The CBE Scroll

One of the most troubling aspects of a belief that a man can somehow be the “head” of a woman is what happens in the privacy of the homes of countless people with this viewpoint. If it is believed by both husband and wife that the man is “over” his wife, then it gives occasion for what constitutes abuse in many cases. Even the thought that women and men are “different” in essence gives an explanation as to why men assume control in sexual issues as well as other areas of life.

We have spent far too many hours listening to women who endure situations ranging from unpleasant to intolerable because of believing or being taught that they should “submit” to their husbands. Even 1 Corinthians 7 is used to give husbands the right to expect compliance rather than the equal right of both controlling what happens to both, not what we do to another human being made in the image of God.

One of my favorite blogs is the thoughtful and humorous “Bridget Jones Goes to Seminary” written by Meg, a theology student at Calvin Theological Seminary. In her most recent post, “Why I Am a Feminist,” she declares: “I am a feminist because my Christianity, my Reformed Christianity no less, constrains me. I am a feminist because I cannot live faithfully in God’s world without believing in the full humanity of all persons.” She credits Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen’s Gender and Grace—a book that began my egalitarian journey, too—with some foundational insights. Read the rest of “Why I Am a Feminist” at her blogsite.

I think what I most appreciated about her initial post is the way she boiled down her thinking into an “elevator statement.” When someone asks her why she is a feminist, she has ready a brief, articulate response. It’s a good exercise: if you had 30 seconds and/or 100 words, how would you respond to the question?

A few weeks back I was teaching a class on Anabaptist history. I gave my usual spiel about the nature of history and the problems with reductionism. Anabaptist concerns were both theological and economical (among other things); cases of injustice, after all, traverse all aspects of life. Abuses by the church and its oppression of ideas were paralleled by abuses by the state and its oppression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (in this case, something as simple as the right to fish). To take the Anabaptist cause and bring it down to one simple idea (e.g., baptism), is to ignore the complexity of the situation and the people involved.

Despite my caveats, there were still a few students who didn’t yet catch on. “But what was the reason they separated from the Reformed?” asked a student. “Was it baptism? Was it political or was it religious in nature?”

“Yes.”

“Yes?”

“Yes, it was all of those things.” He scratched his head for a second and then I explained. People are people, no matter what generation they live in. Life is always complicated.

For example, I may think I’m ordering a Big Mac tonight because I’m hungry for a Big Mac, but any number of factors can go into that decision. I may order a Big Mac because I saw a commercial for McDonalds and in that commercial may have been the line: “You deserve a break today.” As I thought about that line, I thought, “Yeah, I do. At work they keep changing my job around or I have to deal with that clueless boss, or I save and save and never treat myself. I may have nothing in my refrigerator and I may not have enough time to run to the grocery store for the week. I may be hearing the commercial on the radio in my car and suddenly see a McDonalds. Any number of reasons can go into my decision and I may never boil it down to one single notion that moved me to buy a Big Mac.

As complicated as understanding the past is, the present is no easier. Why do people believe certain things? If I were to talk to the most ardent of the hierarchalists, I might hear that I’m an evangelical egalitarian simply because I’m rebellious or I might be accused of rejecting the authority of Scripture or I might have been “feminized” (whatever that actually means). As a matter of fact, I’ve heard these very accusations time and time again. In some cases, it is believed that evangelical egalitarianism is simply a disguise for the conspiracy of liberalism among evangelicals.

I don’t like those broad labels and accusations which have no basis in reality, at least, for me. Perhaps I’m an egalitarian because I’ve seen it in God’s Word after years of struggling with the idea and after years of seeing abuses in the church and in our seminaries. At any rate, if the hierarchalist is willing to get to know me a little better as a person before making up one’s mind about me, I am willing to get to know him or her as well.

I’ve met all types of hierarchalists. I’ve seen some so strongly patriarchal, that the more I learned about them, the more I discovered just how deeply rooted their misogyny went. I’ve seen the woman haters who abuse their wives. I’ve also seen the mild complementarian, the one who loves his family and believes that women should have the freedom in the church to do whatever a non-ordained male can do. The only apparent reason that it appears that this person holds off on accepting the ordination of women is simply out of the belief that the Bible commands it, and not out of any overt notion of male superiority. As a matter of fact, one such man I know pushed his church hard on this issue in order to bring justice to the women in the congregation, nearly causing a split in the process.

There are diversities of opinions out there and not all of them are equal. Some hold to the same position, to different degrees, for very different reasons. It is true that we can sometimes only deal with the arguments in general; for example, what is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11. But I have to remember constantly that while some complementarians might hold to a very rigid interpretation of the text, including the imposition of head coverings, others do not. Many see head coverings as a cultural marker of the text, and perhaps I can approach the discussion with them knowing that I may have less to overcome.

This is not to say that I won’t find frustration or that I won’t find the stereotype. Rather, it means that I should offer as much patience with the other person as I would want myself. After all, the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12 is at heart the message of egalitarianism. Treating all others respectfully and equally is what every human being made in the image of God should expect. When going face to face in the gender wars, loving the other person is never something with which we are allowed to part.

