I’m getting ready to take off for a vacation. Whewww … Can’t wait. So I’ll probably not post for the next two weeks. Unless I am sitting in a coffee house somewhere up in rural Canada with a good feed and some ideas (from the many books I’ll hopefully be reading on the shores of lake Huron) which simply cannot wait (But I’ll try to check in from time to time).
Before I go, I just want to respond to the plethora of comments on both the ChurchandPomo post and and my own blog here.
Thanks to everyone. I especially appreciate those who were gracious to me as a white male commenting on a subject a white male has no “right” commenting on.
On the accusations (Makeesha and others) that I am really an egalitarian because I affirm women’s ordination, women’s teaching role including over men in the church, and I affirm women’s full participation in the authority of the church. I just don’t think so. To the extent that egalitarian positions are built on the tradition and encoding of Western liberal democracy, I am arguing this is a form of justice inferior to what God is doing in Christ around the Eucharist alter. If on the other hand, equality is grounded in the politics of the Body of Christ – (Eucharist) Eph 4:4-12 “There is one Body …. ” – I willingly endorse this form of equality. But I argue we must understand that equality comes already encoded with a politics which undermines the peace and unity we seek as followers of Christ. I think the critical theorists I have called attention to, many of whom are women, are worth listening to. (Seyla Benhabib’s article “The Democratic Moment and the Problem of Difference,” in her edited volume Democracy and Difference is another place where some of these issues are introduced.) I humbly ask – can we at least take a look at whether the evidence for this might even be evident in some of the comments under these posts?
I want to propose that the equality we have in Christ will take different forms and shapes than Western egalitarianism. In the Body of Christ, the gifts given according to the Holy Spirit (Eph 4.11 Rom 12.3) are given “equally,” according to the measure of the Spirit, without discrimination between women or men (Acts 2:17,18). We are part of one body which forms our politics (1 Cor 11: 17-22). It is from this Eucharist Table in 1 Cor 11 that the gifts of the Spirit naturally spring forth in 1 Cor 12. There is simply no hierarchy, nevermind patriarchy, in the politics of 1 Cor 12. Therefore I see our politics (said in a good way) springing forth from the reconciliation we have in Christ (Gal 3:28). I subscribe to the critical theorists (many of whom are post-structuralist feminist or queer theorists) who see the western liberal tradition as a major stumbling block towards women participating in that Symbolic Order (a political structure like the nation state government or the church). I hear many women in the comments saying this cannot be so, but I urge a closer look at the lineage of the egalitarian language we are using. I suggest that we nurture a new imagination. I am not asking that we all wait for this new politics to be in place before women enter the authority of the church. Quite the contrary, let us, the missional and emerging communities start practicing this politics now! Again, I am pro women’s ordination and I am arguing that Egalitarian politics works against women’s full participation in the Symbolic Order, either in the Nation-State or the church governed by this politics. I don’t think I should be scolded for being against women’s justice just because I seek to uncover the injustice of the current Egalitarian order.
As a side note to this, and to answer Jason’s question from over at churchandpomo, I believe the Pentecostal, Holiness and Charismatic groups affirm women’s ordination in ways different than traditional protestant mainline. Traditionally, the Pent/Holin/Charis have affirmed women based on their emphasis upon the Spirit and His gifts as the grounding of the essence of the church. Many Black and/or Hispanic congregations grounded in these movements narrate gender and women’s ordination in ways that to me are emblematic of the equality we seek in the politics of the Body. That is … women are full participants in the clergy authority, yet there is no homogenization of what leadership looks like according to one gender or the other. I am predisposed to this way of Body politics. It is my belief (over generalized) that the mainline protestants have traditionally affirmed women’s ordination based in the language of rights, self expression, equal opportunity, individual freedom to pursue happiness, etc of classical egalitarian politics (J.S. Mill, Locke, Madison, Thoreau, Emerson). Although this all sounds good, I believe this brings us together on the basis of how to cooperate as egoist individuals with our own personal goals without killing each other. It obliterates difference so we can all get along. But I suggest there is no need for such a proceduralist minimalist politics in the Body of Christ where we can show the world a much better peace, a much different justice made possible in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ironically, Anglican Mission in America (orihgins in mainline) as well as the Vineyard churches (origins in charismatic movement) have both pulled back from women’s ordination because they were too afraid of the obliteration of gender. This is unfortunate and unnecessary in my mind. For gender difference can be narrated together with what God is doing to bring reconciliation and justice to gender relations (i.e. women’s full participation in authority of the church) without sublating gender difference. This is all part of another book in process (down the line after the one I am writing now).
