Church and Home, Shepherds and Lords

Servant leadership sound great, even pious. Of course the man was created to serve by leading! ... until we read the rest of the Bible and find that leading is about setting an example for others to imitate. 

[I]f all Christians should serve one another, how can a man serve his wife and exercise authority over her at the same time?[i] Hierarchical theologers tell us a husband serves his wife as a servant leader. But what exactly does a servant leader do? A servant leader serves by leading, we are told by these same theologers. But this begs the question, should all leaders in the church serve by leading, or is this something that is restricted to married men? Peter the Apostle, for example, tells us in his first letter that a leader in the church is a person who leads by setting an example of servanthood instead of lording it over the flock. In other words, leaders in the church lead by serving. If overseers served the laity by leading, everyone would have to strive to become a leader, for leading would be the example given for everyone to imitate.[ii] With this insight the questions keep on multiplying, for if an overseer leads by serving, and if leaders in the church should not be lords in the house of God, why should a husband serve by leading, and be a lord in his own house? [iii] Is it possible that God gave husbands more authority than anyone else in the church? (Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles, Chapter 5) 

The picture Peter paints before us in 1 Peter 5:1-5 is a shepherd leading the sheep to a better pastures. The sheep follow the shepherd because they know he will feed them. Feeding someone has nothing to do with authority; it has to do with love. 

Overseers in the church are called pastors because of the Latin word pastor, which means shepherd. Peter refers to Jesus as the Chief Shepherd (Greek, archipoimen), and he advices his fellow shepherds to abstain from lording over the flock (Greek, katakurieuo), the very same word Jesus used in Matt 20:24-28:
 

"When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them (katakurieuo), and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (NIV)

Now, this idea of giving one's life as a ransom instead of being a lord is also echoed in John 10:11-18, where Jesus calls himself a good shepherd: 

"I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. "I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me- just as the Father knows me and I know the Father-and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life-only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (NIV)

If the model for overseers is the shepherd who serves the sheep and willingly gives his life, why is the model for husbands a lord who commands his wife?

Is Christ divided?

 

---

[i] Galatians 5:13

[ii] 1 Peter 5:3

[iii] 1 Peter 3:6

From Hierarchy to Happiness: My Journey from Evangelical Patriarchy to Freedom

Not every woman is convinced by egalitarian books or blogs, especially if those books and blogs do not even exist in her world. There are many women who live in an alternative world created by evangelical patriarchy, where the rules are set by those in power and handed down to those below with a smile. 

These women wake up every morning to the relentless demands of endless housework, and judgmental neighbors who attend the same church and keep a watchful eye. They go to bed with the same relentless demands from husbands who barely noticed them during the day, but who never fail to notice them at bedtime. They go from maid to wife in less time than it takes to remove the slippers. And they are expected to smile.

But isn't this how life should be? Shouldn't women accept their "role" in life with cheerfulness, and thank God he made them women and not men? Isn't freedom something women should shun "for their own good"? It depends on a lot of things, but mostly on how we see women: are they persons or property? You won't ever hear evangelical patriarchy say women are property, but they are treated as such nevertheless, for humans are known by their freedom of will; a married woman has none.

I have always thought freedom looks like a woman. Kind of like wisdom, and justice, but more... free. She isn't frozen like Lady Liberty, nor is she bound to a town, like Lady Wisdom in Proverbs. Lady Freedom roams the earth freely and suddenly one day I found myself desperately wanting to roam the earth with her.

Not that I wanted to rid myself of my family. I wanted to rid myself of the endless work that came with no pay and few rewards. Families are well-meaning, but they rarely appreciate what women do for them. Slowly the relentless work load began to take its toll. Bitterness and resentment replaced peace as everyone else was free to come and go, but I, the wife and the mother, was stuck in the house with the laundry. At the end of the day there was little to smile about. Yet, I didn't find equality in the laundry room, I found it on the internet.

I had joined a church in Sweden in my mid-Twenties that in retrospect I wish I hadn't, but it was through this crazy, prosperity gospel preaching, partiality loving group that I met my husband, and to make the long story short, I moved to the United States of America and met evangelical patriarchy. I don't think either of us was happy about the meeting.

In the beginning it didn't really bother me. I was a married woman - a step above a single woman - and I had all the freedom that came with being married to an overworked chef. But the day our firstborn arrived, the world tilted and not in my favor.

