In George Orwell’s book Animal Farm, the animals who took over the farm from their human owner initially proclaimed
All animals are equal.
But later this was altered, by the pigs who emerged as the rulers, to this:
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Orwell’s book was written as an allegory about Communism. But in many ways it can also be taken as an allegory about the church. We humans who were in bondage to the devil have overthrown him, not by violent revolution but through the work of our fellow human Jesus Christ. Following this it was declared that in Christ we are all equal:
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 (TNIV)
But gradually distinctions from the cultural environment, which were never intended to apply in the church, crept back into it. Distinctions between slaves and free, distinctions of race and nationality, class distinctions and others came to divide the church and limit its witness. Most of these distinctions have now been rejected in principle, even though in practice in many places churches are predominantly from one race or one class.
But there is one such distinction whose abolition has not been accepted by many Christians. This is the distinction of gender. Even though the apostle Paul specifically declared the equality of men and women in Christ, many men (and some women) who accept this in principle refuse to put it into practice. They find excuses for doing so, such as “‘equal’ can mean a lot of things” (from a comment here), and this, apparently from Raymond C. Ortlund (quoted here):
So was Eve Adam’s equal? Yes and no. She was his spiritual equal and, unlike the animals, “suitable for him.” But she was not his equal in that she was his “helper.”
But in fact their attitude seems to be that of the the new rulers of Animal Farm, the ones who came to enslave their fellow animals just as much as the original human owners had:
In Christ all human beings are equal, but some human beings are more equal than others.
Is this what complementarianism means? If so, no thanks!
In Christ all human beings are equal, but some human beings are more equal than others.
I agree, Peter, that often this is EXACTLY what is being said. I get frustrated with the comp terminology for that reason…claiming a position of equality, but then defining something entirely different. I think a lot of people would question complimentarianism if they would start using more accurate terminology.
That said, I do feel for the comps, in that many of them truly would not choose complementarianism on their own but are doing it because they believe it to be God’s will—in much the same way that the Trinity is a hard-to-comprehend concept, yet we believe it anyway.
I think for many comps (the bulk of the ones I know), they don’t get why and they don’t even really care for the man-over-woman idea, but because they believe it to be God’s way, they do it anyway. I appreciate that kind of trust in God’s way, even if I happen to disagree with what that is.
Molly, thanks for your perceptive comments. Yes, I am sure that many of the ordinary comps are simply following the bad teaching they are getting at church. In Animal Farm the animals at fault were not the ones duped by the altered slogan but the ones who altered it. So my real target is not ordinary comps but those who are teaching them, the Grudems, Pipers etc of this world. Now I doubt if I can convince Grudem or Piper to change their ways. But I might have a chance of persuading some people to stop taking their works as gospel, and instead taking the attitude of the Bereans towards it.
I get frustrated with the comp terminology for that reason…claiming a position of equality, but then defining something entirely different.
Complimentarianism is interesting from the perspective of someone having grown up in the 1960s in male headship.
Male headship never, ever claimed that women were equal to men. The form of headship that I grew up in claimed (they still claim) that men are created in the image of God and women in the image of men.
Complimentarianism came into the picture when society changed and women proved that they had leadership and decision-making skills and all those things that we were formerly told we ‘obviously’ weren’t gifted in by sheer observation.
It’s a cop-out in either direction, in my opinion. And so obvioiusly ‘conforming to worldly patterns’ which conservatives claim they don’t do. It just shows that if you change a doctrine slowly enough, people don’t actually notice that it’s changed. 😉
I agree. I am sure that Grudem, Piper, et all, probably are well intentioned and honestly just can’t see outside of their paradigm, but I still find myself very frustrated at them.
As leaders, some of the Scriptural gymnastics they have to go through in order to “prove” their assumptions, are downright mindboggling. They read SO much into the texts, and not only that, make their gender interpretations go hand and hand with salvation.
I want to be careful with my judgement and frustration towards them, because I know we’re all just frail fallible humans, and yet I am admittedly outraged at what is being peddled as gospel truth.
Actually over the last 20 years I have consistently found the ‘gymnastics’ of egalitarians to be “downright mind boggling”. The seemingly never ending cry of ‘I know what it says, but that is not what it means’.
