Ability & Suitability

When I was a little girl I used to pity the boys because they had drastically fewer wardrobe options. For them it was shorts, pants, shirts, and ties. We girls could wear everything they wore, but more. When, to my delight I realized that we could also wear ties and get away with it, I realized we had them beat on every level. We could wear their clothes without any eyebrow raising.

Most of the time.

But when a woman really wants to look her best, she wears a dress. Watch the Oscars or any high profile formal event. The women who wear the backwards tux jackets etc. always end up on the fashions "don'ts" page. Of course, Katherine Hepburn could get away with her trousers and still look fabulous, but it's Audrey who is best loved, and Audrey knew when to wear a dress.

So, at least from a purely biological perspective, there are some things better suited to a woman, and some better suited to man. There are certain garments that universally bring out the best features in each sex in it's own respective way. This is clear in both the Kingdom and the world.

It seems when we consider the question of women in the church, it's not so much a question of Biblical law or feminine ability as of Divinely crafted suitability and consistent Sciptural posture. I believe woman are certainly Allowed in positions of leadership, usually in proportion to the screwed-upness of the time in which they live. Deborah is a great example of this, found predictably in one of the worst cultural times in Old Testament history (Judges). She judged because in that dark day, every man did what was right in his own eyes. And when she was forced to lead the Israelites in battle, she confronted Barak (the Man whom God had originally called to lead) and made sure he knew of the honor he was losing by cowardly giving up his position to a woman. In other words, even though Deborah was Permitted to lead, she knew that it was not the ideal situation. Was she strong enough, wise enough, equipped enough, called enough? Absolutely, but she knew that she was less suited for the position than Barak, because Barak was a man.

It always makes me laugh that Deborah is so often the textbook example for women in leaderhip, but that she herself preached against it.

Are women called to be theologians? Absolutely. Is any Christian Not called to be a theologian? Theology: the study of God; how do we fear, obey, love, and worship a God we do not know by heart? How do we know Him by heart if we do not study Him? So, if anyone, male or female, considers herself a Christian and not a theologian, she is wrong.

Most generally, when Scripture talks about women, it glorifies us in the home, as mothers, daughters, wives, and servants, not as leaders. Christ demonstrated this when He chose His apostles, but His action was absolutly consistent with the Scriptural posturing of women from beginning to end. Eve is the helpmeet; she is saved through childbearing. Sarah is recognized for her great faith as a wife and a mother, and Rebekah, and Leah...little Myriam, for her protective role as sister--note when Myriam gets jealous of Moses' leaderhip she is stricken with leprosy. Sweet Rahab, who served in hospitality and joined the royal line. Precious Hannah, Naomi, Ruth, the elderly woman visited by Elijah, the small servant girl who was instrumental in the healing of Naaman, Esther who was used in spite of herself, Elizabeth, Mary, Mary Magdalene, the beloved women who came to serve Christ in His darkest hour and found His risen glory, these are just a few. We know that these great women are honored and tributed in history and Heaven, and none of them were deliberately seeking leaderhip positions or tenure. The garment that sets off their glory most consistently is home, husband, children, service, and hospitality, whether single or married. Proverbs 31 and I Timothy 5 are even more specific in clarifying this.

Yes, Paul recognizes women and mentions their good works in the church. Of course, women are Theologians; some of them are amazingly good ones, and we cherish their words today. When we as women consider positions of teaching and leadership, it's not a matter of our ability; it's a matter of our suitability. No law on earth or Heaven prevents me from wearing a pear colored sweater, but if I want to look my best, I know better.

In our age, Mother Theresa achieved the most yet aimed for the least. Her goal was not equal opportunity; it was practical love in the venues best fitting a woman: hospitality, service, the feeding of the hungry, the washing of feet. Yet her legacy is known far outside the walls of the church, and she certainly led and taught in her humble obedience.

And it seems that in the way the home, family (whether church family or married family), service, and hospitality most glorify women's gifts, these settings least glorify men's. Caitlin Flanagan, the moment's most curious speciman of anti-feminism, points out that while a man will certainly help with the dishes, he will not wring out the washcloth and hang it nicely to dry. He will not add the sprigs of mint to the ice cream. These are huge generalizations, and while I realize that there are many men out there who will certainly tend to these details, I think Flanagan is grasping a solid truth--most men are better suited to other work. Not only is this difference biological, but it's psychological, and, perhaps...spiritual. Maybe that's why men in dresses is frightful. Just not suitable.

And if we women throw our efforts into doing what the Bible explicitly says we ought to do and not so much what it does not explicitly say we ought to do, we will find there is little time left for church leadership or other ambiguities. Yes, we are definitely called to teach the younger women, but much of this, I expect, is experiential learning since women are called to so many hands-on tasks. We are explicitly called to prepare lovely tables, and to clothe our households, to sow and to reap, to to fix our hope on God and to continue in entreaties and prayers night and day, to do good works, to show hospitality to strangers, to wash the saints feet, to assist those in distress--how can women who are achieving these specific commands possibly find time to lead the church?

We live in an age much like Deborah's, and so of course gender roles have become dark and muddled. And perhaps some women, like Deborah, will be thrust into positions of leadership against our own understanding of what fits best. But unless we are clearly and authoritatively placed in such an uncomfortable garment, it seems we should be busy doing and wearing those things to which we can be certain we are called, those things that suit us best.