On equality and unity

The question of the roles of man and woman created in God's image seems to be settled for some, but for me, whenever I hear some of the arguments, more questions than answers are raised in my mind.

I don't think recent arguments on either side of the issue of women in ministry would make the case that a woman is downright inferior, weaker, or less capable as a human being because she is female.  So, in this way we have made progress toward respect for one another in the Body of Christ.  In modern western democracies and with the constant focus on social justice, who wants to come across as authoritarian? We are painfully aware there are many instances where "authority" has been an excuse to abuse another person, including, sadly, within the sacred fellowship of marriage.

So, to prevent abusive relationships, people hasten to add (and rightly so) that, while a man is the leader both at home and in the Church, this doesn't inevitably follow that he is in some way better or superior to his wife or women in the Church.  As long as the man remembers his role as a Christ-like servant to his wife and to the church, harmony can be established and a loving relationship can be nurtured.  In this regard, anecdotes exist of wonderfully loving and serving husbands who also happen to be die-hard complementarians.  And, conversely, we have examples of card-carrying egalitarians that are quite tyrannical in their relationships.  Thus, the injunction to walk in the Spirit trumps individual viewpoints on the matter, as it should.  We're all the better for it.

However, to push back a little, it still seems hard to accept that any system of subordination, with its inherent limitations and restrictions placed on the subordinate party, doesn't create a perception of inequality.  If someone is in authority over you, there is invariably a sense of loss regardless of how much the one over the other claims this is not the case.  I think it's part of human nature to think this way: "rank has its privileges" is a truism that is hard to shake off, it seems to me.  The very fact that a lot of time is usually spent explaining that one idea (submission) doesn't lead to the other (inequality) tells me there is some noise in the system.

Paul himself does not seem to struggle with this perceived tension.  In his clearest articulation of the Gospel in Romans and Galatians,  he is happy to claim unity and equality between ethnicities and genders (the famous "there is no..." in Galatians; the whole of point of Romans is that Jews and Gentiles are now equal before God in their guilt and righteousness by faith; "no favoritism" is the idea). In fact the metaphor of unity in his theology is far more important to him than the idea of subordination.  Even a key text such as Eph 5 sets the context of the wife's submission within the larger, and presumably, more important, framework of mutual submission (which is another way to get at unity).  In this mindset, he is firmly in line with the language of "union" between a man and woman (completeness/ togetherness) of Gen 1-2.  So, in the Christ/Husband and Church/Wife analogy, Paul subordinates the submission of the wife (and the children, and the slaves) within the context of the primary command to "submit to one another."  The husband submits to his wife by his Christlike sacrificial love, while the wife submits to her husband in everything (is there any other sort of loyalty/submission than one where everything/every area is involved?).  The father submits to his children by not provoking them to anger, while the children obey their parents.  Slaves and masters have also a mutually submissive attitude under the Lord, quite the radical claim in the first century. Thus,  if we place the submission language over Paul's language of unity in Ephesians in general and here in particular, we are missing the point he is making at the very beginning of the sequence: submit to one another.  It is in this symbiotic relationship that the unity of the body of Christ is reflected, including the union between a husband and wife.   Paul seems to argue from the standpoint of the primacy of unity and mutual dependency in relationships, not hierarchy per se.

The creation-order-as-authority argument is another problematic one for me.  Here my focus is on 1 Tim 2 (as opposed to 1 Cor 11).  In the logic of Paul's argument, Adam came before Eve, therefore Adam has primacy, therefore women can't teach men. However, if we are going to argue for a narrow idea of primogeniture-equals-authority from Genesis, we find ourselves quickly in over our heads.  In Genesis, the first-born routinely gets the proverbial "shaft" (Cain, Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, Manasseh).  In fact, Paul himself gets tremendous mileage out of the principle that "election overrides primogeniture" when he brings up Jacob and Esau in Rom 9 to illustrate God's mercy toward Jews (and Gentiles, as it turns out).   So, if we find in Paul's theology this prevailing idea that election overrides any claim of primacy based on bloodlines and first-born status, we need to be careful not to absolutize the illustrative analogy Paul makes in 1 Tim 2 with respect to the relationship between Adam/men and Eve/women in Ephesus.  I may be wrong here, but if Paul speaks in absolute terms across the ages (Adam/man is first, therefore he has authority over Eve/woman), then we create an unnecessary tension with his teaching on election.   Thus, while Paul does appeal to the order of creation in 1 Tim 2 to make his point,  I'm not sure the analogy has the universal reach some have attached to what he is saying, namely, that women can't ever teach men through all ages and under any circumstances.    If this were the case, then Josiah and his court, all of Israel during the judgeship of Barak and Deborah in pre-monarchical Israel, were in sin by consulting and receiving the teaching of the Law from women (of course, to find the Israelites in sin during the period of the Judges and in the late Judean monarchy is not a great stretch, but in the context of both the judgeship of Deborah and the reign of Josiah, these are times of spiritual renewal within the community, e.g. Judges 5, 2 Kings 22-23).  Much more to develop on these matters, but they can be taken up elsewhere and at another time.
 

The MDiv for stay-at-home wives, homeschooling moms and grandmothers

The title may sound controversial to some but it actually isn't, if you keep reading.
Traditionally the MDiv has been a degree designed for those preparing to enter the ordained ministry of Word and Sacrament. It includes courses in preaching, counseling, evangelism, missions, church history, theology and, of course, biblical studies.  It's usually the flagship degree at a seminary and a majority of students are typically enrolled in it (although trends also point to diversification). Depending on what seminary you attend, typically it is men who enroll in the MDiv.  The reason is well known: many denominations within evangelicalism don't regard the ordination of women as a doctrinally, exegetically and ecclesiologically viable option from the testimony of Scripture.  Other seminaries, like the one where I teach, feel that since the seminary itself doesn't ordain individuals, we leave this decision up to the students whether they want to enroll in the MDiv or not.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue of women ordination (or the idea of ordination itself), I think a good case can be made to encourage women to study in the MDiv.  Let's take the example of the stay-at-home future pastor's wife.  Oftentimes, economic considerations preclude her to study at the seminary, since somebody has to pay the bills and/or look after the children (this is of course a wonderful example of selfless sacrifice and true partnership in the ministry that is to be applauded).
However, if economics and other factors were in place (more on that in a later blog), should she not also avail herself of the opportunity to know Church history (and the history of doctrine), systematic theology, counseling, etc. ?  From the standpoint of partnership in the ministry, her husband would feel support and what all of us guys value so much in our wives: understanding of what I'm going through.  But it's more than that.  Would we not want our wives to bring up our children in the instruction of the Lord with as much precision as possible?  OT exegesis (what I usually end up teaching the most) is a wonderful tool to have for homeschooling moms, and moms who teach women Bible studies, and female directors of youth ministry, grandmothers, etc. (BTW, preaching classes also come in handy to get the point across in the right format).  I don't mean to be facetious here but I think everyone would say amen to the idea that children, other women and young adults deserve as much exegetical accuracy and doctrinal faithfulness as adult males deserve to receive from their pastors.
Some view the prohibition of Paul to women to be universal in 1 Tim 2, others don't. What is undeniable is that the text still says "let a woman learn."  I say, let every one learn as much as they can so that they can fully participate in the theological development of their children or gran-children or whomever the Lord puts on their paths.