Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Men Should NOT be Spiritual Leaders


The class was packed. Over sixty students listening to our professor in varying degrees of participation. Laptops filled about a third of the desks, and while some people listened closely, a number of others had already tuned the class out, sending emails or playing around on facebook. I watched them from a spot near the back, trying to stay calm. This graduate course in leadership had helped me in many ways, introduced me to a number of great tools and ideas I would use in the future, but today the focus would be different. For me, at least. Highly emotional and highly controversial.

"Okay, so what did you like about the textbooks we studied?" Dr. Magnus asked.

A few people responded, the class alternately nodding and nodding off. Of the three textbooks we'd been asked to read, one of them, Being Leaders by Aubrey Malphurs, had set my teeth on edge. It had confirmed my worst fears about the evangelical world, and at times, it was almost too much to handle. Mark had listened patiently when my rants on reading Malphurs had left me emotionally exhausted and discouraged. How could anyone even believe what this 'respected' leader had written? Why weren't my classmates more upset?

"All right. So what didn't we like about the textbooks?" Dr. Magnus looked at me as my hand shot up and merely sighed.

"Go ahead, Steve."

With that, I proceeded to deliver a four-minute rant about Malphurs' book, a work that not only implied limitations on Christian leadership, but essentially stated that men were more qualified to lead than women. It was this last idea, so visible in his text, that had set me off.
When the class ended, one of the women thanked me for what I'd said. I thanked her, my mind still absorbed and frustrated by the apathy of the class. I understood all too well the dangers of apathy. That which we refused to consciously reject we unconsciously embraced. I sighed and thought about my paper.

In one of our essays for the course, we'd been asked to interact (academically) with our textbooks. I'd broken the rules, and instead written a zero star movie review of Malphurs' work. Here is a portion of what I wrote.

"...Being Leaders is a wonderful text on leadership, but only if read as satire. Malphurs' hyper-Calvinistic, modernistic, misogynistic viewpoint is so stifling and discouraging it is nearly impossible to wade through the endless sea of haughty missives to find anything useful. His 'tools' at the back of the book are exclusive, narrow and insulting (especially to women) which arouses nothing in the reader but a passionate distaste for not only Malphurs' ideas of leadership, but for the Christian publishers and other readers who found the book so helpful. It was so disturbing at times, that only when I focused on the book as if it was written as a satirical diatribe on what leadership should NOT be that I was able to continue. Harsh? Perhaps. But then, perhaps we should reconsider publishing a text that believes women to be nothing more than house wives who should teach Sunday school and 'love their children', with apparently no intellectual capabilities whatsoever..."

Needless to say, my professor was not impressed. That review would result in my lowest grade on a paper the entire year. Now, thinking back, I stand by what I've written, my mark be damned. This idea that men should be the spiritual leader (in both the church and relationships) inherently exacerbates the idea that women should not and that men are not only different, but better. It is a gender-based ideal, and one that the church must reject. Being a man no more qualifies me for being a leader than being a teacher or journalist. Much has been written about the dearth of leadership in the church, but when we are basing our choices on physiological differences, (dare I say the word) then what do we expect?

As passionately as I will argue for the equality of women within the church, understand that this has been a long process for me. Growing up in a traditional home and being educated in a conservative environment did much to prolong my own ideas of inequality, though I didn't see them that way. I have heard and used the "Trinity argument" - i.e. women are not less, just different, just like Jesus and God the Father and the Holy Spirit. I have heard and used the "moderate evangelical" argument - i.e. "yes, men are to lead, but they are to lead by serving."
What I've seen, however, reveals otherwise. That as long as people believe they should be leaders as a matter of entitlement (born a man, not a woman), we are destined to have bad leaders promulgate their prejudice like a subtle poison.

And the real tragedy... all of this is done in the name of Christ.

The biggest argument an evangelical will hear/use is the Apostle Paul's statement about a woman NOT having authourity over a man. I won't drag into hermeneutics here, because it gets a bit boring, even if it's informative. What I will say is that hegemony always seeks to sustain itself. It is the nature of power. Paradoxically, this very thing is the most compelling aspect of Jesus, this idea of a God who forsook power to become one of us. If hegemony is found in the male, or the white male, then the natural tendency of the white male will be to sustain and excuse itself.

Christians often quote the New Testament, tell others that we 'literally' accept the Bible, (even though this is impossible) and denote that as our benchmark for not allowing women the right to lead within the church.

That (phallic) argument is fallacy.

If you accept the Bible literally, why are women not wearing hats in your church? Why do you reject that verse but accept Paul's comment about the family? And if you are actually making women wear hats, (Lord help you all) then why don't you have slaves? Didn't Paul tell the slaves to submit?

You see, we all accept and reject certain verses. This sounds obvious, but it is astounding how many evangelicals actually believe they are 'interpreting' Scripture correctly. I'm not saying that any group is wrong or right, only that we are all wrong a lot. And if that's the case, sometimes we have to allow principle, the principles of scripture, to dictate our beliefs. In this case, as I often do, I think about William Wilberforce. I think about the Christians who rejected his notion of freedom based on two of Paul's letters in the New Testament. I think about the endless debates he had with other "Christians" who somehow thought slavery was acceptable. I also think about the women I've spoken to this past year, those who live in relationships, trapped and tormented by men who believe themselves to following Jesus, and yet who deny their wives the very personhood Jesus sought to grant us by his death on the cross. It is a tragic, horrible picture, and it haunts me.

