Women

There's been lots of chat on Facebook recently about the role of women based on what I'd like to suggest are some basic misunderstandings of scripture. Here's my take on it:

Adam was created first
Yes he was, but not as an indicator of role or supremacy!! Adam and Eve were both created in the image of God ('let us make man in our image'...male and female he created them), both were called to the same role (to go into all the world and disciple it) both were given authority to do the job (have dominion...)
.
The context of Adam being created first is really very simple and very obvious if we take off our preconceived male-dominated view of things... Every time God created something, he looked at it and declared it 'good' or 'very good'. There's a reason for that! When it comes to looking at Adam on his own, God declares 'it is not good...' God deliberately creates one sex before the other to demonstrate that even before the fall, we are created in such a way that requires other human intimacy. Which makes complete sense given the bigger context - God created us to be recipients and givers of divine love. Before the fall we had complete unhndered access to his divine love - but had no-one to give it to. So God makes the point graphically. Time after time he creates and says 'this is good' then with his ultimate creation (humankind) he creates one sex without the other and says 'this is not good'.  In fact to emphasise the point further, with this extraordinary ache in his heart, Adam is invited by God to look around at the diversity of this paradise and see if there is anything there (including God himself) that can satisfy this longing. And of course there isn't! So God creates Eve, the perfect other piece of the humanity jigsaw puzzle, the exact fit - that together, male and female, they might represent the fulness of God's loving image.

Man is the head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church
Remember the culture of the time - male dominance was the uncontested norm. Most women had no rights, no status, no protection. men being the head of the woman was not a revelation, not a surprising new concept, it was the ingrained pattern. So Paul says 'so, you reckon that men are the head of the women?' and everyone says 'er, yes, of course, why do you even ask?'. Then Paul goes on 'ok then, if you men think you are the head, here's your example, here's the pattern you're going to have to follow in that case. Go on, if you're so keen on this, you be head, but only in the same way that Jesus is head of the church'. That's when they wanted to kill him. Because Jesus is head of the church by way of a cross. Jesus is head of the church not through power, not through might, but by his spirit. Jesus is head of the church.not by dictation but by serving. This is the radical message that Paul announces: 'Men, you no longer have the right to manipulate, set your own agenda, selfishly promote your own interests. If you want to lead, you do so as a servant'. They wanted to imprison him, to kill him - in part because of these revolutionary ideas.

Wives submit to your husbands
Ever gone into a house where they have one of the cheesy Christian saying's on the wall? 'Footprints' or 'God Bless This Home' or some such? Well, Roman culture had their equivalent. There are literally hundreds of examples stil in existence. They were called 'household codes' and they were hung in the house so that everyone knew their place, what was expected of them. They differed a bit but they all followed the same format. The key relationships were listed followed by a statement of expectations. Typically; Husbands, rule your wives. Wives obey your husbands. Children obey your parents, Slaves work hard and be obedient. They always focussed on the rights of those who were important - never on those who were subject to authority. Now, Paul produces his own version of these ubiquitous household codes. Using the well known, familiar format he turns the world upside down. He starts by saying 'everyone should be subject to everyone' an utterly unheard of, ridiculous, destabilising concept. Then he takes the traditional household code statements and unpicks them one by one. He leads them in gently: 'wives be subject to your husbands'. Absoultely, all the men nod in agreement. Then the sucker punch... 'Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church.' Paul places a requirement on the men - unbelievable. Worse, the requirement is to act in a particular way towards the ones they were traditionally supposed to lord it over.... And he does the same for all the relationships. Children obey your parents. Tick. As it should be. Parents don't be self-serving in your parenting. What? A demand placed on parents? The ones with authority? Ridiculous. Finally, slaves obey your masters, work for them as if you are working for God himself. Quite right too. Masters be kind and loving to those who serve you. Outrageous!

Paul is not reinforcing the old traditional views of heirarchy, he is dismantling them. Men are not over women, Christ is over all, we are all subject to one another.

Women shouldn't teach, they can't handle truth
Now if this was what was meant by Paul , why would he praise Timothy's female relatives specifically for teaching him about the faith? And more importantly, why would Jesus avoid meeting anyone after he was risen on easter Sunday until Mary came alone? Well where else do you have a woman in a garden being told something purporting to be true about God? In that first garden, Eve was deceived and she believed a lie about God. Since then the lie has been propounded - women shouldn't be trusted with truth. If the cross and resurrection is to be effective, that lie has to be overturned. So what does Jesus do? Meets this woman alone in the garden and entrusts to her the greatest truth in the history of eternity. Jesus deliberately avoids the men and waits for this fallen, looked down on, shamed woman, and commands her -'go tell the men'; woman, teach the men the greatest truth ever.... In this act he restores Mary and redeems the broken view of womanhood.

And finally!
Men can be so hypocritical in all this. A woman isn't allowed to teach 'in church' but she can teach the most vulnerable group - the children. She can't teach the men, but those same men can send her overseas as a missionary (where they won't go!!!) but when she comes back she can only tell the women's meeting! Hypocrites!! She can lead teams and plant churches when she's overseas, but woe betide her if she tries to do that here.

This is not just bad theology, it's self-serving, arrant nonesense!