There's a book (and a movie) out there called The Help. In the book "the help" is a black woman working for a Southern white family, raising the children and polishing the silver, earning less than minimum wage without hope of getting social security.
Sometimes I wonder if this is the help hierarchical theologians refer to, for married women do a whole lot of housework, raise their children, and they earn even less than the maid in the book, The Help. But because it doesn't make sense in the case of single women, we have to take a closer look at the hierarchical theologian's definition of help.
If all women were created to help men, and helping men means women don't make decisions or teach in the church, the woman is a help who doesn't help. How does it help the man if the woman is silent when decisions need to be made, when the Gospel needs to be preached? How does it help the man if the woman obeys and agrees to the man's financial decisions and the family goes bankrupt? How does it help the man if the woman is silent in the church and false teachings destroy the church? How does any of that help anyone?
In the Bible, help is something tangible, without which the person in need is in serious trouble.
In my distress I called to the LORD;
I cried to my God for help.
From his temple he heard my voice;
my cry came before him, into his ears (Ps 18:6, NIV)
They cried for help, but there was no one to save them--
to the LORD, but he did not answer (Ps 18:41, NIV)
Though they have officials in Zoan
and their envoys have arrived in Hanes,
everyone will be put to shame
because of a people useless to them,
who bring neither help nor advantage,
but only shame and disgrace."
(Isa 30:4-5 NIV)
If the one who helps in the Bible always does something, why doesn't the woman? If the woman was created to help the man, there has to be something she does that actually helps the man.
Childbearing is of course the one thing the man cannot do, wherefore the woman helps the man when she bears children. But since marriage is required for childbearing, single women (and single men) become the problem again.
Let's for a moment consider the idea that women will help men for all eternity. We know that in the world to come we won't marry; everyone is going to be single. If women are going to help men for all eternity, yet, everyone is single, what will women do? How will women help men in the world to come?
Here the idea of authority enters into the picture. We are told that women help men when they obey them. But really, obeying isn't the same as helping, for obedience is something one has to do, whereas help is optional. You don't have to help someone if you don't want to. God doesn't always help us.
If the woman was created to help the man, her help must be optional. Obedience cannot be part of the deal. But what if the help was the woman? How would it affect our understanding of the woman's creation? If the help the man needed was the woman, the woman was created to be with the man, not as his helper, but as his equal. And if this is the case, we don't have to ask what the woman is supposed to be doing, for the answer is already given in Genesis:
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:28, NIV)
In cyber space, and elsewhere, people are constantly debating what feminism is, and isn't. Some say feminism equals women hating men. Others, such as myself, say "Feminism is this radical idea that woman are people too." It cannot be both at the same time, for if feminism teaches men and women that women are people too, being a person would have to be the equivalent of hating another. Just think about it, do men hate women because they are people? It sounds rather ludicrous, doesn't it, for little girls and boys don't hate each other although they are people. So what causes grown ups to hate each other? Or is hating someone really the issue here?
I'll just say it and save us the time of having to go in circles: men claim feminism equals women hating men because women have something they want and feminism teaches women to say, "Hands off! It's my body!" In other words, feminism is about giving women the right to protect their bodies from being exploited. You see, part of the whole problem of sin is that we no longer view other humans as our equals, and therefore worthy of respect. Instead, sin causes us to view other humans as objects that exist for our pleasure. If feminists are right, and women are persons with feelings, and not objects to be had by any man that happens to find her, men have to respect women and their bodies.
That men should respect women may seem like such a natural thing, for we all know good men, but when we consider the rape statistics, we have to realize that we have an epidemic in our hands, one that is not going away by us ignoring it. Hence, either we continue to allow society tell men that women's bodies belong to them, or we stand up and say no, the body belongs to the woman, and everyone else better keep their hands off.
Because men will still be looking for access to women's bodies, especially if they are mostly denied that access, prostitution bridges the gap of invitation and denial in giving men access to women's bodies - but for a price. Some men are more than happy to pay it, yet, a lot of men resent that price. They feel they should be allowed access for no price, hence some choose sexual assault, and having sex without the woman's consent. But should we fault men for feeling entitled? Do not our songs and movies tell the same tale? That a successful man always hits a home run even though he doesn't play baseball, as the singer Pitbul puts it? How can a man be successful in the eyes of his peers if the woman suddenly says, "no!" Maybe we should do something about the message we send to men if we want to stop the epidemic of sexual assault.
The problem we have is that our society tells men that access to women's bodies equals success. It is so ingrained into our psyche, that a young man is willing to kill his friends, and shoot young women because that success was denied him. The church aids this process in making a woman's virginity the highest price a man can gain. And so the woman becomes a trophy, something to be pursued; who cares what she thinks of it all. By insisting that women are people too, feminism brings the woman's mind to the forefront and tells the world that women aren't just bodies to be had, or pursued. Women are humans who have something to say, and it's about time the world began to listen.
