I leave the debate over what constitutes civilities to others... I have no real comments on the Ted Haggard issue, primarily because I believe we are not over the worst of such yet. I think lots more exposure of the church, its leaders and methods, is awaiting us. There will plenty to blog about -especially as we go into the next presidential campaign in earnest. So, in this time, and for this purpose, I want to resume looking at fundamental ideas and views we have which tend to articulate our direction in the culture,and as a culture. Our views of women, our ideals of egalitarianism.
What we think will determine how we act, and the degree of clarity we have will impact our ability to fend off manipulation that is a part of moving large groups to go in specific directions. In other words, the better handle we have on what and how we think the more likely that we act, as individuals and citizens, and saints, in concordance with our core beliefs.
So, in the service of that goal, a look at and discussion of some points in an article that was published 3/29/2006:
"Culture wars: Beware of presuming sameness" by Jonathan Zimmerman.
This is an interesting article on a couple of levels. One, it addresses the presumptions of sides taken on the war in Iraq; two, it looks at the views of the two political camps and the sameness of their modes; and third, it looks at a basic dissension within our culture which some might term egalitarianism versus religion, but which really, is based in the struggle of which religion is to prevail in our thinking. All in one rather short essay which ends with some wise advice. Instead of making all these presumptions and arguing from there... do the footwork of asking the right questions. Here is the context...
By making blanket claims about Iraqi culture, the war's critics place 25 million people in the same conceptual straightjacket..And that brings us back to my young student. I'm not proud of this, but I let her go second. Today, I'd turn her objection into a set of questions. When you say "girls don't go first" in your homeland, what do you mean? Who agrees with this idea? Who doesn't?
Why do Americans continue to deny these differences in the name of culture? Now, more than ever, that's a question we need to ask
In my mind, this whole discussion is not much different than the one in which I began a series of posts concerning 'Women's Place in the Church'. We bring much too much of our cultural presumptions to the table, when actually we should have been laying the groundwork with questions. Where do we get our ideas of freedom and egalitarianism...what defines our idea of "equal", IOW, what do we mean when we say "equal"? Are we recognizing the clash of the cultural ideals in the mix when we say we are giving exegesis of the scriptures? Are we denying the differences that are rooted solely in specific areas? Biological, cultural, ideological/doctrinal.... ? We act as if we are a block of wood rather than a living organism in the Church. Something to carve and press and make into our own image. Instead of finding the image of God within the living, breathing body of the Church.
No wonder there is so much death implemented. There is a place for death...under the victory of the cross, the feet of the risen Truth. Time to place it there.
I have said previously that I looked long and hard at the issue of women, their place, rights and privileges, and I did come to a conclusion of sorts.
I think we should beware of presuming sameness, in the same way it was applied by this author to passing judgment on people of the Middle East and the political issues resident there. In our predicament we have to recognize differences and call into question our own presumptions...on both sides of the issue. My conclusions lead me to believe that we have real egalitarianism that isn't going to go away, and isn't going to be replaced by paper doll traditionalism. I also believe, that we have real foundations in the scriptures to understand that there are hierarchy and authority structures that not only are not going to go away, but if ignored or circumvented leave us without form and structure. Another way to say we cannot stand long without these forms. I hope to write something of larger view on the whole idea of freedom sometime in the future. In fact that is why I waited so long to further the discussion here.
If you read anything of Francis Schaeffer on the whys and wherefores of Western Democratic form of government and ideals of the freedom and dignity of man, then you know there is the conception of "form and freedom". This idea is founded upon the sovereignty of God coupled with the destiny of man to act as a free moral agent under that sovereignty. That is the foundation under the whole system of freedom in our civilization. We have from of structure and authority from God, yet we have a destiny of the free individual within that structure... with dignity and protected freedoms intact.
I submit to you that the answer we have for Women in the Church is no different from that. Our doctrines on government, rights and freedoms should have an internal integrity that extends into the culture and the issues of the culture. When we say that women have a place we are executing a stance that excludes license. No free system may long stand if the individual can do anything, any evil, that is desired and compromise whole portions of the society.... in the same way, women - who do hold God-given freedom and rights in society also have to recognize their responsibilities to interact in a way that supports the necessary foundations of their Church, their family, and their nation. This is going to clarify issues of wide impact in society: the life and care of children, the place and emotional health of men,... it is all interdependent and dynamically synergistic. In simple terms? There is a spiritual egalitarianism and structure that cannot be ignored, at the same time that there is a biological, thus practical, reality that must not be ignored.
