At the beginning of this article, you say "firestorm concerning reality versus perceptions (is there really a difference?)" with the implication being that there isn't. The rest of the article goes on to talk about how they are, in fact, completely different. _My_ reality is _not_ Reality. My reality is my _perception_ of Reality. You say this explicitly when you say "That does not mean, however, that reality is the same as Truth". This is the same as saying that each of our individual realities (our perceptions) are not [The] Reality.
Do we not all need to learn to take this a step further and come to understand that if our reality is not [The] Reality, then our reality is not Real. Not only is it not Truth, it is False. There is no substantive difference in value between amounts of partial correctness. 20% right is still wrong. 80% right is still wrong. Christians talk about this with great ease when they talk about sin. All sin, no matter how "small" it may seem to us, is enough to drive us permanently from the presence of G-d until we are redeemed through Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf. Why, then, do we struggle so greatly with the exact same concept when it comes to our understanding of Truth and our perception of Reality? We are Wrong and we fail to see Reality. Period.
There is not one human being who is worthy to be followed, listened to or given authority or leadership. None.
The solution is to abandon "recognition" and "status" entirely. If we are all working humbly to instantiate the Kingdom of G-d, then there can be no grounds or motivation to deny anyone else their work. As you say, the work is getting done, regardless. It is the recognition and status we really debate as an "issue". It is the refusal to offer recognition and status that causes the pain. Rather than trying to acquire status and recognition for women (or any other group) would we not do better to stop giving status and recognition to -everyone- since -none- of us is worthy of having it?
Jim Marks, thank you for your comment. I regret that I did not clarify my opening comment, and am glad for the opportunity to do so now.
Let me try again: Is there really a difference? I believe this is a bit of a paradox. For a person as an individual, their perception is truly their reality. Each of us have a unique perception of what takes place around us. Truly no one see as we see. And when we want to have a bigger view of what is taking place, we look for a diverse group of people to explain what they have perceived in order to come to a larger perspective than we could have on our own.
This is the very genius of the Body of Christ. Except that we have a special opportunity afforded to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit: the very mind of Christ! A group of believers who are actively submitted to each other out of reverence for Christ will, together, perceive more Truth than those who have given a chosen few the role of priest and intermediary.
And so you see that I am with you when you say that no human is worthy to be followed, listened to or given authority or leadership ... in and of themselves. But it is not that simple, is it?
We are to follow Christ. And Christ makes himself manifest in his Body, which is made up of broken Eikons who are in the process of being reconciled and transformed. It is the Holy Spirit that is working in and through us that is to be followed.
For myself, after 15 years of working through the process and finally being ordained, and another 15 years of struggling to serve out my ordination (in small congregrations as well as a large one) I have reached your same conclusion regarding recognition and status. I am currently in a house church, and seeking to establish communities, where we are a group of all leaders. Where everyone is perceived as valuable because they are Eikons of God through whom the Holy Spirit works and speaks. There is no one "in charge" because we are all following the Holy Spirit.
The challenge I am echoing here is a both/and call to recognize and encourage all those whom the Spirit has gifted to answer the call God has placed in their hearts ... and be mindful of how we are "taking up space" in the Body of Christ.
As long as recognition and status are being given to ANYONE, then I will challenge those who truly believe there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female -- but all are one in Christ to ask God to open their eyes to those around them who can help them perceive more fully what God is doing.
By the way, that is the point of my purple glasses ... my cHesed glasses ... they are a reminder that my own eyes need help perceiving as God perceives.
Jim, sadly by your own admission, I'm not supposed to listen to you. ;-P
Well done Peggy... nice to see your writing hitting a wider audience!!! This is an interesting reflection... so true that there are lots of "under the radar" women doing wonderful things.
Jim, your comments do make me think of the wonderful title of a Tony Campolo book... "Partly Right". Because you are right that Jesus commands servanthood rather than "lording over others"... because Jesus modelled self-emptying... because Jesus spoke of a Kingdom "not of this world".
