Patriarchy in Christ's Church, Pt. 2
Patriarchy in Christ's Church, Pt. 2
"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience." - St. Paul
In my last post I aimed to underscore the plain teaching of Scripture regarding God’s design for male-only eldership in the church.
Whether or not you agree with the historic understanding of the church as laid out in part 1, I did promise to make a case for why any of this mattered. What is gained by male-only eldership? What is lost otherwise?
The recovery of patriarchy in the church is not merely a matter of obedience, but of necessity. God made men and women differently, and they are suitable to different roles and vocations. So what is it about pastoral ministry that makes men more suitable than women? What’s the “why” behind God’s prescription for male-only church leadership?
To answer this question we’ll look at the three essential characteristics of the church, namely, to preach and teach sound doctrine, to administer the sacraments, and to discipline error, whether doctrinally or behaviorally, within the household of God.
Teaching Sound Doctrine
Remember St. Paul’s zinger from last week? That bit about women not being permitted to teach or have authority over men? He follows that instruction with his rationale: women are more easily deceived than men.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
2 Timothy 2:14
I know… incredibly offensive. I didn’t call it a zinger for nothing!
Obviously men can be, and often are, deceived. And it’s also obvious that there are countless occasions in which a husband may be deceived and his wife is not. But let’s grant that St. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is laying down a general principle here. What is it about the composition of women that might make them more susceptible to deception than men? Or to ask it another way, what is it that is uniquely good about women that can be twisted and turned against them so that they are more easily convinced of falsehood?
Well, it’s no secret that women are more emotional than men (I’m speaking in generalizations here). They are also more compassionate, nurturing, and relational than men. These are all wonderful traits that God has disproportionately designed into women, and it makes them especially suitable for tasks and roles requiring mercy, tenderness, sensitivity, nurture, and empathetic relationship. This is why women make great mothers, primary school teachers, and nurses. A woman’s natural attributes lend themselves toward these and similar vocations.
Do they lend themselves toward the teaching of sound doctrine in the church? According to St. Paul, not so much. Hear also the author to the Hebrews..
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12
The word of God is a sword (see also Eph. 6:17). It is not only a sword. It is also a seed (1 Pet. 1:23), a lamp (Ps. 119:105), and a mirror (James 1:22-25). But it is a sword, and the church is an army assaulting the gates of death (Matt. 16:18), with captains who must know how to wield that sword rightly (2 Tim. 2:15) as good soldiers (v. 3-4).
Now ask yourself: does a wise nation send its women into battle? Does it stack its infantry with girls, and make its women officers? Of course not. While women are tough as nails as it pertains to what they will do for those they love, especially their children, they do not have the natural fortitude to fight and kill enemies. It’s not what they were made for. As C.S. Lewis’ Father Christmas tells Lucy: “battles are ugly when women fight.” Not because battles aren’t always ugly, because they are. Rather, they are especially ugly when women fight because we all know that women are particularly (and yes, anatomically) made to bring life into this world, and to nurture it—not destroy it.
On the other hand, men are less sensitive, less emotional, more rational, less relational (Adam was made from dirt, after all). Men can be deceived, and often are. But, generally speaking, deception will not take hold of them as a result of their worrying that someone won’t like them, or fearing the loss of relationship with a loved one. Men’s emotional stuntedness and oversized logic are a gift when it comes to believing and saying hard things. Thus, they are more suited to propagating sound doctrine and combatting those who oppose it.
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
Titus 1:9
This is not to say that women are unable to adequately teach sound doctrine to others. They most certainly are, beginning with their children and extending to other women. But the task of teaching sound doctrine, which includes guarding it and rebuking those who oppose it, is a task suitable to men’s natural fortitude. And if it seems like there are too many cowardly men, the answer is not to deploy women into the battle. Rather, we should begin cultivating strong men.
Administering the Sacraments
The second mark of the church is the administration of the sacraments of baptism and communion. As St. Augustine so perfectly described them, sacraments are “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.” Sacraments are visible words, conveying materially what God is speaking spiritually. The very existence of the sacraments is an affirmation that God has granted real significance to material things, such as food, water, and wine. They are not empty substances. They are filled to the brim with meaning, as is the rest of God’s creation, including men and women, male and female.