Others trying to claim that Jesus made certain decisions to avoid ‘offending the culture’ (regarding the choice of His Apostles)
The list goes on and on.
I know this will be shot down, if not deleted, but it has to be said.
If any of you honestly took a step back and looked at some of what has been written and how it has been put across you would see that the (relatively) unspoken assumption amongst the egals is that if you follow their prescriptions then life will all be sorted out, error will disappear and of course don’t forget that they are the only ones in history who ‘truly’ know how to translate the Bible.
Mind you I don’t know why I bother because it will not make a ha’penny of difference either way.
Glenn, you are probably right! LOL… This is the funny part about trying to communicate cross-paradigms.
It’s almost impossible to see what the other person is saying, like trying to communicate with someone from another culture who speaks another language. I guess the important thing, in the midst of it all, is to remember that we’re all from the same planet, so to speak: JESUS.
I was just reading the beginning of 1 Corinthians today and was rereminded to remember who’s “camp” we are all in. They struggled with finding their identity in being baptized by Paul, or Apollos, whereas I think we struggle with “Calvinist,” “Armenian,” “Complementarian,” “Egalitarian,” Dispensationalist,” Etc…
I think there’s a place for discussing differences, of course, but it’s so easy to forget that we’re all resting in the same Hand—our identity is in the Same One—-and that therefore our swords are only for the enemy, not our brothers and sisters.
This whole debate comes down to the meaning of equality, doesn’t it? I believe I am equal to my pastors and church leaders before the Lord, but I don’t for one second assume I have the same authority or position or function within the Church.
BTW, does anyone know what 1 Cor 11:7 means? “A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.” (TNIV) The comp. explanation doesn’t sit well with me, but I haven’t heard any others.
Alastair, I take the point that an ordinary church member, male or female, does not have the same position or function within the church as their pastor. I’m not so sure about authority – the sense in which a pastor has authority is highly debatable. But you, as a man, at least have the possibility of becoming a pastor or leader (indeed, Alastair, I think you should be considering that). So the difference is not an ontological one. But women in many churches are denied the possibility of ever becoming pastors because of their essential nature. This is an ontological distinction, despite the Orwell-type language (perhaps now more 1984 than Animal Farm) of those who try to claim that it only a functional one.
As for 1 Corinthians 11:7, I really don’t know, except that it cannot be contradicting Genesis 1:27 by teaching that women are not the image of God. Does anyone else reading this have a good explanation? If it is too long for a comment, please e-mail it to me at peter AT qaya DOT org and, if suitable, I will make it into a post.
Alistair,
The difference Peter points out is huge. A professor mentors a student with the idea that the student can become what he is. That is the core of the relationship, a respect for equality and potential for functional equality.
But a man can never treat a woman with that kind of respect if he does not believe that the woman can fill the functions a man fills. He must always see the woman as existing on the other side of a chasm. She is of a different caste and cannot crossover, whether in marriage or in the church.
The fact that the woman is obviously capable of doing the things the man does makes it even more difficult. The man must find some core unsuitability in the woman. Therefore we read of complementarian authors who argue that women are less analytic, have less critical judgment, are less able to evaluate and assess doctrine, etc.
This is offensive to me since complementarian doctrine is as open to being found wanting as any other doctrine, and a woman can see this quite easily.
So we woman are being treated as a separate caste in the church and in the home. And our critique of complementarian doctrine is not tamen seriously.
not taken seriously
I believe I am equal to my pastors and church leaders before the Lord, but I don’t for one second assume I have the same authority or position or function within the Church.
Again. You don’t have that gift as an individual.
According to complimentarians, an individual’s female-ness precludes her from using her gift.
That’s a huge difference.
Also, I think another huge difference is that I also do not recognise that a male minister has ontological spiritual authority over another man.
Peter,
On the subject of head coverings, then I think this topic is a prime example of something I mentioned on an earlier post of the necessity of comprehending how things were understood by the people of the time. This is not easy to do but FWIW, here is my take on it.
Paul was writing to a Corinthian church made of Greek and Jewish believers. In 1 Cor 11, he starts by making a dogmatic statement about Headship between God and Christ, Christ and Man and Man and Woman. (I think the term ‘Head has a meaning here which is more akin to ‘first among equals’ rather than ‘I tell you what to do’ and represent a hierarchy of authority- a bit like a Prime Minister and Cabinet if you like- although no person in the Trinity is elected and the Kingdom a God is not a democracy! People better versed in NT Greek than I may think differently on this).
