Anyone who is paying attention to what is happening in the churches knows that the battle over sexual egalitarianism is not going to go away any time soon. To my mind the most fantastic creatures on this field are those who style themselves “biblical egalitarians.” This morning a friend directed me to a website where one of them acknowledged a hierarchy of being that included God, man, and lower creatures, and pointed to the good things which our submission within that hierarchy brings. He claims to be a “biblical Christian,” and from his study of the Bible believes gender has a lot to do with equality–but nothing, really, to do with hierarchy.
One really cannot discuss the matter profitably with these people, for while they (with us) see and accept the passages that support gender equality, they adamantly refuse to recognize those that support the hierarchies–first as between the sexes, and now more commonly also within the Godhead. These, for all practical purposes, just don’t exist for them, not, anyway, as “Bible.” The writer to which I was referred knew something about the order of being, but typical of his tribe, takes out Jefferson’s shears when assembling his Bible, cutting out the parts he doesn’t understand or disagrees with.
The reason people like this can accuse the “complementarians” (i.e., traditional Christians on the point) of doing the same thing, is they believe we, having at least a modicum of sense, must be as monocular as they–that to believe in any kind of gender hierarchy we must deny equality, just as they do the reverse. They simply cannot understand that the Faith requires both, even though this requirement is clearly in the Bible. It just doesn't make sense to them–gender-based equality and hierarchy cannot co-exist; one must eliminate the other. (Witness their trademark interpretation of Galatians 3:28 as nullification of St. Paul’s other teachings on sexual order.) Men and women are either fully equal in everything but bare biological facticity, or they are not, biological fact itself having nothing, nothing, nothing to do with hierarchy, since biologically women are just as good as men (as if that were the point at issue). But that one-eliminates-the-other cast of mind is historically characteristic of the heretic, not of the biblical Christian, who has many more mysteries on his plate than do the professedly biblical egalitarians.
By hierarchy, do you mean that certain levels or types of authority should be reserved for men alone (or both)?
If so, I’m wondering: must one vote against Sarah Palin for President (assuming she runs) to be consistent with this belief?
General Petraeus would no longer be addressing his boss and Commander-in-Chief as “Sir” but “Ma’am”. Do you suppose this squares with the Biblical notion of sexual hierarchies and would receive a hearty endorsement from St. Paul who demanded that women not exercise authority over men but to remain silent and “in all submission”?
“St. Paul who demanded that women not exercise authority over men but to remain silent and “in all submission” ”
This spiritual direction pertains specifically to church services. Doubtless Lydia and other friends of Paul did, on occasion, use their vocal cords.
But, oh dear, are we assuming that commanding generals will be men? Let us together purge our regressive tendencies and appear without spot or blemish before the egalitarian hierarchy.
>>to believe in any kind of gender hierarchy we must deny equality, just as they do the reverse. < <
As one of those fantastical, monocular, and ... what was it ... heretical (?) creatures, an egalitarian, I think most of us egals believe in meritocratic hierarchy rather than gender hierarchy. There are seven million (rough estimate) variants of human beings, all created in the image and likeness of God, on Earth, not just two. As books of the Bible are studied, dated, analyzed, and understood within their historical contexts and as new gospels are unearthed and scrutinized (e.g., the Nag Hammadi texts), theology appears to be trending in a more nuanced and less dogmatic direction. As I’ve pointed out previously, Paul expected the same submission of slave to master that he expected of woman to man. Even if one believes Paul was some sort of prophetic secretary taking direct dictation from God (which many of us don’t), there is no requirement to understand his words as having eternal meaning outside the context of his own time.
For someone with so many “mysteries on his plate”, you certainly seem to find a lot of time to throw mud at egalitarians.
If you’ve given up on inspiration and the relevance of the Sciptures for the present day and take Gnostic (“Nag Hammadi”) Gospels seriously, you’ve given up the game and the ghost. As far as slavery goes, someone’s station in life is accidental, while sex/gender is essential.
Mr. Hutchens, thanks for your continued posting on this. The more I teach Bible at my ever-more egalitarian institution, the more I’m convinced that egalitarianism is divorced from traditional Christianity, and is the gateway to a multitude of sins.
I am dealing here with a view (sexual egalitarianism) which believes the whole world, for its entire history, got it basically wrong with respect to male priority until feminists came along to correct its patriarchalism. I am one of those who holds to an older opinion, that the world was made and ordered by its Creator in the patriarchy that reflects his own Being, but that because of sin this good thing very often went wrong. Christianity believes God sent his Son and his apostles to correct the problems caused by sin, not to destroy the order he set in nature, but to redeem it and set it aright. That is the fundamental difference between the view of the egalitarian (who with regard to all patriarchy, says écrasez l’infâme!) and the Christian.
The passages in the Bible in dispute between egalitarians and Christians have primarily to do with sexual order in family and church, and, of course, I believe things sort themselves out as I have indicated. Whether a woman could be a proper candidate for the president of a secular state is a related question, and these considerations have bearing upon it, but it is not directly pertinent to this posting, and I will not discuss it here.
My own guess is that it will become a moot point. If it doesn’t, no doubt our readers will find something about it in Touchstone.
