It seems to me that Peter Lombard got it right a millennia ago: "she {Eve} was formed not from just any part of his (Adam's) body, but from his side, so that it should be shown that she was created for the partnership of love, lest, if perhaps she had been made from his head, she should be perceived as set over man in domination; or if from his feet, as if subject to him in servitude. Therefore, since she was made neither to dominate, nor to serve the man, but as his partner, she had to be produced neither from his head, nor from his feet, but from his side, so that he would know that she was to be placed beside himself
Reminds me of this from Orwell’s satirical novel, Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Words are important but actions show the true intent. Love your example of closed doors in the church—so true.
This is a good article for defining terms and the power dynamics involved. My only critique is when you say ”If this was race, we were discussing, would we say the same, equal but not in function or role? That sounds a lot like the devastating concept of ‘separate but equal’.” Race is more fluid than sex, and it has been argued to be a social construct to empower self identifying whites. Sex is more concrete and the differences between the two are obvious. Women are biologically capable of things that men cannot do. But this difference is not a hindrance to leadership. In fact such difference is needed in mutual leadership of the sexes. Thank you for your work.
Thanks for the push back Andrew! I see what you are saying, and yes, I think its precisecly because women are different that they are needed in leadership in order to work towards a fullness of the kingdom.
I quite like the refinement of the spectrum of positions. Most definitely an improvement. I know of C’s who balk at the charge of P because, as pointed out, they assert an ontological equality between men and women. This is particularly helpful, as I’m leading my little Bible church elder board through a months long study of the topic with a view to refining/modifying our functional policy. Same can be said about the earlier series this year on Sandra Glahn’s “Nobody’s Mother.”
Thank you, Karen. Just last week I had a conversation with a church member who defined egalitarianism as "against masculinity." I've had numerous conversations with people who confuse egalitarianism with matriarchy.
I always assumed Peter was seeking to protect Jesus from what was to come. I read it in the same way as Paul's words to his friends who were desperately trying to talk him out of going to Jerusalem for the final time in Acts. Your post gives me something to think about. Thank you.
It seems to me that Peter Lombard got it right a millennia ago: "she {Eve} was formed not from just any part of his (Adam's) body, but from his side, so that it should be shown that she was created for the partnership of love, lest, if perhaps she had been made from his head, she should be perceived as set over man in domination; or if from his feet, as if subject to him in servitude. Therefore, since she was made neither to dominate, nor to serve the man, but as his partner, she had to be produced neither from his head, nor from his feet, but from his side, so that he would know that she was to be placed beside himself
Reminds me of this from Orwell’s satirical novel, Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Words are important but actions show the true intent. Love your example of closed doors in the church—so true.
Thank you Karen for breaking this down.
“Restrictions bring about inequality.” That is absolutely true. Thank you for this well-written post.
This is a good article for defining terms and the power dynamics involved. My only critique is when you say ”If this was race, we were discussing, would we say the same, equal but not in function or role? That sounds a lot like the devastating concept of ‘separate but equal’.” Race is more fluid than sex, and it has been argued to be a social construct to empower self identifying whites. Sex is more concrete and the differences between the two are obvious. Women are biologically capable of things that men cannot do. But this difference is not a hindrance to leadership. In fact such difference is needed in mutual leadership of the sexes. Thank you for your work.
Thanks for the push back Andrew! I see what you are saying, and yes, I think its precisecly because women are different that they are needed in leadership in order to work towards a fullness of the kingdom.
I quite like the refinement of the spectrum of positions. Most definitely an improvement. I know of C’s who balk at the charge of P because, as pointed out, they assert an ontological equality between men and women. This is particularly helpful, as I’m leading my little Bible church elder board through a months long study of the topic with a view to refining/modifying our functional policy. Same can be said about the earlier series this year on Sandra Glahn’s “Nobody’s Mother.”
Glad to hear this Richard! Feel free to use the images if it would be helpful.
Thank you, Karen. Just last week I had a conversation with a church member who defined egalitarianism as "against masculinity." I've had numerous conversations with people who confuse egalitarianism with matriarchy.
I'm grateful for your voice in the kingdom Bobby. Thank you for being an ally and advocating in daily conversations for the mutuality of the kingdom.
I always assumed Peter was seeking to protect Jesus from what was to come. I read it in the same way as Paul's words to his friends who were desperately trying to talk him out of going to Jerusalem for the final time in Acts. Your post gives me something to think about. Thank you.