On the other hand... Jesus was also unafraid of authority. Everyone wondered at his authority... he delegated authority first to the twelve (Luke 9) then to the seventy-two (Luke 10) then implicitly, to all believers (Matthew 28: 18). I think we should be unafraid of exercising power... in fact, failure to do so when needed is a form of negligence. Parents SHOULD exercise civil power over their young children... governments should have the power to penalise wrongdoers through the legal system. Power dynamics occur as soon as two or more people are in the room. Civil power however is empowering... it seeks to give power away, to empower others wherever possible. Just as Jesus did with his disciples.
Even when we aim to have non-hierarchical power structures... even in informal situations... there are power dynamics at work. I've seen women marginalised in informal or team settings through men minimizing or ignoring what they say, and giving preferential attention to male voices... all unconsciously! It doesn't happen in all settings... but it does happen.
I think it's easy to react again power because we've seen it abused. However, getting certain things done requires organisation and (dare I say it) money... and therefore power issues are inevitable. I think what we aspire for is godly power, civil power, delegated and empowering power... but we cannot ignore power. It is a real dynamic in the world.
"Even when we aim to have non-hierarchical power structures... even in informal situations... there are power dynamics at work. "
yes ... so true. both in the church and in other places.
i see it often, and i'm less angry about it now than i used to be. i read a lot of Walter Wink, and it changed how i look at these things. he does a great job of applying what Jesus said about the last shall be first and the servant is the master.
there still remains the everyday stuff of how women are perceived and included in leadership in all circles, not just religious ones.
this is so deep within each of us, from generations of culturally based habits of living, that it's more than an intellectual decision to be different. it reaches to the core of our ego structures, both men and women. i find as many women uncertain or fearful of how to lead (or simply have an opinion) as i do men who don't know how to let a women do those things.
good article. it cracked opened all sorts of thoughts once again ...
Some great comments here already. I would like to put my two cents worth in. The "church" reflects culture. My only caveat to that is that the church is usually about a 1/2 generation or more behind. This goes for music, art, entertainment, etc. Society will have to go a lot further before we see a greater percentage of women in leadership. By the way, this is not a judgment, just and observation. When a Hilary Clinton can run for president and it is an absolutely normal event, then the church will be only about 10 years away from having women in a high percentage of pulpits.
Charlie, while I generally agree with your observation, it is such a sad commentary to me that the church (1) follows culture, and (2) is so far behind in so many ways. That seems like a double whammy to me. Not only should the church transcend and transform culture, it should lead in terms of doing justice, loving mercy and walking humbly with God. Sigh....
Peggy, I agree about what the church "should" be. It seems that in some ways the early church was countercultural concerning issues of diversity and equality, probably not so much concerning gender. I got into a lot of trouble in college when I made these observations concerning "church" music. It was nearly thirty years later that "praise and worship" music with guitars, bass, drums and keyboard have become more acceptable in the denomination of my childhood. We have yet to have a woman vice president or president, or chief justice of the supreme court. CEOs of the major broadcast networks are all men. I am not saying this is the way it should be, just the way it is.
Charlie, totally agree that this is the reality. Twenty years ago, in an "earlier life" I was Vice President of the Women's Forum at Hughes Aircraft Company's Space and Communications Group. Talk about a male-centric culture: aero-astro engineers! It was a tough place for women to get ahead. I started as a secretary and worked my way up to middle management ... but it was a brutal environment -- and many times the women were competing with each other even more than with the men. I worked hard within the Forum to encourage the women to help each other and to lead from their true selves, rather than trying to act like the men.
Women have come a long way toward having dynamic role models in business and industry ... and we're hoping to highlight more of what the women are doing in ministry with the 2nd volume of The Wikiklesia Project. The internet and the rise of virtual mentoring (my chapter from the 1st volume) has made a huge difference ... we'll see what happens in this next generation, eh?
Charlie, I'm wondering whether you can tease out that the early church was counter-cultural about equality but not gender? For I think it was profoundly counter-cultural... we forget how powerless women were in NT times in various parts of the empire.