Now I wasn't just a wife; I was a wife AND a mother, and everyone within the evangelical world felt they had the right to tell me what my proper "role" was. It was one of silence and subservience - sleepless subservience. The freedom I had enjoyed as a single woman, and as a married childless woman, was yanked from me in one violent gesture and I was left helpless to defend myself, for now I was a mother, and the worst thing that could happen to me was that I would be called a bad mother.

I don't know if I was a good or a bad mother, I didn't have time to think about it, for sleep deprivation removed momentarily my ability to think critically - until one day I stumbled over a group on the internet called Factnet and a lot of the members had belonged to the same crazy church I had, and they were telling their stories.

Slowly a very ugly picture began to emerge as I read firsthand accounts of people who had been part of this "church" for years. I had to finally admit to myself that I had been part of a cult, a brainwashing cult that made you believe the leaders were closer to God than you, and your only job was to listen and obey. One day, I decided to challenge one of their leaders, who was posting under a false name. My heart trembled, my hands were sweaty out of fear, but I knew I had to do it. So I did.

Not much happened outside of me as a result of our discussions, but inside of me a rebellion was fomented, one that would not just go away. If the leaders who pretended to speak for God resorted to lies and manipulation when challenged, why should I listen to them? Why should I listen to anyone but God? I took the whole thing a step further - why should my husband make all the decisions? There was nothing wrong with my mind, why shouldn't I use it?

Suddenly the thought that had been in my mind months before returned: if love doesn't seek its own, how can a husband command his wife to obey his preferences?

I went to the bookstore and wandered off to the feminist section. I picked a book from the shelf; I thought I was going to either pass out or throw up, but I bought the book and read it, and then went back for more. I read The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, and the question about homemaking was forever settled in my mind. I agreed with her - the world is larger than a baked potato, and I don't need to bake one if I don't want to. I spent hours studying the writings from the early church and found that our modern theologians would have ended up in a fist fight over their views, for no one considered the woman the man's subject from creation until the 13th century. The lies, the deceptions, the deliberate changes in translations, all sang the same song that would become a lament before the day was over. But by that time, I had found my way to freedom and happiness, for a cage without a locked door works only when the prisoner isn't looking for a way out. As soon as the fear vanishes, the prison evangelical patriarchy builds for every woman is found to be built with tears that dry in the sunshine, and the sun shines on every woman.

When Women and Children Became Prisoners of Opinion

Lately we've been reading about incidents in which children have been taken away from their mothers, and the mothers find themselves in prison for placing their children in harms way. Child abuse is a terrible crime, but these mothers aren't always the criminals they are made to be.

Only 30 years ago, children roamed the streets freely and were often told by their parents to go out and stay out. It was the natural way of life. But today, parents fear letting their children out, not because they fear for their children's safety, but because other parents will report them if they do.

Now why is that?

Fear seems to be the number one reason. A superiority complex seems to be the other. People fear for the safety of children, and feel that they know how these children should be raised. But do they?

Women are routinely told to avoid certain places, especially at night, and they are also told how to dress, how to speak, how to act, to avoid being sexually assaulted. We seem to be doing the same thing to our children. 

Of course the world is a dangerous place, and women find themselves often in situations that are unsafe. The same is true of children as well. But I have a question: since most of abuse happens in the home, why do we focus on the strangers? Why do we not remove all women and children from their homes before a potential situation arises that will place them at risk? Why do we do so only in the cases in which a stranger may come and cause harm?

Men are not evil, but this thinking makes them all evil, and I object to this thinking. There are good men and bad men; there are good women and bad women; there are good children and bad children. This mentality that has everyone lock their children up "for their own good" is not good for anyone. It's not good for the men who are demonized, it's not good for the women who lose their children, it's not good for the children who lose their mothers.

And why is it that the same people who report other mothers - mostly women it seems - cry foul when women leave their children with other caregivers when they go to work? Why is it immoral for some women to leave their children in the care of others and thus "deprive their children of their mothers" but it is not immoral for some women to report other women and thus "deprive their children of their mothers." The hypocrisy is alarmingly glaring, yet few seem to notice it.

Do we place a child in harms way when we let them out of the house on their own? It depends on the situation and the maturity of the child. Who is best equipped to make such a decision? Parents or strangers? And why is it that so many people advocate fiercely for the parent's right to parent without interference when it comes to all kinds of things, but when parents exercise their right to parent without interference when it comes to letting their children out of the house without supervision, they are reported as if they were criminals? I think there are just too many busybodies out there with nothing other to do but to keep on eye on their neighbors like an old gargoyle. May the Lord help us purge our communities from this scourge.