What is the significance of a man administering a sacrament versus a woman? It is simply this: in the sacraments the main actor is God—acting through the priest—to speak a word of grace to the recipient. In baptism God says your sins are washed away and you belong in his family. In communion Christ says this is his body and blood given for you. In baptism the Father speaks. In communion, the Son. The Godhead is unmistakably presented as male and masculine in the Scriptures. Is it more or less appropriate, then, for the priest—through whom God speaks this visible word to the church—to be male or female? Naturally, a masculine priest making visible God’s word is more consistent with God’s masculine self-revelation.
Disciplining the Household of God
The third mark of the church is the exercise of church discipline.
For the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.
Proverbs 3:12
In Hebrews 12, the church is reminded that “the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (v. 6). The author continues:
Endure suffering as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you do not experience discipline like everyone else, then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Furthermore, we have all had earthly fathers who disciplined us, and we respected them. Should we not much more submit to the Father of our spirits and live?
Hebrews 12:7-9
The reader will notice that God is described as a disciplining father. Almost anyone growing up in a two parent household can attest to the difference in experience between mom and dad’s discipline. A mother’s physique is made for nurture and comfort. Her skin and voice are softer by nature. A father’s physique is made for work and war. His skin is tough and his voice is deep. Experiencing discipline from mom is different than from dad, as my sons will readily attest. As children grow up, mother’s discipline becomes less effective because she is less intimidating, especially to boys. But a father retains his position of authority along with the gravitas of his presence.
Similarly, in the household of faith there is a fittingness to a full grown man, unrepentant in his sin, being confronted by another man—one who shares by nature his strength and stature. For a male pastor to call him to repentance and otherwise prescribe judgement simply hits differently than if it were done by a woman, who is by nature a weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7).
Beyond this, as in the case of the sacraments, it is more suitable for a man to exercise discipline on behalf of the Father than for a woman. The former is by nature a father. The latter is not, but has to subvert her nature and pretend to be a father.
You May Not Agree, and That’s Okay
As I said in the last installment, I’m not a biblical scholar. I’m not qualified to wade into the original languages, the socio-historical context of 1st century Palestine, or anything of that sort. Instead, I’ve laid out the plain words of Scripture on male-only leadership in the church, and then ventured some reasons as to why I believe God makes this prescription, reasons derived from simple observations from nature (or natural law).
Now any number of bonafide, Jesus-loving Christians, complete with combinations of letters after their name, disagree with or provide elaborate nuance to the position I’ve stated above—whether it be my interpretation of the text, my recollection of church history, my observations from nature, or all three. You can find and read the disagreements; they’re readily available on the web.
For now, I’ll conclude with a challenge and then a final word from C.S. Lewis.
The challenge is to go and build the church with an egalitarian spirit. Go and change the world with women as bishops, priests, and pastors. Wisdom is justified by her deeds (Matt. 11:19). At the end of the day, Christ is going to build his church. And if he does so through Christians operating in contradiction to his plain word, then God be praised—he uses crooked sticks to draw straight lines. But I suspect that this era of feminism will run its course, and future eras of the church will remember the folly of our egalitarian generation. And lessons will be taught, and children will laugh at the fact that there was a time in history when people thought women could be men and do what God made men to do, and vice versa.
And a word from brother Lewis.
It is painful, being a man, to have to assert the privilege, or the burden, which Christianity lays upon my own sex. I am crushingly aware how inadequate most of us are, in our actual and historical individualities, to fill the place prepared for us. But it is an old saying in the army that you salute the uniform not the wearer. Only one wearing the masculine uniform can (provisionally, and till the Parousia) represent the Lord to the Church: for we are all, corporately and individually, feminine to Him. We men may often make very bad priests. That is because we are insufficiently masculine. It is no cure to call in those who are not masculine at all. A given man may make a very bad husband; you cannot mend matters by trying to reverse the roles. He may make a bad male partner in a dance. The cure for that is that men should more diligently attend dancing classes; not that the ballroom should henceforward ignore distinctions of sex and treat all dancers as neuter. That would, of course, be eminently sensible, civilized, and enlightened, but, once more, “not near so much like a Ball.”
Next time we turn to patriarchy in the civil order.
Until then,
Lance
p.s. You can find the next installment below.