenge to godliness?!?
Good comment Matt
Perhaps if we looked to the Old Testament for examples instead of 19th century pietism we would do better.
Think of Abraham's kindness as he plunders the kings of the plain to rescue his nephew! His self-control as he refuses the riches of Egypt and Sodom! Solomon's national peace after the destruction of his father's enemies! His throwing of loud, gluttonous feasts to express his joy! Paul risking his life to stand and preach publicly because of his love! And of course, the very masculine patience of Job in the face of continuous accusations. I guess it comes down to active versus passive godliness.
Hi Tim, (and hi Chris T too)
thanks for the comments. I think you are right that people on all sides of the debates come with their own experiences, and that colours their views. I don't mind that really, except when one side starts telling the other that they are simply arguing from experience, thats a hoot.
Tim, too answer your post more fully.
I grew up in a church that didn't have women preaching. It was a great church. When I was about 15, (I think?), there was a large, and fairly heated debate as to whether women should preach in that church. To complicate it further, my Mum and my Dad had rather different views. Dad was an elder/deacon (forget the right term) and Mum was asked to advise the eldership. Mum reckoned it was exegetically sound. Dad, however, was worried. " Even if it is exegetically sound, that's not why these people are pushing for it, they are just ignoring the Bible". I think they both had a point. Ha Ha. Eventually the church did allow women preaching, but by that point I had left the church. (Not over this issue.)
I changed over to an Anglican church that had some very strong and active women in ministry, but no teaching or leading. It was a great church. I don't remember it ever being an issue, but then again, I was just a kid and my parents weren't at that church to give me the lowdown.
After eight years there, I left and went to another Anglican church. It was a great church. It had been effectively run for a few years by a competent female warden before the rector turned up. The the rector was not interested in getting into political battles, he was interested in growing the church. He encouraged various women (and men) to take a more upfront role, sometimes teaching the Bible. I think he found it hard to find takers for his offers, and I'm not sure whether any women are still teaching there.
Then I went to another Anglican church, that, apparently is all up for women preaching, but there weren't any there.
So, there's my background, hows about yours?
Thanks for sharing that Mike
My background is in the pentecostal, then uniting, and now, the Anglican church.
I went to an AOG megachurch for the first 20 odd years of my life. They had no problem ordaining women, but in practise this never happened outside of husband and wife pastoral teams (where the wife then leads the womens/childrens ministries and hubby does the rest). Headship was seen as a given, more of an unquestioned cultural norm than a doctrinally-motivated practise.
Don't know if Mike Bull's reading this, but I would guess my instinctual revulsion to his desire for a more masculine church springs from my own experiences in what would probably be the church of Mark Driscoll & co's wet dreams.
Liturgy/rhetoric was riddled with aggressive metaphors, be they capitalistic, sporting or warfare-related - they combined to articulate a discourse on domination in the name of Christ, where winning equalled excellence (no matter what the costs), and losers/the poor came to be considered deserving of their conditions. We were taught that our faith needed vigorous defending, so we became viciously argumentative in our relationships with non-christians and uncompromising in our dogmas. I saw teenagers kicked out of home for smoking or having sex ("turning them over to their lusts"), school chaplains defacing the property of secular school kids in the name of jesus, and men were urged to "protect" the purity of their daughters with violence if neccessary. I grew up listening to Carman's metal anthems "God's Got an Army!" and "It's Our Turn Now!" - cranking rock songs about storming the gates of hell (and the local mall) and fighting to win back our nation for Jesus.
It was a place that smacked of jocular blokeyness that crushed women (or rather it moulded the majority who submitted into dependent sex-objects with fantasies about prarie life). We were taught that divorce is a sin and a woman must stay with a man no matter how much he "backslides" (read: abuses her) and patiently, submissively, coax her hubby to christ(There's a Paul quote that got used a lot). The marriages I saw around me were mostly quiet ordeals.
Men in my church were urged to read books such as John Eldridge's Wild At Heart, which, in my view, markets a version of masculinity that comes easy to about 30% of men. A friend of mine who came out was publically ridiculed and threatened with gay bashing by a youth pastor for "betraying" who he "really" was - this was seen as a potentially redemptive action. Women read Joyce Meyer and Christian romance novels that all seemed to be set on the American fronteir.
I finally left that church for the very reason that it was telling me things about masculinity and famininitiy I couldn't live with.
I have a beautiful masculinity. I love art galleries and punk music and dancing and American novels. I throw like a girl, but I was a champion gymnast. I love listening to and encouraging people - putting fire in their bellies to do great things and small things greatly. I love telling stories and nurturing my garden to make vegetables grow huge and juicy. I abhor violence and can't stand those who use words violently in Jesus' name. I loathe passivity too, but I acknowledge it's more often a symptom of disempowerment than indifference. I believe empowering (as opposed to fighting on behalf of, "liberating", or "defending") those who are powerless is the toughest fight on the planet, and one that must be done without raising your voice.
