More random ramblings about men and women and church and all that stuff…
One: My greatest frustration with this whole Complementarian discussion is that the vast majority of what I read is focused on telling women what to do and what we can’t do. Precious little of what I have observed takes time to exhort men to be men worthy to lead.
Two: The major freak-outs that happen (especially on Twitter) are focused in on a woman stepping out of her prescribed lane and doing something the Comp crowd has forbidden. But there is no equal freak-out when men are found to be less than worthy to lead, or have blatantly abused their position of authority and harmed women. Why is that so?
Three: I am still on the fence and have so many questions. I have, however, come to an important conclusion that I personally am not “called” to be ordained, or lead in a church setting. But what about women who do have that calling, and are clearly gifted to do so?
My quest has led me to revisit the first three chapters of the Bible. This is what I have observed so far:
- I can’t help but notice that the man was called upon to answer for their misdeeds, even though it was the woman who was deceived.
- It’s also noteworthy that in the first chapter of Genesis, God commands both the male and the female to be fruitful, multiple, “have dominion” over creation and subdue it. He said this to them not to him. Later in Genesis 2, where a more detailed account of the creation of humanity is given, the command given to the man only has to do with the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The command to “have dominion” is not discussed in that context. That’s interesting to me, although I have yet to really dig into what that might mean. But it’s worth noting.
- It is also notable to me that the man was there as his bride was being led astray and did nothing to intervene; and that he did not take ownership of that when he was called to account. At that point, it was the woman *God* gave him that was to blame for all his troubles. Sound familiar? Ultimately, the consequences for disobedience fell upon both. It’s interesting to me that God called out to the man to answer first, perhaps because He was given the command about the tree in the first place.
- The man “ruling” over the woman was a consequence of the Fall, not a result of creation. Even if man is called to a “role” of leadership, “ruling over women” is not what it should look like (see Eph. 5:22-30). Note also that this is spoken of in the context of a marital relationship. Woman’s desire shall be for her husband; man’s desire will be to rule over his wife. Read in context, that cannot possibly be seen as a positive outcome for either the man or the woman.
My next task will be to take a look at how New Testament authors spoke about men and women, and how they interpreted Genesis 1-3 in their treatment of the subject. But that is for a later day.
All of this leads to a whole host of secondary questions. For one, how does this translate to men and women who are not in a marital context? I’ll use myself as an example. I am single. I have no husband to “submit” to. So what does this look like for me? Am I to submit to any man? Even Paul doesn’t say that – he calls upon women to submit to their own husbands (Eph. 5:22). So how am I to understand that command as a single woman?
And that’s just one set of questions! Here’s another thought: If it is true that the Holy Spirit gives His gifts as He wills, and a woman is clearly given gifts of leadership, teaching or shepherding, did the Holy Spirit make a mistake? How is that woman to exercise those gifts? One could argue that is her function with her children – but what if she has no children? Or, as is my case, cannot have children? Even if we grant that men are called to be the pastors and elders in the local church context, how is a woman so gifted to use those gifts? And are the elders really doing something wrong if they call upon that woman to share her gifts with the local body?
A final observation: All of this looks and feels so much like our current political climate in the US. There is no such thing as middle ground or compromise anymore. Neither side is willing to give an inch, or concede anything. If you walk into the fray from the right and even suggest someone on the left has a valid point, you are branded a traitor and banished. The left has a similar sifting system. No room for nuance, for possible correction, for learning anything from folks to the right. This is, admittedly a generalization, but one that I think holds true in so many situations.
This is hard for me. Most days I’m too conservative for my liberal friends and too liberal for my conservative friends. I see the black and white issue – but I also see the many shades of grey in between. Sometimes a lot of truth lives in that grey. But when ideological purity is the promised land you’re seeking, the grey is your enemy. I’ve witnessed this same phenomena in theological debates. This makes finding a solid place to stand on this subject all the more difficult.
That’s all I have for now…thankfully. And of course, I have more questions than answers, as per usual. More to come…
Grace and peace…