Origin of Gender Role: Providing

We are told men were created to provide for women, and that providing is part of the "role" men were created to fulfill already in the original garden. John Piper writes in "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood":

"It is not a curse that man must work in the field to get bread for the family or that woman bears children. The curse is that these spheres of life are made difficult and frustrating.... Evidently God had in mind from the beginning that the man would take special responsibility for sustaining the family through bread-winning labor[.]" (p.42-43).

Bread-winning labor. In the garden? Let's see what the Bible has to say about it:

"You are free to eat from any tree in the garden" (Gen 2:16-17, NIV)

You are free to eat from any tree. Where's the bread?

If the first humans ate freely from the trees, why would Adam have tilled the soil in order to provide for Eve?  

"... Hierarchical theologers stumble over each other to inform us that the man was created to provide for the woman, and providing gives the man more rights. Work is, of course, an essential part of our lives, for as our original parents were banished from the temperate garden into the harsh new world, tilling, sowing, and harvesting became a necessity. But however necessary providing for our families is today, it was not the reason for Adam’s creation, for the first humans ate freely from the trees in the garden. Had God truly intended the man to be a provider instead of a care-free gardener, he would have put the man outside the garden to till the soil until his forehead dripped with sweat, while the woman waited for him in the garden. But we do not read about it in the creation account, for why would God separate the man from the woman, having already said it was not good for the man to be alone?" (Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles, 56-57)

The man didn't provide for the woman in the garden; God was their provider. Sin has made providing necessary, and Piper is correct in saying that providing has become difficult and at times frustrating because of sin. But in the beginning it was not so. Hear what Eve has to say about it:
 

"The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden" (Gen 3:2, NIV)

Eve doesn't mention bread, or bacon, or any other food item that Adam would have won or brought home. She talks only about fruit; fruit that was provided by God.

If God provided for the first humans, why do our theologians try to make Adam into a bread-winner? The answer is simple: because if sin is the origin of the man's role as a provider (because of his physical strength), then the origin of the man's authority is also found in the world of sin. With this conclusion egalitarian Christians agree. 

Mutual Authority in Marriage

We hear a lot about mutual submission, but not as much about mutual authority, which is kind of odd, for Paul's description of it in 1 Corinthians 7 leaves us in no doubt:

The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does (1 Cor 7:4, NASU).

The mutual authority husbands and wives share is meant to ensure fidelity and mutual satisfaction in marriage. Neither party has the right to refuse the other - except when both have mutually decided to devote themselves to prayer. 

But why is mutual authority important? Can't we just talk about mutual submission and call it good? Mutual authority is important because it is based on difference and mutual need, while mutual submission is based on sameness and mutual respect.

You see, we submit mutually both in the Body of Christ and in marriage when we are asked to do something anyone could do. We could resist and say no thanks, but because of love and respect we agree to co-operate. But when it comes to mutual authority, one has what the other one needs, wherefore mutual authority ensures that the other party doesn't have the right to refuse and leave the other one dissatisfied and in danger of infidelity. Yet, mutual submission ensures that mutual authority does not become an excuse for oppression, for mutual submission requires that both parties take the weaknesses of the other party into consideration and accept a refusal every now and then. 

Because married couples share mutual authority, the idea that the man has unilateral authority over his wife doesn't come from the Bible; it comes from the world of patriarchy, which is based on a hierarchy of worth.

As God brought the newly created woman to the man, he recognized instantly that the one he had been looking for among the animals stood before him, for he exclaimed, “This one!” What did the man recognize when he saw the woman? It is clear that he rejoiced because he had found another human being, for he called the woman a “female human,” something he had not been able to say to another being while naming the animals. But if hierarchical theologers are correct in saying that the man’s prior creation gave the man authority, the first man must have seen with his own eyes what we can only read about in Genesis 2. In other words, something about the woman must have told the man that she was created to follow him, for God never said anything about the man’s authority to the newly created humans.[i] Perhaps it was the woman’s body, for their bodily difference was easy to see due to their nakedness. Yet, sexual complementarity is said to be the reason married couples have mutual authority: the husband does not have authority over his own body—the wife does—nor does the wife have authority over her own body—the husband does.[ii] If sexual complementarity is based on bodily difference, and therefore mutual need, the foundation for the man’s authority must be found in something other than mutual need, for a woman doesn’t need a man to command her, but a man needs a subject if he is to have authority. But if the man’s authority is not based on mutual need, can we continue to talk about complementarity? Not really, for what we have is a hierarchy (Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles, p 50-51.

