Confessions of an Egalitarian Complementarian

Confessions of an Egalitarian Complementarian

Source Link

by Roger Olson

March 4, 2015

Comments

The topic is gender. It’s a minefield. Anyone who dares to step into it must be prepared to be injured. Especially in American academic institutions it’s a minefield. And it is a major point of division among evangelical Christians. I speak from within both contexts.

In academia we are in a time of recovery from rampant patriarchalism and that has led to some over reactions. Two trends are noticeable. First, any acknowledgement of real difference between the sexes—beyond biology and patriarchal oppression—is discouraged. One academic professional society requires facilities where it meets to make all restrooms unisex. Second, insofar as differences between males and females are acknowledged—beyond biology and patriarchal oppression—typically female modes of behavior are to be prioritized. No positive acknowledgment of typically male modes of behavior is permitted. These two trends are in some tension with each other, but both are easily observable in American academia and they filter out into the media, government and business.

Among evangelicals one is pressured to choose between being either “complementarian” or “egalitarian.” There is little room for middle ground or hybrids. Somewhat mimicking secular academic trends, many evangelical egalitarians shy away from any talk of interdependence between the sexes or of differences between them beyond biology and social conditioning. “Masculine” and “feminine” are only social constructions and nothing more. Any mention of innate differences between boys and girls beyond physiology is discouraged. The assumption is that “difference” inevitably leads to hierarchy (read “patriarchy”).

On the other hand, many evangelical complementarians insist that power differentials between males and females are rooted in revelation and the Trinity itself. “Male headship,” it is argued, does not mean male superiority but only divinely ordained male leadership. In reality, however, among evangelical complementarians, male headship always tends to flesh out as male domination and female submission.

I stand (sometimes alone) in a middle space, a liminal space (to use academic jargon), between egalitarianism and complementarianism. It’s often an uncomfortable space to inhabit. What this means is that:

• Among academics I reject the radical minimizing of sex differences. I believe male-female difference is more than biology/physiology and social conditioning. I admit that identifying that difference is never easy, but I believe it is observable in tendencies of behavior well before hormonal influences can account for it. We are one humanity; our humanity is one. But difference does not mean inequality in any other area of human life; we celebrate difference and “otherness” (in academia). We can be and are one humanity in variety. And maleness and femaleness is one of the irreducible manifestation of that variety. It cannot and should not be obliterated by social engineering.

• At the same time I stand together with feminists in opposing oppression based on sex or gender. Females should have every opportunity to fulfill their human giftedness including entrance to every level of leadership in every profession. (On the other hand I think professions commonly considered reserved for females ought to be opened without hindrances to males. If the profession of engineering would be improved by having more women engineers, then the profession of nursing would be improved by having more men nurses.)

• Among evangelicals I stand with the egalitarians in affirming that women called by God to lead should be ordained and recognized as leaders at every level of religious organizations. I stand with egalitarians in affirming that husbands and wives should submit to each other in marriage and that both, together, should lead families. I have been a member of two churches pastored by women (and am now attending a third) and have many women students who will be pastors of churches. I work within a denomination whose executive leader is a woman. My wife is a deacon in our church. My wife and I have for forty plus years made all decisions in our marriage and family together. When we do not agree we do not act in any way that affects both. I do not claim “leadership” and neither does she—except together, as one.

• On the other hand, I agree with complementarians that “manhood” and “womanhood” are rooted in creation and are not reducible to biology/physiology or social construction-conditioning. Although they overlap much (and there’s nothing wrong with that), manhood and womanhood, maleness and femaleness, masculinity and femininity, complement each other. Typically men need other men and they need women; typically women need other women and they need men. “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” is not true. Woman is made for man as man is made for woman. The two need each other and complement each other. We should celebrate the difference and interdependence without creating or supporting hierarchy.

• For example: A church for women only would be a travesty as would a church for men only (both exist). Children are best raised, when possible, by both a male and a female. If either a father or mother is not available the single parent should seek out a person of the other sex to co-parent with them (within appropriate boundaries, of course). Boys need both male and female teachers in schools, as do girls.

We need to overcome our polar oppositions and recognize both man and woman as uniquely gifted by God, equal in every way, interdependent, and yet really different ways of being human.

Review: "Half the Church," by Carolyn Custis James

Half the Church: A Brief Interview with Carolyn Custis James

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/02/half-the-church-a-brief-interview-with-carolyn-custis-james/

by Pete Enns

February 22, 2013

Comments

 

Today’s post is a brief interview with Carolyn Custis James about her most recent book Half the Church: Recapturing God’s Global Vision for Women. For those 7 or 8 of you out there who don’t know who Carolyn is, her online bio will tell you that she is a busy writer and a popular speaker at women’s conferences, churches, colleges, and seminaries. Her ministry organization, WhitbyForum, promotes thoughtful biblical discussion to help men and woman serve God together.

Carolyn is also founder and president of Synergy Women’s Network, which facilitates collaborative learning communities that support and empower women and men leading together for God’s Kingdom purposes. In her spare time, she writes books including The Gospel of Ruth: Loving God Enough to Break the Rules and Lost Women of the Bible: The Women We Thought We Knew.

 

I admire Carolyn because she says what needs to be said respectfully and with power. She is not shy about ruffling some feathers, if that’s what it takes. And it usually does.

What’s the back-story that led you to write Half the Church?

 

Half the Church opens with, “Sometimes when you’re searching for answers, you get more than you bargained for.” When I started searching for answers to personal questions I was asking for myself—about God and about his calling on me as a woman—I had no idea I was wading into one of the most important (certainly one of the most controversial) issues facing the 21st century church. I didn’t imagine where that search would take me either.

 

I started asking questions when my life veered off course and I became the first women in my family who didn’t marry during or immediately after college. Instead of following the traditional roadmap for women, I joined a sizable and largely forgotten demographic of women who live outside the parameters drawn for women by the church. Messages for women coming from the church say a lot about women as wives and mothers, but rarely acknowledge or champion other paths we follow.

 

Furthermore, Christian discussions about women tend to focus largely on women in American pews, excluding women in other cultural settings, ethnic groups, socio-economic classes, and circumstances.

 

I came to the realization that we weren’t asking big enough questions of Scripture or challenging our conclusions by the real experiences of real women and girls in a fallen world.