Paul admonished men for covering their head when praying or prophesying and then tells women that they should keep their head covered. In verse 10 Paul states that head coverings (or lack of) are ‘signs of authority’ but what sort of authority is he talking about? While in the Roman world ‘authority can refer to power (imperium), the word can also refer to legitimacy. It is this latter sense which I think Paul is referring to.
To see what I mean and to use a crude example, it is legitimate for women to have separate lavatories to men. (If you are a man try using a women’s lavatory and see how legitimate it is…!)
To be legitimate in this sense means conformity with a divine order rather than exercising power. In the ancient world a sense of order as a guiding principle was a powerful motif.
The other idea inherent in this passage is that of glory. Paul states that a man should not cover his head since he is the “glory of God”. By this I think that Paul is alluding to Genesis Ch1 as man being formed out of the ground by God reflecting the glory of God, whereas Woman was taken from man so reflecting the Glory of man.
A man need not cover his head when praying since he reflects God’s glory but a woman must do so when praying as she reflects man’s glory. She does not pray to man of course. This ‘glory principle’ is something that would clearly be understood by Jewish believers but not I imagine, by Gentile ones.
When reading verse 11 you get the sense that Paul is now addressing the Gentile believers. He starts by addressing the issues of interdependence of man and woman and of equality and that ‘both come from God’. Then he asks them ‘Judge for yourselves”….” But what does Paul mean by “the very nature of things”. (v14)
There are many explanations to this but I think a clue is hinted at by Paul stating that long hair in a man being a “disgrace”. So what was disgraceful about it? If we see that in ancient cultural terms, particularly among Jews, a man having long hair worn like a woman’s was considered disgraceful as it blurred the distinction and appearance between a man and a woman in terms of their relative reflections of glory, then it becomes a bit clearer.
An additional cultural imperative not mentioned in this passage but prevalent at the time and is worth remembering, is that women in Corinth who went around with their heads uncovered were considered loose women and s. If unbelievers walked into Corinthian churches and saw women praying with their heads uncovered they might conclude that the church was decadent
I suppose one might get a similar reaction from the local tabloids if all the women in your church turned up on Sunday wearing – s as part of their freedom in Christ – not sure if I should pursue this particular analogy…
So what might this mean for us today?
1. I think that God has ordained a divine order that legitimises the relationship between Himself, Christ, Man and Woman and is predicated on ‘images of glory’ rather than on equality. Equality between men and women is understood to be based on interdependence.
2. In the ancient world, head coverings were signs of this legitimacy as a cultural motif but in my view are not really relevant today. This is what we ‘must judge for ourselves’ (v13). Others may of course disagree.
3. I would need much more space to expand on this but in the Bible ‘spiritual authority is strongly linked with the concept of ‘servant hood’. It is not about telling the other person what to do.
Hope this contributes something useful to this very interesting discussion.
PS I have run all this past my wife and she tells me it’s OK to post it……
Sorry this para should have read
“I suppose one might get a similar reaction from the local tabloids if all the women in your church turned up on Sunday wearing G strings as part of their freedom in Christ – not sure if I should pursue this particular analogy…”
Iconoclast,
You say that you got authority/permission from your wife to post your first comment here. However, I have to ask if you got her permission to post the second one! 😉
It seems you are suggesting that the dyad needs a leader, it cannot exist without, but that the responsibility of leadership may be shared by turn-taking or each having a term in office. I could also see responsibility shared according to skillset or domain.
I think there was a traditional paradigm in which the mother had the daily and ongoing authority over her children because she was looking after them all day. But in the authority-submission paradigm, this gets messed up. The mother gives permission to the children, and the father takes it away. He trumps her every time and she loses control.
So authority could be logically shared, by term, by domain, and by skill. However, for some theologians authority is shared in that men have it and women don’t.
Dear Alistair,
Cheryl Schatz has done a very thorough exegesis of 1 Cor 11. For your question, you may want to start with this post:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/07/01/the-man-is-the-image-and-glory-of-god/
Suzanne,
You got me there! My wife hasn’t seen that bit….!