If marriages should consist of both mutual submission and mutual authority, a hierarchy is out of the question, for a hierarchy accommodates neither; a hierarchy has has no use for mutual authority or mutual submission, as it gives men unilateral authority and demands unilateral submission from the woman. By upholding mutual authority and mutual submission, the Bible rejects the hierarchical model, and calls all Christians to a life of selfless servanthood. This becomes even more evident when we remember that even God didn't reject servanthood and submission when our salvation was at stake (Phil 2:6-7).

[i] John Chrysostom, Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XXVI.

[ii] 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

The Origin of Gender Roles

All of us have heard people blaming someone, or something, for their misfortune or lack of success. But even though blaming someone makes people feel better, it doesn't fix the problem. 

Adam blamed Eve, but God didn't let him stay in the garden.
Eve blamed the serpent, but she didn't get to stay either. 

SBC is currently looking for reasons for their declining numbers, and evangelism has been offered as a solution - and prayer. But how will they reach a world that has already run past them and doesn't identify with their in many ways outdated, worldview? If their message is, "repent and be baptized!" while people think it is the SBC that should do the repenting, they aren't going to get too far.

Patriarchy has always blamed women for all the misfortunes that have befallen humanity, and theologians who believe patriarchy is God's ideal have been quick to do the same. But creating churches for men, and preaching only to the men doesn't produce the church everyone is looking for. For if we exclude women, we get a body that looks like it has had a stroke. It needs to be hospitalized.

But why are our theologians so anxious to exclude women? Why would the exclusion of women make the church a better place? The answer is found in patriarchy itself: 

"If Thomas’ argument [that the woman was created inferior to the man] didn’t match the perfection of the original creation, why did it become so incredibly popular? To find the answer, we must travel back in time and visit ancient Greece. The Greeks considered themselves supremely wise contrasted to their “barbarian” neighbors due to their long tradition of loving wisdom, or philosophy, as they would call it. Aristotle, whose philosophy Thomas Aquinas used to argue that the wiser man should rule, was one of their brightest stars. Unfortunately, Aristotle didn’t write down only his own wise thoughts; he added also the beliefs of his fellow Athenians into his writings (being the product of his own time), including the ideas that originated from their mythology, although he was unwilling to prescribe to their pantheon of gods. Thus, through Thomas Aquinas the ancient patriarchal beliefs of the Greeks found their way into theology, and our theologians would repeat them endlessly until no one remembered where they came from.

In order to discover exactly how our reading of the creation account was altered, we must find out what the ancient Greeks believed about men and women. We know Athenians believed women were born to obey their husbands, and to live a life of quietness in their homes spinning and weaving, cooking and cleaning. It was the women’s job to care for oikos (the home) in order to make it possible for their husbands to dedicate their time to running polis (the city). Athenian women were respected for their docility, silence, and invisibility—a respectable woman’s name was never to be mentioned in public. Men, on the other hand, were respected for their skills as hunters (providers) and fighters (protectors), and their ability to make decisions without a display of emotions. Hence, whereas the woman’s life was marked by restrictions, passivity, and domestic dullness, the man’s life was one of freedom from restraining rules that would have subdued his passions and desires; chastity and moderation were for women. Philosophers tried to curb the worst of the excesses, but none of them refuted the belief that women were inferior, irrational, emotional, conniving, and deceitful creatures, for in Greek mythology the first woman—Pandora—was created from clay to deceive the man with her beauty and cunning. The purpose of her creation was to punish Prometheus for his theft of fire that benefitted humankind; Prometheus wished humankind well, Zeus didn’t. In addition, it was Pandora who opened the jar given to her by Zeus that unleashed all the woes that came to plague humankind. Because all Athenian women were considered to be Pandoras, deceitful and out of control, they had to be strictly controlled by men in order to prevent further mischief from occurring.[i] (Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles, p 64-65)

When theologians blame women for the declining numbers, or the discomfort of men (the "feminizing" of the church), they side with ancient patriarchs, who believed the woman had a different origin than the man, and therefore a very different nature than the man. And because she had a different nature, she was created for a different "role" than the man. 

The Bible does not agree. 

