I have found both sides of the argument concerning gender relations lacking; at least those who are vocal under the headings of complementarian and egalitarian, as represented in my reading experience with the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Council for Biblical Equality. Complementarians say that men and women are equal in nature but different in roles. Egalitarians say that men and women are equal, period. Both of them point to the relationships between the persons of the Trinity, primarily the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. These intra-trinitarian (within the Trinity) relationships provide the foundation for their arguments.
Within this debate, neither side seems to be talking to the other. The complementarians (henceforth C) accuse the egalitarians (henceforth E) of wanting to erase all lines between gender and claim the disastrous consequences will be the breakdown of all of society. The E accuse the C of oppressive patriarchy rooted in the initial breakdown of society, the Fall. Both sides quibble over the exact meaning of particular words. Both sides claim the absolute clarity of scripture as well as the nuance of meaning and circumstance, but only when it serves either of their arguments. Both call the other inconsistent and accuse the other of mishandling scripture, which is a high insult to any theologian. As I have read both sides, I have only felt ripped to shreds by their claws as they simply beat the air.
Their logic seems sound, but that does not mean their premise is.
The issue that troubles me deeply is that both sides misuse the very nature of God because both sides root their arguments in intra-trinitarian relations. Using the relationship between the persons of the Trinity as a model for human relationships is the wrong place to start. This is a very new development in Christian history. However, lopping the branches of the gender debate from their trinitarian roots puts us in a predicament of sorts. What, then, do we base gender relations upon? I have found a better starting place in the writings of the early church fathers. Their words drip with a humility overlaid with rhapsodic worship. Intra-trinitarian relations remained inside the mystery behind the veil for them. All this theological work might be exciting for those geared toward contemplation of the divine mystery; however, I still have to live in the world as it is for now. This leads to the crossroads to which I referred in my last post.
The dark, fruitless path seems to lead me to push hard for women’s ordination perhaps, doing things openly or subversively to fight against “the system.” The other path, fraught with peril, seems to ask that I keep my head down and mouth shut in submission to the powers that be. Neither of these seem like ways I want to walk in the world.
I realize that I have again found myself facing an either/or situation, just like I had with the either/or between C and E. I bet there is a way forward that I just haven’t seen yet. In the meantime though, what do I do?
The only thing I can think of right now is “Be a faithful steward.”
This way requires a great deal of wisdom I don’t think I have yet. This path is marked by understanding nuance and loving complicated people. And…being loved by them.
I hope to follow this post with some thoughts that have guided me the past few years as I search for the as-yet-unseen way forward.
Comments