The CBE Scroll

A new article on The Christian Post talks about beliefs that God is male centered, that God prefers males more than females and that God wants Christianity to have a “masculine feel”, whatever that is. Apparently, at a conference for pastors at the Minneapolis Convention Center on January 31, 2012, a well-known complementarian pastor stated that repeatedly God has chosen the masculine over the feminine.  The speaker said ” God’s intention for Christianity is for it to have a masculine feel.”       You can view it here.          Is his statement really true?

Acts 2:14-21 quotes the prophet Joel who prophesies that God will pour out His Spirit on ALL flesh. 1 Cor. 12 does not segregate in any fashion the anointings of the Spirit and ministries into gender designations. Neither does Romans 12 or Ephesians 4.

Romans 12: 3 says (TNIV) “For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you”

Is it sober thinking to claim that males are more important to God than females? What are some of the Scriptures that show otherwise?

I had a conversation once with a pastor and his wife that I have not been able to forget.  My husband and I had been visiting that church for a few months and considering the possibility of making it our spiritual home.  It was important to us, though, that the church valued women in leadership to the same extent that it valued men.  So we sat down with the two of them and asked many questions.

And this is what they told us:  They were a couple who did ministry together.  Women served in all ways in the denomination.  Women in the denomination could even serve in a pastoral capacity, but they would not have the title “Pastor”. “And,” said the woman, “I am awfully suspicious of women who are looking for titles anyway.  Any time a woman is trying to get the title, it makes me think she is hungry for power.  I am happy to serve alongside my husband in full capacity without the title.”

At that time, I was silenced by her statement.  I didn’t want to appear to be power-hungry.  I wanted to check myself, “Am I power-hungry, Lord?”  It seemed so much more humble to not seek a title.

However, much reflection brought me to the conclusion that I am not in fact power-hungry any more than any other man who takes on the same title.  Why is a woman declared power-hungry but a man given a complete pass?  I wish I could go back to that conversation and ask her that question.

It has been years since this conversation took place. Through all the time that has transpired, I’ve grown into a deeper understanding about this title “Pastor.”

I’ve realized that I didn’t start being a pastor when the title was conferred to me by a church, or that I will be even more so a pastor when I graduate seminary with my Masters of Divinity. Whether I am in a church-paid position as a pastor or whether my friends and colleagues call me ‘Pastor MaryAnn’ or not, I am still a pastor. It is who I am. And being a pastor is being a shepherd who walks alongside others. To me, it is not a position of power, but servanthood.

In many churches, I have seen that whenever men take on pastoral roles, they are given the title “Pastor”, and whenever it is a woman in an equivalent role, she is given some other title like “Director.”  Find five church websites, look at their pastoral staff list, and you will see what I mean.  If the title makes no difference, then why is there a difference in the title?

What are your thoughts and observations on titles?

“Where?” I asked Angela (not her real name).  Our kids are in the same ballet class.  Seated next to her in the parent peanut gallery the other day as “Simon Legree la Ballet Instructor” put the class through Arabesques, Pliés and other Baryshnikov-isms, Angela saw I was reading from Galatians.  One observation led to others about families, grandparents, kids, spouses and marriage.

Somewhere in the conversation, Angela mentioned that her husband had asked her to “take the lead” in the “spiritual training of our kids.”  Angela clearly found the suggestion that a wife “lead” anything akin to asking to be launched into space without a parachute.  Or flight control.   “That’s not biblical!” she insisted, brow furrowed, dark eye lashes fluttering.

“It’s not?” I queried.

“No!”

“How do you know?”

“The Bible says the man is The Leader.” Angela was emphatic.

“Where?” I asked, handing her my Bible and fanning the pages.  “Show me where the Bible says that leadership is male-exclusive or that ‘the man is The Leader.’”  Angela stared at me as if I just flew in from Mars.  So I asked, “Which of the spiritual gifts listed in I Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4 are gender-specific, including leadership?”

Angela insisted, “It’s in there somewhere.”

I gently suggested that the husband/man-as-leader, wife/woman-as-follower/subordinate model may not be as “biblical” as she thought.  This elicited another deer-in-the-headlights-look.  Taking my Bible, I opened it to Ephesians 5 and asked Angela to read the chapter en toto, beginning at verse one.

My child stopped arabesque-ing through Prokofiev’s Cinderella long enough to grab a few quick swigs of water while I pointed out verse 21 to Angela: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  (NIV).

“See where it says “Submit to one another before moving into verse 22?  The Greek grammar suggests that this ‘mutual submission’ is associated with the filling of the Spirit in verse 18 and that mutuality rather than hierarchy is God’s design.”

Bless her, Angela peered at me like a calf at a new gate.

After a moment she murmured, “I’ve never seen that before.”

While Simon LaGree ran the class through another round of leaps and twirls, I asked Angela to read Galatians 3 and offered a thumbnail sketch of what a husband-wife relationship based on mutual love, respect, deference and shared gifting might look like.

