Wounds of a Friend

In this month's Christianity Today, complementarian (men and women have equal but different roles in marriage and church life - W) John Koessler and egalitarian (God freely calls believers to roles and ministries regardless of gender, class or race - W) Sarah Sumner have an "unexpected exchange" on the women's leadership debate.

Complementarians need to recover a fully biblical view of women — and of handling theological disagreement. By John Koessler

Egalitarians should rely more on careful exegesis and less on political ideologies. By Sarah Sumner

Both articles are refreshing and graceful additions to the conversation and I found plenty to agree with on both sides of the discussion.

When God created humankind in his image, he created them to be male and female (Gen. 1:27). It is often said that men and women bear the image of God equally. But it might be more accurate to say that men and women bear God's image together. Men and women collectively reflect the divine image; one without the other is incomplete. In addition, the Book of Genesis affirms men and women's joint mandate to exercise dominion over creation. Men and women share this responsibility; neither can fulfill God's mandate alone. ...

Complementarians need to be on guard against the temptation to use the Bible as a sanction for social constructs. The Pharisees tried to protect God's commands by putting a fence around the Law. I fear that complementarians, too, have gone beyond the Scriptures in our effort to preserve God's design. Have we added our own traditions to the Bible's teaching in an attempt to preserve biblical manhood and womanhood?

John Koessler

Egalitarians often argue that since God commands his people to submit to one another, women leaders have the right to be submitted to by men. When this doesn't happen, they feel angry. Yet a truly Christian ethic would remember that women have the duty, not the right, to lead as God calls them to lead. When God calls a woman to step forward, she is to step forward, regardless of how others respond. ...

When Galatians 3:28 is used out of context, the egalitarian argument can easily be perceived as promoting a genderless church. Though most egalitarians emphatically believe that men and women are not the same or interchangeable, it is hard for the unconvinced to hear the wisdom of their message— and easy for others, like the gender-confused, to twist the meaning of their message into something it is not.

Sarah Sumner

Christianity Today's Timothy George also addressed complementarians and egalitarians in his excellent article 'A Peace Plan for the Gender War'.

I'm sympathetic to George's stated position 'I am not a card-carrying member of either party', finding plenty to agree with on both sides and probably falling somewhere in the middle of the debate. However, realistically, I know I'd fit in more easily on the egalitarian side, given my openness to women in church leadership roles. Also I personally feel more confident of having the opportunity in an egalitarian setting to argue in a complementarian direction, than I'm confident of being able to even talk about a egalitarian direction from a complementarian position. Whether you understand what I mean may depend on your experiences with both sides of the debate, whether positive or negative.

Questions from Feminist Theology

I went along to Theology 101 at church today and, apart from being perhaps the first Soup and Theology I've been to without Chris, and missing his particular brand of "Jubious theology" :) , I quite enjoyed learning about feminist theology...

Mark was doing 'What's Right About Feminism?'

Lots to critique in the texts, but I was left with some interesting questions and counter-questions:

• Given that the Bible was written by male authors, did it have to be this way?
• Would the Bible have been essentially different if it had been written by women? Assuming that it would have been, at least to some degree, different, what does this say about the nature of truth? Could it still have been the Word of God? (perhaps a meaningless question.. Scripture is as it is.)
  
• Did the Bible have to have been written by men? Was this a reflection of the (male-dominated) culture, or was it supposed to be this way - determining cultural norms? As in a hegemony, which comes first - the reality or the interpretation of that reality as normative? In other words, perhaps controversially, is the patriachal hermeneutic divinely ordained or the product of a fallen society obsessed with holding power over others? Or is it somewhere between the two?
  

These are complicated questions and raise questions about the authority and authorship of the Bible. Part of the answer may rest on how we see the divine / human authorship of the Bible. But asking 'could it have been otherwise?' is much the same as 'could it have been other?' and leads us onto difficult and possibly dangerous ground. Scripture defines itself.

I'm not normally a fan of feminism, but I have to admit these are interesting questions. Ultimately of course, we know Scripture - as it stands - as God's word and I'm not about to dispute that. But I do think it's a sensible idea to treat texts with a 'hermeneutic of suspicion' at times - as long as you remember to question this hermeneutic as well! As a good friend used to say, 'I'm learning to question my doubts'.

I also think it's important to learn from the way feminist theologians are explicit about their hermeneutical agenda, not claiming to be unbiased or objective. I have some serious issues with some of their conclusions, but I do think they raise some important issues about the importance of questionning our own hermeneutics and use of language.