When ideology becomes an idol we get situations in which Christian educational institutions admit Muslim students because of their gender values, and fire Christian professors for being women.
(Read about it here, http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/may/evangelical-seminary-explains-why-first-muslim-southwestern.html)
When ideology becomes an idol we get situations in which we demand that women stay in abusive relationships to protect the institution of marriage at all cost.
(Read more, http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/dallas/Til-Death-Do-We-Part-191719891.html)
When ideology becomes an idol we get situations in which the Sabbath laws are more important than healing and giving people hope.
On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, "Woman, you are set free from your infirmity." Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God. Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue ruler said to the people, "There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath." The Lord answered him, "You hypocrites! Doesn't each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or donkey from the stall and lead it out to give it water? Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?" When he said this, all his opponents were humiliated, but the people were delighted with all the wonderful things he was doing (Luke 13:10-17, NIV)
When we put ideology before people, we are essentially saying that our need to be right is more important than real, breathing, flesh and blood, humans. And because our need to be right is so strong and relentless, we are willing to sacrifice other humans to our idol in an effort to prove our own worth.
But are we worthy when we sacrifice other humans? Our ideologies give us the illusion that we are part of that which is good and right, but God looks at us and wonders why we haven't read the instructions he gave us. Love your neighbor the way you love yourself is one of the two laws that cannot be broken to keep another, the first one being love God with your whole being.
How loving is it to destroy another human being for the sake of an ideal when it is in your power to save her?
Dear children, keep yourselves from idols (1 John 5:21, NIV)
Next time you are told God expects you to live up to an ideal whether it is a gender role, or the sanctity of marriage, remind them there is only one God, no idols allowed.
A proper woman.
We've all heard the term and most women have tried to become one. But what does it mean to be a proper woman. As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't tell women to be proper; it tells women to be godly. But aren't these the same thing? Not exactly.
You see, what the world sees as proper and the Bible considers godly are two widely different things. Being proper has to do with being appropriate, suitable, of the required type, but godliness has to do with being God-like, and God isn't always appropriate, suitable, or of the required type. God is often inappropriate, such as when he was born out of wedlock in a small inn, and unsuitable, such as when he doesn't suit our rigid rules, and not of the required type, for there isn't a box big enough that you can cram God into.
So, if God isn't appropriate, suitable, or of the required type, why do we spend so much time ensuring all women are? Why make sure all women are are at all times appropriate, suitable, and of the required type, if women should imitate God? How is that even possible?
Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God (Ephesians 5:1-2, NIV).
If we should imitate God, can we be appropriate, suitable, and of the required type?
We hang clean golden crosses around our necks. But was it appropriate for God to die on a dirty, wooden cross?
We expect everyone to follow the rules we've created. But was it suitable for Jesus to eat and talk with prostitutes?
We require everyone to fit into narrow stereotypes. But how do you fit the Creator into anything that he has created?
How can an image be anything other than a reflection of what it images? If a broken mirror cannot accurately reflect reality, neither can we put the image of God in a container that neither moves or speaks.
Being a woman has nothing to do with rules and restrictions, for God isn't out to restrict his creation; sin restricts. God is actively working to redeem his creation from the consequences of sin and redemption is always about freedom from slavery, never about becoming enslaved. Now, the question is, if God desires us to be free, why do we make women slaves of propriety?
The Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has done it again - it has created the perfect egalitarian argument:
"If the egalitarian impulse wins out, the church is compromised precisely
at the point where paganism is assaulting the church today. For, as
Peter Jones has brilliantly demonstrated, paganism wants to get rid of
Christian monotheism by getting rid of the Creator-creature distinction.
And one way paganism likes to do that is through gender
confusion—hence, the bi-sexual shaman, the sacred feminine, goddess
worship, etc. Paganism understands that one of the best ways to prepare
the way for pagan polytheistic monism over against the transcendent
Creator God of the Bible is to undermine that God's image in the
distinctiveness of male and female, and in the picture of Christ and the
church in marital role distinctions, and in the male eldership of the
church. Egalitarianism is just not equipped for that fight, and in fact
simply capitulates to it."
(Read the whole article at http://cbmw.org/uncategorized/why-together-for-the-gospel-embraces-complementarianism-2/)
But if paganism tries to get rid of the Creator-creature distinction by undermining the principle that God's image is seen in both the male and the female, why do hierarchical Christians say God is overwhelmingly described as a male deity? Doesn't insisting that God shares an attribute with his creation get rid of the Creator-creature distinction, and undermine the principle that God's image is seen in both the male and the female equally?
