In the "things that happen" category the former post, "Continued Conversation on Authority and Freedom", was lost, but thanks to Google I can repost it with the comments section inside the post. Sorry for the inconvenience.
It is probably one of the longer conversations I've had online in awhile.
Sue of Suzanne's Bookshelf gets the old gray matter working overtime in the discussion of women in the church, authority and freedom, gender issues, etc,
Sue was saying:
I was brought up in the Brethren, no clergy, no elders, no other hierarchy except that women were silent. There was no teaching on either leadership or authority, since the leading of the Spirit was all sufficient. I won't say that it worked well, but ALMOST as well as any other authority structure that I see in a church.
I must come across as rather dense, but clearly we don't share a common view on authority. I believe we need governance, but if the governors are dependent on the populace for keeping them in place, there is a form of mutuality, and hierarchy is rotating and contains the notion of responsible government, so responsiveness and responsibility. We need responsible government and not authoritarian government.
There is a great deal said about those in authority in the NT and the authorities seem to be worldly or earthly authorities. We are told to submit to these authorities, but, historically they have been vastly transformed by Christians. As marriage should be also.
Must we shame and lambaste men, denying them any say over their families or in the Church?
Why should fathers have more say over their families than mothers? I am not following this. Why should men have more say in church than women? Should men have more votes than women, or more civil rights? I am missing something.
I do not understand exactly what position you are arguing for. Clearly there is some kind of cultural gap. Whether because I am "post modern" or reared in an antiquated church and family structure, or because I live in another country, I don't really know.
My answer:
Ilona:
I'm not saying you are post modern, I 'm saying that post modern philosophy characteristically reduces everything to semantics, and that antithetical analysis is more in keeping with the manner of thinking displayed in the pages of scripture. Meaning is attached to the words, but there is more in our doctrines than mere words (and no empty context placeholders as is found in plenty of modern thinking). When we Christians say "God" we mean someone by it, when we say "authority" we have a whole body of context in the scriptures that forms the meaning of the concept.
"I believe we need governance"
To begin answering some of your own questions there is a "why" underneath this statement. Why do we need governance, Sue?
I do think we need to differentiate between the structure and form of God's Kingdom, as outlined in the New Testament, and the secular form of Representative democracy. They aren't interchangeable. Just because our US Government is of one form does not translate into that form being the one instituted by God in His Kingdom. The very fact we use a word like "Kingdom" is problematical if you try to equate the two.
I believe we borrowed many important principles from the bible in the formation of our Democratic system... but it isn't a theocracy, and the Kingdom of God most certainly is. God doesn't rule by majority vote, and to imply that this is the way of the Church is simply baseless . Mutuality is not the same as majority rule or democracy. There is form and there is function. Mutuality is a type of functioning... Representative democracy is a type of form.
If we abide by earthly authorities, how much more spiritually invested ones? The question is which ones and how do they function, and how are we to relate together? If you look at it a different way.... isn't it the importation of earthly forms of dominance the trouble with the traditionist/complementarian teachings and practice? Isn't that wrong? Why should we import another earthly system and then smack a "spiritual" imprimatur upon it? Just as wrong- because it is not true to the institution of Christ at the head of the Church. this ought to be discussed in detail, but I'm moving on...
"Why should fathers have more say over their families than mothers?"
Turn that around. Why should mothers have more say than fathers? Now, when there has to be a deciding vote, who gets it, and why? Do you have a system for that? One that creates order and reflects submission to God?
I was in the "Church of Christ" instrumentalist for awhile. They, too, claim no hierarchy, but let's face the truth: there was hierarchy. There has to be... or things don't function. Just because it is de facto rather than de jure just makes it more arbitrary.
"the leading of the Spirit"
You are talking to a "Charismatic" here. I know the claims of "the leading of the Spirit" and how that needs to be firmly anchored to the rule of scripture. The solas work in understanding this....
If you don't, you have a disorderly environment with very off the wall things....
So we end up back to the form that the NT scriptures are outlining for us.