As we chatted over steaming mugs of green tea, I asked Angela how the Bible most often describes marriage, suggesting that “the two becoming one” and similar passages indicate unity, teamwork, partnership, mutuality, and what the Apostle Paul wrote in Philippians 2:3, 4 (NIV):  “Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.  Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.”

By the end of Prokofiev’s second act, Angela didn’t seem to know whether to regard me as a kook or a Godsend.  But I saw a light flicker behind her eyes – just before she changed the subject.

It was enough for one day.

“Simon” dismissed the class, moms collected kids and shoes and Angela bid me a cheery “See ya later” and breezed out the door.  I smiled, waved, and wondered, Lord, what are you up to?

Some 10-15 years ago a ministry colleague excitedly shared with me that he had heard of a new take on the word ‘desire’ in respect to the pronouncement of God to the woman in the garden of Eden. Genesis 3:16b,”… and though your ‘desire’ will be for your husband, he will rule over you.” (NLT) Being of complementarian persuasion he was of the opinion that women should not be given opportunities to speak or lead in church. It followed that men (husbands) were to be the leaders at home. Naturally he believed that this is what the Scriptures teach and so, as an expository preacher, it was his obligation to proclaim authoritatively and correctly the word of God.

A part of his belief system was based on the assumption that women desired to usurp from men, this God-given authority. The proof texts for such an interpretation being verses like the Apostle Paul’s instruction to Timothy in 1 Timothy 2:12, “I do not let women teach men or have authority over them.” (NLT) Over the years this has been variously expounded to mean such things as a woman possibly using her feminine wiles to beguile men therefore she should not be placed in a position of authority, or be able to teach adult men.

So when my friend heard of this ‘new’ teaching (as it was back then) comparing the use of the word ‘desire’ in Genesis 3:16 with the very same Hebrew word in Genesis 4:7, where it related to God’s pronouncement of how it would be for Cain, he was ecstatic. Here the thought was of sin lurking at the door with a ‘desire’ to overpower Cain. The word (Hebrew – Teshuqa) carries with it a, sense of longing, eagerly desiring – no argument with that, but for my friend it was a fresh revelation proving that women have an inbuilt, intense desire to rule men.  I have heard this particular interpretation often since then, sometimes in the most unlikely places, but I have never been convinced by it. In fact, a recent reading again of the actual texts, in various translations and paraphrases, only serves to confirm my suspicion of such conclusions.

Why couldn’t it simply mean that even though Eve (and through her, all women) would experience extreme pain in childbirth, she would still have an intense, inbuilt longing and desire to be sexually intimate with her husband? Such an interpretation doesn’t take anything away from the nuances of the Hebrew word and its comparative use in Genesis 4:7 concerning Cain. Or, if as some interpreters suggest, what if the ‘intense longing’ describes the woman’s desire to turn away from God and move toward her husband being in the place of God in her life? The last suggestion certainly creates an opportunity for the man to rule over, or become the master of the woman and gives rise to the inception of patriarchy evidenced in all ethnic and cultural groups since that time. Even the first suggestion puts men in a position of power. No matter which way you look at it, the discordant relationships between men and women are a result of the fall.

I’m interested in your thoughts.

Women, are often told that emotions are invalid, or that feelings are a sign of weakness. I have heard time and time again the statement against women in leadership, on the basis of protecting the “weaker sex,” that leadership is reserved for individuals (presumably men) who possess a thicker skin.

At a conference a couple weeks ago, I came across a booth selling a series of paintings depicting Christ. This artist portrayed Christ as a good-looking tanned gentleman who glowed in oil pastels. His white robes were unsullied by the dust and the movement of the crowds around him. His smile was practically an advertisement for White Strips. The paintings didn’t jive at all with my mind’s picture of the person of Christ. If we cannot portray Christ realistically—as someone whose clothes were dusty, whose teeth and skin were imperfect— it is no wonder we cannot accept a range of emotions from women and men.

God tells us that when we want an accurate picture of himself, we should look at his Son whom he sent as a tangible representation of Divinity; transcendence made flesh; God made human. In Scripture, I find that Christ was moved deeply by feeling. He was filled with compassion, love, loyalty, hope, and sometimes even righteous anger. Christ’s emotions moved him to be surrounded by the sick, the dirty, and the poor. His emotions led him to wash his friends’ feet, and weep when his friend Lazarus died. He told us to love one another, act with compassion, to be merciful. Christ was anything but a numb, distant, and “thick skinned” leader. Christ felt things, and he felt them deeply.

If Christ was the perfect leader, we need not be ashamed of the emotion that moves us, of the tears that sometimes flow, of the passion to help others. Rather than feel embarrassed by God-given feelings, we can recognize that their presence can draw us to God.

Has anyone been criticised for showing emotions ? (female or male)