 

I wanted to know how big God’s vision is for women? Will it hold up under the 21st century pressures bearing down on women’s lives? Does it equip us to advance boldly into the future or does it summon us to retreat into the past? Can the Bible still speak with relevance into the diverse lives of every 21st century woman and girl or should we, as many women are doing, simply move on without it?

 

So by asking those questions, what have you found?

 

This is much bigger than questions about me. And the stakes are a whole lot higher than just my personal concerns. Living with a small vision of God’s calling on your life has serious consequences. God’s mission in the world suffers setbacks when women settle for letting others take care of things or believe they’re out of line if they step up and lead.

 

The Bible contains too many examples of God calling his daughters to violate cultural conditioning and religious expectations by stepping up and leading for us to think it’s okay to take a backseat to what God is doing in the world. When God created the woman, he wasn’t making more work for the man. He was providing real help for a staggering mission—advancing God’s kingdom on earth. We’ve lost sight of that.

 

I found a vision for women that is bigger than I ever imagined and raises the bar for all of us no matter who we are, where or when we live, our marital status or circumstances, or what we see when we look in the rearview mirror. These callings apply to every woman and every girl from first to final breath.

 

We are God’s image bearers—which isn’t simply descriptive. It is a mission that necessitates knowing and representing God and joining his mission in the world. We are ezer-warriors alongside our brothers in the battle against the Enemy that commenced in Eden. God created the woman after making the emphatic blanket statement that “It is not good for the man to be alone.” God is the Ezer of his people, so this is a major way women uniquely image God. We belong to the Blessed Alliance of male and female image bearers mandated by God to be his vice-regents—ruling and looking after things in this world on his behalf.

 

This vision frames every woman’s story and calls her to strive to be more, never less. And despite apprehensions to the contrary, this is not a win for women and a loss for men. God doesn’t do that kind of math. When women step up to answer God’s call, the men in their orbit will benefit.

 

 

How did learning these things impact you?

 

It was a wake-up call for me.

 

I grieved my own complacency and wasted years. I knew I needed to change—to let go of old ways of thinking and to embrace responsibility for my part in God’s work even when it means moving out of my comfort zone.

 

What was the biggest aha moment in writing this book?

 

Actually there were several. But this one reshaped the entire book, including the title.

 

In 2009 I was stunned to see the connection between my work and what Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn call the “paramount moral challenge” of the twenty-first century.” Their book, Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide, exposes how low values of women and girls result in sex-trafficking, honor killings, child marriages, female genital mutilation, gang rape, etc. Their statement, “Americans of faith should try as hard to save the lives of African women as the lives of unborn fetuses,” hit me squarely between the eyes. I knew first, that we have a message that completely undermines the devaluing of women and girls and second, that we have responsibility to do something about this crisis.

 

Half the Church needed to be more than a reassuring and empowering message for women. God’s vision for his daughters is a call to action for God’s justice that demands a response. As God’s image bearers, this crisis is our responsibility. I was deeply encouraged that Sheryl WuDunn endorsed my book. Now many are reading both books together.

 

What surprised you most after publishing Half the Church?

 

Well, I wasn’t surprised that my book drew criticism. What did surprise me, however, was the fact that any thoughtful Christian could read a book that sounded the alarm about unspeakable suffering in the world and come away irked and obsessing over the fact that I didn’t address women’s ordination or male headship over women. Really? Women are being raped 24/7, little girls are being killed for being girls, and you’re miffed because your party line wasn’t endorsed? I still don’t get it—how American evangelicals can be so short-sighted and self-absorbed?

 

The best surprises are seeing how this message continues to change women’s lives and how God is using his daughters to change the lives of others. One of the biggest surprises was learning my book had inspired a woman to lead a group of women to climb Mount Kilimanjaro to raise awareness and funds to combat sex trafficking. Forty-eight Freedom Climbers (ages 18-73) tackled that climb. They raised $300,000, made two Guinness World Records for the most climbers attempting and the highest percentage summiting, and are gearing up to climb to the Mount Everest base camp this year. These are the kinds of stories that motivate me to continue to write.

 

Like I said, “Sometimes when you’re searching for answers, you get more than you bargained for.”

 

 

 

 

 

Synergy - the whole church

 

 

http://synergytoday.org/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thoughts about "A Year of Biblical Womanhood," by Rachel Held Evans

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/10/thoughts-about-a-year-of-biblical-womanhood-by-rachel-held-evans/

 

by Dr. Roger Olson

October 14, 2012

Comments

 

I had planned to wait until the last week of October to review this book—as requested by the publisher. The book’s official publication date is October 30, but it is already being widely discussed and criticized by people who have received “advance reader’s copies” (like me). Some complementarian bloggers are attacking it without reading it (based on what they’ve heard about it from others who may or may not have read it). This reminds me of the brouhaha over Rob Bell’s Love Wins. I’d like to challenge people to either read the book or shut up until they’ve read it.

 

A Year of Biblical Womanhood is a delightful read—funny, sad, bewildering, shocking, thought-provoking. It’s Rachel Held Evans’ report of and reflections on attempting for one year to live as much according to biblical instructions about women, interpreted as literally as possible. She made every effort not to be selective, but to practice everything the Bible says about women’s behavior. Ironically, some complementarian bloggers are criticizing her for being insufficiently selective when they are the ones who have urged women not to be selective about conforming to biblical “standards” of womanly behavior.

 

The book’s subtitle is “How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master.” Each chapter describes her adventures as she researched specific biblical instructions both in biblical scholarship (she clearly read a lot of complementarian as well as egalitarian theology) and in practices of traditional Jewish and Christian traditions.

 

For example, the chapter entitled “April: Purity—The Worst Time of the Month to Go Camping” reports in detail on her twelve days living in a tent during and after her monthly “period.” The chapter “June: Submission—A Disposition to Yield” tells about her month of determined submission to her patient husband Dan who finally orders her to stop submitting to him! (Dan turns out to be one of the two real heroes of the story.)

 

Now I’m not going to go into much detail about the book. You should buy it and read it. And I won’t give away Evans’ big conclusion at the end of her year. (But it’s on page 294.) Instead, I’ll just mention her penchant for poking at complementarian inconsistencies and (occasional) outright nonsense. For example, on pages 253-254 she points out how John Piper and Wayne Grudem, the two founders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, fall into inconsistencies bordering on silliness in trying to apply 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 11 to contemporary life.

