Women of the Kingdom

I was raised in a very conservative Protestant Christian tradition. A tradition that has a very high regard for the study of theology but which also views the bible as verbally inspired, inerrant and infallible in all matters, including matters of history and science. You'd probably not be surprised to learn that this tradition does not countenance the ordination of women on the ground Scripture teaches that men have headship over women and may therefore not be taught or led by women.

One of the joys and delights of being a Methodist is that women achieved full equality in the Church some decades ago. The US Methodist Church gave full clergy rights to women in 1956 (although some prior historic Methodist denominations had ordained women in the 19th century) and I believe that the British Methodist Church first ordained women to ministries of word and sacrament in the 1970s (although women had been admitted to the office of Local Preacher long before that).

It's also been my experience in British Methodism that men can often be quite fierce in their defending the equality of men and women before God and in our respective roles in the Kingdom. As a woman raised in a "headship" context, I know that I sometimes feel that I dare not get too worked up about the issue for the emotional toll it will take on me if I focus too much energy on the issue. I therefore appreciate men like my colleague, Dave Warnock who speak out forcefully on the subject of equality.

One of the frustrations of being a Methodist, however, is the often widespread view that the matter of women's equality and ministry has been "settled" long ago and that "no one" believes in headship any more and "no one" believes or acts as if women are inferior.

I invite those who think that this is a minor matter to read the following article: Women of the Kingdom by author and house-church promoter Felicity Dale. (Hat tip to Allan Bevere.)

Far from using language that suggests that these attitudes are in the past, Dale says that "the Holy Spirit is beginning to change sexist attitudes".

Which Methodist or other mainstream Protestant Christian would think that anyone in the 21st century would say something like

• “Of course, we’ll put both your names on the front cover. This book is far too important to have been written by a woman!”

or

• "God will use a woman—but only when there is no man available to do the job."

For every Methodist or other mainstream Christian who thinks that the matter of the equality of women does not need to be addressed, I suggest you read this article and then search for other articles on the subject of complimentarianism and the ordination of women. We need to keep speaking about these issues for the sake of every woman who believes that God thinks she is "less equal than others" simply because she is female.

It's My Husband's Fault

OK, here's a post that's got me so angry that it's managed to kick me out of my no-blogging funk.

Who would have credited it? A man who advocates male-headship who reckons that, if something goes wrong in a marriage, it's usually (not always, but usually) the husband's fault: Marriage Counseling: It's His Fault.

But wait. Perhaps there is a point here. The underlying thesis of the post seems to be that if a man sufficiently 'sacrificially loves' his wife, that the marriage will not have problems.

I have a huge 'problem of justice' here. There are three underlying assumptions that I don't agree with. One, that the husband is most likely to be the selfish partner. Two, that the wife is most likely to be the unselfish partner. And the third: that even if the wife is the selfish (abusive, addicted) one, that it's somehow the man's job as head of the family to 'cure' her by his sacrificial love.

Trying to 'fix' other people by the force of our own will or behaviour is normally called co-dependency and anyone who has tried it will tell you that, not only doesn't it work, but trying this methodology as a way to maintaining a relationship with an addicted/abusive partner is simply a recipe for heartache.

If I were a Christian man whose wife was abusing him, I'd want to stay a hundred miles away from such counsel. My heart aches for the husbands who won't be heard because the nature of their concerns doesn't fit with their pastor's preconceived ideas. Just as my heart aches for all the Christian women who are told that if they are just more submissive, their husbands will stop abusing them.

Justice demands that the true nature of what is happening in any situation be discerned. Truth is not served by assuming that women are usually 'good' and men are usually 'bad'. I despair - in either a conservative or liberal ideology - when people make claims for female moral superiority. Each one of us - no matter what gender - is capable of the most dastardly evil and the most glorious good.

The last paragraph in this post sets out where I disagree with male-headship:

1) That, to quote: the husband gets commended when it is going well and he gets the heat when it is not.
Sorry, no. If a wife is mentally or emotionally unstable, the husband is not responsible. And if a marriage is going well, it's because both partners are playing their part.