Charis:
Your link to Cheryl Schatz’s site is indeed interesting
Iconoclast,
That’s what I thought. Its okay, I won’t tell her.
Iconoclast, I put off responding to your long comment and the following discussion until I had time to read it properly without hurrying.
I totally reject the idea that the Trinity is like a Cabinet with the Father as Prime Minister – at least, like the British Cabinet. Perhaps the PM is in theory “first among equals”, but in practice at least since Margaret Thatcher’s time it has been an autocracy, with ministers forced to obey the PM or be fired. Well, there has been a lot of discussion of headship at Better Bibles Blog, and I don’t want to repeat that.
But you may have a point that exousia in 1 Corinthians 11:10 may mean “legitimacy” more than “authority”. The related verbal form exestin is used for example in Mark 2:24 referring to what is lawful, for ordinary people, not for those with special authority.
As for “glory”, you suggest that “Paul is alluding to Genesis Ch1”, but I think you mean chapter 2. Yes, this may well be the allusion, but what does Paul intend when he makes it? Your general line of argument here, for example about hair length, seems sensible.
I’m not sure what you mean by
If you mean that there are distinctions of glory (compare 15:40-41), true enough, but does this mean more than external appearance? Perhaps it implies different roles. But there seems to be nothing to suggest that it implies inequality.
Charis, thanks for the links to Cheryl’s helpful series on 1 Corinthians 11.
Peter,
My analogy with the Trinity as a Cabinet is probably not a very good one. What I was trying to say is that within the Trinity there appears to exist an ordered structure of some kind in which authority is shared but at the same time ordered.
I did not mean to imply that the Trinity is in any way like the Thatcher administration with the Father as a autocrat! Constitutionally a British Cabinet is supposed to behave with shared authority but we know that this does not happen in practice.
It seem to me that the point that Alistair made about what we mean by ‘equality’ is a key issue here. As a man, I cannot bear children yet a woman can. In one sense you could say that constitutes an ‘inequality’ yet it is not an inequality in the same sense as what we are discussing. It is a difference in roles. I have yet to see an adequate definition of equality in this context.
It does seem to me that men and women have different roles. Whether these roles constitute inequalities depends I think, on how they are manifested.
As for different types of Glory I have two thoughts for consideration:
1. I think it is clear that glory is differentiated in the Bible within the created order and it is hard to
get away from the idea that Paul seem to be saying in 1 Cor 11, that it is differentiated between men and women. If anyone has another explanation for this I would be interested to read it. Differences in Glory is touched on again when Paul speaks about the resurrected body in 1 Cor 15 35-41.
2. That glory is in someway related to authority although I cannot quite articulate how.
It may also be that under the new covenant, any authoritative distinctions between men and women that existed prior or post-fall are done away with in Christ but I am not sure if that is true.
One final thought. I have always thought that there exists in the Bible what might be termed a ‘ Firstness Principle’ that confers a sense of authority in the ‘legitimacy’ sense. For example Adam was created first and then Eve. God created Eve for man as a helpmeet not the other way round. Now I have heard all the jokes about God creating women because ‘His first attempt failed’ yet there seems here, a ‘firstness’ about Adam that confers upon him a different legitimacy to that of Eve.
Well, Iconoclast, the different animals on Animal Farm had different roles. Some pulled carts, some produced milk, others wool, some were just being raised for slaughter. Does that make the original “All animals are equal” slogan meaningless?
And then on your “Firstness Principle”, those same animals were created before man or women, so surely that “confers a sense of authority in the ‘legitimacy’ sense” on them, over all humans? If not, why not? Could it be because the “Firstness Principle” is both unbiblical and illogical?
The Firstness Principle has some merit, in that we see Christ being called, “First among many brethren…”, in that case “first” being a more honorable position (yet the context of the phrase is to indicate NOT Him having a set apart position, but that He is bringing others into His honored place).
The Lastness Principle (if I may coin the term-lol) also has some merit. Adam was the “First Adam,” and Christ is the “Last Adam,” ie, better. Jesus said, “The first shall be last….” in God’s kingdom. The First Covenant was fading away, that brought death—the Last Covenant was made of stuff that lasts, that brought Life. The last touch on an artists work is often called the “crowning glory.”
