The Politics of Sacrifice

I have just guest posted over on the Political Theology blog:

Various myths have been forged to account for the foundation of nations, not only in stories such as those of Romulus and Remus, but also in the famous myths of political philosophy, such as those offered by Hobbes and Locke. Although it might easily go unrecognized in this respect, the narrative of the Passover should be read as another such national foundation myth. It is through the Passover that Israel is constituted as a nation and from it Israel derives its fundamental meaning.

Reading it in such a manner proves instructive: Israel achieves its foundation, not through a contract or compact between its members to ameliorate a violent or uncertain state of nature, but through the divinely instituted ritual of a sacrificial meal within a crucible of apocalyptic judgment. Through this event, the nation of Israel, celebrating in its constituent families, is established as the bearer of a divine meaning—as the firstborn son of YHWH (themes of birth pervade the first half of the book of Exodus).

In Putting Liberalism in Its Place, Paul Kahn observes the blindness of liberalism to the constitutive role played by sacrifice in the establishment of the state. Liberalism’s assumption of a contractarian basis for the state dulls our awareness to the manner in which our politics continue to be shot through with principles of sacrifice, faith, and love. The state presents itself as worthy of sacrifice, as the bearer of an ultimate meaning, worth dying and even killing for. On account of liberalism’s thrall to reason, it has neglected the importance of the will and thereby failed to recognize some of the most powerful forces that animate its own political communities.

Read the entire piece here.

Posted in Exodus, Guest Post, OT, OT Theology, Politics, Society, The Atonement, The Church | Leave a comment

A Biblical Gender Essentialism?

The Fall of Man (1616)—Hendrik Goltzius

In response to my previous post on the importance of a masculine priesthood, someone raised the question of whether, by seeming to ground male-only priesthood upon the association between masculinity and martial virtues, I was risking ‘essentialism’, neglecting to note that some men don’t have the martial virtues and a few women do. Should we just focus upon the virtues instead and, while recognizing the fact that they are more common among men, leave gender out of it? The post that follows is my answer.

The Principles of Liberal Anthropology

Much of this boils down to a question of ‘anthropology’. Anthropology in the liberal (philosophical) tradition—a tradition to which most people in the West subscribe, whether liberal or conservative, whether wittingly or not—has tended to focus upon the individual as the fundamental unit of anthropology and analysis. The liberal individual is conceived of an autonomous and androgynous (economic) agent, without natural relations, lineage, or offspring, who lives according to a clear public-private distinction, the bonds of love and family being treated as private sentimental bonds.

Taking this sort of anthropology as our implicit starting point, any significant qualitative difference between men and women is ruled out at the outset. Whatever differences may exist between men and women are more ‘accidental’ and secondary. The differences that exist register on a functional (or economic) level. Consequently, when we speak of the differences between men and women in our society, our focus is almost exclusively upon gendered tendencies in behaviour (‘men are more aggressive,’ ‘women are more nurturing,’ etc., etc.), which we typically attribute to hormonal or social factors. We recognize, however, that these are far from hard and fast rules, just being general trends, admitting many, many exceptions.

Sex is often conceived of as a sort of spectrum between two poles (which represent extreme ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ tendencies). The sexes themselves are significantly overlapping bell curves on this spectrum. For instance, although I am very comfortable in my masculinity, and fairly obviously so, I am also in touch with my ‘feminine side’—I prefer cooking and knitting over many more ‘masculine’ activities—so I wouldn’t be at the extreme masculine end of the spectrum.

The liberal individual has no sex. However, the liberal individual is not entirely ambivalent when it comes to sex. Liberal anthropology is much more able to deal with humans with male genitalia than it is with humans with wombs. The womb and its implications raise a host of conundrums for liberal anthropology. It presents us with a fundamental form of human encounter that is radically asymmetrical, while liberalism requires a general equivalence of agency between persons with which to sustain its more transactional model of human interactions. It involves a deep bodily connection between two persons, one that isn’t ultimately founded upon choice. It involves a sort of relation that is a possibility exclusive to half of the human race. It is also a relation from which every human being walking the planet has come into existence. This punctures the notion of human beings as merely beings who interact externally, presenting us with participation or coinherence as a primal human reality. It also brings the child into the frame, and the child has always presented liberal anthropology with problems, as it doesn’t display the required level of autonomy, being highly dependent and highly defined by unchosen bonds of relation. Liberal anthropology and the political and social systems formed out of it have thus always been biased towards adult males.

Assuming some sort of framework along these lines for our analysis, something such as the martial virtues would seem to be situated far to the masculine end of the spectrum. However, while the bell curve of male individuals will have many persons within the range of the prominent expression of these traits, clearly not all men possess these traits. Also, while the vast majority of women in the bell curve of female individuals will not be situated in the range of these traits, a not insignificant number will. To deny this clear empirical fact is to be guilty of ‘essentialism’, and arbitrarily to split what is actually a spectrum into two distinct and contrasted halves.

The Principles of Biblical Anthropology

Biblical anthropology works according to radically contrasting principles. While liberal anthropology starts with detached individuals and their tendencies as autonomous agents, biblical anthropology starts with persons in relation. While liberal anthropology starts with individuals as autonomous (economic) agents relating through external transactions and interactions, biblical anthropology’s account of humanity is one in which we are deeply connected by bonds that run deeper than choice. Liberal anthropology rests upon the fundamental equivalence of its agents (interactions and transactions become problematic when there are deep imbalances being the agents that are party to them), with gender and generational differences being rendered secondary, matters of relative in-difference. Within biblical anthropology these differences go all of the way down.

Biblical anthropology is framed by four integrated dimensions:

  1. Humanity is a kind. We are a species of creature created in the image of God—‘God created man in his image…’
  1. Humanity is unified as a corporate personality. Humanity is a unity in which the group can be summed up in a single representative person and the group and its members participate in that person’s identity and destiny. The unity of humanity isn’t merely in being of a single species. There is an interchange between the group as a whole and the representative person within whom they are summed up. The primary representative persons are Adam and Christ, although the general logic of corporate personality also extends to persons such as Abraham and David and even to more general familial relations. The human race is originally summed up in Adam—‘…in the image of God he created him…’
  1. Humanity is sexually dimorphic. There are two kinds of human beings—two halves of the human race—and the difference and relation between these two kinds of human beings is integral to the identity and telos of humanity. Neither sex is sufficient by itself, nor is the difference between them a matter of indifference to our being in the image of God. No other human difference is accorded this level of significance: this isn’t just a celebration of some generic ‘diversity’. The sexes aren’t interchangeable, nor is either dispensable. Persons are naturally born as one sex or the other. Only together will we fulfil the identity and destiny of humanity—‘…male and female he created them.’
  1. Humanity is a race. Humanity is a multitude, not just the corporate person Adam, or the sexual pair of Adam and Eve. This multitude is formed, not just as a host of individuals of the same kind, like widgets on an assembly line, but through natural generation, as a race. We are born with a particular lineage and as bearers of a legacy. We are a particular node on a family tree. We take up our position within the passage of the generations, within a particular matrix of relations, being conceived within and as a union between our parents, passing on a legacy to our own children in turn.

