Hi Paula

Thank you for your comment at Provoketive Magazine (http://provoketive.com). We’re creating a space of rich conversation about life, faith, justice and culture without judgment. Our desire is to provoke the reader’s imagination through conversation and open up spaces of dialogue, learning, and hope.  We want to invite you to come back soon and continue to participate in the conversation. 

Thank you,
Jonathan Brink
Provoketive Magazine

You posted the following comment:
---------------------------------
A refreshingly irenic article and good comments.

But I think it needs to be emphasized that the whole focus on "roles" is misplaced in the Body of Christ. The various parts are all of one substance, one Body, and while the parts are many and varied, none of them reports to another but only to the one Head. The eye does not need permission from the hand, and the nose cannot be the decision-maker for the foot. Being gift-focused rather than flesh- or role-focused is how this Body was designed. This cooperative model is starkly contrasted with the world's chain of command.

But putting the focus on roles tends to create something I call "benevolent lording over"; people redefine "lording over" into "serving" as long as it's benevolent. But the question should not be *how* one person holds the trump card, but *whether* they hold it. It also elevates the flesh to the position of greatest importance, since only the flesh and nothing else is what determines who holds that trump card. 

In addition, even if this is all done very nicely and amicably, one is hard-pressed to explain how it differs in practice from egalitarian relationships. How does "designated tie-breaker/spiritual leader" taking his wife's advice look or function differently from just letting the most gifted or convicted person lead depending on the situation? It seems to me that we put a cardboard crown on the head of the man and call it his spiritual leadership role when in reality the wife is actually leading at the moment. It's like the mystical "covering" many believe a pastor holds over a congregation; somehow, magically, if a pastor declares that a woman is under his "covering", she may be allowed to stand behind the sacred pulpit and actually teach, preach, or prophesy.

I think all of this effort to retain the language of exclusive male leadership while practicing shared leadership is sincere but not quite honest, for lack of a better term. It could be described as "double-minded", not by intent but by default. We know deep inside that to be truly equal we cannot use the flesh as a criterion for leadership, yet we often find it difficult to break with deep-seated traditional roles or perhaps misunderstand the Biblical teaching on the matter, so we try to fit these two conflicting principles together like jigsaw puzzle pieces that don't quite match.

Personally, I see the scriptures teaching absolute functional and ontological equality, so I have no conflict to wrestle with. My husband of over 20 years and I have truly complemented each other, deferring when the other is best qualified and leading when the other needs us to. I stayed home to raise our kids because I wanted to and my husband's job could support us. Yet I am the lifelong Bible student and better qualified to lead in spiritual matters. He is no less of a man or a Christian for submitting to my spiritual leadership, and I am no less of a woman or a Christian for submitting to his provision of our physical needs.