Think of how women followed Jesus throughout his ministry (Matthew 27: 55), of all the significant female figures in the church named in Romans 16, of how women were forbidden from the secular "ecclesia", but were equal participants in the church? (Gal 3:28) Women had no legal status as witnesses... yet all the gospels record women as the first witnesses of the resurrection. Don't you agree all of this was pretty counter-cultural?
Janet, Paul was contradictory in his letters. He certainly seems to imply a male hierarchy in some of his teachings, despite the Galatians 3 statement. I am thinking of Titus 3, and the admonitions for women to be silent. I think you know the passages I am talking about. I see those passages as a reflection of culture, don't you? Also, we have the early controversy about circumcision, that was cultural as well, wasn't it?
Which part of Titus 3 do you mean?
Well, Paul does sound a bit schitzophrenic on church order... from the "taking turns" approach of Corinthians to the appointing bishops, deacons, deaconesses and maintaining a widow list of Timothy. There's quite a few NT scholars who solve the problem by saying Paul didn't write the pastoral epistles (or that they had major later editing). As an evangelical I'm happy to defend the traditional view that Paul wrote the lot, but that he is very "context sensitive".
We're discussing on Peggy's blog the bizarre command in Corinthians for the women to keep silent, a few chapters after he has detailed what they are to wear on their heads while praying and prophesying in church. What has only recently been analysed is the "cue words" that suggest where Paul is quoting from the Corinthians' letter to Paul. This command to keep silent appears to be one of these sections, and Paul appears to rebuff this idea abruptly.
As for the Timothy context, I think it's reasonable to assume the false teachers "devoting themselves to myths" (chapter 1) are Paul's target. This is incorrectly translated "men" in many versions (and there's another tangent I could talk about... the practice of translating gender-neutral Greek terms as English masculine ones! Grr.)
Ephesus was the centre of the worship of Artemis who created her (subordinate) spouse for reproductive purposes. She was the goddess to whom women prayed while giving birth, for she would keep them alive. We can see Paul's instructions as a counter to a group of women teaching such "myths"... that they should be quiet, stop such teaching, and learn the truth in submission. Women are not created first (like Artemis) and they are not to rule over their husbands, but women were created second. Faithfulness to the true God would keep women safe in the process of childbirth.
If we see this a Paul's correction of false teachers, and not as a prohibition on all women to speak for all time, it makes some sense of his apparent inconsistency.
Sorry, meant Titus 2, and the way it is used sometimes to indicate who can teach, etc...
Just to elaborate further, I can "imagine" a cultural context in which it might be appropriate to counsel a person to refrain from engaging in practices that might offend non-believers. I guess the point I was trying to make is that trying to apply the biblical text in a prescriptive way requires discernment and contextual application.
Sure Charlie, we're on the same page with that... although Paul saw the radical implications of the gospel ("one in Christ Jesus") we see his concern for the reputation of the church leading to specific advice.
In Titus 3, women were to submit to their husbands (the legal ruler of a household in that time) "so that no one will malign the word of God". Young men should show complete integrity "so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us". Slaves were to submit to their owners in everything "so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive."
I think there's a principle here actually... that we don't pick the wrong battles, and that we seek to be socially appropriate as long as it does not compromise our core Christian convictions.
We have to interpret the epistles carefully therefore... this passage was once seen to support slavery! Promoting slavery today would be as socially unacceptable as commanding setting all your slaves free would have been in the first century.
I don't think advocating the subordination of women helps the reputaion of the church today, and we should be very careful before we use the epistles that way... we are reading other people's mail, and we need to be cautious about the context.
Thanks for continuing the conversation, Janet and Charlie!
Dr. Barthy has an interesting take on that childbirth passage, too ... and I absolutely agree that "occasional" documents require a tremendous about of respect and discernment when being approached by folks who are as distant -- both linguistically and culturally -- as we are here in the West in the 21st century!
