5 Lies the Church Tells Women: does not go far enough

Two related articles don't go anything like far enough. First I found Complegalitarian: 5 Lies the Church Tells Women which led me to the original at 5 Lies the Church Tells Women.

I have never been part of a Church that has taught any of these lies. However, while blogging, through my ministerial training and my ministry as a Methodist Minister (in GB) I have come across them all.

My problem is

1. that the analysis of these "lies" relies on weak exegesis that starts from culture and does not dare challenge it very much.
2. it works on an implicit understanding that places humanity almost on a level with God

Those points strike me very strongly from my reading today (see 42: Now on order "John Franke: Barth for armchair theologians"). My (very limited) understanding of Barth fights these two problems powerfully.

On exegesis how about this quote from  "Barth for armchair theologians" p36-37:

"It called for a way of reading the Bible that was more focused on God than that suggested in liberalism with its starting point in human experience.

The Bible is not primarily about history, religion, morality, and the like, but rather God. God is the content of the Bible. It is not right human thoughts about God that make up the content of the Bible, but rather right divine thoughts about human beings. To be led by the Bible into this new world means turning to God anew and learning to follow God's will in the realization that God's will is not merely an improved continuation of ours that can be easily ascertained from our situation. Rather, it stands over against our knowledge and will as something Wholly Other.

It seems to me that throughout the theology of Barth there is an emphasis on the hugeness of the gulf between God and Humanity and the idolatrous nature of religion when we claim ultimate truth or divine sanction (p46). For me that is a fundamental risk of complementarian thinking that says. "We understand truth exactly and it means this: that men must have headship over women". Of course there are dangers if we respond by saying "We understand truth exactly and it means this: equality between genders". However, even if there is a hierarchy of men above women that can be discovered to be God's truth (and I do not believe there is) then the relative heights of this heierachy could be described at their strongest as

if a Woman stands 1.5 metres in the hierarchy, then Barth would clearly place God at infinity. At the most strict and strong expression of hierarchy Men would be at 1.50000...0001 metres.

I believe that is an appropriate level to consider male headship. IMHO it is heretical to talk as if any hierarchy between human beings can be compared to that between Christ and the highest human being. Not just because of the nature of God as creator, saviour and sustainer but also because of the nature of God as sacrifice and humble servant (I think that would be a merest hint of Barth's dialetic in theology).

The issue is to focus on God. These lies about women focus us on humanity. They make us focus on the pennies/cents in front of a God beyond value.

To recap and attempt to respond to the lies.

Lie #1: God Created Women as Inferior Beings, Destined to Serve Their Husbands.

My own interpretation taken at least in part from Barth would say: Get the focus of Creation back onto the Creator. Get a more balanced perspective on the gulf between creator and created. Then I would demand a better exegesis that did not start from culture but from an attempt to discover God and be challenged by God. (see chapter 3: A New Theology). I want to see exegesis done properly on these passages, that means by people who actually understand issues such as grammatical gender rather than building their theology on English translations made within particular theological traditions.

When all that is in place the lie becomes clear and the idolatrous nature of focusing our study of creation on hierarchy within humanity becomes visible.

From p77:

Barth had expressed the concern that whatever was to be done in theology, it ws of the greatest importance to begin at the beginning and recognise that God is God. This means that God is the living and free Lord of all creation and that all we think and say about this God must bear witness that we are human and not God. God and humanity are categorically different,

Lie #2: A Man Needs to "Cover" a Woman in Her Ministry Activities.

Again, get the focus on God, not on human power. Barth's insistence that we can know nothing of God without his revelation and grace clearly points us to an understanding where this lie places men in the place of God which is clearly heretical

Barth has a focus on action and events rather than static understanding. Therefore God reveals himself through experience and this lie demands that we ignore the experience of millions whom God has blessed through the ministry of women (eg see 42: Tuesday Thanks: Sheila Purdy). That fits for me with Barths view of the Word of God as the Word revealed, written and preached. When we step outside limited culture and experience God through women preaching and proclaiming then this is God at work as no human can understand or teach God, only God can do that to/for us.

Also from p77:

God always has the initiative and the priority, while human beings are always in a position of dependence on God. It means that while theology is an impossibility for human beings, it is an impossibility that becomes possible in the freedom of God at the instigation of God. We are human and not God. God is God

The assertion that God is God also carries profound political and cultural entailments. It means that all rivals, symbols, and pretensions that set themselves up against the knowledge of God must stand down,

Lie #3: Women Can't be Fulfilled or Spiritually Effective Without a Husband or Children.

I can't be bothered to respond to this as if it can be taken seriously. If you believe this then open your eyes and look around. Go and take the blue pill in Matrix terms (have I got that the right way round?).

Lie #4: Women Should Never Work Outside the Home.

diito. Oh and watch the world collapse into starvation and ignorance if anyone actually tries this.

Lie #5: Women Must Obediently Submit to Their Husbands in All Situations

Again just get that stuff about the place and relationship of humanity compared to the Creator, Saviour, Redeemer. If any human, other than The Human (ie Christ), had ever come even close to submitting appropriately to God then we could have a discussion about submission between humans.

Paul tells us to submit to Christ. Well let us get on with trying that, so far nobody has made it very far. Get that right and then you could talk about other humans submitting to you (although given that in the process you would have become very Christlike, it would suggest that as Christ we would see you in humility serving others and submitting to them - see that dialectical hint again).

I accept that in writing this I might be accused of going against the Wesleyan view of Christian perfection. However, in this case I am happy to stand accused of that.

Conclusion

I started with being cross on two posts. In fact I have moved from that to being incredibly excited by Barth. I confess have never made it very far into his theology before (struggled with a book on the Lords Prayer and his Romans commentary, glanced at a couple of other books on him). I have wanted to do more, Angela Shier-Jones was one lecturer who in her own words was "very excited by theology" and attempted to pass that on, and that included Barth. I keep getting snippets from other books eg Clive Marsh: Christ in Focus: Radical Christocentricism in Christian Theology (yes  Clive, still reading it and finding it interesting, informative, helpful and challenging. But I haven't finished it yet). But this  Barth for Armchair Theologians: Books: John R. Franke,Ron Hill has really got me going, it only arrived this morning but I have spent most of my day off reading it (144 pages down 23 to go). I want more and will be going further into this, there appears to be so much that speaks to me today in it.

Anyway what a great day off that started with a post office delivery that allowed me to dive into something that again gets me so excited about theology, about God revealing himself to me in new ways, about transformation.

Comments

[Molly]

This was really enjoyable to read. I LOVED the quotes from the Armchair/Barth book (and think I might need to get that one). And this quote of yours below is *totally* where I currently find myself:

"For me that is a fundamental risk of complementarian thinking that says. "We understand truth exactly and it means this: that men must have headship over women". Of course there are dangers if we respond by saying "We understand truth exactly and it means this: equality between genders". However, even if there is a hierarchy of men above women that can be discovered to be God's truth (and I do not believe there is) then the relative heights of this heierachy could be described at their strongest as if a Woman stands 1.5 metres in the hierarchy, then Barth would clearly place God at infinity. At the most strict and strong expression of hierarchy Men would be at 1.50000...0001 metres."

[Dave Warnock]

Thanks Molly.