Lastly, on narrating gender, this is a huge topic. I am not capable of sketching my ideas on a blog post. But dare I say, that the way the husbands role is narrated in Eph 5 .25 “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself (died) up for her” is a narration of masculine gender that has the potential to subvert patriarchy! It also rewrites the vary narration of power. And dare I say that Trinitarian theology can lead us in a way of understanding man/woman relations within marriage that can also subvert patriarchy, remembering that the term “headship” both refers to the husband’s narrated gender role in marriage as well as the First person’s relation to the Second person in the Godhead (1 Cor 11:3). Here again I believe the model of perichoresis has potential to undermine again patriarchal notions in the relation of husband and wife. I know that many women will look askance at these texts, seeing in them evidences of patriarchy. I want to at least probe the obvious ways these texts suggest the giving up of power (as patriarchy has defined it) as the very narration of what it means to be a husband.
Having said all this, I fully recognize I am a white male and I have no place to speak to women’s issues. I am only heard by the grace given me by the women among the readers. I have plenty more to say which would more fully explain my overall take here. I need to talk about marriage versus singleness, marriage as an order of creation/fall/ being redeemed/ yet shall be done away with in the Eschaton, how marriage cannot be parallel with the politics of the New Community of Christ. But a blog post isn’t a book. I can only provoke, not be exhaustive. I want to reiterate however that in writing on this stuff, I merely seek to make the way for justice and reconciliation in gender relations in the church. To me it is a big and important issue. To me evangelical egalitarianism hasn’t achieved what it set out to do because of its own encoding. (And neither has complementarianism – AGAIN I AM NOT A COMPLEMENTARIAN!). We must live a politics of justice that subverts the terms of violence, sublation of difference especially women, and egotism that undergirds certain parts of our culture. We must narrate gender difference in a truthful and faithful way. In all this, let us at least ask if it might be time for new language: the language of the Eucharist and the Trinity.
I’m open for more comments. Thanks for the great contributions.
I’m off for a few weeks of vacation. Blessings!
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
david, may your holiday be a holyday.. this post has reconnected me to Walsh and Keesmaat outstanding work in COLOSSIANS REMIXED… subtitle “subverting the Empire”.. they find in Paul’s letters much that has subversive trajectory but that is not always obvious on a surface read, given our immersion in a different subversive script. pax bro
“…marriage cannot be parallel with the politics of the New Community of Christ.”
?? – Is that because a house CHURCH is different from a HOUSE(hold)? Because our relationship with our (your) wife is different from our relatioships with other members of the body of Christ (I am wife-less
?
And thanks for answering my question
I understand much better what you meant now.
len…”pax”…funny…you tricky subsersive one, you…
Hi Dave,
I’ve finally gotten some time to delve back into theology. I’m glad to have your blog here to help catch me up on things. Like Jason, I am confused about your comment “…marriage cannot be parallel with the politics of the New Community of Christ.” Can you explain that just a bit more.
Also, I hope I can refer to an earlier post, here. You really challenged me in your post about housegatherings being geographical rather than by affinity. You and Jim Poole used to talk about that a lot. But this time, I heard you.
I hope you, Rae, and Max have a great vacation.
have a good vacation. I’ve exhausted my say on the subject and still disagree with your assessment of egalitarianism but I’m not willing to keep going rounds. I think your ideas have far reaching negative affects when you speak to people who see you as affirming their contrived ideas of gender. But on the finer and final points we agree so I’ll leave it there
I appreciate your boldness in taking this topic on.
Thanks for working through this David. Your points are very carefully made. I am especially grateful for your emphasis on “perichoresis” and the image of the Trinity as a means to help us move forward on the gender discussion. Egalitarianism, historically understood, is too weak to guide the redemption of gender relationships within God’s Kingdom.
Thanks for working through this David. Your points are very carefully made. I am especially grateful for your emphasis on “perichoresis” and the image of the Trinity as a means to help us move forward on the gender discussion. Egalitarianism, historically understood, is too weak to guide the redemption of gender relationships within God’s Kingdom.