One of the things that understanding these four dimensions of biblical anthropology makes clear is that each of us occupies a particular relational position within the human race, a position that is ours alone. The human race is not an amorphous mass of individual persons with indifferent differences, but a unified race, with an established form to its relations. Each one of us—as either male or female—is one of a distinct kind of relational being, apt for forming relationships in a particular way.

Sexual Difference

As I have already argued, liberal anthropology treats us all as detached individuals, viewing sexual difference chiefly as a set of probabilistic differences between two classes of individuals, differences that are registered—when they exist—principally at the level of behaviour. There is nothing ‘essential’ about these differences and no way to draw a clear division between two kinds of human persons. In contrast to this, biblical anthropology presents sexual difference as a difference between two kinds of human persons, a difference made known through relation. It is a difference between the way that we fit into the fundamental relational matrix of the human race, a relational matrix that is focused, not upon external interactions, but upon the relations between the sexes and the relations between mothers and fathers and their offspring. This difference goes all of the way down and inflects and colours everything that we do.

This difference is an ‘essential’ one. Biblical anthropology has no need to deny significant overlaps in behaviour or other characteristics—we should expect such overlaps: we are ‘neighbouring’ sexes, not ‘opposite’ ones. It is founded upon something deeper than such features. The essential difference between male and female—a difference that applies to each and every male and female—is that males are the type of relational being that is potentially a husband and father and females are the type of relational being that is potentially a wife and mother.

The unmarried and childless are no exception to this. We are all potentially fathers or mothers, even if we never do marry and have children. And, as J. Budziszewski argues in his book, On the Meaning of Sex, we are still potentially fathers or mothers, even if it is physically impossible for us to bear children. It is not tragic that I will never be a mother, precisely because I am not a woman and, therefore, not a potential mother. The same is not true of the infertile woman: it is tragic that she is prevented from becoming a biological mother because, as a woman, she is a potential mother (as we shall see, this doesn’t prevent her from realizing her motherhood in other ways).

Moderns, inclined to view sexual relations as some sort of private activity that fundamentally androgynous individuals engage in on the side, may wish to restrict the idea of potential motherhood and fatherhood to the ‘private’ reality of procreation. By contrast, biblical anthropology appreciates that the most constitutive relations of human identity are not found in the transacting and interacting of autonomous individuals. Rather, in the natural union of husband and wife, in the conception and bearing of the child, and in the identities of mother and father, it recognizes a symbol and disclosure of what male and female are at root. The man’s identity is realized in being a husband and father; the woman’s identity is realized in being a wife and mother.

Being a husband and father needn’t entail marrying and having children, as one could be a spiritual father, for instance. Marriage and parenthood help to disclose what it means for us to be male and female, but should not be presumed to comprehend the full reality and purpose of sexual identity. What are disclosed are distinct and characteristic forms of relation and action.

Female Identity

A wife and mother bears her husband’s child in her body. Her body is a site of communion and a place where communion is formed. In contrast to a mother, a father’s body is separated from that of his child, and the bond that he has with his child is one that is formed through his wife. The Scripture teaches that, in marriage, a man is joined to his wife (Genesis 2:24). The directionality of this relation is significant. Both marital relations and procreation occur within the woman’s body and outside of the man’s. Men are detached beings in a way that women are not: women are beings created to establish the internal bonds of society. God answered the problem of Adam’s aloneness by creating a human being specifically formed for establishing communion. Had God created other man as company for Adam, Adam could have enjoyed pleasant external interactions, but would never have known the rich web of communion and relationship that is brought about through the woman.

While the womb is erased within liberal anthropology, the womb plays a constitutive role within the framework of biblical anthropology. Indeed, one could refer to women as ‘womb-men’: women are that mode of humanity whose relational orientation is revealed through the possession of a womb.

Every woman is associated with this mode of personhood. This is because every woman is a potential mother. The vast majority of women will also become actual mothers at some point in their lives, which strengthens the connection. Furthermore, whether or not a woman will become a mother in her lifetime, the pattern of maternal identity is already expressed in the very form of her body. While male bodies are externally directed, towards the performance of a particular sexual act that is of relatively brief duration, the form of female bodies markedly differs. A woman’s body is internally directed, ordered towards the bearing and nursing of the children of her union with her husband. Her body bears the form and reminders of this orientation, in its menstrual cycle, breasts, and even in the internal character of its reproductive organs. As a result of this, the body—its appearance, its cycles, whether or not it has known sexual relations, its bearing of children, etc.—will always tend to play a particularly prominent role in the grammar of female identity. Along with an orientation to a particular mode of relating to other persons, each sex possesses a distinct mode of self-relation.

These orientations are not just orientations towards acts of little consequence, but are orientations that establish the form of our most basic and intimate personal relations. They determine the way that we participate in the most constitutive of human relations, relations within which we realize the purpose of our sex and enter into new bonds with other bodies. They also frame our relationship with our own identity. Every woman is constituted by and symbolizes this mode of relation. She relates to others and others relate to her as the sort of person—not just body—who symbolizes and forms the bonds of internal communion.

Male Identity

A man’s most fundamental orientation is to relate to other persons externally. A man will never directly experience the unique mode of human encounter involved in knowing in his own body the growing presence of something that is physically and personally other from himself, for instance. A man’s telos is not realized in himself, but involves movement beyond himself to relate to the woman, in whom the bonds of marriage and parenthood are formed. Where the grammar of female identity will involve a particular focus upon the body, the grammar of male identity will often tend to place its accent upon the man’s agency and the indicators of his aptness for it—physical strength, social status, wealth, intelligence, virility, etc.

The woman’s bond to her child is first forged in the profound mode of encounter that is pregnancy and later strengthened through nursing. The personal connection between the mother and her biological child is rooted and forged in a deeply physical one, a connection that is given by nature, in which the child directly participates in the life of its mother. By contrast, by biology, men are no more than inseminators. While the child bears its father’s genes, the man’s personal bond to his child is either fulfilled or abdicated by his active commitment and presence to it and its mother.

Women symbolize the internal orientation involved in motherhood, establishing and representing communion. While liberal anthropology presents us all as detached and autonomous individuals, every woman is the sort of being that was created to be intimately and internally bonded to others. When relating to women, we are relating to those who represent and symbolize the deep and intimate bonds that lie at the root of every human society and existence, including our own. On account of this, we generally relate to women in a gentler manner than we do to men.

Men, in contrast, do not symbolize such intimate human relations and the grammar of their identity places an accent upon demonstration of agency. Becoming and being a man depends less upon our bodies than upon our actions (this definitely doesn’t mean that the body plays no role: just as agency will play an important part in women’s identities, so the body will play a role in men’s). Men have to prove themselves to a degree that women don’t (this, incidentally, is one reason why male identity is much more fragile than female identity). The external and agentic emphasis of male identity encourages our interactions to be rougher and more agonistic in character. We also stand over against other persons in a way that women can’t. No union is formed or represented in us. In relating to men, we relate to persons in a more detached form. As men stand primarily for themselves as individuals, not symbolizing more intimate connections between persons, we place more of an expectation upon them to stand up for themselves, and don’t feel the same strength of an urge to protect them.