Well, I can't help myself! The more I study the NT in my theology degree, the crankier I get about this! As you know Peggy, I'm plodding through Greek this semester (suffering for Jesus I call it), and am getting cranky that so many gender-neutral Greek terms have been historically translated as masculine ones in English. In my NIV bible commentary, despite the claim: "the first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of hte translation and its fidelity to the thought of the biblical writers", I also note the clause: "The committee also sought to preserve some measure of continuity with the long tradition of translating the scriptures into English". Where this is frankly misleading... why, why, why oh why? Evangelicals SHOULD get cranky about this. At least the newest translations are correcting this, but these versions have faced some resistance simply for being more accurate about gender. Grrr.
Janet, I tried that whole Greek thing for about one quarter 30 years ago. It didn't take. But in my old age I have lived enough and seen enough to know that we should do a little less trying to prove things to one another by the text and a little more living by the Jesus' commands, the ones that are all rooted in Love...Because I have never been burdened with a seminary degree or the desire to be employed as a pastor, I have had the opportunity to enjoy a lot of openness in my theology, ecclesiology and missiology, whatever all of that means! There's just too much that is a mystery. I know there will be more entrepeneurial women church starters when our society is more open to entrepeneurial women and is encouraging the kind of risk-taking involved in that process. Hope you survive Greek! Charlie
At the risk of offending yet again, I think anyone who "desires" to be employed as a pastor must be at least a bit pathological, if the reported levels of stress and the rates of burnout are to be believed. (Darn that sense of call!!!)
I agree with you wholeheartedly about majoring on love and living as Jesus commanded... and being open to mystery. Biblical discussions can easily degenerate into an exercise of straining out gnats and swallowing camels if we give up openness to mystery, and humility to both the text and to one another.
God bless you Charlie... I enjoy your comments!
You know, in the spirit of the article, I must say that I just keep hoping that there will be more and more openness and honesty and clarity and restoration of the true context and words -- both Greek and Hebrew -- and trust that the Spirit will continue to work in and through those who call Christ LORD. Only then will we be free to perceive as God perceives and allow the Spirit to redeem the culture and transform us.
Dr. Bartchy reminded me that each of those who follow Christ has their own path. Some, like him, are called to engage the principalities and powers in this world, whether that be politics or education or ecclesial strongholds -- while others of us work in the "missional" trenches at home, schools, the marketplace or in our local churches -- and some of us, all of the above!
I am grateful for those who live a life of love in front of the world ... and I am equally grateful for those who live a life that speaks the truth in love into places where truth has been hidden by human error, weakness and agendas of power.
...I intend not to grow weary in well doing!
Blessings to you, Janet for Charlie, for continuing the conversation!
Peggy Brown is an over 50, broken-down, white woman with an amazing husband and three awesome young boys. She has served Christ in many amazing ways and places over the past 40 years, with official sanction and without it. Many brothers have encouraged her journey, for which she is eternally grateful. Many brothers have discouraged her journey, for which she has suffered greatly—but God has been faithful to redeem those wounds and bring good out of them. She yearns to be exactly what God perceives her to be and to respond appropriately to what the Holy Spirit puts in her path – and can be found blogging about the Purple Martyrdom as
Do we not all need to learn to take this a step further and come to understand that if our reality is not [The] Reality, then our reality is not Real. Not only is it not Truth, it is False. There is no substantive difference in value between amounts of partial correctness. 20% right is still wrong. 80% right is still wrong. Christians talk about this with great ease when they talk about sin. All sin, no matter how "small" it may seem to us, is enough to drive us permanently from the presence of G-d until we are redeemed through Jesus' sacrifice on our behalf. Why, then, do we struggle so greatly with the exact same concept when it comes to our understanding of Truth and our perception of Reality? We are Wrong and we fail to see Reality. Period.
There is not one human being who is worthy to be followed, listened to or given authority or leadership. None.
The solution is to abandon "recognition" and "status" entirely. If we are all working humbly to instantiate the Kingdom of G-d, then there can be no grounds or motivation to deny anyone else their work. As you say, the work is getting done, regardless. It is the recognition and status we really debate as an "issue". It is the refusal to offer recognition and status that causes the pain. Rather than trying to acquire status and recognition for women (or any other group) would we not do better to stop giving status and recognition to -everyone- since -none- of us is worthy of having it?