My final acceptance of egalitarianism came after a full-fledged exposure to CBE through their conference in St. Davids , PA. There I met egalitarians who did not fit the stereotype. I found no men haters shouting from the rooftops. Instead, I found men and women who love God and who care about justice and human equity. I found men and women working together for the gospel. There I learned that I may better understand the reasons why people make their choices, if only I’m willing to love them and meet them face to face.

Parableman points to a news item about Judge Robert Armstrong in California, who has ruled that a law against disrobing in front of a minor applies only to men and not to women, even though no mention of gender occurs in the law. How so? The law says “exposes his person.”

Like Parableman, I’m more than a bit mystified by this odd ruling. Does Judge Armstrong not know that English-speakers have been using masculine pronouns for gender-indeterminate or gender-unknown people for approximately forever? Has he not considered that the writers of that law were not thinking about the gender of the hypothetical ecdysiast at all?

Alas, Judge Armstrong would find many kindred spirits among a certain brand of evangelical Christian, where the masculine pronouns in such verses as “If a man desire the office of bishop, he desireth a good work” (1 Tim 3:1, KJV) are given their full force. In both cases, the issue is English grammar—King James’ “a man” renders the Greek tis, a relative pronoun that can be either masculine or feminine, and the verb “he desireth” renders Greek epithymei, a third person form that can be suitably rendered with either “he,” “she,” or even “it.” That is why better Bibles (NRSV, TNIV, etc.) avoid the confusion by not importing gender language into verses such as this where they do not exist in the original. Of course, there are other passages where the gender component is present in the Greek text. The requirement that a church leader be “the husband of one wife” (1 Tim 3:2) springs to mind. But does that mean Paul found it unthinkable that women might lead in the church?

Personally, I strongly suspect that Paul assumed that, by and large, the persons who assumed oversight in the churches would be male. But Paul assumed this based on the cultural norms of his day, and I’m convinced he was aware—and affirming—of certain exceptions. He commended Junia the apostle, for example, in Romans 16:7, and referred to Euodia and Syntyche as his “fellow laborers” (Phil 4:2-3), a term he most often used for those in the frontlines of his apostolic ministry. If most first-century church leaders ended up being male, it was not because that is what Paul demanded but because that was what the Greco-Roman culture would endure. Assuming Pauline authoriship of the Pastorals and the Prison Epistles, it is clear that Paul was willing to embrace the prevailing cultural norms insofar as they served in the short term to advance the cause of Christ (Eph 5:21–6:4; 1 Tim 2:1-2, Philemon, etc.).

An assumption, innocently made in light of prevailing social custom, does not a doctrine make.

School has barely started and already three shootings have occurred around the country. In Bailey, CO, an adult gunman entered a high school, barricaded himself in with several girls, and then proceeded to abuse and kill them before taking his own life. Less then a week later on the other side of the country, another adult male entered an Amish classroom, dismissed the boys, and tied up and killed several of the young girls. Both of these acts of violence specifically targeted young girls.
One thing noticeably lacking in all the discussion on school shootings is an analysis on why these shootings targeted women specifically. Most newspapers featured articles about the safety of schools and shock that such violence could happen in the Amish community. Recently the New York Times columnist Bob Herbert wrote an article in which he addressed the Amish shooting as an attack based on gender, as opposed to random violence. Herbert argues that the media glossed over the obvious separation of gender in the last several shootings because we have become desensitized to violence against women. Rape, murder, and molestation are reported nightly on the news and are often included in the plots of TV dramas. Herbert blames video games that reward violence against women, themes of violence in popular music, the sexualization of children and internet porn.
Herbert states:

“Imagine if a gunman had gone into a school, separated the kids up on the basis of race or religion, and then shot only the black kids. Or only the white kids. Or only the Jews. There would have been thunderous outrage. The country would have first recoiled in horror, and then mobilized in an effort to eradicate that kind of murderous bigotry. There would have been calls for action and reflection. And the attack would have been seen for what it really was: a hate crime.”

That did not happen. The fact that females were specifically targeted to be both molested and killed was not addressed in the media. Herbert concludes his article by addressing the American public and stating that we, as a society, are all guilty for the culture we have created.

We’re all implicated in this carnage because the relentless violence against women and girls is linked at its core to the wider society’s casual willingness to dehumanize women and girls, to see them first and foremost as sexual vessels—objects—and never, ever as the equals of men.

I believe that a redemptive understanding of both women and men is central to healing our society from this casual willingness to dehumanize women and girls. Until we view both women and men as intrinsically worthy and able, our culture will continue to foster a view of women as objects of pleasure and men as sexual animals. The Christian community is in no way isolated from this erroneous conceptualization of women. Books like Captivating are so destructive for exactly this reason—they teach young girls that their beauty is what is ravishing, and not any other aspect of the self. As Christians, we need to heal the broken relationship between women and men by redeeming the personhood of each. Women and men can relate to each in holistic ways that affirm God-given giftedness and worth. Hierarchy based on gender, race, class, or ethnicity will always view one party as unequal in worth.