 

Evans quotes Piper’s response to a question about popular female teachers like Beth Moore. He affirmed it’s okay for Christian men to listen to her speak unless they become too dependent on her as their “shepherd-teacher.” Evans concludes “In other words, a Christian man can learn from a Christian woman, so long as he doesn’t learn too much.” The she points out Grudem’s list of eighty-three items that a woman can and cannot do in the church. For example, “she can write a book about theology that is read at Christian colleges and seminaries, but she cannot teach theology at a Christian college or seminary herself.” (p. 254)

 

Don’t assume that Evans is snarky, though. She’s not. The tone of her book is mild and kind. Sure, she disagrees with evangelical complementarianism and is out to show its impracticality, but she doesn’t aim insults or hurl anathemas at anyone. And, you might ask, what about complementarianism’s biblicality (to use a non-word)? Well, read the book. Evans uses a lot of Scripture to show that anyone who tries to take it all literally will simply fail. She says “The Bible isn’t an answer book. It isn’t a self-help manual. It isn’t a flat, perspicuous list of rules and regulations that we can interpret objectively and apply unilaterally to our lives.” (p. 293) Also, “The Bible does not present us with a single model of biblical womanhood, and the notion that it contains a sort of one-size-fits –all formula for how to be a woman of faith is a myth.” (p. 294)

 

The model for Christian marriage is hers and Dan’s. It’s based on mutual love, respect and submission. Both seek the good of the other and of their union, not of themselves or some abstract notion of authority. In such marriages, there’s no need for complementarianism (as taught by some conservative evangelicals).

 

Needless to say, I agree with Evans whole-heartedly. But I live in a different world than she does. I have never lived in that world of “male headship” fundamentalism even though I’ve seen it—sometimes close up. I know about it. I’ve read the books and talked at great length with its advocates. I taught at the same college as Piper and Grudem, arriving only a year or two after they left. Their influence was very strong among the students, so I made it my business to learn all about their views. Eventually I met them and we had mostly cordial relations in spite of our different opinions.

 

I grew up in an evangelical subculture that abounded with strong women evangelists, pastors, teachers and leaders. Both my birth mother and stepmother were licensed, if not ordained, ministers of the gospel. Among our heroes were two independent women church planters who started churches of our denomination all over the upper Midwest. Four sons of one of them became powerful pastors and evangelists and kept their mother’s memory alive among us. Many of our denomination’s founders and leaders were saved under the ministry of Aimee Semple MacPherson. Kathryn Kuhlman was the lead convention speaker at one of our annual conventions.

 

Then I joined the American Baptist Churches, U.S.A. (ABCUSA) which ordains women and has many women pastors and leaders including presidents of the denomination. My wife and I have been members of two Baptist churches pastored by women with other female pastoral staff members. The church we attend now has more women than men deacons and the church council has been led by women frequently.

 

All that is to say that I don’t live in Rachel Held Evans’ world—at least not in the one she’s struggling with in her book. I see it and hear of it, but I stay out of it. However, I see the damage it does to young women called to ministry. They are among my students and I watch them struggle to be affirmed by their home churches and families. Often they are not affirmed.

 

I simply don’t know why anyone, especially any woman, would want to be a part of that world. My advice to them is “Come out from among them and be ye separate.” However, I know how difficult that can be. In some cases it means losing friends and even loved ones.

 

Reading Evans’ book got me wondering about other possible books with similar titles. I wish someone would write A Year of Biblical Manhood. One thing such an author would have to do, of course, is lift his hands without anger or disputing (1 Timothy 2:8). That would be hard for many conservative evangelical men to do!

 

How about A Year of Consistent Feminism? Maybe one month would be devoted to lobbying congress to change the law to require young women to register for the draft! I don’t see it happening.

How about A Year of Obeying Jesus? But then, the author would have to give away all his or her possessions to the poor.

 

As anyone who has read my blog consistently for a long time knows, I am steadfastly against so-called “complementarianism” as it is taught by leading conservative evangelicals. In a truly godly marriage there is no need of it. And it reeks of male resentment, fear and desire for control.

 

On the other hand, I’m no fan of feminism. Of course, much depends on what “feminism” means, but far too often these days it means implicit, if not explicit, belief in female superiority and requirement for men to become like women in order to be acceptable. It too often means the total obliteration of masculinity (I’m not talking about “machismo,” but non-threatening male ways of relating).

 

Some years ago I was asked to give a speech at a national gathering of egalitarian Christians. I was happy to do it. But I don’t think it benefits anyone to hear what they already believe. So I spoke on “Beyond Equality to Interdependence.” My talk was not very well received by many of the audience. I spoke about how feminist slogans like “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” are unchristian and how Christian egalitarians need to resist such anti-male attitudes. God created us male and female and we need each other. That’s true complementarianism.

 

 

Biblical womanhood: Learning to live by the good book

the Today Show, October 22, 2012

 

 

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/49501889#49501889

 

 

 

Why I like denominations

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/10/why-i-like-denominations/

 

by Dr. Roger Olson

October 11, 2012

Comments

 

One of the sea changes taking place in American religious life is a popular turn away from denominations. Some say we are entering, if not already in, a “post-denominational” era. Nearly all traditional denominations are struggling with membership declines and revenue shortfalls. As I put my ear to the ground of popular opinion about religion, I hear rumblings of discontent about denominational labels and behaviors and a preference for what I call “plain label” Christianity.

 

I, for one, still value denominations.

 

Before explaining, I need to define “denomination.” (1) Some sociologists of religion use the term for broad religious traditions. For example, in that usage, “Baptist” is a denomination. That’s not how I use the word. For me, “Baptist” is a tradition, a heritage, and a religious type. I think “denomination” should be reserved for religious organizations and networks of churches. (I could add synagogues, but here, for purposes of this post, I’m talking only about Christians.) By my usage “Baptist” could not be a denomination. As the old saying goes “I don’t belong to any organized religion; I’m a Baptist.”

 

So, (2) for me “denomination” refers to an organization of churches with something like a headquarters or at least some unifying structure, however informal and inchoate it may be. (For example, the Churches of Christ count as a denomination even though they have no headquarters as such. They do have a relatively cohesive structure of mutual recognition.)

