It's Friday again and time to discuss Wayne Grudem's book, Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth. Since Grudem's first two chapters describe the foundational thinking behind the rest of the book, I don't want to move past them too quickly. Too often people begin and end their arguments with "the Bible says," and that's the end of the matter. Now don't get me wrong--the Bible does teach the truth and is perfectly authoritative, and in the sense of truth and authority, it is the end of the matter, but that doesn't mean the discussion about that truth ought to end there. For an emotionally charged subject such as this one, a stark command ("women can't be pastors") that doesn't include a rounded explanation of the goodness of that command can be confusing and difficult to swallow. Even women (and men) who desire to submit to the teachings of the Bible could submit with their actions but still be in pain and perhaps even misunderstand the character of God if those actions don't make sense to them.
I've changed my perspective on these things quite dramatically over the past 10 years, and I still have not settled my understanding of all the details. At first the change came in submission to biblical truth, but from that moment to this, my life experiences have consistently proven its wisdom and strengthened my complementarian view. I've come to see male leadership as being a result of the positive qualities of women rather than a consequence of women's lack of masculine qualities. (I'll explain more of what I mean by this as we go.) I haven't heard this perspective much, but I think if we could start thinking of this subject in these positive terms, the entire tone of the discussion could change. Some of that may sound cryptic for now, but I will flesh it out in the coming weeks.
So for my first post on this book, I want to start at the beginning and defend the very notion of hierarchy and submission as positive and necessary for members of a body who are working together towards a common goal. First, consider this chart from Chapter One which deals specifically with the organization of the family:
Leaving behind the issue of husbands and wives for a moment, I can give you an illustration--one that is not so emotionally charged--of a beautiful hierarchy and submission in another kind of organized group I've been involved with for years, and in which I've seen these same errors and ideals lived out at various times: the hierarchy observed by musicians. As with the family or the church, musicians bring their varied parts together to create a complete, harmonious whole. But in order for this goal to be reached, there must be a clearly defined leader and the other members must submit to him or her.
Thinking specifically of flute quartets I've been involved with, I've found that the following is necessary for the creation of music--for the optimum fulfilling of the function for which the group was formed:
1. The leader must lead. (No wimps.) When no one's taking charge to move things along for four women flute players in a practice room, there's more talking and less playing.
2. The leader must bring the best out of the other players. (No tyrants.) I've been part of groups where the leader was so demanding and harsh that no one was able to play well. The good leader will encourage, expand, and increase the talent of the other players rather than beat them down so they're hampered by fear.
3. The players must play. (No doormats.) Each player has an equally valuable, unique contribution to the group. If even one of them is not making an effort to fulfill her role, the music fails.
4. The players must follow. (No usurpers.) There's a granting of authority to the leader that must take place on the part of the players if everything is to go smoothly. It's impossible to lead those who won't submit. If they are to accomplish anything as a group, the players must respect and support the office of first chair (though they are usually equally talented to, and occasionally even more talented than, the one who holds that office).
To sum up, every player--including the leader--must have her eyes on the goal (making music) rather than on herself.
As an example of how #4 can go terribly wrong, I was once assigned first chair flute in a quartet, but one of the players (who I suppose was upset she wasn't first chair) made the subtle decision in her heart not to grant me the authority to lead her. What was supposed to be fun quickly became tedious as it proved impossible for the four of us to create anything together without the joyful and productive submission of all the players to my leadership. Her eyes were on herself; her desire was for my role instead of for the ultimate goal of the creation of music, and so she was not able to obtain either, and she destroyed the effectiveness of the entire group. Nobody was happy about this, including her.
As an illustration of error #1, I'm currently part of a community concert band where the director has the silly idea that there should be no first chair--no designated leader with the responsibility of governing the section. He thinks that since we're all there to have fun, we don't need a hierarchy. Wrong. This lack of an assigned leader has led to tension, confusion, and hurt feelings. Who's going to play the solo? Who should play which part? Who has the right to address those who are out of tune or playing something incorrectly? Who gives the final word for decisions that affect the flute section as a whole? Trust me, having an "equal partnership" structure for the entire section keeps us from functioning in an optimal way.
On the other hand, when everything works correctly and the loving, humble headship of the leader meets the joyful, intelligent submission of the other players, the result is fulfilling for all--and not just for those who are playing, but also for everyone who is listening. This, to me, has become the illustration of hierarchy and submission that finally helped me make sense of the subject. Having been both the submitter and the submittee, I know the value and joy of both, and I also know the irritating ineffectiveness that ensues when the structure is not accepted. Luckily, musicians usually do accept and work within the structure that has been created for their good. Perhaps this is because they understand and appreciate the necessity of every part and have experienced the value of submission, even submission among equals. But imagine what would happen if all musicians were to reject submission just as many in marriage relationships have done.
I'll save the question of why the husband has been declared the leader for another post. For now, I'll just say that I know there's nothing wrong with second chair--that it's a crucial role to be filled if the greater goal is to be reached together, as one. And in fact, I quite enjoy filling it.