I guess what I see in Scripture is that the cornerstone and the capstone both have a shining place. Seems to be a fine case for making a big deal out of Adam’s firstness, but there also seems to be a fine case for making a big deal out of Eve’s lastness.
Maybe the REAL problem is with we humans who have this insane need to find which one has the biggest shiney deal (just like the disciples who were asking Jesus if they could have the best spot when they got to heaven). It’s just proof that we really DON’T get what He was/is trying to show us–lol! 😆
Btw, Iconoclast, I appreciate how you brought up roles, in that I think you are using them rightly. I’m not opposed to the concept of the genders being different, having some unique roles all their own.
It makes perfect logical sense, to me. I can breastfeed, and my husband can build a bulky bicep (to “punch out bad guys better,” as my kid would probably say)—there’s just no way around the fact that the genders DO have differences unique to them! 🙂
What I hate about the word, “roles” is the typical way it’s used in the comp camp, which is to say that a woman’s “role” is literally to be subject, by nature of her birth as a female. To me, that’s an improper use of the word role, as it seems to relate more to her state of being (her being subject by virtue of who she is as a woman) than anything else.
Peter,
I am not quite sure how far your analogy between ‘Animal farm’ and the Bible’s concept of equality can be taken. I do not think the Bible paints a picture of the differing legitimacies of men women in the same way as George Orwell does. What Orwell describes is harsh and tyrannical. In my view, one that the Bible paints is that of servant hood.
The difficulty with this kind of discussion that it is often littered with anecdotes of the abuse of male leadership in church situations with regard to women which by all accounts have been legion. It is also driven I think, by an undercurrent of feminism. The number of Stupid Thick Men I have seen in church leadership is more than I have seen the equivalent of women in, but then I might even be one myself! ( A STM that is).
I do not think that the passages in Corinthians where Paul speaks about headship can be taken in isolation from Genesis 2. It is in Genesis 2 that we see the origin of these ideas. One way of looking at this is is to speculate about the alternatives. What do you think would have happened if a helpmeet WAS found for Adam among the creatures in the Garden? Would woman then have been necessary? This then raises the interesting question as to how the human race would have propagated -answers on one sheet of paper please…..;)
Now it is very easy to say ‘well that did not happen so we need not consider it’ but Genesis in its account of finding a companion for Adam does indirectly raise the possibility.
In Gen 2 we then see the creation of Eve but is couched in terms of interdependence ” flesh of my flesh” etc which I think is what Paul has in the back of his mind in I Cor 11 v11. Man cannot do without woman and and vice versa.
And yet…. there still seems to me to be a ‘firstness’ here in which man is accorded a different level of legitimacy to a woman. It is difficult to express this without using the word ‘unequal’ but then I would do so in the sense as I have described inequality of roles as in women bearing children. They are certainly not equal in term of the order in which they were created i.e. God did not create them simultaneously.
I think it is also worth looking at the division of authority within the Trinity. Clearly Father , Son and Holy Spirit are co equal in divine status but there is a relational structure that puts the Father as the ‘head ‘ in one sense. Jesus in his utterances deferred to the will of the Father’. Does that make him ‘unequal’ with God? ( I don’t think so) but there is definitely a kind of ‘headship’ concept going on here.
It may of course be that all of this is a silly patriarchal anachronism that is no longer relevant to our modern culture’s notions of equality and diversity and has anyway, been done away with under the new covenant but I would like more evidence to convince me that this is true.
Molly:
“Maybe the REAL problem is with we humans who have this insane need to find which one has the biggest shiney deal (just like the disciples who were asking Jesus if they could have the best spot when they got to heaven). It’s just proof that we really DON’T get what He was/is trying to show us–lol! ”
That is absolutely spot on and cuts to the heart of this discussion — PRIDE!
Iconoclast, can you offer any evidence to back up this theory, or is it just a gut feeling, a presupposition from your past which you are holding on to despite the lack of evidence for it?
Yes, there is some sense in which the Father is head of the Trinity. But discussion of this, and how it relates to the different wills of the Father and the Son, quickly gets into very deep water. And the relevance to gender distinctions is completely uncertain. The difference between the Father and the Son was not temporal as both are eternal.