Secondary Sexual Characteristics, Tendencies, and the Virtues

It is upon the foundation of essential sexual difference that secondary sexual characteristics, different behavioural tendencies of the sexes, and gendered virtues arise.

The shadow of these deep orientations is seen in the vast array of probabilistic differences in behaviour and characteristics that constitute the set of family resemblances of each sex. As male identity is outward oriented and more rooted in agency, it should not surprise us, for instance, to see that men are physically stronger and their behaviours and values typically far more apt for the creation of power relations. Conversely, the deeper structure of female identity can be reflected in those characteristics and values that generally make women more motivated towards and gifted in the formation of intimate relations. These sorts of differences—the only differences that liberal anthropology would register (and typically with some reluctance)—should all be related to the more fundamental and essential differences between men and women, the differences that render them two distinct kinds of human relational beings.

Gendered virtues are also best understood in such a framework. Many are inclined to think of gendered virtues in an oppositional manner, as if speaking of a ‘masculine virtue’ implicitly meant that it were not a ‘feminine’ virtue. This is unhelpful. Gendered virtues should rather be understood as those virtues that enable us to live as the sort of distinct symbolic and relational beings that we are.

Any particular virtue will typically be a virtue for both sexes. However, each sex will inflect the virtues in its own particular way. Also, certain virtues are especially associated with one sex or the other, being more integral to the outworking of one particular form of symbolic and relational identity. The martial virtues, for example, are particularly male in character. As virtues associated with aptitude for engagement in external conflict, they clearly relate primarily to male identity. They are not without any place or analogue in the constellation of feminine virtues, but they are much dimmer by comparison with others. The masculine form of the martial virtues, which may dignify a man’s nature, may not confer the same honour upon a woman’s. Were a woman to seek to develop martial virtues in the same way as a man, she would diminish the glory of her femininity.

There is not only one form that the virtuous living out of a gendered identity can take. There are many different forms of masculinity that can provide praiseworthy and beautiful expressions of the male mode of relational personhood. The association of masculinity with machismo in certain Christian quarters is deeply regrettable, not least on account of machismo’s characteristic adolescent quality. One doesn’t need to be a pugilist to be a man, nor need one be quiet and reserved to be a woman. Biblical masculinity and femininity afford us a broad palette from which each of us can develop a rich and virtuous expression of masculinity or femininity that is also distinctively our own.

Just as such a ‘masculinization’ of women is no cause for praise, so the ‘feminization’ of men is rightly considered a matter of shame. This isn’t because women are less than men, but rather because those traits and behaviours in which a woman’s symbolic and relational identity is most gloriously and fully expressed can be traits and behaviours that stifle or distort that of a man.

Those adhering to liberal anthropology can be resistant to the idea of gendered virtues. The idea of gendered virtues seems to suggest an arbitrary division being drawn in the spectrum of human behaviours. Different behaviours are apportioned to one side or other of the gender divide, based merely on a probabilistic account of their association with each sex. A loosely descriptive account of tendencies in gendered behaviours is then reinvented and imposed as prescriptive ‘gender norms’.

Of course, the difference between our account and that of liberal anthropology is that we have grounded our gender identities in the essential difference between two modes of symbolic and relational being. Liberal anthropology is also inclined to do what it can to minimize sexual difference, practically seeking to reduce it to the theoretical indifference that it accords to it. As I have already noted, though, liberal anthropology is weighted in the favour of masculine identity. As a result, a liberal social programme will tend to push much harder against women’s identities, seeking to suppress their bodily cycles, to prevent conception, killing their unborn children, and driving them into more external and agonistic modes of relation. By contrast, biblical anthropology celebrates and accentuates sexual difference. Our identities as male and female—as contrasting modes of relational beings in committed union and mutual service—are to be explored, enjoyed, elaborated, and extensively expressed.

Male and Female Identities and Priesthood

Finally, to return to the subject of priesthood, the matter with which my previous post was occupied.

My previous post could have left some readers with the mistaken impression that male-only priesthood rests upon the probabilistic association of the martial virtues with males, as these virtues are more likely to be found in men. In this post, I hope that I have provided the foundation for a clearer account. The connection of the priesthood with men arises primarily from the connection of priesthood with the male form of relational personhood. It is also associated with expressions of that form of relational personhood within which the martial virtues are particularly pronounced. Many men, among whom I include myself, have not developed the martial virtues to any great extent (this is one of the main reasons why I have not sought to go into pastoral ministry). As noted above, there is plenty of room for variation in forms of virtuous masculinity. Few of us are equipped to be priests of churches, but we can exercise priestly style virtues in different sorts of settings.

The connection of priesthood with masculinity can be seen in the very creation of men and women. The man is created first and given the task of serving and guarding the garden sanctuary (Genesis 2:15). As many have recognized, the Garden of Eden is depicted in terms relating it to the tabernacle and temple. Adam’s role is also described using the same terminology used to refer to the role of the Levites in relation to the sanctuary. As priest, Adam is established as God’s household servant. Adam represents his Lord’s authority to the world in which he is placed. He manages and guards his Lord’s household.

He is also called to protect the moral integrity of the realm and persons committed to his charged. God gives the command concerning the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to Adam before Eve was created (2:16-17). It is important to notice that, when the command concerning the Tree is referred to by God in the following chapter, the command is spoken of as something given to and addressing Adam alone (cf. 3:11, 17). Eve rightly believed that the command was also given to her too. As the helper and companion of the appointed priest, she came under the same restriction as he did. However, she only received it second hand through Adam, which is why she could be deceived (notice that the serpent played the information given to her in 1:29, which she had received directly from God, against the information that she had received second hand from Adam). If she had received the command directly, she would have sinned with a high hand. In giving the command to Adam alone, God was underlining his role as the priestly guardian, the one charged with establishing and guarding his moral boundaries, through teaching and upholding his authority. In all of this, we can say that the priestly task is related to the male form of identity, rather than the female form of identity, from the outset.

Why might the male form of identity be connected with priesthood in such a manner? The answer, I believe, lies in the way that God created male identity as an identity that stands over against others. The female form of identity symbolizes and is expressed in the intimate physical bonds that we all arise from. It symbolizes the inner relations and communion of a family or society. Male identity is particularly apt for symbolizing God’s authority, because it is able to symbolize the gap that exists between God and his creation. God is not our mother, nor are we brought forth from God’s womb. Rather, God stands over against us, creating us through ‘external’ action and relating to us through law and covenant. When women symbolize God’s authority in the Church, this paternal symbolism is displaced by a maternal symbolism within which God no longer stands over against his creation. Much distortion arises as a result of this. It should not surprise us that people’s willingness to appoint women to the priesthood or pastorate often relates to troubling shifts in their understanding of God and the character of his relationship to us.

