In the past few years I have come to question some things that I have been taught all my life in the “conservative” churches of which I’ve been a part.  I have not been silent about thinking some of these issues through.  A big one for me is the idea of God’s ideal for men and women.  I wrote a bit about it here.  Frankly, I no longer hold to a strict patriarchal view of Scripture and the Church.

Several months ago, someone who was a bit disturbed by the afore-mentioned post wrote to me and told me basically that this was a clear-cut issue in Scripture.  She went on to say that Scripture gives complete freedom for a woman to lead and to hold authority over men in the public arena, but that it would be unbiblical for a woman to hold authority or leadership within the Church.  (If you’re reading this, sister, I’m not upset with you, just insist on the freedom to think this through.)

I see several problems with this point of view, which is widely held in my small-town in the Bible belt.  First of all, it is totally inconsistent with what we say we believe.  Let me illustrate.  I come from a reformed background, at least for the last 20 years or so.  There have been many rich truths I have learned and been taught through the reformed churches which I have attended.  One of the most freeing and important of these is God’s involvement in every arena of our lives.  There is no area of our lives in which God is not involved.

This has been important for me personally, because I used to struggle with feeling as though I had more value when I was doing something “spiritual” that when I was not.  For example, I struggled for years thinking I should pray and read and share my faith more, but the motivation was out of guilt.  I have found this truth that God is involved in all the areas of our lives and that he sees life and the world wholistically to be an extremely freeing one.  The person who works a “secular” job has no less value than the person who is a missionary or preacher.  We cannot teach this truth that all of life is holy and present this wholistic view of the world and at that same time say that a woman can lead a man in the secular world but not within the church.  It is an obvious inconsistency.

Look at Deborah the judge of Israel.  I wrote a short post about her here. She was God’s appointed ruler of the nation of Israel - see Judges 4 and 5.  If we take the argument of many mainline conservative Christians that a woman can do anything she wants in the secular world, but she may not be allowed to have any real leadership over men within the church, then we have to explain away large parts of this portion of Scripture.  Deborah was the leader God raised up to lead Israel at a time when they were doing wickedly.  He could have just as easily raised up a man, but for his good purposes, he chose Deborah.

Judges 4:4 says, “Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was leading Israel at that time.”  The chapter goes on to document how she held court under the palm trees, and men and women came to her to settle disputes.  You cannot honestly tell me that these disputes were merely “secular” disputes, or that she somehow told the people that she could not answer questions that pertained to spiritual matters because she was a woman.  Also, we have the same problem with inconsistency here if we try to separate these matters.  If we are reformed, we believe that God rules over all the affairs of men.  Finally, she is called a prophetess, which is one who speaks truth.  Truth is about as spiritual as you can get.  And she clearly tells the leader of the army of Israel that God told him to attack the king of the Canaanites.

So, where is the consistency here?  We say that God sees all of life the same, that it is just as holy to change a diaper as it is to preach a sermon, that it is just as pleasing to God when we serve him in a coal mine as when we serve him on the foreign mission field.  But out of the other side of our mouths we say that Scripture allows women to be anything they want to be, except a preacher or an elder within the church.  Hmmm.  Do you seen any problems with this type of reasoning?  I do.  It cannot be both ways.  God is wise and intelligent and consistent.  His Word makes sense for all of life.

Could it be that his ideal for men and women relationships is seen more clearly (if we are able to look at it unbiasedly, which is almost impossible for us to do) in the description of life in the Garden of Eden before the fall of man?  When both man and woman were given the command to rule the earth and subdue it.  Could it be that the portions of Scripture which forbid a woman to lead a man, when studied in the context of social history (in other words as we think them through in the context of the real world in which they were written), righty place the advancement of the gospel over the “rights” of a woman?

This is easy for us to see when we look at the case of slavery.  We know that God’s ideal for people made in his image is NOT to be owned as slaves.  Yet, when we read the Old Testament, we see Scriptures written 2000 years ago that urge slaves to obey their masters.  God was telling those slaves who were owned by other human beings to be faithful to God in the world and station in which they lived.  But when the time came, it was right to fight for the end of slavery.  Thank God that slavery is largely abolished in the world of the 21st century.  I do not know of a single Christian leader who would try to say that slavery is Biblical.  Yet, before this great social revolution which brought about freedom from slavery, many many Christians used Scripture to support this idea.