Should men be spiritual leaders? It is the wrong question. We should all be spiritual leaders. We should all be working to lead and to serve in our lives. And those who lead in the church should be leading based on their giftings, not on their gender. We've all sat under bad leaders. Some were men. Some were women. The truth is that both genders are capable of good and bad leadership, and both genders are capable of producing terrible leaders.

As a church, however, we must get away from this idea that because "the Bible says so" when it comes to leadership, we must get away from the ignorant argument "that's how it is."

My prayer is that this week you will ask yourself some hard questions. Does it bother you if women are in a position of leadership? Do you really believe women are equal to men? Women need to answer these questions too. I have seen too many marriages on the verge of breakdown, heard too many tales of abuse and control, because this question was never addressed.
There is no difference in the potential of men and women, and throughout his ministry, Jesus did nothing but affirm the importance of women in a society that had little or no use for them. Whatever we believe, know that if we are unwilling to bend, if we are unwilling to ask why we believe the things we believe and be honest about it, man or woman, we will never grow into the people God wants us to be.

-Steve

5 comments:

  1. Strongly agree to disagree Steve.

    I don't know why you burden some really honest thought and questioning with sensationalist titling. While it's true that Jesus offended the mind to reveal the heart, offense wasn't his sole vehicle of inviting people to self-reflect. You seem to think it's the best way, and for such a smart guy, I can't figure it out for the life of me.

    I can provide you with 30 years of statistics on the impact of fatherlessness in our society to interact with intellectually, and they ALL point to the fact that men play a role in the life of a family that ONLY they can play.

    That doesn't mean that men are better than women, or that women should be disqualified from leadership, because that's not the precedent we see in the early church. Women were critical leaders in disciplemaking and training, and leaned on and referenced by Paul and other apostles.

    The now-institutionalized gender stereotypes the western church has allowed to be part of our fabric demand that we allow the Holy Spirit to shine His light on practices and attitudes so that the body of Christ isn't robbed of the tremendous character, giftings and leadership of women.

    But to suggest that men shouldn't be leaders is foolhardy. We have never needed men to be leaders more than we do today, particularly in the west.

    We have a dearth of servant leaders men who understand that being the leader of a home means laying your life down for your wife and kids, not lording over them out of some false bravado.

    Men are called to that kind of leadership by scripture, and one of the lenses we have to read that scripture through in our time is the screaming of feminists that women are better and men are pigs and any gender roles are evil at their very core.

    So to end thinking and meditating on scriptures on that basis is worldly, not Godly, and believers need the Holy Spirit to enlighten our understanding of the dynamic tension between the sexes so that we live in a dynamic that exemplifies the heartbeat of God for men and women, not cower to a secular feminist reactionism that says all scripture is influenced by male-pigs and worthy of cynicism.

    I think you have lots to say. I just disagree with you wholeheartedly on the notion that men shouldn't be spiritual leaders.

    They absolutely should- just the most humble, selfless and sacrifical ones there are demonstrating the life-changing grace and power of Jesus Christ, not macho dictators who assume the inferiority of any person lacking testicles...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Uh oh... it looks like Paul didn't read the article carefully enough.

    Steve: "Should men be spiritual leaders? It is the wrong question. We should all be spiritual leaders. We should all be working to lead and to serve in our lives."

    Paul: "I just disagree with you wholeheartedly on the notion that men shouldn't be spiritual leaders.
    They absolutely should- just the most humble, selfless and sacrificial ones there are demonstrating the life-changing grace and power of Jesus Christ".

    Leadership should not be given to men OVER women because they have a specific sexual organ that their counterparts do not. From what I have read here, you both agree on that.

    And Paul just affirms my amazement, as Steve has observed, at how the only people to disparage feminism (as Paul clearly does) tend to be privileged, powerful, white males. Sigh. And that's why a certain reading of the Scriptures fits their comfort level like a glove, for it too was written by the only literate, educated, and influential demographic of the Ancient Near East: men.

    Thank God that the voices that have been marginalized by white males for centuries are starting to break through and make stunning contributions to the Christian experience: those of women, the poor, the young, the indentured, the labourer, the dark-skinned.

    And thank God they are changing how we educated white males would have continued to assume about how the world works and what the Bible says.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous3:16 PM

    Just a thought...

    Ideally, it is nonsense to claim status, position or power based on gender. The apostle Paul said that our heavenly bodies will be neither male not female. This is, presuming heaven is better than the world, ideal.

    So it’s safe to venture that heaven’s society is based on a particularly different paradigm than that which we live here on earth.

    It would seem that, in our world, the dynamics of power based on gender is always with us. It is a force, like war, technology, appetite, survival, reproduction, etc..

