-What does the order of Creation have to do with some cultural issues playing out in Ephesus? Precisely. Some would want to maintain that Paul in insisting that women should not, do not occupy roles of authoritative teaching in the local church was simply addressing a problem which was confined to something Timothy was dealing with in Ephesus. And yet when Paul zooms out to explain his rationale, he harkens all the way back to Genesis. To the way God set things up in the very beginning. Back there we read that in the beginning, God created them male and female (Genesis 1.27). Note that Christ Himself validated the timeless binding authority of this verse (Matthew 19.4). But we read that God made Adam first (Genesis 2.7). He put him in the garden and put him in charge of it (Genesis 2.15). It was all good (Genesis 1.31) - very good, except for one thing. It was not good for the man to be alone (Genesis 2.18). And the Lord ultimately provides him with the perfect partner - Woman. They were partners, but this apparently is about sequence. God made Adam first for a reason. Some commentators suggest that this is about birth order, that throughout the book of Genesis we see that the right and responsibility of headship in a family fell to the firstborn. But just how does a preference for primogeniture extend to leadership within the family of God? Surely the order of creation speaks to us more about the headship of man within marriage and family, and by extension within the family of God. The headship of the husband (and the wife submitting to such) is a repeated theme in Scripture (1Corinthians 11.3, Ephesians 5.23, Colossians 3.18, 1Peter 3.1). And this is rooted in the order of Creation. God made the man first, put him in charge of the garden, and then made the woman to be his ideally suited helper. Now this Hebrew word for helper does not imply inferiority. It’s not like she is the “hired help”. The Lord our God is our Help (Psalm 33.20, 70.5, 121.1-2). This is not about ability or status. But in that Adam was made first, he is the head. That is his God-given role.
-There are several ways this plays out. 1) He is the initiator in this relationship - note that the man leaves his mother and father to cling to his wife (Genesis 2.24). 2) He is also the buck stopper - he is held accountable (God confronts Adam first even tho He knew full well who fell first - Genesis 3.9-11, and in perpetuity places the burden of responsibility entirely on him - Romans 5.12-14). 3) And more importantly, this headship is intended to be(come) a wonderfully mysterious reflection of how Christ relates to His bride, the church. The husband is called to provide the world with a beautiful picture of how Christ loves the church in how he relates to his bride (Ephesians 5.25-32). Leading her, yes. But loving her. Nourishing and cherishing her. Providing for her. Helping her to be holy and blameless. Sacrificing and laying down His life for her. Honoring her (1Peter 3.7). Serving her - not being served BY her (Matthew 20.28). Not domineering her - this posture came in as a consequence of the fall, where Adam did not lead at all. When it came time to stand up and speak up, he was in fact entirely silent. Passive (Genesis 3.6). And so now the broken order set in as a result of the fall is that women instinctively want to control their husbands, and men default not to sacrificial service but to demeaning domination of their wives (Genesis 3.16). If they lead at all. But Christ led by laying down His life for the sake of His bride. Others-first-others better. Not too many people - women OR men - who would have trouble accepting that kind of leadership, don't you think?
-It is instructive to note how the serpent appears to almost deliberately have targeted the woman. Is it not possible that his end game was not merely the fall of humanity but also to destroy the divine beauty and design of marriage? It is not that the woman was inherently more prone to deception than the man per se. But she took the lead, and led the way into sin, while the man stood back and did nothing. He simply joined in. He did exactly what his wife told him to do. He could have said no to his wife. So Paul says, not Adam. Adam was not deceived, no. But it is as much about what Adam did not do. Not Adam. He did NOT say no. He did NOT take charge of a situation which was literally heading to hell in a handbasket. And much as he tried later to pass the buck, placing the blame on both the woman AND on the One Who made her in the first place (Genesis 3.12), he is held accountable first and last and forever (Genesis 3.9-11, 17-19; Romans 5.18-19). Which again goes back to role. Buck-stopper. Initiator.
-The man must answer the call to lead as much now because if left to his own devices he will leave it up to the woman. This is true in the home, and it is true in the family of God, in the church. And isn’t this what we see? Men who leave it up to the women, especially when it comes to the church and spiritual leadership in the home (or lack thereof). Or we see domination and dishonor and abuse. And we see women (and children) who are tragic victims. We see women who want to be in control in the home and the church, or who think they have to be because Adam is over there doing his passive and silent thing. And what the world sees ultimately is a sad sad picture of Jesus. No, this is not about some unique cultural situation at Ephesus. This is about the God-ordained role of leadership in the home and in the church, based upon the order of creation. We are talking about the glorious timeless designs of almighty God, beautiful pictures which should shine throughout the ages regardless of cultural predilections or peccadillos. It is a collaborative effort, to be sure, a partnership yes, but one with clearly defined roles. And men are called to be the initiators, the buck-stoppers. And they are the ones tasked with the authoritative teaching in the church. It is the role of elder, overseer, pastor. It does not make them better or more loved or valuable in God’s eye in any way. No, no, no.
-Important to note that the Bible does not teach unlimited equality. Ours is no anarcho-syndicalist commune. There are different gifts, different enablings, different roles in the family, in the church, in society. Intellectually, physically, financially, spiritually - this side of heaven there is inequality, and some of it is actually God-ordained. There are different stations in life. While we can embrace total equality of personhood, that each and every man woman and child are equally valuable in God’s eyes, each one vested with dignity and worth and bearing the image of their Creator, what we do not see is a level playing field, not even in the beginning. Equality of status does not mean equality of station. This is no less true in the family, as well as in the body of Christ. There are indeed differing roles, and Scripture is quite clear as to what those are. Paul is quite clear. It is our culture which is confused. And that should come as a surprise to no one...
No comments:
Post a Comment