jesus was a ladies man: women in leadership part 3

Jesus is awesome. But there are so many annoying people in the world and for some reason a lot of these people end up in church leadership. They end up saying really dumb things sometimes and get angry at stuff that is ridiculous. They give the church a bad name and sometimes cause us to get labelled as bigots, misogynists, sexists, homophobes and worse. This is pretty sad when we see just how inclusive Jesus is with people on the fringes.

Jesus was just awesome with women. Jewish society had become pretty patriarchal by the first century and women were essentially viewed as the property of men (take a look at the ten commandments: ‘do not covet your neighbours possessions, his livestock, his wife, his house’ – she’s not even top of the list!). Jesus consistently acts in such a way as to break this thinking down. And this was pretty radical for a rabbi. Jesus talked with, taught, healed, travelled with, praised and discipled women. He took them seriously, he wanted them to learn and he saw them as important. Luke’s gospel is particularly big on this. You can’t really see it any other way.

However, when it comes to leadership, it doesn’t seem to look like Jesus wants women involved. His 12 apostles were all men. On top of this, Jesus never speaks against the culture of female inferiority, and some see that as indirectly justifying it. Some have argued that he did this because women wouldn’t have been taken seriously in that culture. Others have said that it was because women would have known the scriptures well enough to be a definitive teacher of Christian doctrine.

But in my experience, people like to jump from narrative to what they like to call ‘a biblical model’. They read certain stories in the bible, or certain actions of certain individuals and then decide that those are moral codes, or examples to follow. They turn them into something that is prescriptive. This is particularly common for the church described in the book of Acts. They read about what went on at the beginning of the church’s story and decide that what Luke is actually doing is outlining a blueprint for all of church life from there on in. But there actually isn’t much saying that you should be doing this. To look to the selection of the twelve as a prescriptive model for leadership is to read into the text something that isn’t there.

In light of the story of Israel before Jesus, to understand that the very structure of how the nation was understood, it is clear that what Jesus is doing is a highly symbolic action: he is choosing a new twelve. It is a subversive act, it is a statement to Israel that he is ushering a new beginning. This is one of many re-enactments of the Israel story that Jesus takes into himself and gives new meaning. To do anything else with this is to treat the bible like a manual. Don’t do that. It’s not a Western book.

gender roles and gender distinctions: women in leadership part 2

I don’t enjoy confrontation but sometimes it seems I’m really good at it, or invite it in certain situations. One of these moments took place while having lunch at a conference. I ended up sitting at a table with a bunch of young guys that I’d never met before. They were already in a deep discussion about complimentarianism and egalitarianism. One of these guys was adamant that in a marriage there were some things that only men could do and other things designed for women. He told me that men and women were made differently, and so clearly they weren’t allowed to have the same jobs. Men were to provide for the family, to lead and make important decisions while women were to look after the children, make food for the family and to submit to the husband in the important decisions. He told me this was the biblical view.

But I just couldn’t understand the logic jump. Sure, men and women are clearly different, physically and psychologically. I don’t disagree with that. In fact I’m into it, because I don’t find the male body particularly attractive. But how do you go from observing these differences to asserting that there are clear and distinctive gender roles? I asked my new friend this, and he couldn’t answer, but he got so mad that he started shaking, all the while continuing to make these assertions. Really interesting stuff.

It is quite a common argument, though, that it is clear from the way men and women are made that there are self-evident gender roles.

I’ve found that a lot of the theology behind this thinking is based on the creation story, the foundational narrative of the bible where the scene is set. Eve has received a bit of a slap on the wrist by lots of people throughout the ages and her actions have been used to justify thinking that says that women can’t be trusted to lead well. Eve has been seen as the Devil’s gateway, the one who was easily deceived and has shown us just how easily women can be turned astray. I’ve heard a few people tell me that women are too driven by their emotions and don’t reason as well as men. This sounds more like the thinking of the ancient Greeks than Jesus to me. The reality is that this just doesn’t work out in the real world. There are many great examples of women in leadership and heaps of examples of men that have led badly. General statements like this simply don’t work.

Those that look to the creation story as an archetypal example for the way that the sexes work forget a few basic details. Firstly, Eve wasn’t around when the commandment about the fruit was given! It looks like her deceit is actually the fault of Adam who doesn’t seem to have passed this important information on. In Romans, Paul says that sin entered the world through Adam, not Eve. And if Adam is supposed to be the leader, why is he following Eve? Naughty Adam. If you continue to look closely you might also see that only Adam was expelled from the garden. Eve chose to follow Adam. It sounds like she was actually pretty cool. The text seems to further indicate that Eve is actually not too bad: it is her seed that will eventually crush the serpent’s head, not Adam’s.