"Should men have more votes than women, or more civil rights?"
This is a different system and a different topic. Are you going to appeal to God for your civil rights? Or are you going to appeal to His grace and mercy? And which has been the source of your gifts and callings in the first place?
The gap is between where our culture is going and where the body of Christ is going... there is a great divide between the two. If we belong to the body we are flowing to a different destination and with a different landscape than that of the culture- no matter how close they seem at some junctures.
I prefer the freedom in Christ.
It is the promised freedom of this world's systems...even the best of them that is unsecured and dependent on the whims of men. That is why we have to be vigilant in the political system of this country. We have to think the worst and understand that those freedoms are fragile.
The freedom given by the Spirit of God operates through the revelation of truth. So no matter how high sounding our rationales may be, if not grounded in the proper way they should be formed and functioning... we won't experience true freedom.
I support your stance for understanding the importance of honoring and treating each other with respect and dignity: this is foundational to the gospel. But your views on the forms that best serve it I can't agree with. Not at this point in the conversation, in how I understand you.
"because I live in another country"
This part I don't know... which country do you live in? UK?
========
to which Sue replied:
I live in Canada. Somehow, our very notions of authority are vastly different but I can't pin down why. I am trying to figure it out. Turn that around. Why should mothers have more say than fathers? Now, when there has to be a deciding vote, who gets it, and why? Do you have a system for that? One that creates order and reflects submission to God? My parents had 8 children, they were traditional and my mother was at home with the children. I remember one occasion only in 50 years where my dad cast a "deciding" vote, but this was an issue relating only to the church and not to the home. I still don't agree that he should have had a vote at church while my mother had no say. However, in the home, I do not recall any time ever where he outvoted her or where that was needed. They simply made decisions in a civilized way through discussion. The "man needs the deciding vote" argument is, to me, a complete red herring. On issues of authority, I see you as defending an authoritarian governance structure in the church, but I don't know what you are basing this on. (1 reply)
good questions... which we can continue in the comments in this post- Anyone : feel free to chime in at any time.
Posted by Ilona at July 20, 2008 5:01 PM Theology
The former comments follow:
Beginning with my comment
Sorry for the distraction.
Canuck,eh?
I don't think that "our very notions of authority are vastly different". We both believe in the Sovereignty of God, yes? That would create a common base. We are talking about authority there.
"I still don't agree that he should have had a vote at church while my mother had no say."
If I did not say this before, I want to clearly state that I don't think this is the true pattern of the NT Church. I believe that there is delegated authority in the Church and that women hold some of that...not nothing, not everything.
"On issues of authority, I see you as defending an authoritarian governance structure in the church"
Why do you see it this way? I believe that is an exaggerated characterization of my position on the matter. Like saying because I think there should be government I would defend tyranny. I think no such things, actually... and I don't think it must be - should be- painted as a black and white dilemma.
I do not interchange the terms authority and authoritarian. The latter has a connotation of domineering force. Not all authority has that character.
The "man needs the deciding vote" argument is, to me, a complete red herring.
How so? There are certain circumstances where someone needs the deciding vote. What form is given in the scriptures? And does deciding vote mean all the votes, in your mind? IOW, does it cancel out the need for discussion and mutuality for you if there is a decision maker named?
I have looked up a little on the Plymouth Brethren history. They did have an unspoken form of hierarchy: "leading brethren" and some had coalitions of elders. Yours likely did not have this designation, but they all had decision makers for the group. That is how groups function. Their ideas on women are highly problematical, I'd agree.
Posted by: Ilona at July 20, 2008 6:10 PM
Lots of couples and teams of two employees work together without someone having the deciding vote. I have been in many situations like this. Frankly, I don't see the issue being about that. It seems to be about the man having the right to have the wife concede to him whenever he calls it. None of this has any spiritual value, and I do not see this addressed in scripture.
I think I need to see more of your ideas on authority before saying anything else. I certainly do not want to set up a disagreement where there is none. We clearly have a lot in common and there is no point in spoiling that.