Does this mean that women reflect God’s identity and action in the world in a lesser way than men? Certainly not. For instance, in Genesis 1 and throughout the Scripture, we can see the inseparable association of forming and filling. The first three days of creation are days of forming, naming (no naming occurs after the first three days), and taming. The second three days of creation are days of filling, generation, growth, and establishment of communion and the future. The two sets of days belong together. We see the same sort of relation between the work of Christ and the Spirit. Christ’s work is one of forming, establishing the foundation, fighting, securing power and authority, etc. The Spirit gives life, generating and regenerating, forms communion, brings God’s future, establishes loving bonds, etc. It is impossible to separate Christ and the Spirit. Christ’s very title refers to the fact that he is the Anointed One—anointed by the Spirit. The Spirit is also the Spirit of Christ. You can’t have one without the other.

When God created humanity he gave us a calling that corresponds to his own work. We are to exercise dominion, to tame, to name, to multiply, to fill the world with life, love, and communion, to move forward into the future. This is how we symbolize God’s rule on earth. However, from the very outset, we see that this vocation is ‘membered’. While the vocation is always a shared vocation, within which we must act together, sometimes the man is to the foreground and the woman is supporting him; sometimes the woman is to the foreground and the man is supporting her. At all points we depend upon each other and act on each other’s behalf. All of this applies when we think of the Church’s identity and calling.

The forming, taming, and naming task—the task associated with the first three days, the task associated with the work of Christ—is particularly given to the man. The man is the one especially given the task of naming, of establishing and guarding the boundaries, and serving and taming the ground. The woman, while she assists the man in his calling, finds her chief calling in being the one who addresses Adam’s aloneness, forming communion, establishing the promise of a future, glorifying what Adam starts, and filling what he has formed with life and love. While she cannot represent God’s authoritative relationship to his creation in the manner that Adam can, her calling in relation to the man bears many marked similarities to the work of the Spirit relative to that of Christ. In her unique mode of personhood, the woman is able to symbolize a dimension of God’s creative rule in his world in a way that no man ever could.

As in the case of the forming and filling of the days of creation or the work of Christ and the Spirit, man and woman are inseparable. It is only together that they can truly symbolize and practice God’s creative rule in the world. Neither men nor women can replace each other: their glory is found in the fact that their differences go all of the way down, inflecting and colouring all that they do. In rich and variegated expressions of masculinity and femininity in relation and interaction in our world we see the pattern of God’s own first creation and new creation being extended by the people that he formed in his image.

Posted in Creation, Culture, Ethics, Genesis, OT, OT Theology, Scripture, Sex and Sexuality, Society, Theological, Theology | 6 Comments

Why a Masculine Priesthood is Essential

John Knox Preaching

My thoughts about feminism, equality, and authority have provoked a considerable amount of controversy. Beyond the original discussion that sparked this off (about a month ago now), many comments have been left beneath Andrew’s post. My own post from yesterday is followed by a great deal of detailed engagement with the issues in the comments. Jenny Baker, Hannah Mudge, and Danny Webster have all written posts in answer to my position (I have also left a comment on Danny’s post, to which he has responded). Amidst the outrage in certain quarters, there has been a lot of thoughtful engagement, for which I am very appreciative. Although it is unlikely that we will all end up agreeing, I believe that it is important to understand and engage with other perspectives—especially when articulated by intelligent, experienced, and charitable interlocutors—and that all of us will find our positions sharpened as we participate in the challenge of discourse. Hopefully, the exact location of our differences will also become clearer, perhaps even being broken down to a much less threatening size. Thank you to everyone who has pursued this discussion in this productive and generous manner.

I can understand something of the frustration of those within this debate who believe that I am being slippery or disingenuous, shifting positions to avoid being tied down. While I stand by everything that I have said to this point, I appreciate that it takes a considerable amount of patience to grasp my position. My viewpoint comes into existing complementarian-egalitarian debates at something of an oblique angle. People too easily presume that I am just an apologist for a standard complementarian line (such as one might encounter in the work of John Piper or Wayne Grudem). The result of this is premature judgments and serious mischaracterizations.

While I hold certain things in common with such as Piper and Grudem and my position is definitely complementarian in principle, I have some fairly far-reaching criticisms of complementarianism as most understand it. I believe that it unjustly marginalizes women within the life of the Church and society in many and various ways and tends to devalue them. I believe that women need to exercise far more prominent roles in the life and teaching of the Church, not just as a matter of permission, but as a matter of necessity. I disagree with the typical complementarian emphasis upon hierarchical frameworks for our understanding. I don’t share the understanding of the Trinity that often comes along with it.

On the other hand, I have a far more absolute insistence on male-only priesthood than almost any complementarian. Most complementarians rest their position primarily upon the exegesis of particular biblical passages that directly address the question of women in leadership. My position has much deeper and broader foundations. I believe that opposition to women in priesthood should not merely arise from the interpretation of a few isolated verses, but that it springs up from the very core of biblical anthropology, something that is reaffirmed throughout the biblical narrative. Genesis 1 and 2 are far more central texts for the opposition to women in priesthood than 1 Timothy 2 could ever be. I believe that support for women in priesthood is contrary to scripturally-informed reason and reflection upon reality and society, not just detached Bible verses. I believe that male dominance in power and authority in society isn’t just something biblically authorized or mandated—it isn’t just that women lack permission—but is an inescapable fact that God has established through his creation. Even when egalitarians seek to avoid it, it continues to reassert itself in their midst. I believe that the very tenor of the Christian faith is jeopardized by women priests.

While such statements will doubtless outrage many, I would request that, before people jump to condemnation, they first understand the reasoning underlying this position.

Within this current debate, what many people appear to have missed is that the challenge to the supporters of women in priesthood that I am presenting is rooted in a rejection of the pictures that govern their notions of what priestly leadership is. Most of the debates about women in the priesthood presume that we always know what priesthood is, the only question is whether women are permitted to exercise it. My argument cuts across this, claiming that the debate is generally operating in terms of a radically distorted notion of priesthood and that women are not able to exercise priesthood in the same manner as men—it isn’t just a matter of permission.

Debates about women ‘in leadership’ are fraught by the imprecision of our terminology, and the misleading pictures that implicitly govern our notions of what ‘leadership’ looks like. Near the heart of our problem is the fact that modern paradigms of leadership that are employed within the Church tend to be drawn largely from business, academic, and therapeutic contexts. Consequently, the skills that we look for from our ‘leaders’ are principally academic, management, and counselling skills. Of course, if this is what we are looking for, we will easily find them among women, often to a much greater degree than among men. Women can be incredibly gifted theologians, exegetes, teachers, guides, counsellors, managers, and directors. These skills are incredibly valuable in the life of the Church and should be recognized and affirmed and exercised in the life of it. Contrary to what people might think, at no point have the value and importance of women’s gifting in these areas been denied. However, priestly or pastoral leadership requires something more.

In contrast to much of the Church today, the paradigms of leadership in Scripture tend to be drawn from a more military context. Practically every one of the major figures in Scripture wielded a weapon and shed blood, or took life in other ways. While many want to argue that Jesus is some exception to this, in terms of which the whole pattern is redrawn, this is not the case. Alongside the images of Christ as the one led silent like a lamb to the slaughter, the New Testament presents us with the prominent image of conquering Lamb, who crushes his enemies. Just as Paul teaches that Christ judged the ancient Israelites, leaving their dead bodies scattered in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:1-11), so he teaches that Christ is taking the lives of unfaithful people in the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 11:27-34).