As for your question about what would have happened if a helpmeet was found, it makes me wonder if a better translation might be “partner” with that including the sexual side. Of course if Adam had been able to mate with one of the animals Eve would not have been needed for propagating the species. But the point is that no animal fitted the bill, it had to be someone equal with Adam.
It may of course be that all of this is a silly patriarchal anachronism that is no longer relevant to our modern culture’s notions of equality and diversity and has anyway, been done away with under the new covenant but I would like more evidence to convince me that this is true.
I wonder what is meant by modern here. The notion that Christian women should commit themselves to doing God’s will rather than being sidekicks for men is firmly grounded in the 19th century missionary movement.
This is written in 1883 by Lottie Moon,
“Can we wonder at the mortal weariness and disgust, the sense of wasted powers and the conviction that her life is a failure, that comes over a woman when, instead of the ever broadening activities that she had planned, she finds herself tied down to the petty work of teaching a few girls?”
Women like Elizabeth Fry, Catherine Booth, Clara Barton, Lottie Moon, and Florence Nightingale were women who directly countered the teaching of their day on how a woman should conduct herself according to the Bible.
I am also offended by your statement that stories of abuse “litter” discussions like this. Do abused women lack legitimacy? Do you want to deny them voice? Don’t you ever think that the woman who protests about male violence and abuse is not being theoretical but simply recounting the circumstances of her real life?
I do not deny that men can also be abused. I don’t suggest that men should be under the authority of women.
I suggest that authority is given to Christians to exercise among other Christians for one purpose only and that is to build up and offer equality to others. If men don’t do that for women they damage women and themselves at the same time. They distort the will of God.
Peter,
I think that evidence may be found in your second paragraph. If you concede that there is a a kind of ‘headship’ of ordered authority within the Trinity then is it not possible that it may also exist elsewhere in the created order?
Notwithstanding your point that the relevance to gender distinctions is uncertain, here does seem to be a level of inequality at the divine level. Why is it not difficult then, to suppose that their are different levels of legitimacy between men and women?
My reading of I Cor 11 suggests to me that Paul thought that there was although I am willing to be convinced otherwise. So no, it is not a gut feeling or a presupposition I am holding onto.
While I appreciate that discussing levels of authority within the Trinity gets you into deep water (I am not quite sure what you mean by that BTW), I think it is nonetheless a worthwhile debate to be had and I think it might illuminate this discussion.
Suzanne:
It is not my intention to be offensive and I apologise to you if I have. What I am trying to say is that debate about the relative roles of men and women with regard to authority is often overtaken by appeals to the mistreatment of women by men in ways you have described. I do not deny them a voice. I think they have been treated very badly.
What I am trying to do is examine objectively whether in fact any evidence exists for ‘headship’ but to do so in a way which is free from the many emotive and justified accounts of women’s mistreatment by men. The abuse of women and their personal circumstances is an extremely important issue, but it is not what I am addressing here. FWIW I am undecided on this issue and I am largely playing the devils advocate in this discussion
A further point which may like to consider in a church context and with reference to your examples of women is what I would call the ‘authority of ministry’. By that, I mean that authority lies in the ‘ministry ‘that God has anointed on an individual. The ministry itself is the receptacle of authority -not the person.
Deborah for example, clearly carried authority by her ministry as a Judge. Whenever I listen to an individual supposedly acting as a minister of God, the question that crosses my mind is how can I be sure that this individual really is authoritative. For me, gender does not come into it – it is the substance of what they say and do that counts.
There are many examples off women exercising authority in this way but this may be a different concept to that of ‘headship’ which Paul is speaking about in I Cor 11.
Peter,
Some questions I omitted to ask you in my last post. In your capacity as a translator can you tell us in what sense the word ‘helper’ is used in Gen 2 v18 and 20?
Gen 1 v27 seems to be saying that men and women were both created equally in the image of God. Yet is there any inference in the text that Adam was a ‘helper’ of Eve in Gen 2?
Yes, it is possible that there is ordered authority within the created order. But the burden of proof is on you that it is found in the place you have identified it, and that it is man over woman and not vice versa!
As for 1 Corinthians 11, I accept that this can be read as evidence for your position, but I recommend that you read Cheryl’s explanation of this chapter which Charis linked to, to see that there is an alternative view which makes sense.