In the same way, is it possible that the issue with women is similar?  Is is possible that God told women to live faithfully in the culture in which they existed at that time, and to give us some of the rights that they could have fought for, some rights that he originally wanted them to have and that he would one day restore to them?  About a year ago, I read a highly provocative book called Finally Feminist by John Stackhouse, which deeply investigates these questions.  While the book is not a once and for all answer to this debate between egalitarians and complementarians, it does a great job of looking at these issues in a meaningful way historically and a faithful way Scripturally.  I cannot recommend this book highly enough if this is an important or troubling issue to you.  The author does an excellent job of being frank and honest, and he presents a new paradigm with which to look at this issue in Scripture, with the humility of inviting discussion and ongoing scrutiny.  He does not claim to have “the” answer, but he has written an important work to help bridge the divide between these two camps of Christians.  I certainly still have questions Scripturally about this issue, but he got me thinking.  And I believe that is exactly what he wanted to do.

Whatever we do with this issue, we gotta be consistent.

I first learned about Amy Carmichael in college. And ever since then, she has been one of my favorite women of all time. Her biography A Chance to Die by Elisabeth Elliot tells many wonderful detailed stories about her life. Basically, she was an Irish-born young woman from a wealthy family who gave her life to loving the poor of India. She is best known for rescuing young girls from temple prostitution. My favorite story of her is told often. As a little girl, she prayed and prayed for her brown eyes to turn blue. Her prayer was not answered. Years later, when she would disguise herself as an Indian woman to rescue girls, making her skin darker with tea leaves, she thought about what a dead giveaway blue eyes would have been. She was able to thank God for making her the way he knew would be best for the life work he had for her. If you’d like to read a bit more about her life, check out this link. She has written extensively as well, and my personal favorite is a devotional called His Thoughts Said, His Father Said.

Today’s woman of wow is Mary Groves Muller, wife of George Muller, who founded orphanages in Bristol, England in the early 1800’s. It took a remarkable woman to be the wife of this man of faith. First of all, he almost did not marry her because of his fear that marriage would slow him down in his ministry. When he found himself in love with her, he was suprised because she was eight years older than he, and because she had a very large nose and wasn’t pretty like an earlier girlfriend George had. But what Mary Groves did have was a sincere faith, a willingness to give up everything for the work they wanted to do, and a maturity and smart mind that became a huge comfort and support to George.

In the book George Muller The Guardian of Bristol’s Orphans, a story is told which illustrates just what an incredible woman Mary was. When they were first wed, Mary and George loaded up her things on a stagecoach to their new home. George was surprised at how many things Mary had, four trunks full of household items. (Doesn’t really sound like too much to our American ears, does it?) After Mary had taken a week to get everything settled and arranged beautifully into George’s small home, he came home one evening disheartened by all the worldly possessions they had. He told her that every unnecessary thing had to go, all the silver, china, and tapestries. She was shocked and probably a little hurt because she had worked so hard to make their home lovely. But the next evening when George came home, all of the extra things were gone, and in their place there was a stack of pound notes, which she told him to use as he thought best. “And may God help us both,” she said.

I love that it was her love of George and her faith in her heavenly Father that allowed her to do what he requested. I probably would have pitched a fit and said “No way.” Or dutifully but angrily done the right thing. Mary sincerely surrendered to this and jumped in wholeheartedly with George’s way of life.

Mary and George went through many trials together, including the death of their young son, the death of Mary’s father, serious bouts of illness for George, and a very simple life bordering on poverty. They always took everything to God in prayer, and Mary worked tirelessly by George’s side to serve hundreds of unloved orphans, giving them a place to live, bread to eat, and a God to love. Bravo to you, good woman! I wish I could know you and I want to be a bit more like you.

Today I want to highlight two women of ancient Israel from the time of the judges, Deborah a prophetess and judge of Israel, and a brave warrior woman named Jael from the same time.  Their stories are recorded in the Bible in the book of Judges, chapters 4 and 5.  Scholars believe that Chapter 5, the “Song of Deborah” is one of the oldest pieces of literature in the Bible, probably written down at the time the event occurred, around 1150 B.C.  The prose account of the same story in chapter 4 was probably written down later.