This kind of masculinity, I was told, was a feminised, modernised, insipid thing. I disagree.
I'm sure Driscoll/whoever would point out that all these excesses arent at all what they have in mind, but I can't help but warn them to be careful what they wish for. All those things sprang from a very righteous community.
So that's me. I personally find the preceedings of synod hugely disappointing. Nothing wrong with sticking to your beliefs but when the Church makes it its business to crush the minority view, it's sewing seeds in the wrong garden. bless ya mate.
It seems we are prone to err with either domination or passivity. The goal is the strong, sacrificial leadership that obeys and leaves the rest up to God - as is modelled for us in the Bible. The scenario you shared sounds like it was modelled on Nimrod the predator rather than Abraham the father. What we need is men who are spiritual fathers, who are both strong and tender at the appropriate times. That takes wisdom, and it attracts people rather than scaring them away.
Thanks for sharing that, Tim.
Yeah thanks Tim.
This highlights the fact that we need to listen to the stories and background of people to see where they are coming from and what they hear when we speak. I know I find it easier to listen to Bully's stronger position because I know he is also a gentle, godly and passionately loving man. Same goes for Byron and Matt. I hear their posts knowing that both are strong godly men.
I think of a book like 'Exclusion and Embrace' by Miroslav Volf, which involves and advocates incredibly tough forgiveness, that doesn't shirk on judgement, but doesn't hold back on love either. That's a man. Yet I'd have to say that's a woman too.
In terms of a wider view of masculinity, I was brought up to think that men were masculine. I know that sounds a bit simplistic, but, mostly I was given the confidence that what I did was masculine on account of me being male. Of course, other males might do other things, and that too would be masculine, on account of them being male. So, I find Tim's account of beautiful masculinity as well, pretty normal really. Tim is a man...he likes and does x...x is masculine then
Hey Tim if you're in the inner West we should meet up and have a coffee sometime. Bring Mr Taylor along
Hey Mike, sounds great. I'm a surry hills kid myself, but always keen to be introduced to a new cafe. I'm a student so always got time for a coffee :) timkurylowicz at gmail dot com
PS Mike - I think you're right. Perhaps 'masculinity' and 'femininity' cause so much fuss because they come to be interpreted as universal/definitive descriptions. There are gajillions of men with typically feminine strengths, and as many women who excel in typically 'male' fields. This oughtn't lessen our appreciation of the masculine or the feminine, but nor should peoples strenghts be marginalised because they go counter to the traditional/normal definition.
So I guess I might say to bully that I probably agree that the church he sees lacks some of the 'masculine' leadership traits - entrepreneurial spirit, adventurous and prophetic action, intentional mentoring camraderie etc.. but I don't think that this will automatically achieved by having more or better male leaders.
Foster the trait, not the gender.
hello!
new to the blog and new to the argument but reading through as a woman the think that got me really fired up was the assertion that women are more prone to error than men. OH MY GOSH!!! i think we are probably all prone to error as sin affects us all....
otherwise interesting reading
oh and i also found what happened at synod very sad :(
Hi Ang
I can see your point. There are some very stupid men. I have been one a few times.
But Paul's argument is that God gave the law to Adam, and he was to lead Eve. She was misled, and he failed to step in.
The Law of Moses makes a distinction between 'high-handed' sins and 'wandering' sins. Eve was guilty of the latter, but her wandering was Adam's responsibility. He was to lead her. His sin was the high-handed variety. As the God-ordained teacher, he was subjected to stricter judgment.
I do believe women are more prone to wander doctrinally than men. By God's design, women see things differently, and most often see things that men miss entirely, but female wisdom and insight is (again, by design) complementary.
As I commented to Mike, this whole debate is like pitting the inside of a car against the outside. One is hard and one is soft because, although they overlap, they were designed for different roles.
Mike Bull said:
"Hi Ang
I can see your point. There are some very stupid men. I have been one a few times."
Sorry Mike but I have to insist that you are being one now. Whether you realise it or not, you are using idealogy to meter a power relationship out to another human being. The Bible may be slightly unclear on the issue of gender, but it's plain as day what God thinks about those who perpetuate systems of injustice.
"But Paul's argument is that God gave the law to Adam, and he was to lead Eve. She was misled, and he failed to step in."