By taking the Bible seriously, egalitarian theologians are returning the church to its origin, to the proclamation of the equality of all humankind. Having created the woman from the man, and having brought the woman to the man, God heard the man say the woman was like him, for he called the woman a "female human." What he was, she was, created for the same purpose, having the same calling in life, the same role to play: that of caring for the created world in partnership with their Creator. 

Gender roles do not belong in our theology, for they were not created by God. The origin of gender roles is found in Genesis 3 as they were created after the entrance of sin to fit a world that knows good and evil, and that is ruled by patriarchy. It is time for all of our theologians to recognize this truth.

---

[i] “And so we come to the virtues of women, the qualities that allow them best to correspond to the “natural” model. “Silence is a woman’s glory.” Says Aristotle, citing a well-known line of Sophocles, and thus he reconfirms the usual female model. Endowed with a smaller and imperfect reason, incapable of controlling her “lustful” side, the woman, who has no will, must be controlled by either the husband or the state.” (Pandora’s Daughters, p 60) http://eportfolios.ithaca.edu/eoaks1/colegeeessays/mortalgoddess/ [accessed 1/15/2014] Pandora’s Daughters, p 60.

[ii] 1 Corinthians 1:20

[iii] 1 Corinthians 10:18-22

Marriage as Image of Christ and the Church

In "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" George W Knight III, writes, 

"Unbeknownst to the people of Moses' day (it was a "mystery"), marriage was designed by God from the beginning to be a picture or parable of the relationship between Chris and the church" (p 175, emphasis in the original).

In other words, marriage was designed to remind us of the fallen nature of humankind and our need to be redeemed. Hence, when Adam saw Eve for the first time, he rejoiced because she reminded him of his inability to redeem himself without the Messiah, and Eve rejoiced because she would be re-united to the man whose enemy she had been because of sin.

Does that sound right? No, of course it doesn't, for how could the first humans have known about sin and redemption, being perfectly innocent of evil? And how did Israel understand marriage as a covenant, imaged by their covenant relationship to God, if marriage images only the relationship that exists between Christ and the church? Something's not right with Knight's concept.

The most immediate problem with Knight's concept is that it is so clearly based on the world of sin. Yet, earthly marriage does not exist because of our sinfulness; it exists because of our humanness. We marry because we seek to become one flesh with our spouses, not because we seek to end an enmity that has kept us apart, which is true of Christ and the church. If marriage is based on the perfection of creation, and not the disastrous consequences of sin, why does Paul compare earthly marriage to Christ and the church?
 
I wrote the following in my newest book, "Genesis 3: The Origin of Gender Roles":

"If the creation account doesn’t mention the man’s authority, and if Ephesians 5 instructs husbands to love their wives the way they love themselves instead of exercising authority over them, why do our theologians nevertheless insist that Ephesians 5 confirms that the man was given authority over the woman as part of creation? If we for a moment set theology aside, and focus only on the Bible, we suddenly notice that Paul compares earthly marriage to the relationship that exists between Christ and the church, not because of the perfection of creation, but because of the consequence of sin. Let me explain. Although marriage was instituted in the beginning and was part of the perfection of creation, the church did not exist in the garden. The promise of the redeemer didn’t appear until Genesis 3, wherefore it follows that the church belongs to the world of sin. Now the question is, if marriage was instituted in the garden, and the church appeared after the entrance of sin, why would Paul use the sacrificial love of Jesus as an example to teach husbands how to love their wives? The answer is simple: because men desire to rule women as a consequence of sin and no longer love their wives the way humans were created to love—unselfishly. In other words, Paul is not advising husbands to exercise authority over their wives; in fact, he is saying the exact opposite. By using the example of the self-sacrificial love of Jesus, Paul guides husbands to forsake their desire to rule over women, and conquer the consequence of sin through mutual submission. By humbly serving their wives the way Jesus served the church, husbands can re-create the beauty of the first moment when Adam saw Eve and rejoiced because he had found his equal partner" (p 78). 

In Ephesians 5, Paul seeks to restore the beauty of the original plan, the one in which servanthood and equality creates oneness. For really, if authority could create "one flesh" oneness, we would still have the law. Jesus would never have died and Knight would happily point to God's authority over Israel as the supreme manifestation of the husband's authority over the wife. But that's not the case. Jesus died, we were freed from the law, and the only obligation we have is to love, for love does that which the law could not; it freed us from sin.