In ancient Israel, in the time after Israel had escaped 400 years of slavery to Egypt, the nation was ruled by judges rather than kings.  Deborah was the only woman judge, and she ruled Israel with great wisdom.  As a prophetess she spoke truth and reminded the people of God’s ways.  The people came to meet with her under the palm of Deborah, and she settled disputes there. 

During her reign as Israel’s judge, the country was controlled by Jabin, king of Hazor.  The Bible says the Israelites had been cruelly oppressed by Jabin for twenty years.  Then they cried to the Lord for help.  At that time, Deborah summoned the warrior Barak and told him to take 10,000 men with him and go up against Sisera, the commander of Jabin’s armywith his troops and 900 iron chariots.  A great storm came, and all the iron chariots got stuck in the mud.  The Israelites chased the Hazorites.  Sisera, the mighty commander also fled.

Jael, a tent-dweller from the Kenite tribe, welcomed Sisera into her tent.  He had reason to trust her, because he had friendly relations with her tribe in the past.  She said to him,  “Come, my Lord, come right in.  Don’t be afraid.”  She fed him milk and put him to sleep.  The she drove a tent peg through his skull all the way into the ground.   Seriously.  Woah.  I can just imagine as he asked for a drink of water, and she said, “No, let me give you some warm milk instead. . .”  Then he got sleepy, and wham!

Believe it or not, I vividly remember hearing this story told when I was a young girl of elementary age.  It was in someone’s beautiful backyard - a vacation Bible school, sometime in late spring.  I can still see the deep, lush greens everywhere, and smell the fragrances of green growing things.  And, I remember thinking, “How in the world did that woman do that?”  And there is still a huge part of me that asks the same question.  Now that I have kids, I can imagine doing something of the sort for their sake, but. . . I don’t know.  She had some serious guts.  You know?  She also had some sheer strength.  I don’t know if the tent pegs were made of wood or iron (because we know there were wooden instruments at this time, but we also know the Hazorites had iron chariots), but either way she pounded the thing through Sisera’s head!  And that aint no easy thing to do, emotionally or physically.

In doing so, she freed the Israelites from their cruel oppression.  And this gave Israel, under the leadership of Deborah, the first great victory in the land of Canaanites, which eventually led to their taking the entire land.  And in my book, these women are both pretty amazing.

I have recently begun reading a book called Ruby Slippers by Jonalyn Grace Fincher, which explores what it means to live authentically with the redeemed soul of a woman.  At the end of the prologue, there is an interesting prayer and reminder of the most important thing.  Here is the author’s:

I am not a wife, a daughter, a niece, a sister. . . . (your relationships)  I am not a philosopher. . .  (your training) I am not a writer. . . (your job) I am not fun, enthusiastic, motivated, organized, disciplined, creative. . . (your gifts) I am not bossy, demanding, impatient, stubborn, judgmental . . . (your failures) I am none of these.I am a naked soul clothed in the righteousness of Christ.

When I read this, it struck a cord with me.  It seems that most of us, definitely myself included, are often looking for an identity to wrap around ourselves, and striving to find something to prove our worth.  To systematically strip this off by being reminded of the essence of our unpretentious and “unperforming” selves seems to me a very healthy spiritual practice.

Here is mine: (I used her skeleton and put in my personal specifics.)

I am not (primarily) a wife, mother, daughter, and friend. I am not a counselor. I am not a homeschooling mother.  I am not compassionate, creative, bright, insightful, bold. I am not grumpy, depressed, impatient, angry and tired. I am none of these. I am a naked soul clothed in the righteousness of Christ.

Why don’t you write one of your own?

Okay, okay, can I just say, “Amen, amen, preach it, brother!” to Mark Strauss, author of the following article.  If you’re interested at all in the ongoing discussion about what Biblical womanhood truly is and what God has in mind for women in the church, you must read this.!!!

When God created humankind, male and female he created them.   And that was a beautiful part of his plan.  Living in harmony together, sharing each other’s goals and plans, and together “ruling the earth and subduing it” was what he had in mind, and what they enjoyed in the garden.

Before I go any further, I need to admit that I am smack dab in the middle of re-thinking God’s design for men and women.  No, I didn’t say I am questioning Scripture, but I am indeed questioning the traditional interpretation of what Scriptures say men and women’s roles should be, both in marriage and in the church.   Remember, I’m smack dab in the middle.  That means I don’t have all the answers, but I’m enjoying asking the questions.  And I am finding myself more and more convinced that the patriarchal life view is contrary to God’s ideal design.