 

By my definition, the Abingdon Handbook of Denominations lists and describes about 300 distinct denominations in the United States. There are more, of course, because the Handbook excludes the smallest ones and many that are restricted to a small region. Some scholars have guessed there are about 1,200 denominations in the U.S. (I suspect they are including groups of two or more churches.)

I know this will shock many people, but my attitude toward denominations is “the more the better.” Let me explain.

 

It seems to me one of the strengths of American Christianity has been its multiplicity and even diversity of denominations. That blooming, buzzing profusion (to paraphrase William James) has produced both good and bad results, but overall and in general, I judge, it has benefited American Christianity and American society as a whole.

 

For example, most colleges and universities in the U.S. were founded by denominations. So were most hospitals. Most denominations have charitable agencies that are involved in feeding the hungry, training people for jobs, community development, etc. And, of course, most have mission-sending agencies. Small churches that cannot afford to do these things (e.g., found a college or hospital or even support a missionary family) pool their resources better to do them.

 

Denominations also provide accountability for pastors and other “church professionals.” And I think that accountability works best when the authority is closer to the churches and their leaders.

 

Denominations also keep each other sharp. A certain amount of competition serves to raise the bar, so to speak, so that there is motivation constantly to update, refurbish, stay sharp (e.g., with regard to technology, training for ministry, etc.).

 

I recently interacted with a well-known ecumenical theologian who has been intimately involved with the World Council of Churches for many years. He expressed the hope of someday seeing one worldwide Christian denomination. I don’t share his hope. He portrayed the existence of multiple denominations as evidence of “brokenness” in the body of Christ. I don’t see them that way. At least the plurality of denominations does not have to evidence brokenness in the body of Christ.

 

As I have stated and explained here recently, my vision is of an ecumenism of the Spirit, not of institutions. I’m not opposed to denominations merging, unless that means the sacrifice of important particularities and a lowering of standards of belief and practice to a “least common denominator” in which robust belief and practice get lost (e.g., “generic Christianity”).

 

Some people assume (and I think this was the case with the ecumenical theologian) that the very existence of separate denominations equates with hostility and exclusion. I don’t see those as necessary at all. Where they exist, yes, they are to be overcome. Dialogue is the path, not throwing off particularities and distinctives in favor of a bland, generic spirituality and/or social ministry.

 

There is no reason why denominations cannot worship and work together while maintaining their institutional lives. There is no reason why separate denominations must harbor or express hostility toward each other. They don’t even have to be exclusive. In my opinion, “ecumenism” should aim at mutual understanding and cooperation. Beyond that, I hope, through ecumenical work, that all Christians might someday enjoy intercommunion. But “visible and institutional unity” is not necessary for that. Nor, in my opinion, is it even a good goal.

 

Imagine a worldwide Christian church (denomination). It would have to have a hierarchical structure of some kind. It would have to somehow blend Christians together in a way that would require the muting of distinctive voices. Inevitably, also, it would leave out some Christians because they don’t fit the worldwide church’s standards for unity.

 

Here’s an example of that. The ecumenical theologian argued that Baptists, for example, ought to recognize the infant baptisms of other denominations as legitimate Christian baptisms. Okay, that’s not likely to happen, but I understand where he’s coming from. Or I thought I understood. I don’t mind hearing a challenge like that. But, then, he held up for me (and others listening) a model of ecumenicity in which a church body decided to open the Lord’s Supper to all Christians except unbaptized children. Note—for him, baptized children could partake of the Lord’s Supper but not not-yet baptized children. In effect, he was suggesting that Baptists give up their distinctive insofar as it excludes other Christians but other denominations should not accommodate to Baptists’ beliefs! Imagine two families considering joining the church he described. One family has baptized children, but the other family comes from a baptist-like background in which the children have not yet been baptized. The first family’s children can partake of the Lord’s Supper, but the second family’s children cannot. How is that a triumph for ecumenicity?

 

My point is that, even this great ecumenical theologian seems blind to what would have to happen in order to achieve a world church. Some traditions’ distinctive would have to be slighted. Some tradition’s distinctive would have to “win,” so to speak. In my experience, nearly all these “world church” ecumenical thinkers envision a reformed papacy and magisterium. As one of them once said to me (he was a Lutheran ecumenist) “If the pope would just admit he’s not infallible we could join the Catholic Church.” Fine. Maybe he, as an ELCA minister and theologian, could. But how could Free Church Christians? How could baptists (of all kinds)? How could Pentecostals? In my opinion, this one world church ideal is not ideal at all—except for Catholics and closet Catholics.

 

My vision of ecumenism is all Christian denominations agreeing to worship together (on occasion), cooperate together (e.g., in charitable endeavors), and even admit one another to the Lord’s Table.

 

Now, there’s another reason for disdaining denominations that’s popular among younger Christians. It’s what’s generally meant by “post-denominationalism.” Many young Christians consider denominations old fashioned, divisive, top heavy, always embroiled in controversies, etc. They prefer what I call “plain label” churches, often newly founded, meeting in rented spaces, grassroots-oriented, etc. My observation, though, is that these churches tend to be too inclusive and lack proper emphasis on Christianity’s experiential and cognitive aspects. They tend to emphasize community.

 

The motto is sometimes “Belong, believe, behave” or “Belong, behave, believe.” But moving from “belong” to the other “b’s” doesn’t always happen. Many such churches stress community to the exclusion of strong beliefs and moral expectations (out of fear of dogmatism and legalism).

 

I sympathize with this youth-oriented movement, but I fear their Christianity may, like that of the “big ‘E’ ecumenists,” be bland, with no cutting edge to it. Sometimes, it seems, they are reinventing Christianity which means they are likely to make the same mistakes older Christian churches have made (and perhaps some newer ones).

 

For years, whenever I traveled (and I still do it), I got out the phone book in the hotel room and looked at the headings under “Churches” in the Yellow Pages. All across the country the list of churches under “Non-denominational” has grown. Now that is one of the longest lists in most places. What’s ironic, however, is that, as an aficionado of denominational histories and identities, I recognize many denominational churches under that heading! How honest is that? To be “non-denominational” or even “post-denominational” and belong to a denomination? To promote your church as non-denominational or to tout post-denominationalism and be denominational? And yet it happens all the time.