Iconoclast, on your follow up question, the word translated “helper” is not used reciprocally in Genesis 2, but only of Eve in relation to Adam. But it by no means implies a lower status. Indeed if anything it implies the opposite, for the word is used most commonly of God as a “helper” to humans.
Iconoclast, you wrote,
“The difficulty with this kind of discussion that it is often littered with anecdotes of the abuse of male leadership in church situations with regard to women which by all accounts have been legion. It is also driven I think, by an undercurrent of feminism.
Would you address yourself in this way to a black man if you were discussing abolition of slavery. Would you say,
“The difficulty with this kind of discussion is that it is often littered with anecdotes of the abuse of slave ownership with regard to blacks which by all accounts have been legion. It is also driven I think, by an undercurrent of socialism.”
Would you not be thoughtful and restrained in view of the fact that that man that you were actually talking to had been beaten as a slave. Would you simply stand and argue that it is not the fault of slave ownership, which is certainly condoned in parts of the Bible, but a beating is simply an abuse of slave ownership, and not at all what would happen if slave ownership was regulated by the church.
Thanks for that clarification Peter.
On the question of ordered authority and the notion of Headship in the Trinity, then in 1 Cor 11v3 Paul makes a direct correspondence between God being the Head of Christ and man being the head of the woman so It does seem to me that understanding the relationship structures within the Trinity does have a direct bearing on this headship issue and may in some way reflect the imago dei.
I have been reading Cheryl’s take on the subject which is an interesting one but when I last looked not all the parts were posted there. I will comment on it when I have absorbed it all.
Suzanne:
If I understand you correctly you are making a comparison here between slave ownership and the subjugation of women by the church. However this is not what I am talking about here.
I am trying to establish what the meaning of ‘headship’ is and what the Apostle Paul meant by the passage in 1 Cor 11. From the bitter tone of your posts it seem to me that you equate ‘headship’ with subjugation and abuse.
Now you may well be right that men have used this headship concept to abuse women but in this discussion, I am trying to get to what ‘headship’ actually means. I for one, do not think it means subjugation and abuse of women. I think it is reflecting some aspect of the imago dei although I am unclear what it is.
I have attempted to focus on two areas in the Bible in Genesis and I Corinithians 11 where the idea of headship appears ,particularly in relation to the Trinity.
Paul makes a direct correspondence between the relational structures in the Trinity and between man and women and I think that a proper understanding of the headship between Christ and God may lead us to a clearer understanding. I think this is highly significant and I want to know what other people think of it.
Because of the emotive issues surrounding this subject, it is often very difficult have an objective discussion about headship. It was my hope that this forum would permit this to happen but I refuse to be drawn into a debate about the injustices suffered by women, blacks or any other marginalised group because this is not the question I am trying to establish here.
Iconoclast,
The headship teaching has altered and severely damaged my life. That is why I sound bitter.
You write,
“The difficulty with this kind of discussion that it is often littered with anecdotes of the abuse of male leadership in church situations with regard to women which by all accounts have been legion. It is also driven I think, by an undercurrent of feminism.
May I suggest that you also sound bitter. I have told you, women are bitter about the teaching of male authority because it causes them enormous physical and psychological damage.
Why are you bitter about feminism? Aspects of feminist influence on government in which laws are changed and improved have benefited women enormously.
But why is feminism spoken of so negatively by men? I would think that a man would be proud to promote the equality of women.
Suzanne, I know your last comment is not directed at me, but you should not make this sound like a generalisation about all men. I am “proud to promote the equality of women.”
But I am not bitter about feminism Suzanne. I have merely stated that some aspects of the ‘headship ‘ issue has been driven by feminist ideas and theology.
As with all social justice movements there are good and bad things about feminism. Christian feminists like Elaine Storkey for example , have made exceptionally good contributions to the christian understanding of women. On the other hand I have seen a number of my male acquaintancies abused by christian feminists who refuse even to consider their views simply by virtue of the fact that they are a man. I think also that in some areas, feminism has not been very good for children and for marriage.
And as with you, I agree that feminist pressure has resulted in enormous benefits to women at work and in the home and is a very postive thing . I have also seen the treatment of women by men in a christian context that somtimes makes me want to punch the man on the nose.