Posted by: Sue at July 20, 2008 6:56 PM
"the issue being ...about the man having the right to have the wife concede to him whenever he calls it. None of this has any spiritual value, and I do not see this addressed in scripture."
I think the way I would put this is that there is a glass container, the glass makes for a fixed parameter. You see this glass container getting filled with a deadly and poisonous liquid, while I see that it could be filled with that if someone choose to, but it ought to be, and can be filled with a lifegiving and healthy refreshment.
The authority structure is simply a form, what it gets filled with depends upon a lot of things- but in the case of the church it ought to be, and I believe sincere believers want it to be, filled with the presence and Spirit of Jesus Christ, our lifegiving drink.
There have been times when - like in the days of Elisha[2 Kings 4:38-44], when poison gets thrown in there. You don't smash the glass container because of that... you wash out the poison and get the container ready for its proper contents.
"the man having the right to have the wife concede to him whenever he calls it"
This is not how I see authority as Christ Jesus has articulated it in the Kingdom of God. He has, however, articulated authority's proper actions, attitudes, and purposes; and much of the NT writings are concerned with the application of that.
I believe where we do disagree is that I believe there is a chain of command, while you - and there are many that would agree with you- do not accept this idea. If one has the nature of Christ then many of the fears that people have when the topic of authority comes up simply disappear.the problem is the misappropriation of the name of Christ in cloaking evil. This comes up over and over when dealing with protests against Christianity and against religion, in general. Because of this misuse, would you agree to the disallowing of religion? Of the practice of your faith? Many are calling for that. The same questions apply in this case of recognizing authority, its structure and function.
People fear abuse, rightly so. But when fear is the paradigm then love isn't, and vice versa. To undermine the pylons of God's Kingdom, to say that we have no form of accountability in the name of our fears results in a rejection of God's authority.
One of the primary reasons I see for this order of "headship" ( and I know you dispute much about the use of that word) is the reinstatement of God's original plan for His relationship with mankind. The last Adam showed that God is a Loving Father... and has redemptive purposes even for suffering.
You know, there isn't much room in modern thinking for that last concept, but from where I stand modern thinking hasn't fared too well in producing a humane, peaceful, and healthy way of life. It hasn't produced a salvation in other words.
You are right about the dangers of vulnerability to self-will creeping in, but there has to come a time of maturity and trust in the body of Christ. When that will be i don't know, but I will hold the line on this point of authority and form- it has ramifications far beyond the gender issues.
I have said before...without this foundation you simply cannot argue for any type of ethics or morality in modern mans thinking. You have to hold to there being a standard and that being firmly founded upon the authority of God and what He has given in His Word.
Yes, this makes me uncomfortable as a woman to see this authority structure and know that men of the Church are largely uninformed doctrinally about the equal call upon them to act according to the nature and sacrifice of Christ. But I cannot move from what I know to be of vast foundational importance... and that is that we are answerable to God's authority and that He has invested it in us to do His will on the earth.
One problem I see with ideas of consensus is that God does not give understanding or revelation equally in the same types of gifts or anything else.
And in terms of leadership, a woman can't lead if there is no authority invested in her. How is it invested if there is no structure through which it flows... no channel of affirmation and ordination?
And just a thought that occurred to me here. How do you feel about theological definitions of God as "Mother" or as "Her"? It is relevant in terms of whether a female may be "head" and fulfill the picture that St. Paul describes. At this point I'm just curious about what you think of that.
Posted by: Ilona at July 20, 2008 10:02 PM
I commented here a couple of days ago but I think it has been lost. So the questions remain
1. What kind of authority do leaders have? - authority on behalf of, or over?
2. Should a man have authority over a woman? I have not seen how you argue that.
Posted by: Sue at July 22, 2008 9:07 PM
It is relevant in terms of whether a female may be "head" and fulfill the picture that St. Paul describes. At this point I'm just curious about what you think of that.
What picture does Paul describe?
Posted by: Sue at July 22, 2008 11:20 PM
