In my last post, in the process of submitting ideas that we cannot use arguments of the "natural order" to definitively outline the role of women in the Church, or even all of women's roles in the culture, I was directed to Right Reason's posts,1 and 2, on 'natural law', as that is articulated in philosophical discussions. I would not argue with his statements in their context... and have not, in my own discussions. What I have done, and continue now, is discuss the limitations of such in the context of the New Testament revelation of a new creation which is being instituted through Christ Jesus.
I think we have to be careful not to conflate. Natural law theory as defined in his post argues the validity of "whether anything like the teleological conception of nature that the traditional natural law theory rested on is plausible".
Obviously when one reads the epistles of Paul we find that this is one way we have of determining truth in that area, because Paul uses it. But unlike St. Paul's careful use, I am saying that it is wrested in such a way by those arguing for their forms of traditional "hierarchial " or “complementarian” view that it is not only not useful, but it is dangerously close to - if not in fact- contradicting the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In ways, that I am arguing here, it can be found to make us subject again to "weak and beggarly elements". Natural Law outlines natural things... and does not always outline spiritual things, although there are things to be found answerable in each.
The most vulnerable place for conflation between the spiritual truth and the theory of natural law is in the ideas we have of authority. This is exactly the place where we are most at war in the church on the roles of women. The many times Paul is brought forth in chastising women is in this area of taking authority over men. I can find many reasons to uphold the wisdom of this, and it is a good place for the natural law theory to be applied, but we are in dire trouble when we start to apply that in our restriction of women's roles. We are invariably restricting them beyond the place that scripture does.
Natural law theory would lead us to believe that women are meant to bear children. But not all women are, what does this have to say about single women, for instance? Are they in direct disobedience to God's plan for them...as it could be teleologically defined? Just because people can reproduce is not a mandate that they must reproduce, however we can see the blessing in reproduction as God defines it and as it is confirmed in the natural order of creation. We just can't read back into it in rigid ways. There are cases where natural laws as read from physical reality is not applicable en Toto to a moral standard. It guides our thinking, which must then find its final answer within the expression of the Logos.
In the arguments concerning the correct roles of women we are often directed back to the creation, this on the authority of Paul. But one thing overlooked is the fact that woman was created as a "helpmeet" and domination of the type seen in what we know of the world through our culture is something resulting from the fall. In fact, in measures of authority we see an increase of domination as we go further from God's original plan. The whole concept of a king for Israel led to a greater restriction and burden of authority upon men than God would have desired. Yet, kings are seen as a natural form of authority, given divine imprimatur. This is true because all authority comes ultimately from God, but not all authority is sanctioned to rule as it does. You won't get much teaching on this from the teleological. And in modern days when Darwin's theories are widely held you are likely to lose all sense of God's original purposes.
So where do we find the reinstitution of understanding of what it is that God has meant through the message of the natural? Ah Christian, this is found in the gospel, and in the gospel we are told that "you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free". We are seeing the insertion of the importance of freedom right here. The results of truth are freedom, and this is what we are missing in a wholly "natural law" form of thinking and reasoning. Further, we have to remember that Jesus turned upside down man's concept of authority. He said that those who serve are the ones that are following the path of the Master. There must be a solid basis for understanding that concept of authority that serves instead of lording over those in their care in order to consolidate the practice of proper authority and order as it is found under the New Covenant. You won't find that in the natural order theories, in their standalone state. They must be married to ideals of freedom and significance as outlined by the gospel. Iterated by Paul: there is no female or male in Christ...we aren't seen or judged on that basis, our place in the Kingdom is not defined by our natural bodies. But we do still live on the earth where lots of things are.
And that is where I find Paul outlining with carefulness how our freedom in Christ should not subvert the order which gives form to many of our most important physical institutions. Such as family, and recognition of how God delegates His authority ( because in the final account it all belongs to Him) throughout His creation. And now I get back to what I did see, but which must be mollified by what God has shown us through Christ: men rule, and women are given what authority they have through them. So if the men in Church are convinced that women, by virtue of the gifts that God has given them, are to have a place in ministry, then they will be free to fulfill their potential as members of Christ's body. Women ...indeed no person can demand that they have specific places in the Church. Those are given through the call of God, but women are not to take their place at the expense of men. And it is this process of "expense" that I see in the worldly culture of feminism. This is why we have to have a recognition of the men in a place of authority- a sort of "the buck stops here" line of decision and command in an orderly way. Yet, we constantly see where delegation of authority is not only allowed, but necessary. And this is where women have a place. If your church structure fixes a point at which women may not pass, it is capable of doing that, but I would stop far short of saying it is mandated to do that. If a woman has a calling on her life that her particular Church body will not allow her to fulfill, then she ought to prayerfully seek whether she should depart from that and attend one that allows a place for her ministry- this will be within the parameters of counsel and -if she is married- her husband. And it is my opinion that the wastefulness of the potential of so many of God's Sons in female earthsuits is going to be called into account.