 

Personally, I struggle with “plain label” churches. When I see a church sign or ad that contains no hint of the church’s denominational affiliation or identity I assume one of two things. Either it is (1) genuinely independent, non-denominational, or (2) it is hiding its denominational affiliation to appeal to post-denominational people. Often it’s the latter. (I know because I often look them up on the web and find their denominational affiliation.)

 

A good example (but only one of too many to name or describe) is a large church in a city to which I travel often. I pass it several times a year. It’s a large, beautiful church in a suburban neighborhood. Its sign says simply “Calvary Church.” I finally remembered to look it up using a search engine. It’s a member church of the Christian Reformed Church of America. Nothing I could see on the building or grounds indicated that. (Many have “CRC” or something on their signs.)

 

So, what’s wrong with that? Only that the CRC is a truly confessional denomination with distinctive beliefs and practices. One of its doctrinal standards is the Canons of Dort—the anti-Arminian statement of faith. Suppose a Wesleyan family (I mean doctrinally, not denominationally) moved to that suburb, liked the looks of the church, heard it is a good church (family-oriented, many programs for kids, whatever) and decided to visit with an eye toward joining the church. How long would it be before they realized they were visiting and considering joining a Calvinist church? I personally know of such situations and, in some cases, people have attended a long time before realizing the church they want to join holds beliefs contrary to their own. In the end, they have to leave, having wasted a lot of time and emotional investment.

 

I think every church that belongs to any denomination should say so “up front.” Failing to do so seems somewhat dishonest to me. And truly non-denominational churches should make their beliefs and distinctive practices known to visitors with a brochure in every pew.

 

I once saw a church that advertised itself as “The Undenominational Church.” (This was back when 7-UP was advertising itself as the “UNCOLA.” I found out the “undenominational” church was really a Church of Christ.

 

Every church has boundaries; every church should let visitors and their communities know what they are by making them readily available.

 

What is happening (that I’ve been talking about in the previous few paragraphs) is simply cultural accommodation in a bad way. Church growth experts are telling churches that most American’s don’t like denominations and encouraging them to re-name their churches with generic names (e.g., Faith Family Fellowship) and omit any reference to any denominational affiliation or distinctive beliefs and practices. In most cases, the churches that do it keep their denominational affiliations and/or distinctive practices but hide them. In my opinion that is nothing other than cultural accommodation involving an element of dishonesty. As we have all heard, “lying” is not just telling an untruth; it can also be neglecting to tell the truth.

 

So, I titled this post “Why I like denominations.” I’ve wandered away from that somewhat, but I’ll conclude by returning to it. Christian churches do have distinctives; there is no such thing as (organized) generic Christianity. They ought to be honest about them. If they’re not proud of them, drop them. But better, be proud of the ones you keep! Distinctives do not have to be divisive. In fact, I like the fact that there are: Wesleyans, Calvinists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Anabaptists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. I often wish some of them would soften their rough edges, but, for the most part, they are already doing that and sometimes going so far that they are losing all shape. When I see a church that is proud of its denominational affiliation I suspect it is giving money to help found institutions of higher education, mission-sending agencies, charitable organizations, etc. And I know what it is; I’m not left in the dark about it. May their tribe increase.


 

Love, Marriage and Mutuality

In place of rules, an atmosphere of

respect and mutuality has developed.

Love gets the duties done
http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/rabbi_albert_lewis_columns/index_2.html

by Rabbi Albert Lewis
The Grand Rapids Press
June 7, 2012

In the year 2000, Shirley and I bought and designed a new condo.

We looked at model A and model B and created model C. We picked each fixture and nob and were fortunate to build just what we wanted.

Over the years, we have done some remodeling and added to our dream home.

While talking recently, we realized there are no rules about how we live in our home (except the very clear ones when the grandchildren come and have to be reminded about their responsibilities). In place of rules, an atmosphere of respect and mutuality has developed, and tasks are accomplished more out of love than assignment.

Laundry and the dishwasher, two unexciting tasks, are addressed by both of us. If one of us sees washing that needs to be dried or sorted, we do it.

The dishwasher is unloaded by whoever gets up first in the morning or is least hu rried. We love to cook together and to share the responsibilities of the kitchen — including the cleanup. We even thank one another for what the other has done. It isn’t necessary, but always appreciated.

And it sends a message that we appreciate one an other.

Of course, there are occasions when there are tasks I don’t see as clearly as Shirley, but we accomplish them because we have chosen to make a house into a loving home. That didn’t happen overnight.

In this home, there have been hours of conversation, agreement, understanding and misunderstanding to reach a place of deep respect. Everything that happens in our lives is worth talking about. We even have certain places we prefer to sit to talk about issues that are most important to us. Fears, disappointments, joys and dreams all find space in our home and in our hearts.

And, after almost 50 years of marriage, we continue to find ways to be more sensitive to one another.

Love and deep mu tual respect evolve, but they are not simply the results of time. My experience has taught me that a truly deep and intimate marriage takes work and a willingness to examine oneself. Over the years, needs, desires, abilities and interests change. All this needs to be brought to the place where we sit and talk.

Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: “The best friend is likely to acquire the best wife, because a good marriage is based on the talent for friendship.”

Shirley is my best friend, strongest supporter and most trusted critic. In this home we occupy and sanctify together, all emotions and thoughts are shared and weighed.

Sometimes, it’ s painful to hear about how we may have disappointed one another, yet it is thrilling to know that we have made one another happy — that we know in our deepest selves we are loved. An anonymous writer noted, “A house is made of walls and beams; a home is built with love and dreams.”

With much gratitude and appreciation, we live in such a home.

Albert M. Lewis is rabbi emeritus of Temple Emanuel in Grand Rapids and author of “Soul Sounds: Reflections on Life,” available at soulsoundsbook.com. Email him at albertmlewis@att.net

Discussing Christian Mutuality, Adam and Eve, and the Biblical Role Model for Men and Women

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?

http://rachelheldevans.com/mutuality-adam-eve

by Rachel Held Evans

June 4, 2012

Comments

This is the first post in our series, One In Christ: A Week of Mutuality, dedicated to discussing an egalitarian view of gender—including relevant biblical texts and practical applications. The goal is to show how scripture, tradition, reason, and experience all support a posture of equality toward women, one that favors mutuality rather than hierarchy, in the home, Church, and society.

