Gender Politics or Theological Precedence (For Women in Ministry)?
Fresh from finishing my last full semester on campus @ Regent (Vancouver, not Virginia) I’m still at it, thinking theologically, working thru it, and applying it – this time for an upcoming ordination class. So I’m enjoying the continued mental exercise – this time on the issue of women in ministry. The ECC takes an egalitarian stance on it – this is my take.
If I am honest, I do not find the exegetical arguments in this work convincing… I’ve heard numerous exegetical arguments on both sides and agree w/ Cairns’ initial assessment that it involves a hermeneutical circle. So I think the real answer lies outside of exegesis and instead in the areas of hermeneutics and theology. In the end I just feel if we are to argue for biblical egalitarianism we are somewhat hard-pressed to engage in exegetical gymnastics. But hermeneutical considerations almost pre-empt the discussion entirely, in asking questions of context and where meaning lies, with the author, text, or reader. Furthermore, I for one, don’t buy the slippery-slope argument; I’ve seen enough conservative institutions become the thing they fear most – quite liberal – which tells me that sliding downward into theological liberalism is not necessarily the result of open-mindedness towards feminist perspectives.
Thank you for pointing out that it is indeed exegetical gymnastics that are involved here
On the flip side, what do we make of the attitudes behind
gal 3:27 – 28
eph 5:21
ladies chime in
@Wayne
I’m not a lady, but the context of Gal 3.27-28 shows that the primary issue being addressed is about access to God through faith in Jesus Christ rather than reliance upon the law. So all of these groups have unmediated access to God. As for Ephesians 5, the subsequent verses flesh out the meaning more fully of who is to be subject to whom. The order of pairing always begins with the subject party in the relationship and then addresses the other party with an admonition related to the proper use of his authority. Thus we see wives then husbands, children then fathers, servants then masters. So the line, “be subject to one another” does not upend what Paul sees as the normal order of human interaction (unless we are willing to overturn the 5th commandment).
ok; since there’s no other responses i’ll take a stab.
Gal 3: context aside, don’t you think this statement itself is nothing less than revolutionary? Isn’t there a liberating trajectory to our gospel (Isaiah 61) And since we’re on context, what do we say about Isaiah 11:6-10 where the lion will lie down with the lamb – isn’t there a reversal happening here?
Eph 5: I’ve heard compelling argument that verse 21 is the pinnacle of Paul’s discourse – all else is subsumed under that point – we are indeed all to submit to each other under Christ.
Don’t get me wrong – I think exegesis is very important – but it has to go hand-in-hand with the larger overall theological frameworks – in this case what I find to be the liberative agenda of the kingdom.
@Wayne
Yes I do think there is a liberating motif in the gospel that is revolutionary, though I think it is important to retain the real sense of the world “revolution” and to ask the question, “liberating from (and to) what?” Ultimately the Christian answer to this question must be, “from sin and it’s effects to freedom under and through Christ,” rather than liberation from an economic or social condition (though of course there are economic and social implications).
If it is revolutionary, it is revolutionary in that it promises a return to an order as things were in the beginning; things operating as they should, and not revolutionary in the sense that everything must be upended and reordered — which is an atheistic Marxist critique rooted in an entirely materialist view of the universe. In our disordered sinful state we find it difficult to conceive of deference and hierarchy (for lack of better terms) as inherently oppressive, which it needn’t be, unless God himself is deemed to be an oppressor for commanding the angelic beings — a sentiment that the devil himself would seem to agree with.
We likewise fail to account for how radically liberating the seemingly constricting instructions of Paul are – tying as they do men, women, fathers and children, masters and servants in webs of mutual obligation and thus providing protection for the weaker party from abuse. As we know, women and children without husbands are subject to all kinds of violations and deprivations, and men not tied to families tend towards all kinds of excessive and abusive behavior. The loosening of these strictures has on the whole been disastrous for women and children.
As for v. 21 being the pinnacle of Paul’s discourse, that is a debatable point, but one that even if true does not change the fundamental requirements he lays upon each party in the respective relationships. So if Paul’s charge is for mutual submission, the interpretation and application of that point is expressed for each party in a distinct way: wives are to be subject to their own husbands, and husbands are to love their wives, children are to be obedient to their parents, and fathers are to exasperate their children and so on. The corollary passage in Colossians retains the essential framework without the phrase “be subject to one another,” and thus tends to be glossed over by those who advocate strongly for the notion of “mutual submission” as it fails to find much support outside of this one phrase in this one letter. It is certainly different than Peter’s much stronger language wherein he cites Sarah as example and notes that she calls her husband, “lord.”