What I object to more than anything in your comment, Matt, is your apparent presumption that someone with your beliefs should be considered a Christian.
How can any faith be defined but by its dogma, its teaching? What Christianity teaches, and has always taught, is that Paul is an Apostle of Jesus Christ, so that what he said as an apostle is also the word of Christ, and hence also the Word of God. You obviously think that’s nonsense. What you mean in your crude representation of Paul as a dictation-taker is not that you agree with us that this is not how apostolic writing works, but that you deny the apostolicity of the man who wrote most of the New Testament, and upon whose teaching the Church has relied for its dogma for several thousand years.
You don’t like being called monocular, but apparently think we Christians can believe only in gender hierarchy with no merit involved–as though we thought the Pastoral Epistles were never written. (Have you ever heard the word “axios”? The Orthodox use it a lot.) Looks to me like we’re looking through two eyes and you’re using only one.
You buy into “gospels” whose theology the Church has rejected in every generation and instead of admitting to heresy or confusion, compliment yourself on being “nuanced,” making fun of people who think that makes you a heretic. Take the mockery out of your posting, and all that’s left is an infidel’s confession.
Well, at least what you have given us is not subtle, allows anyone who’s interested to have a good look at a slice of genuinely egalitarian thinking, and ask themselves the vital question of whether it’s Christian or not.
As far as finding time to throw mud at egalitarians is concerned, I regard these activities as spending the time necessary to expose them. Yes, I could be doing other things that I enjoy much more, but this is important.
Steve,
What our religious feminist friends forget is that just a few sentences down from their capstone verse, Paul also reminded us the God sent forth His Son, *in the fullness of time*. Not because he had to do it then and there, but because the time was right, it was full. So their petty little whining about the awful patriarchal culture into which Jesus was born didn’t serve to hold him back. On the contrary, Christ took on human flesh so that we might be adopted as *sons*.
Kamilla
Matt
You sound more then a little like a number folks in leadership with The Episcopal Organization. I recently left
them. None of my business, I guess, but are you a TECIE?
God, on the other hand, does not belive in meritocracy. Happily for all of us.
Speaking of nuance, I’m not sure how anyone got from a curiosity about the discovery of ancient texts, the history behind selection of the Biblical canon, and a belief in a critical vs. literal interpretation of the Bible to “giving up on inspiration and the relevance of the Sciptures for the present day.”
SMH, the institutions of slavery and prostitution are as old as patriarchy. The senescence of patriarchy doesn’t prove its validity. I’m not sure why you take umbrage at what you see as my “making fun” of complementarians when virtually every anti-egalitarian argument here comes down to a personal cheap shot.
Robb, yes, I am Episcopalian and the proud father of a wonderful girl who has been called by Christ to church leadership.
God does not believe in meritocracy (that is, rule by those who merit it)?
This idea must have come from the same translation Matt prefers. Mine says things like,
“And the Lord said to him, ‘Well done, good servant! Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’”
and
“Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions.”
No hint of meritocracy here (or numerous similar places), eh?
Perhaps you mean that no one apart from Christ can merit salvation, or perhaps that there is no merit toward God apart from Christ. If so, very well. But that’s not what you said, and what you said has, once again, nothing to do with the Christian faith. It’s not even Protestant.
If you want to know something about Christianity, read your Bible, and for God’s sake, pay attention. Screwtape was right when he ruefully observed that the text says what it says, and isn’t going to go away. That’s the strength of those who know scripture in the face of the people who in every generation want to get creative with its interpretation. “What it says” will always manage eventually to break through the stuff that gets shoveled on. It’s not going away.
>Robb, yes, I am Episcopalian and the proud father of a wonderful girl who has been called by Christ to church leadership.
So your hellish error does not confine its damage to just your own person. But then it never does.
>>SMH, the institutions of slavery and prostitution are as old as patriarchy. The senescence of patriarchy doesn’t prove its validity.< <
I have identified this as an error of fact, representing slavery and prostitution as old as God.
>>I’m not sure why you take umbrage at what you see as my “making fun” of complementarians when virtually every anti-egalitarian argument here comes down to a personal cheap shot.< <
No doubt you wish that these weren't brief, reasoned observations, clearly pointing to larger and more complex bodies of authority that you reject and by which (this much is true) your opinions stand condemned.
>>I am Episcopalian and the proud father of a wonderful girl who has been called by Christ to church leadership.<<
As you have seen, our correspondents have guessed that something like this is the case. My reasons for believing as I do are also tied up with very personal considerations–mostly in the question of whether I shall hold to the “senescent” faith given me by my parents for scores of generations, or convert to the new one to which you and your daughter have become parties. We pays our money and takes our choice.
You cannot have a meritocracy that is restricted to only half the human race. That’s like saying apartheid South Africa was a democracy (well some people got to vote, didn’t they?).