I may be wrong in this, but I think that feminism is often spoken so negatively by some men because they feel threatened by it and are scared of women. The other reason is plain old -fashioned chauvinism pure and simple, which is based on pride. You may also be surprised to learn just how insecure many male ministers are to the extent that they feel the need to control everything including women.
You mention that the headship teaching has severly damaged your life. I do not know the details of the personal circumstances that has so affected you. All I can say is that as a fellow christian you have my utmost love and support . This isn’t worth much I know, but I can only apologise on behalf of my male sex for the damage they have done to you.
But this pesky ‘headship teaching needs to be thrashed out does it not? As I stated earlier I do not have as yet, a view on the headship issue. I am simply interested in trying to establish what the Bible teaches about it and it’s relation to other issues such as equality. So far, I think it is somehow connected with the relational structures within the Trinity but I am hoping that there some here who might be able to shed further light on it.
Peace
Peter,
You are an example of what I *would* think and what I *do* think – that many men are happy to promote the equality of women. I am just irritated that some are not. I would like to think that all men would be happy to promote the equality of women.
What I cannot fathom is that when I speak dismissively of male headship, since, after all, I was deprived of basic human freedoms for much of my life, I am taken to task.
But in return, Iconoclast speaks dismissively of feminism. In some way, I feel that I might not be able to live my life in peace if it were not for recent civil laws brought in by feminist lobbying.
So I put up on the block
– basic human freedoms which have been promoted by feminists, against
– certain feelings that men have of being abused in some way because women won’t listen to their views.
I just can’t quite make this add up. I can’t see why it is equivalent pain in one’s life to not have a woman listen to a man, as Iconoclast claims, as it is for a women to be subject her entire life and lose the right to access and egress of the family home without permission.
I define abuse as the deprivation of basic human rights, which is encountered by women who are told to follow their husbands “headship. ” This is sometimes experienced as physical violence, which is enabled by the teaching of headship and the teaching against divorce, the shaming of the divorcee. This is what I am talking about, being deprived of the most basic things in life.
Iconoclast defines abuse as not being listened to by Christian feminists.
I might add that in my experience, those who are most in favour of the submission of women are also those most in favour of punching out the male abuser. What is totally missing in this is asking how women can be protected from exposure to abuse in the first place. A woman does not want to be rescued by another violent male. A woman needs to be told that she has no obligation to obey in the first place, and that the relationship ought to be mutual. Then she can leave the first time she is ordered around. She will not expose herself to mistreatment.
The damaged spouse, male or female, needs to be told that it is the honourable thing to do to leave.
I have read so little of what Christian feminists teach that I don’t know how to respond to that concern. I would like to see an example of the abuse that Christian feminists expose some men to.
I think, Iconoclast, it is important not to put down women for promoting the equality of women, in spite of how hurtful it feels as a man to be put down by women who have experienced not being treated as an equal. That is, for women, the reality of not being treated as an equal will always be paramount over the hypothetical issues.
If women are not treated as equal, they feel it, and cannot enter a discussion as an equal.
It is difficult for me to discuss this because I suffered extreme conditions in order to stay with the father of my children until they reached the age of 18, in order not to contravene his parenthood, because this is what I think male headship is.
I have put every part of my life on the line for this, and lived it in an extraordinary way.
I don’t think these things are taken into account when people throw around the term “feminist” as a negative, and wonder why women won’t talk about male headship in a non emotive way.
That’s really a good point, Suzanne… At first I didn’t really get what you were saying, as I’m so used to “feminism” being a term that is used alongside other negative things…ya know, “satanic, demonic, worldy, fleshly, humanistic, socialistic,” and so on and so forth. 😆
It didn’t occur to me that we should probably push for accuracy: that the word, feminism, simply refers to equality for all persons, regardless of gender.
So often it’s used to mean all the ultra-hyper-feminists (the ones that hate men, that call babies “parasites,” etc). But that’s really an inaccurate use of the term, though until we start requiring accurate usage of the term, it’s going to continue to be misused.
Pingback: Learning “What the Bible PLAINLY Says About Gender” (Via My Handy Dandy Pink-n-Blue Gridsheet)… « adventures in mercy