Let me try again: Is there really a difference? I believe this is a bit of a paradox. For a person as an individual, their perception is truly their reality. Each of us have a unique perception of what takes place around us. Truly no one see as we see. And when we want to have a bigger view of what is taking place, we look for a diverse group of people to explain what they have perceived in order to come to a larger perspective than we could have on our own.
This is the very genius of the Body of Christ. Except that we have a special opportunity afforded to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit: the very mind of Christ! A group of believers who are actively submitted to each other out of reverence for Christ will, together, perceive more Truth than those who have given a chosen few the role of priest and intermediary.
And so you see that I am with you when you say that no human is worthy to be followed, listened to or given authority or leadership ... in and of themselves. But it is not that simple, is it?
We are to follow Christ. And Christ makes himself manifest in his Body, which is made up of broken Eikons who are in the process of being reconciled and transformed. It is the Holy Spirit that is working in and through us that is to be followed.
For myself, after 15 years of working through the process and finally being ordained, and another 15 years of struggling to serve out my ordination (in small congregrations as well as a large one) I have reached your same conclusion regarding recognition and status. I am currently in a house church, and seeking to establish communities, where we are a group of all leaders. Where everyone is perceived as valuable because they are Eikons of God through whom the Holy Spirit works and speaks. There is no one "in charge" because we are all following the Holy Spirit.
The challenge I am echoing here is a both/and call to recognize and encourage all those whom the Spirit has gifted to answer the call God has placed in their hearts ... and be mindful of how we are "taking up space" in the Body of Christ.
As long as recognition and status are being given to ANYONE, then I will challenge those who truly believe there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female -- but all are one in Christ to ask God to open their eyes to those around them who can help them perceive more fully what God is doing.
By the way, that is the point of my purple glasses ... my cHesed glasses ... they are a reminder that my own eyes need help perceiving as God perceives.
Jim, your comments do make me think of the wonderful title of a Tony Campolo book... "Partly Right". Because you are right that Jesus commands servanthood rather than "lording over others"... because Jesus modelled self-emptying... because Jesus spoke of a Kingdom "not of this world".
On the other hand... Jesus was also unafraid of authority. Everyone wondered at his authority... he delegated authority first to the twelve (Luke 9) then to the seventy-two (Luke 10) then implicitly, to all believers (Matthew 28: 18). I think we should be unafraid of exercising power... in fact, failure to do so when needed is a form of negligence. Parents SHOULD exercise civil power over their young children... governments should have the power to penalise wrongdoers through the legal system. Power dynamics occur as soon as two or more people are in the room. Civil power however is empowering... it seeks to give power away, to empower others wherever possible. Just as Jesus did with his disciples.
Even when we aim to have non-hierarchical power structures... even in informal situations... there are power dynamics at work. I've seen women marginalised in informal or team settings through men minimizing or ignoring what they say, and giving preferential attention to male voices... all unconsciously! It doesn't happen in all settings... but it does happen.
I think it's easy to react again power because we've seen it abused. However, getting certain things done requires organisation and (dare I say it) money... and therefore power issues are inevitable. I think what we aspire for is godly power, civil power, delegated and empowering power... but we cannot ignore power. It is a real dynamic in the world.
yes ... so true. both in the church and in other places.
i see it often, and i'm less angry about it now than i used to be. i read a lot of Walter Wink, and it changed how i look at these things. he does a great job of applying what Jesus said about the last shall be first and the servant is the master.
there still remains the everyday stuff of how women are perceived and included in leadership in all circles, not just religious ones.
this is so deep within each of us, from generations of culturally based habits of living, that it's more than an intellectual decision to be different. it reaches to the core of our ego structures, both men and women. i find as many women uncertain or fearful of how to lead (or simply have an opinion) as i do men who don't know how to let a women do those things.
good article. it cracked opened all sorts of thoughts once again ...