    Together we create, shape and move these forces based on both an aquired and inherent set on knowledge and practices. The divergent roles of genders in all areas from family to public life, which we have crafted, are always in flux on some level, either in harmony or in a tug-of-war, both within and outside the church - sometimes for good and sometimes for evil.

    Even if one attempts to reason out and balancing the sociological and scriptural imperatives and assertions of gender roles, it still will not embue the ideal, of heaven, into our reality.

    Ideals are never with us. For we see through a mirror darkly....


    brian b

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark: "Leadership should not be given to men OVER women because they have a specific sexual organ that their counterparts do not."

    Mark missed the point of what I said. I don't take issue with the notion that women SHOULD be esteemed, valued and trusted leaders within the church. The model of the early church demonstrates that this is a must, not an option.

    Mark seems to suggest that I think men should be "made" leaders because of their gender. I couldn't have been more explicit about what qualifies men, or anyone, for that matter, to be leaders:

    Paul: "They absolutely should- just the most humble, selfless and sacrificial ones there are demonstrating the life-changing grace and power of Jesus Christ, not macho dictators who assume the inferiority of any person lacking testicles..."

    If you want to lead, you have to serve others and sacrifice, get low and be ready to be humbled above all else.Leadership isn't about fame or notoriety- it's about putting God's dreams first and dying to self to see that happen.

    What I took issue with was that your title needlessly made a statement that isn't scriptural, whether you're an underprivileged, uneducated third world female reading it or a rich, white Ivy League grad- that men shouldn't be spiritual leaders.

    And as for opposing the feminist notion that men, by their very nature, are worthless because they are not female, that's not a scriptural outlook either. I don't argue with feminism because I'm white, male or educated. I disagree with it because it doesn't line up with what the Bible teaches us about what equity looks like in the kingdom of God.

    Mark can paint me whatever colour he wants, but the bible I read says that in Christ there is no Jew nor Greek, no slave nor free, and that means men are not worth more because they are men, and women are not worth more because they are women.

    We have our value in being children of God, not the private bits we're born with.

    Leadership in the church is (at least in the New Testament church) a function of proven character, not social status, gender or education.

    I categorically reject anyone who exalts people to leadership because of their heritage, connections within a denomination or talent. I reject equally those who suggest that we elevate people to leadership simply because they represent groups that lack a presence in the current leadership structure of the church in the name of affirmative action or a secularly influenced notion of equity.

    Leaders in the church model the character of Christ in humility and selflessness.

    The notion that men are predisposed to a greater ability to do this is ridiculous. The notion that women, or any other group not well represented in the leadership of the western church, are better suited is just as laughable.

    I said I agreed with a lot of what Steven said. I just took issue with the manner in which he delivered it because I think it pokes people in the eye they could be examining their heart with...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5:10 AM

    - "As a church, however, we must get away from this idea that because "the Bible says so" when it comes to leadership, we must get away from the ignorant argument "that's how it is.""

    For me this is kind of a dangerous statement. I agree with the last line of looking for more than "because the bible says so" but there is clearly a structure within the new testament of God, angels, men, women. I as a woman, who claims to be bible believing, I want to make sure that I am doing what the bible says, and therefore doing what God asks.

    I spent my formative Christian years in a conservative church, where woman had to wear head coverings (not necessarily hats by the way) but this was never satisfactorily explained to me as women were not allowed to pray and prophesy at all, in fact prophecy didn't exist (for them). So I can see why these verses and others that mostly Paul writes have been used for centuries for peddling the idea that women are inferior to men.

    However, you cannot get away with the fact that it is there in the bible in black and white. Women should not have authority over men. We should not pray and prophesy (sp) with out heads uncovered because of the angels. Note it doesn't say that we shouldn't prayer or prophisy.

    These verses of Paul have always seemed to me to be a bit of a contradiction to the way that we see Jesus acting and treating women, and if it came to the crunch I would choose Jesus over Paul. The way I see it, the really important stuff that Jesus said and taught made its way into the bible! And he never mentions women teaching or anything else except in an equal and non discriminatory way, BUT we weren't chosen as his disciples.

    I have no problem with the authority of Christ, and man. I do believe that man has to earn his authority over me, and he does that by being humble, wise and loving. Arrogance and dictatorial and harshness doesn't win my respect or my subservience.

    Its ultimately about accepting the headship of Christ, and if I don't see that working in the lives of men in leadership over me, then I can't submit to their authority.
    A true male leader loves not forces.

    I have my own issues with women in teaching authority over men. I have to say it doesn't sit right with me. But if a woman has a gift from God for teaching, she must have an outlet for it. To not do so would deny her gift from God. If men choose to come and listen to her and submit to her authority then hunky dory!

    It strikes me that some men think that women have nothing to teach them, this is arrogance and has no place in the church. But women who think that they have the God given right to teach men, also need to think very carefully about whether this is really the case.

    I would like to see leaders rising up all over the world who are humble, caring, authoritative, passionate and all finding a place within this wonderful thing that is Gods church!

    Its also interesting to me to note that there will be no male of female in heaven!

    I love all this stuff! Its a minefield trying to figure out what God meant, what Paul meant. We have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, there is room for error in Gods house, but not for conscious disobedience of Gods word.

    ReplyDelete