Dear Dave,
On the pragmatic side: if women are going to be involved in church ministry then (at least for those with children) there needs to be some sort of arrangement that accommodates children (and I don’t just mean toddlers). While we may want our church to reflect the equal giftedness of both sexes, we live in a society where the responsibility for children rests primarily upon the woman. And unless the husband is equally invested in seeing his wife minister in the church, her ministry will be secondary to her responsibilities to her family. Even so, the husband may be limited in helping out with the family (to free the wife for ministry) because he works in a patriarchal system and is not available. So practically the kind of ministry that is available to women (with children) is something that either includes the kids or in the cracks when she can find childcare. [My prejudicial view is that men assume that their wives will care for the kids so that the men can do 'ministry', but are not so eager to reverse roles or expectations, instead women need permission from their husbands to do 'ministry'.]
Women have been making themselves heard ever since the garden of Eden, but in a patriarcal system it is much more underhanded and manipulative because there is no direct voice. If women are going to have a direct political voice in any organization, they need (at least) to be present. That presence is typically dependent on what their children (or grandchildren or parents -if they are doing elder care) are doing. [My biggest beef with the feminist movement is that it encouraged mother's to try and be 'super moms' and in the process sacrificed the welfare of our children which are our future, and parents who are our heritage.] These women who have dedicated their lives to the welfare of others in a humble day in and day out way have a lot of wisdom to offer. They are people the church needs to see and hear so they can be emulated. And either we need to figure out a way that we can go to them or we need to enable them to come to us.
As I understand the scriptures, the church is the bride of Christ. Therefore, it is illogical that a man (much less a whole organization dominated by male headship) would be able to lead a community to becoming something that is a female role. Somewhere in the scheme of things there needs to be good wifely role models that get put on a pedestal/podium/lime light/what-have-you. (And not by some man eulagizing Proverbs 31, but woman who can talk about how difficult submitting is, or how painful it is when you get disrespect from your kids after you just bent over backward to help them out.)
Of course, celibacy avoids the whole sticky mess of ‘what to do with the kids’.
m. kirby
Dear Dave,
On the pragmatic side: if women are going to be involved in church ministry then (at least for those with children) there needs to be some sort of arrangement that accommodates children (and I don’t just mean toddlers). While we may want our church to reflect the equal giftedness of both sexes, we live in a society where the responsibility for children rests primarily upon the woman. And unless the husband is equally invested in seeing his wife minister in the church, her ministry will be secondary to her responsibilities to her family. Even so, the husband may be limited in helping out with the family (to free the wife for ministry) because he works in a patriarchal system and is not available. So practically the kind of ministry that is available to women (with children) is something that either includes the kids or in the cracks when she can find childcare. [My prejudicial view is that men assume that their wives will care for the kids so that the men can do 'ministry', but are not so eager to reverse roles or expectations, instead women need permission from their husbands to do 'ministry'.]
Women have been making themselves heard ever since the garden of Eden, but in a patriarcal system it is much more underhanded and manipulative because there is no direct voice. If women are going to have a direct political voice in any organization, they need (at least) to be present. That presence is typically dependent on what their children (or grandchildren or parents -if they are doing elder care) are doing. [My biggest beef with the feminist movement is that it encouraged mother's to try and be 'super moms' and in the process sacrificed the welfare of our children which are our future, and parents who are our heritage.] These women who have dedicated their lives to the welfare of others in a humble day in and day out way have a lot of wisdom to offer. They are people the church needs to see and hear so they can be emulated. And either we need to figure out a way that we can go to them or we need to enable them to come to us.
As I understand the scriptures, the church is the bride of Christ. Therefore, it is illogical that a man (much less a whole organization dominated by male headship) would be able to lead a community to becoming something that is a female role. Somewhere in the scheme of things there needs to be good wifely role models that get put on a pedestal/podium/lime light/what-have-you. (And not by some man eulagizing Proverbs 31, but woman who can talk about how difficult submitting is, or how painful it is when you get disrespect from your kids after you just bent over backward to help them out.)
Of course, celibacy avoids the whole sticky mess of ‘what to do with the kids’.
m. kirby
All I can say is this, from personal experience, women do not follow other women, they do however, follow men. That should tell us something.
Sorry ladies, the ladies do not follow you.
Bob,
In light of everything that has been said on this blog post and all the other bog posts related to it, I find your comment unintelligible.
Peace …