However, at the end of the day I want to remember that we're involved in a searching for the Truth - above liberation, freedom, 'correctness', or anything else. Because we believe that ultimately Truth is a person (John 14.6), and he alone gives true freedom.

...Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. ...if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." John 8.31-36

Husbands and Wives: who will come first?

I've been reading Tony Campolo's 'Speaking My Mind' which has as a subtitle, "The radical evangelical prophet tackles the tough issues Christians are afraid to face"!

It's a series of essays on various topics: women, homosexuals, science, Islam, the 'moral decline'... As I'm normally a fan of Tony Campolo and I like how he approaches issues, I thought I'd find out what he had to say. I haven't been disappointed so far.

The first essay is on women in the church (and in marriage). He's less even-handed here than he is in other areas, but I was especially struck by the point he makes about us asking the wrong questions.

For example, he talks about being asked "Who's supposed to be the head of the house?"

'When I hear such a question, I am inclined to say, "If you were really a Christian, you wouldn't ask a question like that. The Christian never asks who's going to be master. Instead, the Christian asks who's going to be the servant. The true Christian never asks who's going to be the first in any hierachy but rather asks who's going to be last."

Fortunately, I don't have to be that tough in my answer. All I have to do is read what Jesus said about all of this when He taught His disciples: "And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all, and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). Then I simply ask how he could apply this Scripture in answering the question he just asked.'

He also makes the point that husbands are told in Ephesians to love their wives even as Christ loved the church. And he quotes Philippians 2:5-8: "...took upon him the form of a servant...and became obedient unto death..."

He goes on to conclude that 'if a Christian husband wants to love his wife as Christ loved the church, he has to define himself as her slave... What all this amounts to is a living out of each serving the other in love, even as Paul instructs them to (Gal 5:13).'

You make me feel like a ...

Gender is such an interesting thing. I've never felt confined by my gender, although I realise that this may be an unusual experience. Any limits on the possibilities open to me have always seemed those of skill or competency, and not because I am female. I am thankful indeed to have been born into a family environment and been part of a wider network (school, church, friends) that has encouraged and enabled me to follow my own path, without worrying about society's expectations of me as a woman.

Actually I've always been glad to be a woman, and at times even glad to play the 'helpless female' when it worked to my advantage. I've always (and perhaps cynically) seen social expectations as something to take advantage of when working in my favour, and subverted or ignored when not!

I love the freedom in being a woman, and implicit in that, the freedom not to be a man. While I want men and women to enjoy equality of opportunity and expression beyond gender lines, I also want to celebrate the differences between us. While I recognise in myself some traditionally masculine qualities (or 'Martian characteristics', as some have heard!), I don't ever want to feel that the only way I can express those is to be less female. In fact, I long to use all the talents God has placed in me while more fully the woman He has made me. O to be the woman described in Proverbs 31!

I've always felt that to be a woman of God is to celebrate everything that God has put in me that is female. And for me personally, much of that is tied up in the idea of what it means to be in partnership with a man. (Though i'm not saying that a woman is incomplete without a man!) But I guess, for me, some of what I want to enjoy as a woman is to be pursued and loved by a man, to enjoy beauty and 'femininity', cherished and protected in marriage, submitted to my husband, motherhood... Like many girls I know I identified on one level with the picture John Eldridge paints in 'Wild at Heart' - the secret desire to be rescued by a knight on a white charger and carried off into the sunset.. (although - for any secret admirers out there - I will accept a more liberal interpretation! though the horse is essential)

I've always been a independent sort of person, as I'm sure those of you who know me would agree! So some of this has come as a surprise to friends in the past. And I realise that some of this is controversial - not every girl friend would agree with those things I have picked out.

I remember an occasion a few years back which sticks in my memory as a moment of epiphany about myself. I was at a party with some friends, but ended up having to leave early and walk home. Some friends (guys) offered to walk me and I waved them off with a 'oh no, don't worry, I'll be ok', but as soon as I'd left realised that I would have loved someone to have insisted. They were valuing my independence and right to make my own decisions, but somewhere in me was the social and cultural expectation that a guy should walk a girl home after dark, should insist on doing so despite protestations to the contrary! So although I was perfectly capable of getting home and wasn't worried about walking alone in Durham or anything like that, I guess I did want those social roles to still work in my favour!