How ridiculous is it that in this day and age, when we are supposedly ‘enlightened’, that people continue to judge people by outward appearances? The fact of the matter is we are no closer to being ‘enlightened’ than ever before — when men can define what women can do (or vice versa), when white people can define what black people can do, what any majority can define what any minority can do, and when anyone is defined by how they look like or what they look like, as a basis for what they are to do.
We still live in a world that prefers outward appearances over what is in the heart, the virtue of perception over the virtue of merit.
We need to be wary whenever we encounter a humanity that shows partiality for appearances and influence, favouring some by positive manipulation, over what is represented at a deeper level of truth, but that which doesn’t prevail for the powers that be. It isn’t just corrupt governments that are tempted to curry favour with the rich. Whenever any of us are given any sense of power, we too are tempted to favour those the powerful would have us elevate — always for their own gain.
A far better judgement is to reward merit, and yet if we are committed to this we will run afoul of the powerful. Unless we are blessed to be within a system that values contribution over appearance, impact over favouritism, objectivity over subjectivity.
Where the rubber hits the road as far as church and family is concerned is how much one gender can at times be elevated over another purely because of gender.
It’s one thing to believe that a gender is suited to a particular role, it is another thing again to imagine that one gender is suited to either a leadership or non-leadership role; I’m highlighting power differential here. ‘Head of the family’, for instance, has privilege attached to it, not what it should be, i.e. servant leadership. For those brought up in some quarters of the church, giving one gender power over another is quite normal. I was brought up in a non-Christian home and it seems a little ridiculous to me. Some people have tried to train me in the theology of complementarianism. I still don’t get it. It elevates one over the other with no regard to merit. The leader in this case doesn’t earn that role — they are ‘entitled’ to it. Whenever I think of the word entitlement, it always reminds me of narcissism — the narcissist thinks of themselves as entitled. And that’s the problem here; too many men will lord it over women because they’re given ascent. When a male is ‘head of home’ because he’s a male — and for no other reason — he can assume that position is his right. See how insane that sounds? If he is a narcissist, he is enabled!
If we think of elevating a white person over a coloured person, just because of their skin colour, we get a similar comparison than if we elevate a male over a female. It’s little wonder that non-white people and women feel besmirched. They are judged on what they cannot change; they are not judged on what they can contribute. Imagine turning the tables on a white person or a male, or for that matter, someone like me, a white male person.
The same argument holds in the church. Men can preach, but women cannot — in some churches. It doesn’t matter if the woman can preach like Charles Spurgeon or Dr Brenda Salter-McNeil. Or, that a man makes a better overall leader because he’s a man, or worse that he can only lead because he’s a man. It makes a mockery of some of the best women leaders of the world. The best leader I’ve seen in the flesh was a woman.
The Bible cannot stand in opposition to the truth as it basks resplendent through life. Shimmering as irrepressible, the truth is our guide. Society is not made weaker for female leadership or teaching. And it’s not a sign of a weak and decaying society that women are in preaching and leadership roles. But when leaders and preachers are selected on merit, everyone wins, because the truth is honoured when justice is vindicated and rewarded.
Photo by Evgeni Tcherkasski on Unsplash
No comments:
Post a Comment