Women have come a long way toward having dynamic role models in business and industry ... and we're hoping to highlight more of what the women are doing in ministry with the 2nd volume of The Wikiklesia Project. The internet and the rise of virtual mentoring (my chapter from the 1st volume) has made a huge difference ... we'll see what happens in this next generation, eh?
Think of how women followed Jesus throughout his ministry (Matthew 27: 55), of all the significant female figures in the church named in Romans 16, of how women were forbidden from the secular "ecclesia", but were equal participants in the church? (Gal 3:28) Women had no legal status as witnesses... yet all the gospels record women as the first witnesses of the resurrection. Don't you agree all of this was pretty counter-cultural?
Well, Paul does sound a bit schitzophrenic on church order... from the "taking turns" approach of Corinthians to the appointing bishops, deacons, deaconesses and maintaining a widow list of Timothy. There's quite a few NT scholars who solve the problem by saying Paul didn't write the pastoral epistles (or that they had major later editing). As an evangelical I'm happy to defend the traditional view that Paul wrote the lot, but that he is very "context sensitive".
We're discussing on Peggy's blog the bizarre command in Corinthians for the women to keep silent, a few chapters after he has detailed what they are to wear on their heads while praying and prophesying in church. What has only recently been analysed is the "cue words" that suggest where Paul is quoting from the Corinthians' letter to Paul. This command to keep silent appears to be one of these sections, and Paul appears to rebuff this idea abruptly.
As for the Timothy context, I think it's reasonable to assume the false teachers "devoting themselves to myths" (chapter 1) are Paul's target. This is incorrectly translated "men" in many versions (and there's another tangent I could talk about... the practice of translating gender-neutral Greek terms as English masculine ones! Grr.)
Ephesus was the centre of the worship of Artemis who created her (subordinate) spouse for reproductive purposes. She was the goddess to whom women prayed while giving birth, for she would keep them alive. We can see Paul's instructions as a counter to a group of women teaching such "myths"... that they should be quiet, stop such teaching, and learn the truth in submission. Women are not created first (like Artemis) and they are not to rule over their husbands, but women were created second. Faithfulness to the true God would keep women safe in the process of childbirth.
If we see this a Paul's correction of false teachers, and not as a prohibition on all women to speak for all time, it makes some sense of his apparent inconsistency.
In Titus 3, women were to submit to their husbands (the legal ruler of a household in that time) "so that no one will malign the word of God". Young men should show complete integrity "so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us". Slaves were to submit to their owners in everything "so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive."
I think there's a principle here actually... that we don't pick the wrong battles, and that we seek to be socially appropriate as long as it does not compromise our core Christian convictions.
We have to interpret the epistles carefully therefore... this passage was once seen to support slavery! Promoting slavery today would be as socially unacceptable as commanding setting all your slaves free would have been in the first century.
I don't think advocating the subordination of women helps the reputaion of the church today, and we should be very careful before we use the epistles that way... we are reading other people's mail, and we need to be cautious about the context.
Dr. Barthy has an interesting take on that childbirth passage, too ... and I absolutely agree that "occasional" documents require a tremendous about of respect and discernment when being approached by folks who are as distant -- both linguistically and culturally -- as we are here in the West in the 21st century!
I agree with you wholeheartedly about majoring on love and living as Jesus commanded... and being open to mystery. Biblical discussions can easily degenerate into an exercise of straining out gnats and swallowing camels if we give up openness to mystery, and humility to both the text and to one another.
God bless you Charlie... I enjoy your comments!
Dr. Bartchy reminded me that each of those who follow Christ has their own path. Some, like him, are called to engage the principalities and powers in this world, whether that be politics or education or ecclesial strongholds -- while others of us work in the "missional" trenches at home, schools, the marketplace or in our local churches -- and some of us, all of the above!
I am grateful for those who live a life of love in front of the world ... and I am equally grateful for those who live a life that speaks the truth in love into places where truth has been hidden by human error, weakness and agendas of power.
...I intend not to grow weary in well doing!
Blessings to you, Janet for Charlie, for continuing the conversation!