***

Perhaps no text has been as revered, debated, discussed, and misunderstood as the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2 Regardless of how you interpret these stories, their effect on our culture and our psyche, particularly as they relate to our views of gender, cannot be overstated.

The tradition of appealing to the creation narrative to make universal statements about the nature of man and woman is a longstanding one. Genesis 1 and 2 have been mined and manipulated and used as ammunition in debates about everything from science to gender roles to Christology to epidurals. So while we have to be careful of reading too much into the text, we simply cannot talk about God and gender without addressing the famous story of Adam and Eve.

Male and female, created in the image of God...

“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”
– Genesis 1:27

In the first creation account—Genesis 1—the author makes a point of noting that, in the beginning, both male and female are created in the image of God. Here we often make the connection that both masculine and feminine aspects of God’s creation must therefore be reflections of God’s character, a point that is echoed throughout Scripture as God is poetically depicted as both Father and Mother, seamstress and warrior, compassionate (from the feminine rehem, for womb) and just.

But to be “created in the image of God” carries significant leadership implications as well. In the ancient Near Eastern world, kings were considered divine image-bearers, appointed representatives of God on earth. Kings would often place images of themselves, usually statues, in distant parts of their kingdoms to remind their subjects of their sovereignty over the land. So for man and woman to be God’s image-bearers in this context, means that God has entrusted both men and women with ruling the world on God’s behalf. “Let us make humankind in our image,” God says, “according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish,...birds, cattle,...all the wild animals...every creeping thing.”

As Daniel Kirk has noted, “The kind of rule God has in mind is not a ‘masculine’ rule, but a masculine plus feminine, male plus female, rule. Only this kind of shared participation in representing God’s reign to the world is capable of doing justice to the God whose image we bear.”

(Additional Resources: “Genesis 1-3” by Allison Young, The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothius, “Biblical Proofs for the Feminine Face of God in Scripture” by Mike Morrell, “Gender Blind” by Mimi Haddad)

What “helpmeet” really means...

“It is not good for the man to be alone.
I will make a helper suitable for him.”
– Genesis 2:18

In the second Creation account of Genesis, after God formed man from the dust of the earth and placed him in the garden of Eden, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him” (2:18).

The phrase “helper suitable,” rendered “help meet” in the King James Version, comes from a combination of the words ezer and kenegdo. Far from connoting subjugation, the Hebrew term ezer, or “helper,” is employed elsewhere in Scripture to describe God, the consummate intervener—the helper of the fatherless (Psalm 10:14), King David’s helper and deliverer (Psalm 70:5), Israel’s shield and helper (Deuteronomy 33:29). Ezer appears twenty-one times in the Old Testament—twice in reference to the first woman, three times in reference to nations to whom Israel appealed for military support, and sixteen times in reference to God as the helper of Israel. The word evokes both benevolence and strength, and is a popular name for Jewish boys, both in the Bible and in modern times.

In Genesis 2, ezer is combined with the word kenegdo to mean something like “a helper of the same nature,” or a corresponding character. Kenegdo literally means “as in front of him,” suggesting that the ezer of Genesis 2 is Adam’s perfect match, the yin to his yang, the water to his fire—you get the idea. Everything about this descriptor implies mutuality and harmony, and it provides us with a lovely glimpse of what a sinless relationship between a man and a woman might look like, the picture of a true partnership. This reality is reflected in Adam’s reaction to God’s creation of woman. He responds with “ishshah!” a play on words, which basically means, “Wow, this one is like me!” (Interesting note: The woman of the creation narrative is not called Eve until after the Fall.)

Unfortunately, all the color of its original meaning is lost in many translations of ezer kenegdo. After the King James Version rendered the two words “help meet,” poet John Dryden came along and hyphenated them, describing his wife as his tireless “help-meet.” Over time, the expression bled into “helpmeet,” an independent term applied exclusively to the role of wives to their husbands, and to this day, the myth that Genesis 2 relegates wives to the status of subordinate assistants persists, as is painfully evidenced by (complementarian) Debi Pearl’s book, Created to Be His Help Meet, which has sold more than 200,000 copies since its publication in 2004...(and which I threw across the living room a total of seven times while reading it for research.)

“God didn’t create Adam and Eve at the same time and then tell them to work out some compromise on how they would each achieve their personal goals in a cooperative endeavor,” writes Pearl. “God gave [Eve] to Adam to be his helper, not his partner.” According to Pearl, God set up a “chain of command,” that places women under the direct authority of their husbands. “You are not on the board of directors with an equal vote,” she says. “You have no authority to set the agenda. . . . Start thinking and acting as though your husband is the head of the company and you are his secretary.”

This popular complementarian interpretation of Genesis 2 is based on a poor translation of ezer kenegdo, one that fails massively to capture the spirit of the Hebrew text.

(Additional resources: Half the Church by Carolyn Custis James, Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, editors Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis.)

Hierarchy happens after the Fall...

“Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you. ”
– Genesis 3:16

It is unclear how long our heroic pair revels in this state of divine symmetry, naked and unashamed, before everything falls apart. But at some point a villain appears, promising a better life should they defy the Creator’s single stipulation and eat from the mysterious tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They eat, and immediately feel shame. The man blames the woman, the woman blames the serpent, but God holds all three accountable for the act. As punishment, the serpent must slink through life on its belly in the dirt, and man must toil against stubborn, inhospitable land until his death. To woman belongs pain in childbirth and the grief of being dominated by men.

“Your desire will be for your husband,” God tells the woman “[but] he will rule over you” (v. 16).

With ezer kenegdo properly translated, we see that there are no explicit statements revealing a hierarchal relationship between man and woman until after the event that Christians have come to call “The Fall.” While mankind is clearly assigned dominion over plants and animals, no similar dominion had existed between man and woman. William Webb notes that in ancient Near Eastern literature, including Scripture, “when the blessing/curse formulas assign status, they generally initiate a change in status different from what the person formally held. Applying this finding to Genesis 3:16 would suggest that the woman’s former status was not one of the man ruling over the woman. Before the Fall, they were equals; after the Fall, he rules over her.” So it is within the context of judgment, not creation, that hierarchy and subjugation enter the Bible’s story of man and woman. Where there was once mutuality, there is subjugation. Where there was once harmony, there is a power-struggle.