2) A happy, holy wife is a wonderful endeavor for a husband.
So, the wife is, in some sense, the husband's 'project'? This reflects what I call the attitude of male headship that a woman is never quite a full adult.

3) A husband must learn to keep the pulse of how his wife is doing (spiritually, emotionally, physically)
Again, this assumes that a husband somehow 'has control' over his wife.

Both Christian egalitarians and advocates of male-headship often present themselves as believing that husbands and wives are called to put their spouse first. The difference in the two attitudes isn't really even about 'what women are permitted to do in Church'. The big difference is the attitude of male-headship that women and our lives can be controlled and led by men. That we are not and never will be full adults. And that co-dependent relationships - with the man responsible for controlling his wife's mental, emotional and spiritual responses - are What God Wants.

Masculine Christianity

My friend Dave recently linked to a post which suggested that the church should have a masculine ethos. The premise is that 1 Corinthians 16:13 says in the original Greek that the church should 'Watch, stand firm in the faith, be men, be strong' so somehow, this means the church should have a masculine ethos.

I don't want to debate the process of translation or of exegesis that arrives at this understanding.

What bothers me is the idea of 'masculine Christianity' that appears to be becoming popular, doubtless due in no small measure to the the rantings of Mark Driscoll and his disciples who come up with amazingly anti-Gospel sound-bites like:

We are deadly serious about the great commission and loading all guns to storm hell with the gospel of grace. And we need more men.

Driscoll and his ilk are going to be macho for the Gospel? They are going to do what? Shoot anyone who doesn't love his or her neighbour? Help to usher in the Prince of Peace to his Kingdom through war and hostage-taking?  

Well, count me as one woman who grew up with this sort of doggy-do of a theology and who is not going to be silent in the face of this kind of untruth-dressed-as-truth.

Imagine 'masculine Christians' in the Desert with Jesus: Come'on Jesus! Show the devil your stuff and jump off that Temple. Take control of the world and we'll be your army. And while you're at it, sure, you can go ahead and feed the hungry by turning those rocks into bread.

Or how about in the Garden of Gethsemane Hey Jesus! Why are ya prayin'? Prayin's for girls! Now is the time for action; are you afraid to defend yourself? ****** he's putting the soldier's ear back! Stupid wimp. I guess we knew all along that he didn't have the guts to do what needs doing.

It's not about 'masculine' Christianity or 'feminine' Christianity, it's about Christ-centred Christianity. It's about the church of Christ imitating Christ. Jesus pointed out that he could have called down legions of angels rather than submit himself to the cross. Going to the cross was not an act of passivity nor was it a lack of decisiveness or courage: it was an act of faith. An act of faith in the Resurrection and in the Father's being completely without reference to death. It was an act of faith that death and evil would be defeated not by swinging swords at them, but by entering into them.

The kind of 'masculine Christianity' that is being advocated today is the same self-help idolatry that the ancient Israelites fell into and it's the same that the Roman Empire promoted and it's the same self-help idolatry that our own culture promotes: that our power rests in our own courage and strength and ability to fend for ourselves.

Those who see themselves either as being 'in power' or entitled to being 'in power' will easily fall prey to this idolatry. It's also easy to see why those who either consider themselves to be underdogs, or who have sympathy with underdogs, will grasp the meaning of Christ's gospel that the last will be first and that his strength comes when we are weak. It's obvious why those who want to see themselves as strong and macho don't like the real Gospel, but that doesn't make them right.

Egalitarianism and Ecumenism

About a week ago, I blogged about an internationally known Christian mission which wrote to me as a Methodist minister asking to recommend to them local business men who might potentially want to join in their work. It's since been confirmed to me by a female clergy colleague that this group does not admit women to membership although member's wives are allowed and encouraged to participate in the society's work.