Why is this important? What I’m trying to get at, is that the text that sets the foundation for what human beings are and how they are to live seems to look less favourably on Adam than it does Eve. It seems like Adam is presented as the one who leads badly. Most importantly though, in no place is it prescriptive for gender roles. Childbirth seems to be the only distinctive.

So don’t let anyone come at you with an argument that says “It is just the way things are, men are made to lead women”. These people haven’t read their bibles closely enough, or maybe they have read other things into these stories. They don’t seem to have listened to and looked at the life of Jesus. Jesus is who we will look at next time.

Jesus likes the ladies. It’s good.

for the ladies: women in leadership part 1

Some of you may be wondering why I think this issue is worth talking about - isn't this done and dusted? Unfortunately not.

I’ll never forget hearing a certain statement preached as truth in front of that many people. I had flown to England to be part of an international leadership conference and the guest speaker was Pastor Mark Driscoll from Mars Hill Church, Seattle. There were around 12,000 leaders gathered from all around the world, and mid-way through one of his presentations Driscoll declared to everyone, “If you allow women to be elders in your churches then your movement will fail.” It took me a while to pick my jaw off the floor. He based this assertion on scripture, citing Paul as the authority on the matter and insisting that he was simply being biblical. Scary stuff. I would actually argue the opposite of Driscoll. Time will tell on that one I suppose.

It wasn’t the first time I’d heard stuff like this though. I’ve grown up in churches that didn’t move from a position that women cannot lead churches or preach in them. Funnily enough, there was often a loophole that allowed them to teach and lead other women and children, but men were always out of the question. They told me the bible was clear on the matter: women were never to be a man's superior. I remember sitting in a leadership meeting for a church, and a guest to this meeting was a prominent leader from among the movement. He had come to offer direction and guidance. I decided that since he was so privy to the thinking that had shaped the movement I would ask him why they had arrived at the conclusion that it was beyond doubt that women could lead churches. I told him that in my view it was a bad reading of Paul. This basically led me to being told that I was essentially fearing the opinions of man, rather than God. He told me that at an intersection, one person has to give way to another in order for anyone to get anywhere and that it was like that for men and women. Women have to submit to men in order for any decisions to be made in the end. Impressive reasoning right?

The women in these churches were told that this was the biblical model, and that God only likes it that way. They were told that to be a godly woman meant that submission was the way it had to be. There was no discussion on the matter outside of intending to indoctrinate people to this point of view. I became increasingly uncomfortable with this thinking. For one thing, I knew so many women gifted in leadership and preaching that were unable to exercise their gifting because of this oppressive theology. And it seemed that men actually needed to learn to be led by women and the church looked like the perfect environment for this. It also seemed to sound like something very foreign to the voice of Jesus. It sounded counter-intuitive on so many levels. But it also seemed that the writings of Paul gave them no room on this either.

To put it simply, it’s just not as clear as that. Like anything in the bible, it is dangerous to take one verse or passage out and use it as a rule without considering other writings. As it happens, not even Paul sticks to this thinking. So where does this thinking come from? Many are convinced that this argument is only important now because of modern feminist thinking. But the Waldensians of the 12^th and 13^th centuries, the Anabaptists of the 16^th century, the Quakers of the 17^th and 18^th centuries and John Wesley’s Methodist movement in the 18^th century all allowed women to be preachers, teachers and leaders. The Salvationists even put it into writing.

Crazily enough, the bible has its fair share of female leaders; we have Miriam, Deborah and Hulduh who led the people in different ways in the Old Testament period. And the early church was countercultural in this respect too, Paul addresses Priscilla, Pheobe and Junia as leaders of churches and fellow co-workers. In AD 112 Pliny the younger wrote a letter to the Emperor Trajan about Christians asking for advice on how to deal with them. He told Trajan that he had tortured ‘two female slaves who are called deacons.’ The Christian community had already transcended the boundaries of sex and class. Amazing stuff.

I’m stoked that Windsor Park allows women to lead. It’s so good that Amanda is our pastor in some ways just because she’s a woman! But this conversation is long and complex with many viewpoints and reasons for taking certain positions. I’ll try and cover as much as I can over the next few posts. It’s an important conversation to have, which is why I want to give it some air time. I don’t want to see women, often gifted people in key areas of church life with lots to offer, made to feel as though they are going against God’s will if they want to lead. I don’t want them made to feel like submission is the only option. This isn’t the voice of modern feminism or a product of moral relativism. This is getting back to the roots of the gospel. Proclaiming freedom. Listening to Jesus.

Archaic patriarchal notions of male dominance are not okay.