Regardless of whether one interprets the Genesis account historically or metaphorically, it is clear that the world indeed suffers from the consequences of men dominating women. Worldwide, women ages fifteen to forty-four are more likely to be maimed or die from male violence than from cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war combined. At least 3 million women and girls are enslaved in the sex trade, and a woman dies in childbirth every minute. This has been going on for a long time, and the writer of the Genesis account calls it for what it is: a tragedy, an example of our collective brokenness and our desperate need for redemption.

The question that Christians have to answer, then, is this: Do we want to be people who perpetuate this brokenness by insisting on the continued subjugation of women, or do we want to be people who, however imperfectly, attempt to model the harmony of Eden and our hope of paradise restored?

I think the answer is pretty clear.

(Additional Resources: Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide by Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis by William J. Webb.)

A quick note about Paul and Genesis...

We will be discussing the Apostle Paul’s words about women later in the series, but it’s worth noting here that when first-century rabbis like Jesus and Paul allude to the stories of the Torah, including the creation accounts, they are not participating in “straight exegesis” as we would understand it today. Rather, their creative interpretations of the text are influenced by the hermeneutical conventions of Second Temple Judaism, which allow for quite a bit of “play” with the narrative texts. (Anyone who has spent time studying midrash will know exactly what I’m talking about.)

Thus, in the epistles, we encounter some rather confusing connections between the creation narrative and, for example, why the women of Corinth must cover their heads (1Corinthians 11) and why the women at Ephesus must remain silent in church (1 Timothy 2:9-15).

Much more could be said about this, but it’s important to simply note here that, in the words of Peter Enns, “Paul does not feel bound by the original meaning of the Old Testament passage he is citing, especially as he seeks to make a vital theological point about the gospel.” Paul often uses Adam and Eve as a way of “appropriating an ancient story to address pressing concerns of the moment.” So, in other words, when Paul refers to the creation narratives, he isn’t proof texting. Rather, he is calling upon ancient, inspired, and familiar images to make a connection between the everyday and the holy. This can make interpreting Paul a real challenge for modern readers, (1 Corinthians 11 is a real doozy), but his approach fits right in with the interpretive methods of his day.

(Additional resources: The Evolution of Adam by Peter Enns)

***

So, what do you think? How have you seen the creation accounts misinterpreted and misapplied when it comes to gender?

What additional observations would you add regarding Genesis 1-3? What questions linger?


 

Biblical Submission in Context: Christ and the Greco-Roman Household Codes

Submission in Context: Christ and the Greco-Roman Household Codes

by Rachel Held Evans

June 5, 2012

Comments

This is the third post in our series, One In Christ: A Week of Mutuality, dedicated to discussing an egalitarian view of gender—including relevant biblical texts and practical applications. The goal is to show how scripture, tradition, reason, and experience all support a posture of equality toward women, one that favors mutuality rather than hierarchy, in the home, Church, and society. Morning posts will generally focus on biblical texts. Afternoon posts will generally focus on practical application. (Check out the first post, Let’s start at the beginning, shall we?, and the second post, 4 Common Misconceptions About Egalitarianism)

***

"Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ."

—Ephesians 5:21

When I started pitching my book proposal for A Year of Biblical Womanhood to publishers, I originally titled the book “A Year of Living Submissively.” My agent and I quickly learned that this title was not doing us any favors, that the word “submission” had a special way of triggering rather heated responses in publishing house board rooms across the country. We promptly changed the title to something a little less polarizing...(though with the popularity of the "50 Shades of Grey" series, I'm wondering if we might want to go back.)

I used to hate talking about submission too. I hated how that word was used—along with proof texts from Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, and 1 Peter 3—to put Christian women “in their place,” as subordinates to their husbands. But that was before I studied the context of the epistles to the early Church, before I learned about the Greco-Roman Household Codes and Peter and Paul’s radical Christian remix that often passes unnoticed by modern readers.

Household Codes: The Anchor of the Greco-Roman World

Growing up evangelical, I learned to do inductive Bible study before I learned to balance an equation. And one of the most useful tips for inductive Bible reading goes something like this: When you bump into the word therefore while reading the Bible, it is wise to ask yourself, “What is the ‘therefore’ there for?” This usually sends you turning back a few pages to get the full context of the passage and a better sense of what the author is trying to say. The same applies to other conjunctive adverbs, such as “however,” “likewise,” “also,” “finally,” and “for example.”

So, several years ago, as I was looking at one of the three Bible verses that instruct wives to submit to their husbands—the one from 1 Peter that says, “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands” (3:1)—my inductive Bible study skills kicked in, and I dutifully looked back a few verses to see what Peter meant by “in the same way.”

To my surprise, the preceding paragraph had nothing to do with the relationship between men and women, but was instead about the relationship between masters and slaves!

“Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters,” Peter wrote, “not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh . . . Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands” (1 Peter 2:18; 3:1, emphasis mine).

A little more research revealed that all three of the passages that instruct wives to submit to their husbands are either preceded or followed by instructions for slaves to submit to their masters. Right after the apostle Paul encouraged Ephesian wives to submit to their husbands as they would to Christ, and Ephesian husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, he instructed Ephesian slaves to “obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ” (Ephesians 6:5). The pattern repeats itself again in his letter to the Colossians, where Paul wrote:

Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged. Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. . . . Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven. (3:18–22; 4:1)

The implications of this pattern are astounding. For if Christians are to use these passages to argue that a hierarchal relationship between man and woman is divinely instituted and inherently holy, then, for consistency’s sake, they must also argue the same for the relationship between master and slave.

I kept digging, and as it turns out, Peter and Paul were putting a Christian spin on what their readers would have immediately recognized as the popular Greco-Roman “household codes.”

As far back as the fourth century BC, philosophers considered the household to be a microcosm, designed to reflect the hierarchal structure of the society, the gods, and ultimately the universe. Aristotle wrote that “the smallest and primary parts of the household are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children.” First-century philosophers Philo and Josephus included the household codes in their writings as well, arguing that a man’s authority over his household was critical to the success of a society. Many Roman officials believed the household codes to be such an important part of Pax Romana that they passed laws ensuring its protection.

