Women

So. I've been thinking a lot about the "role of women in the church." Partly because my friend Alisa is writing her honors thesis in defense of evangelical feminism and egalitarianism. Partly because I've heard about 50 gazillion sermons on Tutus 2, I Timothy 3, and Ephesians 5, all of them from a complementarian persepctive. Partly because I wonder from time to time whether God is angry at me for going to college. Partly because I have no freaking CLUE what it looks like to be an academically inclined Christian woman.

And mostly because I think there must be a resolution to all this that is true and good and beautiful, and doesn't do violence to revelation. Or experience or reason. :P

There's several ways I've come to resolve the matter in my own mind. Probably not entirely right or complete, in any way -- but I do believe they ring a bit truer than most of the flack flying around in these debates.

Important point #1: Men are women image the relationship between Christ and the church. The relationship between husband and wife was put in place by God in large part to provide a visible image of this deeper reality. Maybe I'm just crazy, but this rationale for gender roles strikes me as deeply beautiful, and though I may chafe sometimes at some of the implications, I can live quite happily with it.

Important point #2: We need the strengths of women just as much as we need the strengths of men. When women's strengths -- such as dialog, communication, bridge-building, hospitality -- aren't seen as necessary and valuable to the life of the church, and given freedom to be exercised -- the church suffers.

Important point #3: God is on the side of the weak and the oppressed and the helpless. Which is where a lot of women throughout a lot of history have found themselves.

Important point #4: The current era really is a "new day" for women. We have areas of life and work and study open to us that we never had before. We have the opportunity to do things unthinkable before. And we also have few guides or role models for what it looks like to do these things qua "women."

I DO think a woman will -- or ought to be -- an academic, a manager, a scientist, even, in a different way than a man. I don't know what it looks like. I'm hoping that in 500 years, maybe we'll get some idea. Especially of which parts of how those things are studied and pursued are fundamentally necessary to do the discipline well...and which parts are distinctly suited to more "male" tendencies and "ways of knowing." Which parts are up for debate, and which parts have to stay fundamentally the same.

These four points aren't fully developed by any stretch of the imagination. But, needing some guideposts to steer by in this mess, they're what I've currently ended up with. More on them later, I suppose, as I keep working with them in the back of my mind.