Hierarchy Wasn't God's Design

You might have read this week of an event that recorded a prominent male author/pastor as making denigrating comments about a prominent female Christian author and speaker. When given the opportunity to make a word association with the female leader’s name, he immediately responded with, “Go home!” At that comment, an audience of men erupted in loud applause and cheers. The pastor quickly explained his belief that the Bible simply cannot support a female leader/pastor. 

How sad! First, that a room full of male Christian leaders would resort to making word associations with women’s names. Second, that they responded in cheers to a very mocking and denigrating comment toward a woman. Third, that their view of scripture is so male-centered as to believe that men alone were God’s design to lead the church. That demonstration alone suggests something’s wrong with that view.

Can a woman lead? Is there a hierarchical design for the genders? It would be impossible in this short space to unpack this with justice. But let me offer a brief synopsis with just a few highlights to whet your whistle for a little deeper dive on Sunday. If you’re following along, this Sunday we delve into Ephesians 5:21-6:9, which is all about marriage, submission, parenting and slavery. How timely!

The primary question for the remainder of this post will be, “At what point in scripture does hierarchy and/or authority come into the discussion about the role between the genders? 

In Genesis 1:27-28 God describes making two human beings, male and female, in His image. 

“So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Now some would argue that because male is listed first that implies male dominance. If you want to go by that, then some scholars jest that we’d really have to be subject to the animals, fish and birds as they were all made before man in Genesis 1. It’s a very weak argument and one that loses the point of the beauty of the verse. Male and female are descriptors of a multi-faceted image of God. Nothing more and less can be read into the word placement or design order. 

In Genesis 2 God initiates a different explanation of the same events that sheds a little more light on the subject. In verse 7 it says:

“...then the LORD God formed “man” (Hebrew = adam which translates better as “human” with no gender connotation) from the dust of the “ground” (Hebrew = adama: Note wordplay with human), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the “man” became a living being (NRSV). “

Here we read of a human being made to help rule and tend the garden. It’s a different portrait from Genesis 1, but none-the-less, the being in question was not male or female in gender, but simply is referenced as a human (humankind) made of the substance of the earth. 

Then God wanted to find the human a helper and brought all the animals, but there was none suitable for the human. So God created a helper right out of the human’s own side. Literally God duplicated the human into two beings (Gen. 2:21-23). Dismiss the idea of a “rib” as the word actually means “out of the side of” the human. The one new being was called man (Hebrew = “Is”) and the other was called woman (Hebrew = “Issa”: Note wordplay again between the names). They are one and the same in substance and kind, made from the first being, yet now two different genders, both reflecting the image of God. 

What’s missing? Any sense of hierarchy. There is absolutely nothing in Genesis 1 & 2 that connotes male supremacy, or a man having authority over the woman. In fact, the word God uses to tell the first human what he’s going to make for Him is a word translated as “help meet.” It’s difficult to capture the full meaning, but the phrase is the exact phrase God uses of himself in relating to His people (Ps. 30:10, 54:4). God is inferior to no one, and thus the status he gives to a woman is one of absolute equality, not anything secondary (“bone of bone, flesh of flesh”). These two were to reign together, be fruitful and multiply. They were to reign over God’s creation on His behalf. 

Much more could be said, but let’s turn to chapter 3. There we read that the couple disobeyed  a direct order and God then announced what would happen. He says to the woman in verse 16: “...yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The “desire” here is also the same word used of sin that was desiring Cain in Gen. 4:7. It is a desire that is contrary to what is healthy and good. 

So, not until after the fall do we read anything about ruling or having any kind of differential authority between the genders. With that as a backdrop, how would you decide between the two scenarios if you had to pattern your life after one? Is Genesis 1 & 2 the prescription for how life is to be lived sans hierarchy? Or is Genesis 3 the prescription with some rule/authority in place? 

For my money, and more specifically based on my study and ongoing training, I defer to God’s original intent (Genesis 1 & 2) as the prescription for His creation. Why is that important? It must impact the way I read the rest of scripture. That is important for our verses this week as we enter into the concept of mutual submission. 

So - that was a long build-up to say that as we unpack Ephesians 5:21 - 6:9 this weekend, we must keep Genesis 1 & 2 squarely in our sights. If God’s original design was not built around hierarchy, but those ideas lept into existence as a consequence of the fall, then we would do well to make sure we don’t use a description of life as it would be experienced post-fall as being a “prescription” for what God intended. God simply never intended people to express power and authority over one another in hierarchical types of ways.  

As you read and consider the events that transpired this week, please know that we as a church do stand in solidarity with women and men who believe that God created us as co-equal stewards and partners to reign over His good creation. Women can lead with full authority and with great impact. I’m not here to say that my way of reading these texts is the only way, and I certainly know that others have very solid arguments to refute the things that I have put forth above. My contention with what was said this week is not that we as Christians cannot disagree on this type of issue. We can as this definitely falls into the “secondary” issues camp when discerning doctrine. My sadness stems from the fact that men (Christian men at that) continue to denigrate women, mocking their worth and value and abilities with seeming little regard for how their actions hurt women, and how it runs counter to the original intent of creation. If we draw in Jesus at this point, I cannot imagine he ever would have cheered at such a word association. Jesus was the most empowering figure to women in scripture. 

So whether you land on the side of the Free Methodist Church, or some other side in your belief about the role women can play in leading and pastoring, please don’t resort to mocking or denigrating women to make your point. Spend some time the rest of this week pondering where you gained your understanding of the role of women and men. What does “mutual submission” really look like if hierarchy is involved? How did Jesus view hierarchy (note Phil. 2:5-8)? 

I look forward to another fruitful Sunday with you this coming week! Many Blessings!

Pastor Scott