The foolish ways of the world, that are presented as wisdom, is that we downplay the spiritual reality while exalting everything of the physical. That materialist view has seeped into our thinking as Christians, and not surprising since the dualism of Gnosticism has been around a long time. We have to recognize that our reality is spiritual living, but in a present physical life. A redeemed physical life.
It is almost a direct invert of the present situation. Women operating in wide freedoms if they are privileged enough, while negating all biological facts is the summation of worldly feminism. The redeemed life is recognizing all the physical facts of life, but with a new understanding of the worth and meaning of each person within the many facets of life: allowing the disenfranchised a place of opportunity and acceptance. Women have a place without negating Men. Doing away with the the world power system of displacement, incorporating a truly inclusive system of mutual respect for each persons importance. This is the difference of modes. Presently we have a mirror of the worlds mode (displacement), but within our own preferred vocabulary. This is creating the dissension of the magnitude which the dueling books, debates, and papers display.
In terms of the quandary where does that leave us? In the camp of the hierarchalists, those who say that the order of authority is 'God, the Man, the Woman', will be challenged to implement the freedom, dignity, and the safeguards of God's egalitarianism within the body of His Church. The camp of egalitarianism is challenged to recognize the form that gives structure to a true implementation of freedom... and recognizing biological realities of sexual difference and how that impacts role.
We have presumed so much either/or that our debate has settled into opposing camps that have only parts of the truth and are in no hurry to arrive at truth if it threatens their derived culture. In the meantime, the lost ground is having viable gospel truth to apply to the outside culture, a culture that is dying and struggling and lost. Abortions, broken families, damaged youth, dismantled society- war within and war without.
For women, if ideas of freedom and equality come from God, then why are they not implemented in the Church...how is it that women who run corporations are asked to park their ability and authority at the door? How is it that women of the church are not asked to recognize their biological realities? and this goes for the traditionalists in spades. You traditionalists ask women to keep at home and have children...but who engines all your programs? Who burns their candles at both ends to keep your many services going? Who is it that collapses under the weight of all your endless demands for service while feeling guilty about asking for any support and relief? Your women- your childbearing, family glue, husband serving, women. Why do you promote the view of a superwoman that is no different from the egalitarian myths, just with different requirements and restrictions...but all with an outcome neither full of godliness, nor workable?
There is inequity on both sides.
You will likely not appreciate my summation:
The reality for women is that they can do all they are allowed to do...by men.
That men are in control can be readily seen in any Islamic, Muslim-controlled country in the world. It is no different in our own culture, just harder to see. Why do women fight for rights? isn't it to obtain permission from men to have the place they are demanding...for men to step aside? And when men do, then women have that privilege of place, but when men don't.... then women suffer the consequence. This is the reality.
Egalitarianism is always founded within what is God given - above the peer demand system. An appeal to God gives women the dignity they were born to have even as it is articulated in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of our nation.
Feminism of the world is doomed: the more the concept of equality is removed from the idea of the higher purpose of mankind, the more vulnerable the state of women and their children ( isolated as they become from the roles and purposes of males) . As soon as men recognize only the right of force.... then women lose. This is true for traditionalists, as well as egalitarians. Only when love and respect for the person becomes preeminent is there a climate of growth and nurture for rights and privilege within the culture.
And isn't that core within the gospel? Isn't that the restoration of relationship with God through the blood of Christ? We are called to recognize the great love that God has for the individual by recognizing the authority of Him alone, and His sole ability to restore the individual. We have to honor the authority, but with God that includes the action of love and respect that knows no privilege of place. We cannot escape the give and take of the Kingdom of God, if we are to live out the right doctrines of the Kingdom of God. So both sides, egalitarians and traditionalists, will have to give ground on this issue, I believe, if there is to be a unity within the truth of the scriptures. We will have to forsake what is essentially a preference for culture.
Let God make something new of us.