The Bible is largely written by warriors and about warriors. These were men who made life and death decisions, who knew that the pull of pity could be very dangerous, who understood the vulnerability and fragility of life, who recognized that life is an activity with extremely high stakes and fraught with peril, who saw themselves as being involved in a huge conflict, called to fight and contend for things, who had thick skins, who protected the weak and vulnerable, who knew that there were boundaries to be guarded, who appreciated that we are surrounded by grave threats to the security and health of our communities and their moral integrity, who know that we need the nerve to take radical and painful action. These are the values that shape the biblical notion of pastoral and priestly leadership.

The Bible does not glorify war in itself, nor does it value the powerful over the weak. However, it recognizes the reality of war and the necessity of power: our world is shaped by conflict. The people of God are compared to sheep and the paradigmatic person at the heart of the kingdom is the little child, weak, defenceless, dependent, and vulnerable (Matthew 18:1-5). Those who value vulnerability and weakness in a deeply hostile world must be prepared to defend it. The priesthood is charged with this task. The shepherd who loves his sheep and tenderly carries them in his bosom must be prepared and equipped mercilessly to fight the wolves, the bandits, the thieves, the bears, and the lions. He must be prepared to lay down his life in their defence. Those who perform this calling are servants of the sheep, not lords over them. The shepherd must put his life in jeopardy for the sake of the lives of his sheep, valuing them above himself. In a strange inversion of values, some Christians seem to have the notion that being a priest somehow means that you are greater than others.

This model of priesthood is a profoundly masculine one, involving combat and guarding at its heart. The association between martial virtues and masculinity is a close one. It doesn’t merely arise from the fact that men are generally more powerful, physically stronger, more combative, and that they naturally possess a greater drive and aptitude for the exercise of dominance and mastery, although these are all part of the picture.

Although women can and have fought and killed in exceptional, extreme, or fortuitous circumstances—a few such incidents are recorded in the Old Testament (e.g. Judges 4:21; 9:53)—the normalization of women fighting and killing is quite contrary to biblical and Christian values. In contrast to our contemporary society, Scripture never presents men and women as fundamentally androgynous individuals, whose identities are purely contingent upon their varying individual characteristics and aptitudes. Men and women are different kinds of persons, the bearers of different symbolic and relational meaning.

Women are associated with the most intimate bonds and communion of society. Every woman, by virtue of her sex—irrespective of whether she is married or has children—is the bearer of a maternal form of identity. The very form and basic processes of her body declares this meaning and—again, whether or not she is married or has children—everything that she does and is is inflected and elevated by the fact that she represents this reality. It is within her body that the marriage bond is consummated. It is within her body that the bond between parents and children are forged. It is within her body that the child grows and upon her body that it feeds. A society that truly honours this reality will not send women to fight its wars. A civilized society values and fosters the beautiful vulnerability of its most intimate bonds and seeks to protect them as much as it can from subjection to the harshness of conflict and struggle.

This principle is applied more broadly. We do what we can to avoid fighting with women, not just physically, but also verbally, and in other manners. Although men are often rough with each other, we aren’t rough with women. When we come into opposition with women, we take a gentler approach than we do with men. We don’t personally attack women more generally and seek to protect them from attack. We treat women as non-combatants.

This instinctive sense of the need to treat women differently when it comes to combat is deeply wired in every civilized man. I have already remarked upon the way that it functions as a driving force, albeit in distorted ways, in egalitarian approaches to these conversations. The push for women in the priesthood is often framed in terms of women’s need for protection, the fact that they need to be affirmed, valued, listened to, and protected from marginalization. The ugliness of the debates on this issue are also shaped by egalitarian men’s drive to protect women from what they regard as attack (as C.S. Lewis once sagely observed, battles are ugly when women are involved—suddenly, everything becomes much more personal, because men hate seeing women hurt).

The problem, of course, is that the priesthood is a combative role. Opposition to women in the priesthood is driven by, among other things, our refusal to put women into combat for us. While many of us strongly share egalitarians’ concern to see women affirmed, listened to, respected, honoured, and prominent in the life of the Church, there are many ways that this should be pursued without putting them into the priestly/pastoral office.

One of the chief causes and effects of women in priesthood is a dulling of our sense of the priesthood as a role involving conflict. Women, as many supporters of women in the priesthood have argued, ‘bring their own styles of leadership.’ And these styles of leadership are typically light on the martial virtues. Opposition to women in the priesthood should not be confused with opposition to women’s exercise of these styles of leadership within the life of the Church. Rather it is opposition to the reshaping—and consequent abandonment—of the priestly ministry.

The stakes here are very, very high.

With the loss of this model of priesthood, we have lost something fundamental in our understanding of the tenor of the Christian faith more generally. We have reduced discipleship from the uncompromising and costly loyalty expected of the soldier to a looser appreciation of Jesus as a moral guide. We have lost sight of the threat of hell and judgment. We have defanged the world, the flesh, and the devil in our imaginations. We have reduced God, displacing images of God as Judge, Sovereign, Ruler, King, Avenger, Father, and Lord. Instead of a fatherly authority that stands more over against us, we want a more cosy, maternal figure, still ‘authoritative’, but in a considerably weakened sense. Christ’s Lordship is now something that we think that we establish in our lives, rather than a public truth and reality that we must submit and bow the knee to. We have airbrushed divine violence out of Scripture. We have reduced divine authority as exercised in Scripture to the level of an illuminating text for selective consumption in the private spiritual life. We have sentimentalized the cross. We have lost sight of the deep weight—the dreadful yet profoundly joyful solemnity—of Christian worship, seeing it as more casual. We have abandoned or attenuated beyond usefulness the notion of spiritual warfare. We have abandoned church discipline (when was the last time that an Anglican church delivered someone to Satan for the destruction of the flesh?). We no longer see the world as being in cosmic spiritual conflict and don’t conduct ourselves as those in the dangerous realm of occupied territory, readily compromising with the surrounding culture instead. We don’t believe that our souls are in peril and so are indifferent to the fitness of the leaders who are responsible to guard us. We value their personability and academic credentials over their backbone, refusal to compromise, and commitment to do whatever it takes to present us whole and with joy before God’s throne on that great Last Day.

With the loss of a male priesthood—or, more particularly, with the loss of a masculine priesthood—we have attenuated the reality of the Christian message. We have no effective symbolization of the authority of God within our churches. When that goes, all else is enervated. The empowerment and valuing of women—an imperative for any Christian church—will best be served, not by putting women in the office of guardians of the Church, but when we appoint strong guardians for the Church who are committed to empower and value women, to hear their voices and to recognize their gifts, and to exercise their own calling as the servants of all.

Posted in Controversies, Culture, Ethics, Scripture, Sex and Sexuality, Society, The Church, Theological, Theology | 28 Comments

Feminism, Equality, and Authority

My good friend and member of the Mere Fidelity crew, Andrew Wilson, unwittingly entangled us in a bit of an online controversy earlier today (I have it on good authority that it registered between a brouhaha and an apocalypse on the online argument scale). He formed a post around some of my comments from this discussion thread. The comments of Andrew’s post then blew up, as did my Twitter notifications (thankfully, I am taking a break from Twitter for a month or so).