If God is transcendent, perhaps God is neither male or female? If God is beyond his creation, perhaps only we are male and female? If this is the case, how does sacred feminine destroy the very concept of monotheism in which God is beyond his creation, but the idea of a male God - sacred masculine - doesn't? How can God remain distinct from his creation, and at the same time contain elements of his own creation? It is impossible, wherefore we find that CBMW has created the perfect egalitarian argument: if God is neither male or female, and both men and women are created in the image of God, why should a woman obey the man?
Let me explain.
If the image of God is reflected by our spirits, for God is a Spirit, why should the physical body prevent some from worshiping God in the spirit?
God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24, NIV).
If a woman must obey a man, she cannot be single-minded in her worship of God, for we cannot have two lords whom we obey. Since we must worship God in spirit, our spirit must be free to worship God. Obedience removes free will, wherefore if a woman must obey a man, her will isn't free, nor is her spirit. And if this is the case, how can the woman worship God in spirit and in truth?
Thus we find that gender hierarchy does exactly what CBMW claims egalitarianism does: it removes the Creator-creature distinction when it makes the man the woman's god whom she must obey, and simultaneously creates a polytheism, rejecting monotheism. When the Creator-creature distinction is retained, we always obey God before humans (Acts 5:29), we do unto others what we would have them do to us (Luke 6:31) instead of demanding others follow our preferences (1 Cor 13:5).
In conclusion, CBMW is incorrect in saying that egalitarianism capitulates to the forces that would destroy the church. Egalitarianism isn't only well equipped to handle the fight; it wins it every time.
For years I've been hearing people on the hierarchical side of theology say egalitarianism is destroying the church. However, instead of destroying the church, egalitarians are saving the church. Let me explain why.
If egalitarians were trying to destroy the church, they would work hard to reduce the number of people preaching the Gospel. Instead, egalitarians work hard to increase the number of people preaching the Gospel both in their own churches and those elsewhere in accordance with Luke 10.
If egalitarians were trying to destroy the church, they would work hard to ignore verses and biblical people who contradict their theology. Instead, egalitarians work diligently to create a holistic understanding of the Bible that includes all the verses, chapters, and books found in the Bible, and one that begins with Genesis1 instead of 1 Timothy.
If egalitarians were trying to destroy the church, they would ignore the gifts of half of the members of the body of Christ, and refuse to accept their contributions. Instead, egalitarians include all of the gifts of all the members of the body of Christ in order to promote growth of the body itself in accordance with 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4.
If egalitarians were trying to destroy the church, they would give more power to one gender and allow the imbalance destroy marriages. Instead, egalitarians insist on mutual submission, mutual love and respect, mutual servanthood, and mutual authority in the realm of the body in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5.
If egalitarians were trying to destroy the church, they would tell one gender to care more about needlepoint, cushions and embroidery, than the people who inhabit a world that is neither kind, nor benign. Instead, egalitarians call all Christians to leave the comfort of their homes in order to be the hands and feet of Christ, for if we don't move, neither does he.
By insisting that we should read the Bible literally and live it practically, egalitarians are reviving the church and bringing her back to her roots. That is not destructive, it is healing. And it is a beautiful thing to behold.
Sometimes I wonder why people have such a need for authority. Common decency and friendliness is all most people need to find themselves in a co-operative mood. And the closer the relationship, the less need for authority. So who needs authority? The person who doesn't want to have to ask; who just wants what he wants when he wants it.
Asking others for help or co-operation requires humility. It's easy to command people to act as we want them to, but having to wait for others to respond takes patience, kindness, and goodness, not to mention the risk of a rejection. Hence the need for that coveted authority.
But how does God deal with us? God has all authority; does he force us to repent? No. He waits patiently, and lets his kindness do the job (Rom 2:4). Of course God isn't a pushover; there is a definitive moment when he lets us have what we deserve, and it can come as suddenly as rain on a summer's day.
If God doesn't force us to act the way he wants us to, why do we all clamor for authority in our own lives in order to force others to act the way we want them to act? Because we all have this thing called the "flesh" that makes us self-seeking.
We want what we want, when we want it, and we don't want to have to wait or ask.
But that is not God's ideal, for love is patient and kind, it is not rude, or self-seeking. Instead, love protects, trusts, and hopes (1 Cor 13:4-7). It treats others the way it wants to be treated in return (Matt 22:39).
In the Kingdom of God, those who clamor for authority are the ones who still have not understood the meaning of true life and how it is found. It is by losing our lives that we gain it; not by clinging to it with all of our might (Matt 10:39); we can't carry the cross ourselves if we expect others to carry it for us.