How could I make such a bold statement?  Well, first of all, I guess I should define patriarchialism, as I am referring to it.  It comes from two words, patre meaning father, and arche meaning rules.  So, patriarchy is the thought that men are to rule inequivocably.  (Men rule.  Women drool.)

In its strictest form, patriarchialism says that the only job a woman is fit to do is to have children and be a helper to her husband.  It teaches unquestioned submission to male authority as an endorsement for husbands and male leadership to control women.  Among other things, it says that women are more emotional, and therefore unable to provide good leadership.

I have seen this teaching hurt women, marriages, and churches.  Not only does it silence one of the marriage partners, but it also takes away the voice of half of the members of the body of Christ.  And that cannot be a good thing. 

In my own marriage I tried for years to fit into this traditional view of women and marriage.  And it was detrimental to both me and my husband.  Now we are both beginning to enjoy the benefits of mutual submission and partnership, both as parents, friends, and in our life endeavors.

The conservative church I’ve long been a part of holds dearly to the traditional interpretation of the role of men and women, to the exclusion of almost any other possible way of thinking.  Women are not in any form of visible leadership, and they do not even hand out bulletins in the service, much less hold any office or teaching responsibility.  Several women I know have attempted to be a part of this local church, and they have felt like they are a “half person.”  I’m not making this stuff up.  It is obvious to me, even in the way the male leadership talks, or doesn’t talk, to women, the way they listen, or do not listen to the thoughts and opinions of women.  And I believe it is a distortion of God’s plan.  He doesn’t want half of his children silenced and subordinated, living like a lesser person, due to the abuse of power.

The denomination plans to visit the issue of women serving as deaconesses at their national assembly this coming summer.  For that I am grateful, but a little annoyed also.  They plan to deliberate and discuss the acceptable role of women in the diaconate ministry in the church.  Is is okay for women to be deacons, and if not, let’s make up some rules about what they can and cannot do to be a part of the diaconate ministry.  First of all, like I said, I’m glad they’re talking about this, I really am.  It has been needed for a long time. 

But I’m still a little annoyed.  Can a woman be a deacon?  A deacon is someone who serves, right?  I know it is an official office of the church now, but aren’t we all called to do that?  And if we look closely at a many of the names mentioned in Paul’s letters to the New Testaments churches, what do we think these women were, if not servants, deaconesses?  (See especially Phoebe in Romans 16, as well as many of the other women mentioned in that chapter, as well as the other letters.)  And it is especially disturbing to more and more women in a society where a woman can potentially be president, but she may not be allowed to officially serve in her church. 

Women who love and follow Jesus are naturally going to work in the roles of servants to those who need their individual gifts within and without the church.  They do not need to be sanctioned by the church to do this.  But, not allowing them to be sanctioned by the church sends a very loud message.  And in our post-modern culture, this message is a huge deterrant to the advancement of the gospel.  Now, keep in mind, that I am writing from deep in the Bible belt, in one of the southern states.  We are probably 25 years behind the rest of the country culturally.  In some ways, that can be nice, but in many others it is frustrating and irrelevant.

Two quotes from Dan Allender’s book Intimate Allies will illustrate what I feel is a more healthy approach.  And though Dan is talking specifically about marriage, this will also relate to the church at large.

“A marriage is made up of two equal but profoundly different beings; each reflects the character of God in ways that give a unique picture of his character.”

And later in the same book: “As males and females we are significantly and intriguingly different. . .the differences invite fascinating, unending exploration. The problem with most attempts to define gender is that they do away with mystery to achieve a kind of precision that just is not possible. When we draw up lists to define the female ‘role’ and the male ‘role’, we create a breach in the mystery of the relationship of gender. The results are stifling and artificial. Ultimately we must succumb to the mystery of gender by not defining it too closely and precisely.”

I think it is obvious that this is just what we have done, defining gender and gender roles too closely and precisely. And it has not been a good thing. It has been an outworking of the curse, where God told Eve “he will rule over you.” Let’s not overlook that this is part of the curse. And we are called to be a vehicle for God’s redemptive work, the work of reversing the curse, rather than endorsing the curse by using a scriptural basis for doing so. This serves our own goals and devices. It certainly does not serve the purposes of the gospel.  We really do need each other, males and females, for the messy and wonderful work of redemption, to be seen both in our marriages and in the church at large.