Since becoming a minister this past September, I've become aware that there are a number of Christian groups that are eager to be in contact with "Revd P G*****" provided that the "P" stands for something like Paul or Philip and not Pam or Paula. One group sent me an invitation to hear an American Christian speaker who I love; but it became clear that the offer to support clergy in the challenges of doing God's work didn't apply to female clergy.

Yes, it hurts. But I honestly believe that complimentarianism and male-headship are wrong; I honestly believe that it is as wrong as saying that God doesn't want non-white people to be ministers.

So how does an egalitarian, female minister engage with these sorts of Christians in terms of ecumenism? I know that many of my egaliatarian colleagues would say to ignore them but I do not believe this is right either. The question is rather like 'How do you work with a group of people who would prefer to ignore you?'

Warning: For Women Only! Men May Be Led Astray

In his post 10 Questions for Complimentarians, Internet Monk asks some entertaining questions as well as one I've actually been wondering about.

The context of the post is the dismissal of Dr. Sheri Klouda, assistant professor of Old Testament languages, from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on the grounds of being female.

According to Internet Monk, the President of Southwestern Seminary, Paige Patterson, not only believes in male headship (AKA complimentarianism) but a rather extreme form of it. According to Patterson, 1 Timothy 2:12 does not only apply to relationships between Christian men and women in church and family, but to all of their relationships, everywhere.

This causes Internet Monk to ask entertaining questions like:

If you are pulled over by a female police officer whom you know to be a Christian, how do you make her understand that she has no authority over you (assuming you are male)?

But one question that I've been wondering about (as someone raised in a male-headship church) is:

Should Christian women refrain from writing books, or papers, or internet articles, lest a Christian man should read them and accidentally learn from them? Or should such books and articles come with a warning label -For Women Only!-?

To me, the latter is an interesting question. I don't see the difference between teaching and the written word. If it is somehow anathama for a woman to teach a man by speaking to him, it doesn't make sense that it should be permitted for a woman to teach a man through the written word. I view both this blog and my sermon blog as a form of preaching. So, this post carries a health warning: For Women Only. Men should not read anything on this blog lest they be led astray.

Just Common Sense?

A day or two ago, I picked up a book on a book stall written by a Christian woman who was advocating that women should obey their husbands (AKA "complimentarianism", AKA "male-headship").

Now, I confess to only reading two pages, but this is what I read.

The author talked about how, marriage certificate in hand, she set out at the beginning of her marriage to change her husband into what she wanted him to be. She recounted how their marriage became more and more difficult for both of them as she set her sights on her own objectives of the sort of person her husband should be and tried with increasing lack of success to change him.

The bit where I finished reading said something like "Too many women train their husbands and obey their children when they should be obeying their husbands and training their children."

Well, guess what? This egalitarian agrees with all of those sentiments. It seems to me that this is just common sense.

Children should be lovingly and gently trained and certainly not obeyed; children need adults to establish boundaries at a young age and then to help them learn to establish their own boundaries as they get older.

And no-one in their right mind should ever marry a person with the thought that their spouse could be perfect if only this and that and that were changed. Assuming that a person has wisely chosen a spouse, the key to spiritual growth is in learning to love the person as they are rather than in trying to change them. The sooner anyone learns this in a marriage, the better for both parties. This is just total common sense.

My only point would be that this goes for both parties. Men should not expect to marry a woman so as to change her into My Ideal Wife any more than a woman should try to change a man into My Ideal Husband.

The Apostle Paul had a lot to say about law and grace; including the fact that grace does not mean that we should abandon ourselves to sinful behaviour. But I think that Paul's insight was that legal solutions to peace on earth don't work. If God actually did legislate that women must strive to change themselves according to their husband's command, this legislation isn't going to result in a loving, peaceful marriage. However, if both parties sincerely believe that they are to love the other and to do everything in their power to serve the other, then love will prevail. (This is actually a tautology because Christian love is, by definition, serving another.)

The Law fears freedom and sees the freedom of love and grace as potentially chaotic, therefore Law strives to control Other People. Ironically, it is only the very freedom that Law fears that will result in the peace and harmony that Law wants.