Theology Dressed in Pink

As I grew up, the Lutheran liturgy always made me think of theology as something gray: it was solemn, grave and terribly serious. As I transitioned to the evangelical world, theology became distinctly blue - it was the domain of men; women were supposed to be silent observers. But as I became an egalitarian Christian, I began to wonder: could theology be…um… pink?
           
            When we think of pink, we rarely – if ever – think of theology. Pink is associated with fluff and stuff, not with Greek dictionaries or lengthy sermons. Although I like pink, the happy co-existence of passion-filled red and the purity of white, I am also deeply interested in words such as epitrepo, hypotasso, Theos, logos. I want to know what these words mean and how they should influence our lives. But can I - a woman - be a lay theologian? Can theology be dressed in pink?     
            
            Some say, yes; others say, no. Those who say "yes" go back to Genesis 1 and the image of God. Those who say "no" go back to Genesis 2 and the creation of the woman from the man. But here’s where it all becomes confusing: if the man’s prior creation gave the man authority, why did God the Father and God the Son never say so? Why did we have to wait for God the Spirit to reveal it to Paul, and through Paul, to Timothy in a private letter? And what about this idea that the woman was created to be the man’s helper? Why is it that this is never mentioned outside Genesis 2, as the woman is never called a “helper” but always a “woman.” Two isolated texts have defined womanhood for nearly two thousand years. But was it God's idea?

At this point we are told by hierarchicalists that the husband is the head of the wife and the “head” has authority over the “body.” But why does Paul use the metaphor Christ-Church to convey this idea? Neither Christ nor the Church existed before the First Advent; Israel never knew of such a relationship. If the man’s authority is based on the man’s prior creation, why use such a resent metaphor? Ah, but you see, the real metaphor is found in 1 Corinthians 11: husbands should really be compared to God the Father and wives to God the Son. All right, should we not then say that Christ rules over all men as all men rule over all women? Well… that’s not exactly right… wives should submit only to their own husbands, for the man’s prior creation doesn’t give the man authority in all situations, only in the Church and in the home… And on it goes ad infinitum.

But what if the early church was egalitarian in its beliefs? Clement of Rome wrote in the first century:

Let us take our body for an example. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head; yea, the very smallest members of our body are necessary and useful to the whole body. But all work (lit. all breathe together) harmoniously together, and are under one common rule (lit. use one subjection) for the preservation of the whole body.  Let our whole body, then, be preserved in, Christ Jesus; and let every one be subject to his neighbour, according to the special gift (lit. according as he has been placed in his charism) bestowed upon him.[1] 

As the church became increasingly Roman from second century on, the Roman mores began to infiltrate the church along with Greek philosophy, which was unashamedly misogynistic. Women and slaves were once again subjected to the rule of freeborn men. The natural inferiority of women and slaves became the norm and was upheld us such until the 20^th century when science proved it to be a fallacy from a less than enlightened era. The theology that was based on inferiority continued to be taught. However, the church was quick to modify its teaching when challenged. “Head” – that tiny word that was given the meaning “superior rank” in the olden days - was changed into a more subtle concept of leadership based on responsibility. “Submit” used to mean “to obey”; today we talk about “submission” without obedience. Genesis 3.16 was once a commandment of God - now it is a consequence of sin. And Eve, who used to be blamed for the entire fall of humanity, saw Adam receive his fair share of the guilt.

        Such changes cannot be made without a radical change in how we read the whole Bible. Was Deborah a judge? Was Junia an apostle? Was Phoebe a deacon? And what about Priscilla, Mary, Eudoia and Syntyche? Why are these women in the Bible if women cannot do theology? It doesn’t make much sense, but then again, modern theology has that handicap; we talk about paradoxes, mysteries, the elusive will of God when our theology ceases to make sense. But is the Bible really that difficult to read? Did God not give us the “why” with the “who” and “how”? I believe God did. If we read the Bible through egalitarian lenses, we find that God created the man and the woman equal, in his own image. Both were given the mandate to care for the created world, and after their eviction from the Garden, the mandate to preach and teach the good news to all creation. And because God created the woman to speak and act, instead of being a silent observer, theology can most certainly be pink - thought and taught by women. Now that's good news for everyone.