So even if our overall theological framework is the liberative agenda of the kingdom, then we ought to be willing to allow scripture to define how such liberation is expressed in the realm of human relations even when such expressions seem counter to our own sensibilities. It cannot be that Paul is being radically liberationist when he agrees with us, and alternatively radically accomodationist to the prevailing culture when he disagrees.
dang that was a long answer
I think you make a good argument for hierarchy, and of late, I’ve begun to see the need for an “order of being.” Nonetheless I’m wondering which argument for hierarchy we are using here, is it human essence or human vocation? That is to say, the hierarchy of gender might not be the essential point of contention and even if so, I for one have to hear the corrective to continue to treat my wife as equal to me and not just submissive – which as all good ordered things go – can get corrupt, especially for Korean males.
But I do think the case that is under contention here is human vocation, as opposed to human essence – and regarding essence I’m not sure what to say, whether women are equal or inferior – that’s speculative for me and as I said in practice – troublesome if I too easily defend that position
i think specifically what I’m onto is women in the church – particularly in roles of leadership and ordination
more later, my wife is outta the house and baby girl needs my attention
@Wayne
Taking care of baby girl is definitely a priority vocation for you!
I think the issue is definitely one of vocation, rather than of essence, as we are essentially equal, and this applies whether in the home or the church. This home/church distinction was certainly less clear for the New Testament (hence the concern that an elder be one who, “is able to rule his own house well), and the church itself was understood as a household of sorts. However, we are embodied beings (and therefore sexed), time bound (and therefore of differing ages), and differentially gifted (both naturally and spiritually). Of these, only the first is foundational and unchanging. A person who is old was once young and those who are unskilled may be trained (within the limits of his or her natural gifted for even then there is a limitation). Our vocation is necessarily tied to these realities because we cannot be other than embodied, time bound, and differentially gifted.
Within the context of the church then we tend to have little difficulty accepting this necessity as it applies to those who are differently aged or gifted. Indeed it could be said that we actively violate scripture with our North American tendency towards the denigration of the aged in favor of the youth. This is because we tend to view these things as transient in nature and therefore in some sense “correctable.” This is deeply problematic as it is rooted in a view of vocation that assumes being a well educated, fully competent, male pastor is the highest call, or certainly one more valuable than any other. If this is the case then those who are foundationally different (i.e. women) can never be as valuable in the church.
It is a natural tendency to assume that differential vocations mean different value, or expressed differently – inequality. Hence the needed correctives throughout scripture which tend to curb our naturally sinful bent Unbounded hierarchy wherein different vocation equates to differing worth or assumption of inequality of essence leads inexorably to hideous oppression (such as the ongoing massive state endorsed female infanticide epidemic in China). The better view (and more Biblically consistent) is that any of the varied vocational expressions open to us dependent on both the varying and unvarying facets of our being are equally valuable. Thus it is not better to be married or single, pastor or lay, husband or wife, servant or master. Each of the vocational options open to us say nothing about our essential worth, and each of the vocational options open to us are likewise constrained by our embodied, time bound, and different gifts.
i think i hear you say that vocation and gender are inseparable; thus if women are barred from ordination they are also intrinsically inferior?
Again, I’m not sure about a hierarchy of essences – we are both, male and female created in the Likeness. But I know – from my own experience – God uses women powerfully; I remember the impassioned and gifted preaching of one woman who profoundly influenced me – thus do we hinder giftedness, particularly in regards to ordination, which is an extra-biblical prescription?
Another problem is, the relegation of women to secondary roles is – whether conciously or not – somehow connected to the view that womenhood is equated w/ sinfulness. Is it sinful to be a woman?
Why would women being barred from ordination make them inferior? My fiancee keeps talking to me about how the feminist movement sounds like a good idea since it’s based on the concept of equality — but this equality is at the expense of the woman who finds her identity in being primarily a wife and mother. She gets irritated that people see more value in a women who is career driven rather than driven to be a good wife and mother, and she wonders why her God-given purpose as a woman is seen as inferior to what God has called men to do.
I think that it’s silly for people to see motherhood and the other roles that women have been given as secondary. I think there’s a reason that Jesus said the Church is a body — not everyone is a head, not everyone is a hand, not everyone is a foot. Our own cultural understanding of leadership as the most valuable is flawed. There could be no leaders without followers.
Plus, men suck at leading. So it’s not like God was like, “Oh, I’m going to make men better at this than women.” His choice to make men the leaders in marital relationships and in the Church was not based on the ability of men to be so awesome at it, just like His exclusion of women from the office of elder was not based on them being incapable of it. It’s just His design, and we need to submit to it, regardless of whether or not we understand it.
@Wayne
You have me partially right. I am definitely not saying that women are inferior. I’m saying that we have a skewed view of vocation that places different value on different vocations. So while our differences constrain our vocational realities, our vocations are not more or less valuable. Your phrase, “relegation of women to secondary roles,” reflects this common way of thinking. There are no “secondary roles.” I don’t believe in a hierarchy of essences: we are equally made in the image of God to be sure, and it is no sin to be a woman; no more than it is a sin to be a man — although that is a far more likely view in our contemporary society.