The original discussion focused upon feminism and ‘equality’, both issues provoking strong opinions and heightened emotions in many different quarters. Hannah Malcolm is a great interlocutor and, despite our significant differences of perspective, we covered a lot of ground in a friendly manner. While people were much less appreciative of my remarks when they were reposted in Andrew’s blog, there was some substantial and worthwhile push-back in the comments, which encouraged me to write some detailed responses to clarify my points. I thought that I would repost them here (although I won’t be making any follow-up comments), because I think that some of you might find the discussion worth engaging with, whether or not you agree with the points that I am arguing.

I originally wrote:

In Scripture, this priestly role is often associated not merely with men, but with ‘alpha’ men. The Church is strengthened as a body when it is led by persons with steel backbones, principles, and nerves, persons that can withstand others in more confrontational situations.

These comments were at the heart of much of the sharpest disagreement with my position. The following is a clarifying statement, which, although it may not lower temperatures, will at least make the meaning of my claim clearer:

A helpful place to start would have been to ask what I mean and don’t mean by ‘alpha male’. It is important to note that: 1. my point was primarily an empirical one from the reading of the Scriptures; 2. while certain alpha male traits may be necessary for priesthood, I never claimed that they were sufficient.

On the empirical point, it might be worth noting the way that the priesthood is characterized as a more ‘violent’ role in Scripture, with those performing it being set apart on account of their nerve and zeal, and ability to value God’s holiness above kin and friend. They are seen as uncompromising guardians of the holiness of God and his people, against all external assault and internal declension. It is worth noticing the people that God sets apart for the role. Levi was associated with violence from the outset. This violence, when employed in God’s service (killing 3,000 of their brethren after the golden calf incident at Sinai in Exodus 32), led to their being set up for a blessing and being set apart as the priestly tribe. Phinehas is another example: he was given a covenant of an everlasting priesthood in Numbers 25 for his zeal for God’s holiness in thrusting a javelin through a copulating Israelite man and Midianite woman.

The same pattern can be seen in many other figures—Moses (whose zeal is seen on many occasions in the Exodus narrative), Samuel (who hacked Agag into pieces before the Lord), Peter, Paul, etc. All of these figures were men of violent zeal, tamed and harnessed for God’s service. They were the ones who established and guarded the boundaries and symbolized the authority of God in the process. Some of their actions may understandably cause us to blanch, but I think that any careful study of such figures will support my claim that the priest is presented as a role favouring the traits of alpha males.

The role of the shepherd (or pastor) in Scripture always involves nurturing. However, absolutely integral to it is uncompromising and forceful zeal in protecting God’s flock. Close attention to the biblical imagery and teaching on the subject should support this: the shepherd is a guardian against violent assault upon God’s flock and needs the qualities of a strong and uncompromising guardian—which tend to be ‘alpha’ male characteristics—to perform his role properly.

The most detailed and substantial response came from my former lecturer, Steve Holmes, who wrote (the following is his complete comment):

Andrew, I’m slightly nervous about commenting on this because it is extracted from context, but since you’ve put it here…
On ‘equality': as I know Alastair knows, and as I assume you know, feminist theory has subjected the concept of equality to long and searching critique. Some have rejected it; others think it can live on in a chastened form; virtually no-one uses the term in the naive way that is criticised here (well, obviously teenagers do in earnest discussions before they’ve learnt to think do, but…). Even were that not true, Alistair is fairly obviously constructing a series of false oppositions: we don’t have to choose between pursuing equality and pursuing universal health care; we can be committed to both those things – and to universal education, and to all the other stuff that matters too.
On power, two comments. First: the discussion here is again rather naive, constructing power as something that is gained by being assumed – by acting, thinking, relating in certain ways. This is not wholly false, but ignores shaped social structures which are far more decisive. When I walk into a lecture room, or a doctoral examination, the power I have over the student(s) does not come from how I behave or think, but from a set of socially-constructed norms that they and I instinctively conform to. It is of course possible for me to act in such a way that I cede power to a vociferous student, say – behaviour is not utterly irrelevant, particularly in our Western culture which has weakened most socially-constructed power relations considerably in recent years – but even then, the social construction remains – I can silence said vociferous student far more easily than another student can. Constructed power structures like this are of huge and obvious significance in every human culture – and are often unjust (where power is given on the basis of class or caste or ethnicity or …). I count patriarchy as one such constructed and unjust power structure; you or Alastair might disagree, but please don’t do it by pretending constructed power structures don’t exist; that’s just stupid!
Second: all that said, I read some stuff once about ‘God’s power being made perfect in weakness’, which was predicated on the idea that the power of God is most perfectly visible in the cross of Christ; I think that when we discuss church leadership and power we ought to at least glance in those sorts of directions, and critique leadership models that focus on steel backbones and strength in confrontation, but maybe that’s just me…

The following is my answer:

Thanks for the response, Steve.

The following is a very thorough answer to your points, and the only further comment that I will be making on this thread (things are busy for me at the moment and I’m on a break from most Internet related activities). My hope is that, by fleshing out my position at length, people will at least get a better idea of the broader shape of it and not jump to premature conclusions.

As you note, this is a conversation abstracted from its original context, which leaves certain of its points liable to misunderstanding. It actually started with a Twitter discussion with the author, within which the ‘equality’ framing was more central: that is why I focused on the term. The following statement in Hannah’s first response to me makes clearer the sort of position that I was engaging with: ‘I (and many other feminists) wish to argue that [feminism] is not a position meaning anything beyond ‘equality’ for men and women.’ It is within Hannah’s argument—that complementarians can be feminists—that a nominal affirmation of ‘equality’ starts to become central for our definition of feminism.

As you recognize, I am well aware that feminism isn’t all about ‘equality’. In my discussion with Hannah on Twitter, we actually had a very lengthy exchange about the definition of feminism. I argued that saying that complementarians could be feminists, on the basis of their concern for women’s well-being and a vague affirmation of ‘equality’, risked emptying the term ‘feminist’ of meaning. Feminism, I maintained, is a movement with a particular set of histories, forms, thinkers, activists, movements, waves, and schools and identifying as a feminist should involve some sort of alignment with and situation within those, rather than just a bare formal affirmation that could be spun in a host of different ways (@God_loves_women was part of the conversation too and we were both arguing this same position against Hannah from our rather different starting points).

Yes, it is possible to pursue equality and such things as universal health care. However, the more that the vague goal of ‘equality’ comes to shape our activity, the more that I believe we risk substituting the waging of an ideological crusade for the pursuit of much less romantic but far more concrete goods such as those I mentioned. While you can pursue both to some extent, pursuit of ideology can often undermine an attentive and prudential approach to the establishment of justice and the conditions for well-being. An example of the sort of ‘ideological’ approach that I have in mind here would be one that regarded any gender gap in the constitution of business leadership as a sign of continued injustice and sought to eradicate it. The result could be the establishment of policies that push women into full time work, when what many may actually want is more flexible and child-friendly part-time work.

