What to do with Sarah Palin? Many people in theologically conservative protestant denominations and congregations believe that men and women fulfill complementary gender roles. They describe themselves as complementarian. Men lead. Women submit. Men teach and preach. Women do not teach or preach to men, nor are they ordained to be pastors. There are a wide variety of ways these issues are practically dealt with, and some seem only complementarian in name when you view actual behavior. Most complementarians bristle at the claim their position implies any inferiority on the part of women. Men and women are "equal in being, unequal in function," they say. Whatever the case, complementarian teachers maintain they are upholding the Church's historic teaching.
The virtual credo for the complementarian position is 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Unlike other passages, which (on the surface at least) seem to address this topic, 1 Timothy gives a theological basis for the complementarian position.
The prescription:
The theological justification:
As you probably know, a disproportionate number of American complementarians are politically conservative and Republican. This election year, a woman, Sarah Palin, fills the vice-presidential slot. Isn't this a contradiction of complementarian standards? For most, apparently not.
Leading complementarians argue that submission to the husband in the home is not transferable to submission of women to men outside the home. Furthermore, 1 Timothy 2 only addresses women's role in public worship or ecclesial matters. Fair enough, but is this the historical understanding? What is the functional necessity for excluding women from teaching and leadership roles in the Church? Church scholars have had fairly consistent pragmatic functional reasons for restricting leadership/teaching to men over the centuries based on passages like 1 Timothy 2. Three stand out in particular.
1. Priest as Mediator – Because the priest is the mediator of Christ to the people, the priest must be male to symbolize Christ. This is irrelevant to Protestants because we understand there is no mediator between Christ and us.
2. Primogeniture – Various church fathers commenting on 1 Timothy 2:13, identifying primogeniture as a "functional" reason. But read the following closely with the idea of "equal in being, unequal in function" in mind. (All quotes below, and several others, can be found in two appendices of William Webb's Slaves, Women and Homosexuals.):
John Chrysostom (347-407): "It shows that the male sex enjoyed the higher honor. Man was first formed; and elsewhere he shows their superiority." Homilies on Timothy (Homilies 8-9)
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Because of God's work, Adam is approved as superior to Eve, because he had the right of primogeniture." Luther's Works
John Wesley (1703-1791): "'First' – So that woman was originally the inferior [in rank or status]. She was inferior too in bodily strength." The New Testament Explanatory Notes
We see primogeniture referenced, but the implicit and frequently explicit reason given for the significance of primogeniture is that it signifies male superiority. Some Reformation scholars, including Calvin, found the primogeniture argument weak. Nevertheless, Calvin writes in his commentary on 1 Timothy:
"Since, therefore, God did not create two chiefs of equal power, but added to the man an inferior aid, the Apostle justly reminds us of that order of creation in which the eternal and inviolable appointment of God is strikingly displayed."
So, while Calvin was not too keen on primogeniture reasoning, he resorted to the "inferior helpmate" reasoning instead.
These arguments on primogeniture usually exist as secondary support for the next reason.
3. Women's Inferior Nature – Again commenting on 1 Timothy 2:13:
John Chrysostom (347-407): “The woman [Eve] taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this? It certainly concerns them; for the sex is weak and fickle, and he is speaking of the sex collectively. Homilies on Timothy (Homilies 8-9)
Augustine (354-430): "And [Satan] first tried his deceit upon the woman, making his assault upon the weaker part of that human alliance, that he might gradually gain the whole, and not supposing that the man would readily give ear to him, or be deceived, but that he might yield to the error of the woman … For not without significance did the apostle say, 'And Adam was no deceived, but the woman being deceived was in transgression.'" City of God
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "The human group would have lacked the benefit of order had some of its members not been governed by others who were wiser. Such is the subjection in which woman is by nature subordinate to man, because the power of rational discernment is by nature stronger in man.