Biblical passages about wives submitting to their husbands are not, as many Christians assume, rooted in a culture epitomized by June Cleaver’s kitchen, but in a culture epitomized by the Greco-Roman household codes, which gave men unilateral authority over their wives, slaves, and adult children. As Sharyn Dowd has observed, the apostles “advocated this system not because God had revealed it as the divine will for Christian homes, but because it was the only stable and respectable system anyone knew about. It was the best the culture had to offer.” (Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe, Women's Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition - Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press - 1998, p. 463)

And with Roman officials looking for every excuse to imprison Christians, to challenge the codes would bring even more unwanted scrutiny to the early Church.

The question modern readers have to answer is whether the Greco-Roman household codes reflected upon in Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Peter are in and of themselves holy and divinely instituted, or if their appearance in Scripture represents the early church’s attempt to blend Christianity and culture in such a way that it would preserve the dignity of adherents while honoring prevailing social and legal norms of the day. The Christian versions of the household codes were clearly progressive for their time (more on that in a minute), but does that mean they have the last word, that Christians in changing places and times cannot progress further?

...Don’t forget that these same household codes were used by many Americans during the Civil War era to justify their owning of slaves.

I’ve honestly never encountered a complementarian response to this question that I find satisfactory. This, to me, is one of the greatest ironies of the complementarian/egalitarian debate. Complementarians often accuse egalitarians of allowing cultural norms to shape their views of gender roles. But in this case, it is the complementarians who have given culture—that of the Greco-Roman familial structure—the final word.

But what about the fact that Paul compares the submission of the wife to her husband to the relationship between Christ and the Church?

Household Codes: The Radical Christian Remix

Here’s where it gets really cool: While following a similar organizational structure, the household codes found in the Bible’s epistles differ significantly from the household codes found in the pagan literature of the day. In a sense, they present us with a sort of Christian remix of Greco-Roman morality that attempts to preserve the apostle Paul’s earlier teaching that “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).

Where typical Greco-Roman household codes required nothing of the head of household regarding fair treatment of subordinates, Peter and Paul encouraged men to be kind to their slaves, to be gentle with their children, and, shockingly, to love their wives as they love themselves. Furthermore, the Christian versions of the household codes are the only ones that speak directly to the less powerful members of the household—the slaves, wives, and children—probably because the church at the time consisted of just such powerless people.

To dignify their positions, Peter linked the sufferings of slaves to the suffering of Christ and likened the obedience of women to the obedience of Sarah (1 Peter 2:18–25; 3:1–6). Paul encourages slaves and women to submit the head of the household as “unto the Lord,” reminding both slaves and their masters that they share a heavenly Master who shows no partiality in bestowing eternal inheritance (Ephesians 5:22; 6:5).

“When addressing those without power,” notes Peter H. Davids, the apostle Peter “does not call for revolution, but upholds the values of the culture insofar as they do not conflict with commitment to Christ. He then reframes their behavior by removing it from the realm of necessity and giving it a dignity, either that of identification with Christ or of identification with the ‘holy women’ of Jewish antiquity.” (Peter H. Davids, “A Silent Witness in Marriage” in Discovering Biblical Equality, eds. Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis - Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2005- p, 238.)

I cannot overstate the degree to which this remix—in which masters are reminded that they too have a heavenly master—would have been radical in the ancient world. And this is important: Peter and Paul’s use of metaphor (the husband is like Christ, the wife is like the Church, suffering slaves are like the suffering Christ) is not meant to universalize or glorify the household codes themselves but rather the *attitudes* of those functioning within the hierarchal systems of the day. Again, we cannot argue that the Greco-Roman hierarchal relationship between husbands and wives is divinely instituted without arguing the same about the Greco-Roman hierarchal relationship between slaves and masters. (See especially 1 Peter 2:18-23, where Peter provides an extended metaphor comparing slaves to Christ.)

Furthermore, if you look close enough, you can detect the rumblings of subversion beneath the seemingly acquiescent text. It is no accident that Peter introduced his version of the household codes with a riddle—“Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves” (1 Peter 2:16 UPDATED NIV)—or that Paul began his with the general admonition that Christians are to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 5:21; emphasis added). It is hard for us to recognize it now, but Peter and Paul were introducing the first Christian family to an entirely new community, a community that transcends the rigid hierarchy of human institutions, a community in which submission is mutual and all are free.

Household Codes: In Christ's Crazy, Upside-Down Kingdom

For Christians, the presence of the Household Codes in Scripture must be considered in light of Jesus, who made a habit of turning hierarchy on its head.

When his disciples argued amongst themselves about who would be greatest in the kingdom, Jesus told them that “anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all” (Mark 9:35).

In speaking to them about authority he said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Matthew 20:25–28).

This aspect of Jesus’ legacy profoundly affected relationships in the early church, to whom Paul wrote: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:5–8).

In the biblical narrative, hierarchy enters human relationship as part of the curse, and begins with man’s oppression of women—“your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). But with Christ, hierarchal relationships are exposed for the sham that they are, as the last are made first, the first are made last, the poor are blessed, the meek inherit the earth, and the God of the universe takes the form of a slave.

What’s great about the Christian remix of the Greco-Roman household codes is that, when put into practice, it blurs the hierarchal lines between husband and wife, master and slave, adult parent and adult child. If wives submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ (Ephesians 5:24), and if husbands love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her (Ephesians 5:25), and if both husbands and wives submit one to another (Ephesians 5:21)—who’s really “in charge” here?

No one.

Such a relationship could only be characterized by humility and respect, with both partners imitating Christ, who time and again voluntarily placed himself in a position of submission.

Women should not have to pry equality from the grip of Christian men. For those who follow Jesus, authority should be surrendered—and shared— willingly, with the humility and love of Jesus...or else we miss the once radical teaching that slaves and masters, parents and children, husbands and wives, rich and poor, healthy and sick, should “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

(Additional Resources: Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy, edited by Ronald W. Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis; Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire by Brian Walsh and Sylvia Keesmat; Women's Bible Commentary: Expanded Edition by Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe; The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder. And as part of our Week of Mutuality, Harriet Congdon wrote a really great post on “The Dance of Mutuality in Ephesians 5.”)

***

What do you think? Were Peter and Paul arguing for the inherent, universal holiness of the Greco-Roman Household Codes or for Christlike attitudes within existing societal norms?

How have you seen these passages translated and applied in Christian settings?

How have they been translated and applied in your life and marriage?