On the power issue, I think that you misrepresent my position. I definitely do not construct power as something that is gained by being assumed. Nor do I deny that power is socially constructed, or present power as a phenomenon arising purely from individual behaviour, as your comment might suggest. Social construction is central to my approach. My approach focuses upon the fact that socially constructed power doesn’t just pop into existence, but arises and is created through certain forms of social relations and activity. And these forms of social relations and activity have always been naturally weighted in men’s favour, playing to their strengths. The fact that men have more immediate power in almost every human society that has ever existed is not an accident, but arises from the fact that the dynamics of power formation are more naturally operative in male groups and individuals.

A few examples of the dynamics that I am referring to here, most of which I already mentioned in my comments quoted above:

  1. Broader and less intimate networks are more apt for the construction of power structures and more fertile contexts for the flowering of such things as art, culture, and science. These large and wide but shallow networks, alliances, and institutions are far more powerful in the long term. These networks will primarily be forged by people who have the greatest freedom, motivation, capacity, and aptitude for moving beyond existing relational contexts to pioneer new bonds with and interact with strangers. Such people will typically be less tied to and invested within intimate relational contexts than others and will find much of their fulfilment in moving beyond the realm of close relationships.
  1. Groups with more competitive, combative, and confrontational interactions (without being antagonistic) will naturally tend to produce both power structures and leaders for various reasons. First, they naturally encourage disjunctive effects in groups where people weren’t formerly distinguished. It establishes winners and losers and assigns status to various groups and group members within hierarchies and balances of power. Second, such interactions strengthen their participants. Competition and ritual combat of whatever variety involves mutual discovery, honing, and testing of strengths in a way that non-combative contexts don’t. It also provides a good context for rigorously testing and strengthening ideas. Third, these interactions train people to engage in self-directed and confident action, relying less upon external affirmation. They teach us our own strengths and weaknesses, making us more capable of assured independent action. This is the sort of context that makes leaders in human thought and action, people who are able to fight their own corner and forge new paths. Most people fail to recognize just how crucial agentic qualities are. They mark the difference between the exceptional intelligent person and the genius, the person who can perform a task presented to them better than anyone else and the person who can reframe the activity completely, the adept and the pioneering innovator. Groups with rougher and more competitive or challenging interactions will always be better at producing leaders, innovators, and pioneers than more inclusive, affirming, non-competitive, communal oriented, egalitarian contexts, where disjunctive effects are viewed with unease and there is a greater homeostatic impulse (and conformity to the expectations of the group is highly privileged).
  1. The risk-takers within society, the ones who are less protected, and the ones society takes its risks upon will tend to gain the most power because they experience the most exaggerated disjunctive effects. Although such persons will suffer big losses, they also are the ones that reap the big rewards.
  1. Power is closely related to the capacity to maintain the integrity and self-direction of a community against all internal or external challenge and assault, to establish the sort of ‘dominance’ that isn’t oppressive (apart from its injustice, oppressive dominance is typically revolted against), but which prevents anarchy, rebellion, or external assault. The powerful leader or ruling group is like the immune system and backbone of their community, able to assert power where it is contested. This will take many different forms, depending upon the person, community, or mode of power. Occasionally it will involve the use or threat of violence, but much of the time it will not. It requires nerve, will, backbone, and considerable strength. This is a rather different sort of thing from a ‘power’ that is exercised merely through communal consensus. The sort of power that can’t assert itself when contested or represent a direct challenge to external powers is typically a second hand or nominal power. There is a difference between being empowered and being powerful. In the first case, the power isn’t really ours: we are just managing the power of another party.
  1. Power is best formed in large groups that are externally oriented, towards shared tasks, objects, or struggles, rather than focused upon the relations that exist between persons within them. Hierarchically organized, externally focused groups, where power is more centralized, where networks are broad, and members are more anonymous and interchangeable are able to pursue vast yet coordinated projects, the sorts of projects that establish civilizations, their culture and their infrastructure.

My claim is that, given these dynamics of the social construction of power relations, the human race is pre-wired for male dominance in power. For a host of reasons, from the form of our bodies, to our relative physical strength, to our biochemistry, to our different parts in the process of reproduction, to different preferred modes of sociality between the sexes, the dynamics of power creation play in favour of men as a group. In light of the more characteristic modes of male interactions, identities, bodies, group formation, strengths, and role in reproduction, it should not surprise us that the broader power structures, institutions, and infrastructure of almost every human civilization were primarily forged by men and continue to be dominated by them.

Although there are some universal differences between men and women, all of the claims above can comfortably rest upon general differences in tendencies, preferences, and capacities, without the need for any universal claims. Such general differences are also reinforced by socialization with our own sex, which will often tend to accentuate more distinct traits. It is also important to remember that many of the most important differences are established by the extremes. For instance, while there may be considerable overlap in strength between the sexes in physical strength, 99% of the strongest 10% of society is probably male and it is this 10% that has the biggest effect.

I think that too many feminists and egalitarians speak as if power were some naturally occurring substance that men have unjustly monopolized. Constructed power structures arose from—and continue to gain their strength from—more basic modes of human social relation. There is a sort of mystification that results when we forget this root and act as if the power structure were just created by some arbitrary fiat or could be recreated by it. Further, power structures are often spoken of as if they had existence quite independent of the behaviour of those within them, as if power won’t start to wither if it isn’t backed up by a certain form of behaviour.

My purpose here is most definitely not to justify all such power structures or to dismiss the claim that they have widely oppressed women—they definitely have—but to point out that, save for some complete reconfiguration of human nature, we will have to live with some form of them and that the removal of male dominance is a pipe dream. At base, power and authority will always be dominated by men. Men can and should empower women, but we shouldn’t be blind to the dynamics of power. Equality in power is not a healthy goal. Where it exists, it will tend to be achieved in one of three ways: 1. Men abdicating or opting out of a particular institution (which usually tends to involve the relocation of power and the institution’s relative loss of power); 2. The dismantling of power, which leaves all of us weakened and vulnerable; 3. The disempowering of men through the intervention of some external power (such as the state), upon which we all become more dependent.

I believe that the biblical pattern, from Genesis 2 onwards, is that the task of establishing and guarding the foundations is particularly entrusted to men and is something that they are apt for in a way that women aren’t. This isn’t just a matter of women not having ‘permission’. Male dominance in power is always going to be a fact on some level: the question is whether we are going to exercise this power in a manner that edifies, empowers, and supports women, or whether we are going to use it for self-serving ends. Adam is created as the priest and guardian of the Garden, given the task to guard and serve (the same terms are used of the Levites’ priestly and temple ministry) and given the law of the tree to uphold (Eve doesn’t receive this law firsthand, which is why it is always spoken of as something given to Adam in particular, why she could be deceived, and why Adam is responsible for the Fall). As the priestly guardian, Adam was to act for the well-being of Eve and protect her and the garden from attack, to use his power in service. However, the dignity of Eve (which was no less than Adam’s), was never found in being the same sort of priestly guardian as Adam, but, through living out her own vocation, to work with Adam in their common task.