St. Paul says that women should keep silence in Churches", and, 'I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men.' [1 tim. 2:12] But this especially touches the grace of speech. Accordingly that grace [speaking publicly to the whole Church] does not pertain to women … because generally speaking women are not perfected in wisdom so as to be fit to be entrusted with public teaching." "Prophecy and other Charisms" in Summa Theologica 45:133
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "Paul thus has proved that by divine and human right Adam is the master of the woman. That is, it was not Adam who went astray. Therefore, there was greater wisdom in Adam than in the woman. Where this occurs, there is greater authority … He [Adam] persevered in his dominion over the serpent, which did not attack him but rather attacked the weaker vessel … just as he does today." Lectures on 1 Timothy
John Knox (1514-1572) On women: "For who can deny but it is repugnant to nature, that the blind shall be appointed to lead the conduct such as do see? That the weak, the sick, and impotent persons shall nourish and keep the whole and strong, and finally, that the foolish, mad and frantic shall govern the discrete, and give counsel to such as be sober of mind? And such be all women, compared to a man in bearing of authority. …Nature, I say, does paint them further to be weak, frail, impatient, feeble and foolish: and experience has declared them to be inconstant, variable, cruel and lacking the spirit of counsel and regiment." The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.
John Wesley (1703-1791): "The preceding verse [1 Tim 2:13] showed why a woman should not 'usurp authority over the man.' This verse [1 Tim. 2:14 ] shows why she ought not 'to teach.' She is more easily deceived, and more easily deceives." "1 Timothy" in Wesley's Notes on the Bible
Complementarians declare 'equal in being; unequal in function" and then claim the mantle of upholding the Church's historic teachings. Yet:
1. As Protestants, complementarians have rejected the idea of priest as mediator.
2. Unlike the leading scholars of the Church who taught that primogeniture signified superiority (therefore justifying authority and teaching), complementarians point to primogeniture, insisting there is no implication of inferiority and superiority. Yet they offer no reason why primogeniture would have any influence on the practice of leading/teaching, especially because God repeatedly chose other than the firstborn (Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and David, to name a few), implying that God's gifting and call is what mattered, not primogeniture. (Is it also true that only firstborn sons should be pastors?)
3. Unlike the leading scholars of the Church, who taught that women were innately inferior to men and more easily deceived, complementarians bristle at the charge that they are saying women are bad.
In short, complementarians are not adhering to the Church's historic teaching with their "equal in being, unequal in function" proposition. Neither are non-hierarchical complementarians like me.
Having abandoned the historical rationale for abiding by certain prescriptions, Complementarians can now offer no functional justification for why women should not lead or teach. During the 1970s, complementarians created the novel formulation of "equal in being; unequal in function" to justify retention of old practices while, in theory, abandoning claims of women's inferiority. But the formulation is a smoke screen. While it is true that one of two equal beings may be subordinate to another regarding some specific limited functions for a limited time, it is not true that an equal being can be subordinate to another equal being in everything, all the time. The latter is what is being claimed for women and men by complementarians. For two beings with the capacity to will and act, this is the very definition of an inferior being. And now, this formulation is being projected onto the ontological Trinity, declaring that Jesus' will is eternally subordinate to the Father in a way the Father is not to the Son. But even if we grant that the formulation is true, what is the "functional" distinction that favors men teaching and leading?
The answer isn't symbolic mediation, it isn't primogeniture signifying male superiority, and it isn't innate inferiority of women. Primogeniture absent male superiority is presented as a reason, but if it is not about superiority, what makes being firstborn a qualification for leading and teaching, especially when God repeatedly ignored it? What is the functional difference favoring men versus women?
The truth is that we have been in a Galileo-like paradigm shift over the past century or two. Just as it eventually became clear to the Church five hundred years ago that the Earth orbits the Sun instead of the Sun orbiting the Earth, we have now seen that women are not fickle, silly inferiors incapable of leadership and teaching. Just as with Galileo, we have had to go back and reread passages that had seemed so obviously clear and rethink how our perceptions might have influenced what we were reading.
This is not the place for me to articulate my thoughts on the controversial passages of Scripture. I've done that in my Household of God series (Scroll down to the "New Testament Household Codes" section and begin there.) My point here is that, unlike Hilary Clinton's election, Palin serving as vice-president will crank up the dissonance in people's minds between the complementarian prohibition of women teaching and seeing Palin ever before them. Had it been Clinton, it would have been easy to ignore her as another one of those "radical feminists." Palin, however, is seen as being of the same culture many complementarians hold dear. The absence of a real functional barrier will force many to re-examine Scripture.
We will see if Palin ends up as the vice president. Should it become so, this complementarian dynamic will be interesting to watch.
(Note: David Gushee has been thinking along similar lines. See his article in USA Today, The Palin Predicament.)
Leave a Reply