SMH, churches are flawed human institutions. God is not. Churches evolve. God does not need to. A Christian can believe in evolution, that the sun does not revolve around the earth, that slavery is wrong, that parents should not stone their disobedient sons (as per Leviticus), that God is neither male nor female, and that Paul’s habit of returning slaves to their “masters” was in error, along with his pronouncements about women in leadership. Mine is an evolved faith, not a new one. You would probably accuse me of cherry-picking which parts of the Bible I accept, and you would be right (see above list). The abundant spiritual fruits I see growing in my fellow Episcopalian Christians gives me confidence in my faith. As you say, we takes our choices.
I’ll let things stand now on this one. The difference between Matt’s beliefs and my own, the different roads we have taken, and what we think of each other’s choice, is clear enough. But let no one supinely imagine that we worship the same God or own the same religion, even though we both call what we believe “Christianity.” (If anyone is inclined to doubt that, I urge them to study the exchange more carefully.) It is demonstration of that point, with Matt’s help, that has been my primary concern here, not preaching at Matt.
Erm, I thought I was disagreeing with Matt…. The problem with some people’s view of hierarchy is that they think being superior in authority necessarily implies being a superior person, i.e. that men are actually better creatures than women. This would, of course, be a foolish and dangerous conclusion, but it’s wrong because holding authority does not make the ruler a superior being, or more human, or more moral, or more anything else.
Of course, “meritocracy” is a madey-up word; there already is a word, “aristocracy” that means “rule by the best”. Unfortunately, there is ample evidence throughout history that the nobility is not all that noble. Which is why nobody would use the term “aristocracy” to suggest merit. Regarding the passages you quoted, surely they refer to the afterlife? In this life, God chooses His disciples from among cowards and traitors, from the foolish and sinful — in other words, from us. If God chose His friends based on merit, then none of us would stand a chance. Happily (as I said), God loves us because of who He is, not because of who or what we are. In this world, we are to respect authority not because our superior officers are superior beings, but because all authority comes from above. God sends the reign upon the just and the unjust alike.
Perhaps my comment was a bit vague, as I didn’t specify that I was thinking particularly of this life. You’re quite right that the other side of the picture is important too: in fact, it crucially illustrates that “hierarchies” are not merely part of the fallen world. Authority is not an evil that comes about from our sinful actions, nor even a necessary evil in order to manage a sinful world (as some egalitarians suggest). In heaven, God will still be our King, not our Pal, and even different saints will have authority over others. Despite the fact that in heaven nobody will be acting selfishly or foolishly, yet powers and principalities will nonetheless be exercised, just as they [should have!] been on earth. There will not, perhaps, be master and servants (insofar as we will not need to toil for a living), but there will still be King and subjects, parent and child, male and female. Certain personal relationships are unequal, and in eternal life will be all the more so, for we will be fuller persons there, not less.
“Mine is an evolved faith, not a new one.”
If a fish loses its fins and gills and evolves lungs and legs, we call it an “amphibian,” not an “evolved fish.” An “evolved Christianity” is no longer Christianity, despite its ancestry.
I will pose this thought one day to the next semi conservative proponent of WO that I engage in conversation (Real liberals would be immune to the logical conclusion).
Imagine a diocese in which all the clergy from bishop down to the lowest deacon were women.
Now contrast that with a diocese in which they all were men.
Which do you think would make the most people feel at ease, or at least not feel uncomfortable?
[This comment was written long ago, but not posted due to technical problems on the site. Those were corrected, and I post it now--smh.]]
I am aware, David, that you were disagreeing with Matt, but must persist on the subject of merit, particularly here as applied to the rule of the churches.
Egalitarians claim that we by our principles must consider women inferior to men because we do not believe Christ appoints them to the presbyterate. Our answer to their charge ultimately points to a trinitarian theology of equality and subordination within the Godhead that their theologians are presently laboring to obscure and dismantle, thus creating for themselves a new religion, setting the rift between us formally in dogma, and cutting off conversation based in agreement that we believe in the same God. (This is not true of disagreements between Christian “denominations” unless something similar is or becomes the case.)
“Meritocracy” is a good clear word, has been around for a while, and I am quite sure I know what you mean when you use it. I am equally sure that the passages to which I have referred apply to life both now and later. Here is a clear example from epistles, Titus 1:5f (RSV):
This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what is defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you, if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of being profligate or insubordinate. For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled . . . .
Note once again the “steward” language our Lord used, here applied in a very concrete way to the personal qualities of those who are to lead the churches. The maleness of the candidate is necessary, but not a merit as we commonly use the word. The other qualifications, however, do require merit as we understand it. If the passages I have cited are correct and applicable, we are not to believe that God has no interest in merit among his servants in this world–quite the contrary, in fact.
SMH: Thanks for your response. We probably don’t really disagree much, and I didn’t mean to suggest that God is not interested in merit at all. But it can apply two ways: certainly, a bishop ought to act in a worthy manner. However, going the other way, good actions do not entitle anyone to be a bishop. The egalitarian mistake is to think that God assigns authority according to “meritocratic” value, i.e. that bishops and masters and males get their authority because they deserve it, because they are better people. That obviously is not the case.
David,
That’s funny — but you’re absolutely right. The religious feminists are the only ones to claim there must be some sort of inherent “merit” lacking in the woman that men won’t allow her the priesthood.
If they truly valued women, they’d be looking at it the other way around.
Kamilla