Just as men have a natural relationship to power that women don’t have, Genesis and the rest of Scripture presents women as possessing a natural relationship to life, communion, and the future that men don’t possess. If the tasks of taming, naming, and exercising dominion over the world (tasks corresponding to the first three days of creation) primarily fall on men’s shoulders, men are to empower women to perform the tasks of filling the world with life and fellowship, a task for which they possess a unique aptitude.

On the ground of this pattern and other biblical teaching, priestly or pastoral ministry, which symbolizes the authority of God/Christ to and for the Church, is male. ‘Fatherly’ authority is also apt to symbolize the material hiatus between God and his creation in a way that ‘motherly’ authority is not—the sexes are distinguished in these most characteristic modes of relation, forms of relation written into the very forms of our bodies. The point of male authority and power is to uphold the authority of God in contests where it is contested and challenged and to serve and empower others (which will not be achieved by abdicating it).

Although we should have male priesthood in the Church, the fact that the task of guarding and upholding the deposit of the faith and the community of the saints primarily falls to men doesn’t mean that women are ruled out of Church ministry, of which there are many forms. While the principal pastoral ministry for the whole church is to be exercised by men, women should assist them by performing most of the direct pastoral ministry for women within the church. Gifted women have much to teach everyone in the Church and, just as there are prophetesses in Old and New Testaments, we need to recognize and learn from the wisdom and teaching of such women in the Church. None of this replaces the ministry of priestly guardians.

Evangelicalism, because it has tended to emphasize the modes of Christian leadership that more closely correspond to the prophetic and to abandon the more priestly forms, tends to push women’s ministry to the margins or to admit women to all forms of leadership without distinction. Once we recognize the distinct character of priestly ministry, I believe that it should be clearer that a male-only priesthood can quite easily coexist with many women in other forms of prominent ministries—indeed, it must do so, as one of its primary purposes is to empower the broader ministries of the Church. We must form a Church that empowers and values women in their ministries, but this shouldn’t involve ignoring natural dynamics of the sexes, or putting to one side the biblical teaching on male-only priesthood.

Finally, the claim that God’s power is ‘most perfectly visible in the cross of Christ’ needs to be handled carefully, because this isn’t quite what Paul says. Paul’s actual claim is that Chris ‘was crucified in weakness, yet he lives by the power of God’ (2 Corinthians 13:4). The ‘weakness’ is associated with the crucifixion, the ‘power’ with his resurrection by God. The power of God is accomplished—‘made perfect’—through the cross and human weakness, but made perfectly visible in the resurrection. The power of God is most perfectly visible in the risen Crucified One, who puts all enemies under his feet.

And this is a point that Paul develops in the actual context, bringing out the theme of confrontation in Church leadership in particular. The entire extended portion of 2 Corinthians is about the grounds and nature of Paul’s apostolic authority, playing with the paradox of power and weakness, and posing the same sort of challenge as 1 Corinthians 4:21: ‘shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?’ Paul has written challenging and powerful letters, but doesn’t seem to exercise the authority that they suggest in his person. However, he warns that the bite that goes with his bark will be seen at his next coming.

In 2 Corinthians 13:4, Paul makes clear that, although he is weak in Christ, he also proleptically participates in the power of God towards the Corinthians and, if they do not repent at his warning, he ‘will not spare’. He will have to use his apostolic authority, grounded in his participation in the resurrection power of God, in a destructive manner, which is precisely what he doesn’t want to do with the authority that was given for their edification. Paul’s presentation of his apostolic authority and ministry in 10:1-6 is of a warrior (and in 11:2-3 as someone charged with guarding a prospective bride—comparing the church’s position relative to him to that of Eve), given the task of forcefully pacifying all opposition, punishing any disobedience that remains, once the Corinthians have displayed the obedience that he is calling for.

In summation, the larger portrait of Church leadership here, presented in the very terms of the objection that you raise, rather underlines my point.

Wherever we end up, I believe that this is an important conversation to have. While I am not taking this discussion any further, I would love to read your thoughts in the comments.

Posted in Bible, Christian Experience, Controversies, Creation, Culture, Genesis, Links, NT Theology, OT Theology, Politics, Scripture, Sex and Sexuality, Society, The Blogosphere, Theological, Theology | 67 Comments

Podcast: Made for More, With Hannah Anderson

Mere FidelityOn this week’s Mere Fidelity podcast, Derek Rishmawy, Andrew Wilson, and I are joined by our special guest, Hannah Anderson. Hannah, who blogs at Sometimes a Light and tweets here, is the author of the book Made for More: An Invitation to Live in God’s Image. While written particularly for a female audience, her book deals with fundamental biblical themes that are of considerable importance to every Christian. I found it a worthwhile and important read and recommend it to you. In our conversation with her in the podcast we explore issues related to the image of God, women, and the life of the Church. Take a listen!

You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed.

Posted in Creation, Podcasts, Sex and Sexuality | Leave a comment

Open Mic Thread 10

Mic

The open mic thread is where you have the floor and can raise or discuss issues of your choice. There is no such thing as off-topic here. The comments of this thread are free for you to:

  • Discuss things that you have been reading/listening to/watching recently
  • Share interesting links
  • Share stimulating discussions in comment threads
  • Ask questions
  • Put forward a position for more general discussion
  • Tell us about yourself and your interests
  • Publicize your blog, book, conference, etc.
  • Draw our intention to worthy thinkers, charities, ministries, books, and events
  • Post reviews
  • Suggest topics for future posts
  • Use as a bulletin board
  • Etc.

Over to you!

Earlier open mic threads: 123456, 7, 8, 9.

As I am taking a break from regular blogging, I won’t be commenting here. However, I will be reading any thoughts left below.

Posted in Open Mic, Public Service Announcement | 23 Comments

Podcast: And Who is a Person?

Mere FidelityThe latest Mere Fidelity podcast has gone online. This week, Matt Lee Anderson, Derek Rishmawy, and I are discussing chapter 4 of Oliver O’Donovan’s Begotten Or Made?, which focuses on embryo research, and the question of who is a person. We begin with the following quotation:

The embryo is of interest to us because it is human; it is ‘ourselves’. On the other hand, it is considered a suitable object of experiment because it is not like us in every important way. It has no ‘personality’. It is us and not us. In those two assertions we see the movement of self-transcendence taking shape. The embryo is humanity in a form that is especially open to our pinning it down as scientific object and distancing ourselves from it in transcendent knowledge…

It is enough to point out that the ambiguity of the status of the embryo research subject is precisely what is intended. It is what the task of self-transcendence needs, that it should be ourselves and yet not ourselves. If we should wish to charge our own generation with crimes against humanity because of the practice of this experimental research, I would suggest that the crime should not be the old-fashioned crime of killing babies, but the new and subtle crime of making babies to be ambiguously human, of presenting to us members of our own species who are doubtfully proper objects of compassion and love.

I found this week’s discussion particularly thought-provoking and challenging. Take a listen here.

You can also follow the podcast on iTunes, or using this RSS feed.

Posted in Culture, Ethics, Philosophy, Podcasts, Society | Leave a comment