Are you serious? So because Paul refers to the male archetype in his retelling of Genesis, we're to read this as a clear sign that men are to to "lead" women as if they lack conscience, agency and the guidance of the Holy Spirit themselves? Dude, you can't seriously be arguing that women lack the agency to make moral decisions for themselves! Think about the ramifications of what you're suggesting here on theologies of salvation, grace, the trinity, holiness.
"The Law of Moses makes a distinction between 'high-handed' sins and 'wandering' sins. Eve was guilty of the latter, but her wandering was Adam's responsibility. He was to lead her. His sin was the high-handed variety. As the God-ordained teacher, he was subjected to stricter judgment."
This is a highly speculative reading of scripture (and a highly metaphorical passage of scripture at that).
"I do believe women are more prone to wander doctrinally than men. By God's design, women see things differently, and most often see things that men miss entirely, but female wisdom and insight is (again, by design) complementary."
At least you're owning that this is your opinion and nothing else. But dude, you seriously have to get out there and meet some wise old women. It is also a cruel and unusual use of language to use the word "complimentary" to connote lesser status.
The Scriptures aside, I refute this idea with the knowledge that there are dozens of wise, intelligent, rational, ituitive, perceptive, influential women in my own circle. Your opinion of women is inaccurate, misguided, and incredibly unfair.
"As I commented to Mike, this whole debate is like pitting the inside of a car against the outside. One is hard and one is soft because, although they overlap, they were designed for different roles."
Where do all these "hard" and "soft" metaphors come from? These generalisations are not Biblical, nor are they accurate. Male and Female are different, to be sure, but claiming that difference equals weakness is an insult to the God who created male and female in his image.
Not trying to pick a fight mate, but that last post of yours is waaaaaay out of line.
I'm a female engineer and usually hate the whole gender discussion in general as don't find 'equality' or whatever a problem. Not when living in western countries neway.
(definitely only discussing western protestant church here btw, i don't know much about catholic, but orthodox church is not like this)
I actually don't have an issue with this leadership topic. Women can do anything, except be the senior leader of an entire church. And that's fine.
Hi Tim
The world is built of power relationships, and the Bible divides them into those who are shepherds and those who are wolves (beasts). Egalitarianism in practice is actually anarchy.
The answer to injustice is not to abolish having judges, but to get better ones.
The Bible is not unclear at all on the issue of gender, except to those who twist the Scriptures to suit their agenda.
I disagree that my reading of Genesis is speculative. God gave the law to Adam before Eve was made.
I also disagree that this passage is metaphorical. Despite the lame arguments of some brilliant Christians who should know better, it is presented (and referred to in later Scripture) as history.
I didn't say that women lack any faculties. I stated that their faculties are complementary. Neither gender is complete without the other. But men are called to lead as shepherds, at home and at church. Our culture is crying out for strong fathers.
Though you admit that the genders are different, it seems you don't see this going beyond the obvious physiological and psychological differences.
Regarding 'hard' and 'soft', Paul refers to women as weaker vessels. I don't put the slant on this that you would. Doug Wilson says:
"The apostle Peter tells husbands to dwell with their wives with understanding, bestowing honour on them as the weaker vessel. We frequently miss Peter’s point because we were distracted by the fact that he said "weaker vessel," which we take as insulting. Because of that we miss that Peter is telling husbands to honour their wives, and we think it is not an honour to have someone kindly overlook the fact of your inferiority. Perhaps we should rethink this. There are forms of weakness that are a sign of great value, and not a sign of inferiority. You don’t want either of your linebackers to be frail, but you do want an expensive china tea set to be frail. You could protect your tea set forever by getting one made out of stainless steel—but if you did that, it wouldn’t be nearly as valuable. Peter is telling husbands that they are to stand up for their wives, and open doors, and step aside for them, not because the wife is an invalid and we should all feel sorry for her. Rather, he says this because only a husband who honours his wife in this way has the faintest notion of what a precious gift he has been given."
In this way, a godly marriage manifests the glory of Christ and His church. And male church leaders image the bridegroom to the corporate body - the assembly they govern.
If we fail to take the Bible seriously, and use the one-eyed value systems of the world, the wheels fall off. If we want to deal with 'denominational decline' but won't obey the Bible, we are kidding ourselves.
We don't need less spiritual mums, but we certainly need many more spiritual fathers. And this theme of strong shepherding (as opposed to abusive wolfing) runs right through the Bible, from the garden to the New Jerusalem. We should get used to it.
Being ruled by women and children is a judgment sent from God because the leadership have used their authority to abuse (Isaiah 3). Unjust men, haughty women and lawless children! That's where we are right now. We are in outright rebellion against His revealed glory. We are covered with scabs and we don't even see it.
I understand where you are coming from after your experience with wolves, but making this situation of judgment into the status quo is just gilding the scabs.
Post a Comment