Silent No More

I was raised in the Reformed-charismatic tradition. It’s an unusual blend, if you know anything about either of those terms. Basically, it meant that we believed the doctrines of grace but also believed the empowered Spirit is still alive and active – things such as healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, and more are still applicable today. 

The application of those two things into everyday life looked very different from church to church. Our church in particular was part of Sovereign Grace Ministries, a non-denominational umbrella-type of ministry that’s mission was to plant local, Bible-teaching, Spirit-led churches. Like any ministry, the more SGM grew the more churches took on their own shape and flavor, if you will, and had more of their own cultural distinctions. For example, the church my dad pastored in Virginia was very relationally driven, whereas some other churches in SGM would have been more evangelism focused, or mercy-ministry focused.  Now, this article is not going to address the controversy surrounding SGM. I only mention it to give context to how I was raised, and why I believed (and still believe to some extent) what was taught. 

In my own family, we were taught the concept of headship, which I briefly mentioned in Part 1 of this series. This was heavily influential in SGM. In essence, the father of the house was the head, and he answered directly to Jesus, who was his head. The wife and children fell under his “headship” and leadership. This concept is rife with possible abuses, but thankfully, my father was not an authoritarian leader. He was kind, and he listened to his wife and didn’t lord his authority over her (and still doesn’t). That’s not to say my family structure was perfect, but I never was scared of my father. Not once. Ever. Unfortunately, this wasn’t always true for other families who bought into this type of leadership structure. 

In Part 1, I defined complementarian and egalitarian theology and mentioned why I believed complementarian theology is far more likely to perpetuate abuse and misapplication. However, I don’t claim that it necessarily does so, or that it always does so. Like any teaching, there are good ways and bad ways to apply it. And personally, I don’t like labels, so I would not claim to be complementarian or egalitarian. I will go further in-depth into the harmful nature of labels in a coming series. 

I want to address the elephant in the room: if complementarian theology is so misapplied, what then? Should we all be egalitarian? The obvious answer is yes – egalitarianism teaches that all are equal, and that there are no gender roles in the home or church. But that’s not my answer, because I don’t think the Bible teaches one to the exclusion of the other. 

I mentioned in part 1 that some teachings of the Bible, such as in 1 Corinthians 14 where women are not being permitted to speak in church, can’t be applied to our modern society. First, it’s important to understand why Paul felt the need to say this. Doesn’t he, after all, also permit women to pray and prophesy in 1st Corinthians 11? Now, I’m not a biblical scholar, but I do know that in context, the Corinthian church was, shall we say, very disorderly. And it was the women who were disorderly, not the men. 

When one of my kids is being disorderly, the first thing I do is either have them go into timeout (if it’s particularly extravagant), or wait until it’s their turn to speak. It’s all about context. If one child is having a meltdown and is disturbing the peace of the home, they are removed to another part of the house where I can help them work through the issue. Or, if they are interrupting a conversation regularly, they are told to be silent, to wait until it’s their turn. 

Chaos is not a good learning environment. Not in church, not in the home, not in school, not anywhere. My belief is that Paul is addressing women who were causing chaos. That’s it. If it had been men causing the chaos, my guess is he would have addressed it the same. Let things be done in an orderly fashion, so that everyone can learn. One thing that I believe was particular only to that time in history is the question of male headship. I don’t think Paul would have told men to then ask the question to their wives at home. And the reason is obvious. Because of that cultural time, male headship was the norm. That is no longer true in our society. Paul was speaking and teaching in a context where women were thought of as second-class citizens. It would have caused absolute madness if he had addressed that issue head on, and since that would have defeated the very purpose of his instruction, he didn’t address it. 

Paul does, however, address this issue elsewhere (see Romans 16, 1 Corinthians 7, Galatians 3). And it could be argued that Jesus was the most extravagant feminist of his time (I won’t get into that in this post, but I touched on it here). And elsewhere, mutual submission is taught, both men and women submitting to each other (Ephesians 5). So clearly Paul is not upholding the idea that women are inferior to men and need to submit to them in everything. He’s simply saying “stop causing chaos in the church, Corinthian women.” 

The problem with complementarian teaching is that it places the emphasis on differing gender roles, which causes division, and not on the importance of equality, as it also states and claims to uphold. While it does give a head nod to equality, the vast majority of time is spent on stressing those differences and what that could or should look like, depending on the one who is teaching it. And in my particular upbringing, because the emphasis was on male headship and female submission, I had a warped view of gender roles. My home life, while not perfect, was more equal than most. But because I was in a church culture that embraced differences instead of equality, I was essentially groomed to look for a husband who was a “strong leader” above all else. 

I have a distinct memory of my brothers coming home one day laughing hysterically. It was right before my wedding. They had been invited to my ex-husband’s bachelor party, which in part consisted of my ex answering the question “What do you think are Janelle’s top three characteristics she’s looking for in a husband?” The best man had asked me and recorded my answer, and my ex was then supposed to answer what he thought I would say. 

My answer was “kindness, compassion, patience.” His answer included “leadership” and two others I don’t specifically remember, but I’m fairly certain were “intelligence, strength.” My ex certainly had the qualities of those he mentioned, but his answers, and mine, are very telling. I fell in love with someone who projected himself as strong, intelligent, and having leadership qualities. But what I was looking for as his primary qualities did not match. I just didn’t know how to rectify this issue, because in complementarian theology, kindness, compassion, and patience aren’t emphasized. Strength, intelligence, and leadership are. And, to my brothers’ endless amusement, they guessed correctly while my ex did not. 

So where do we go from here? How do we fix this issue? I don’t claim to have all the answers, but what I do know is this. People need to be held accountable for the ways they misapply the Bible. However, so do the teachers who strain a gnat while swallowing a camel. 

Not only that, it is vitally important to acknowledge how much more we know about gender now than we did thousands of years ago. Now, we have the type of technology that can identify many different types of DNA variances in gender expression, whereas Paul only knew of two, and those weren’t on a cellular level. It was only what could be seen with the naked eye. 

I believe the Bible is still applicable to my life now. But I also believe there was no possible way it could foresee or address every issue I face today. Paul couldn’t predict or understand what it means to be intersex (to use just one example). Paul himself could have been intersex and he wouldn’t have even known it! I’m not saying throw out all that the Bible teaches about gender, but what I am saying is that it is far more complex now than it was then. 

The gospel remains the same, either way. The gospel says that Jesus came, lived a perfect life, died a perfect death, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven, and now waits with open arms to anyone. The gospel isn’t for perfect people. It’s for flawed people, which is every single person on this planet, no matter their gender identity. I firmly believe that this issue of gender equality is more like a gnat, not a camel. Jesus doesn’t care what gender you are. He just cares how you treat people. So the emphasis shouldn’t be on gender roles, but on loving other people just as they are. My guess is that Jesus won’t be standing at the pearly gates asking to see my DNA results. He will be ushering me into those pearly gates, caring not one bit whether I’m male or female or anything in between. He won’t be impressed with my nursing degree, or the books I’ve written, or the awards I’ve won. I don’t think the Son of God is going to be impressed by anything, really, except how I treated people, because he knows just how hard it is to love someone who is determined to make loving them difficult. 

And those people I’m supposed to love? That includes the people who taught me wrong theology, which impacted my life in a very negative way. That includes my ex. That includes the friends who have betrayed me. It includes anyone who has hurt me or the ones I love. Following Jesus is the most difficult, yet simple thing in the world.