The highest expression of authority in the church is through a relationship of mutuality. In no way does this change the structure, but in all ways it does change the function.
think about that.
To summarize my premise, I am saying that in Christ we have a truly new creation and new order, but that we must continue to live and function in this present world in our mortal bodies that have gender identity and purposes, but that those do not supercede the reality of the new, spiritual lives we are given. This works out to a system of mutual service in the Church whereby women, though still female and still in experiencing the vulnerabilities of reproduction (needing protection and nurture as they are in pregnancy, child birthing, and child raising capacities), yet are capable of functioning in the Church as leadership in all the ways evidenced in the New Testament and Old.
Practically speaking, if a woman is married and has children and her husband supports her and in all ways sanctions her place in public service or some sort ( a job, a place of leadership, a minister of the gospel) then she has freedom to explore all the potential of those vocations. It should be recognized that women have real limitations in career and ministry choices if she is not supported by the men surrounding her specific chosen roles. A woman pastor who cannot pastor the men in her church because they don't accept her is not capable of fulfilling her duties to build that part of the church. A woman who has a career that is destroying her family life can't fully function, but if those around her are supportive and work together to build a family while she has a career.... then she is fully able to function in that way.
We need to get our eyes off the "do's and don’ts " for women and, instead, see the outcomes within the parameters of the gospel. Those are not teleologically determined, they are spiritually determined within the framework of relationship.
~~~~~~~~~~~~//~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are some of the problems as I see them:
- Bringing up one of the triggers for this discussion: should women blog -at least in such a way that it might be implicated that men are receiving teaching throught that woman?
- using a "natural law" or teleological view, does a woman's reproductive reality mean that being female or having babies precludes the ability to talk on topics other than nutrition and housecleaning ( not demeaning those, just outlining the allowed topics) and only in the company of other women? Does speaking on a topic mean the same thing as taking over authority? what is the extrapolation of that thought?
- How do we divide Church life and "real life" ( the way I see it viewed in the conversation)or practical life? Women can lead men in the boardroom, they can appear in the media giving leadership in opinion-making in a secular sense, but must park it at "God's door"...as if God were only found in the confines of the Church?
- You would think if something were a component of "natural law" that it would have a logical form of application. It is not logical to allow for women to have leadership roles -where they may be found to lead men in one instance, but none in another upon arbitrary rulings. Example: in scripture there are women who are called "prophetesses", whether this is an office or not, it does mean that they handled the communications of God to their fellows-including men. They functioned in that way. How is this something that follows a teleological path? So now, te arbitrary rules in some bodies are that women must not...blog...for fear of influencing the minds of men? Of usurping some role? Throughout the use of authority is the concept of delegation of power. If men choose to delegate to a woman the right to function as deacon in the Church... as happened in the early Church, why do we protest that today in saying women cannot be ministers of the gospel. Perhaps pastoral care is to be patriarchal, but what about the rest of the ministry? And do we have some twisted version of the pastor holding all duties and gifts, separated from the spiritually impoverished "laity"? How does that line up teleologically? "A" dominant Christian men? it asks the question in y mind then, what happened to God and Christ as the head of the Church in all this? Can the Lord not give spiritual gifts to women? And if He does, how are they to function with those in the Chruch if they are out of line once men "hear" them? Is this what was meant by women keeping silence? There is no cohesion and order in such thinking. It has to mean something else if you allow for large portions of the examples in the scriptures. Either that or for some reason that everything is silent upon, women are now simply shut down from perating in this way in the Church.
- A reliance on natural law theory has a tendency to become humanism. "The power of the sovereign is absolute in the sense that there cannot be any greater power to limit it, because the sovereign already forms "the terminus ultimus of the forces of all the citizens together" -Thomas Hobbes(De Cive VI.13). The power is indivisible (Lev II.18; H 93), which it must be as it consists of one unified will." Hobbes, Conatus and the Prisoner's Dilemma, by Juhani Pietarinen
- A natural conception of morality rising from physical attributes will necessarily degrade to a materialistic philosophical view, so even if we want to say " God made it thus" we negate the future action of God to make another way. Tthis, in fact, is exactly what I believe is being expressed by Paul in the revelation that there is no amle or female in Christ. It forces us to recognize the Sovereignty of God in revealing the new creation in Christ. None of our former hindrances or limitations mean anything in God's economy, in Him all we lacked is filled. This created a mutuality and a final dependence upon Christ in God... and this is what I beleive the "headship" connotates. If we don't see this, the problem arises in our confusion over servanthood and oversight. we tend to mimic the world's interpretations.
