A G K Y R A

I was watching Law & Order on TNT last night when an advertisement for Chrysler aired. In the ad, a man’s usual car is surreptitiously replaced with a Chrysler, and the viewer sees him driving along talking about how much he likes the Chrysler. Then, at the end of the ad, the narrator announces that Chrysler also replaced his wife of 20 years with a fashion model, to which the man says, “Thank you, Chrysler!” Is that supposed to elicit a laugh? Sorry, Dieter. Even if you have a lousy marriage, please at least keep your jaded and juvenile attitude about it to yourself.

Postmodern iconoclastic and non-sequitur themes are the new norms for advertising for many products. They appeal to younger people and entertain by mashing together elements from things that don’t go together at all. Think of the “un-pimp my ride” ads by Volkswagen, featuring the engineer, clad all in white, who speaks Jive (or whatever the contemporary hip-hop equivalent is called) with a heavy Teutonic accent. Spoofs are common too, as are scenarios in which someone explicitly says what everyone knows or thinks but would never say in real life.

I find lots of this advertising very funny, and it’s nice to have ads that primarily entertain rather than directly appeal to covetousness. Unfortunately, some senseless, or maybe just immature, advertising workers don’t really understand the humor involved. But, not wanting to be left out, they produce ads that are harmful and offensive rather than funny. They step over the line from humorous to crass and cynical. The Chrysler ad is just one example.

Another is the Bahamavention campaign by the Bahamas Ministry of Tourism. The ads are saturated with cynicism, featuring photographs (more like caricatures) of ordinary people in need of a “Bahamavention.” (See the mash up of unrelated ideas in that made-up word? At least that much is almost funny.) Their one-sentence testimonials are printed next to their photo: “I was so white, I couldn’t wear myself after Labor Day.” Ha ha. “Before my Bahamavention, the least little thing would set me off. Like someone saying hello.” Ad nauseam. The photographs remind me of the Twilight Zone episode “The Masks,” and the Bahamas is now, without doubt, the last place I would ever vacation. Take it from me: if you look anything like the people in those photos, you need a therapist sooner than a vacation.

More discussion on the Chrysler ad can be found here.

Technorati Tags: chrysler bahamas bahamavention ads ad advertising

The issue of women and ordination is a sensitive one for both Christians and non-Christians. Within the church, it creates tension between Christians–individually and as whole congregations and denominations–who otherwise stand shoulder to shoulder for the gospel. As far as our relationships with non-Christians go, we all know how this issue comes across: it seems bizarre to them that we even discuss it. “Fundamentalists! Of course women should have all the same opportunities that men do, whether to serve as pastors or elders or to occupy any other office in the church.” You’ve come a long way, baby.

Even though I understand Scripture to exclude women from the office of elder, that fact does make me a bit uncomfortable. It’s contrary to all our culture’s egalitarian and democratic values. How short a time it has been since black people have had fully equal rights, even if not fully equal opportunities, as whites in the United States, and the same is true for women. Can you believe it was only about 90 years ago that women won the right to vote in federal elections! Members of any group should have the right to do anything that members of any other group can–with a few particular exceptions related to, for example, minors, felons, and immigrants. There’s nothing about any particular kind of person that should exclude him (or her!) from something. Right?

Mostly right. Ordination is fundamentally different than other things. You see, a person is not ordained on the basis of human initiative, but on the basis of God’s call or vocation, and God only calls particular people, not groups. The long process of education and spiritual formation that culminates in ordination is intended to be a time of testing and evaluation, a time to discern whether God has, in fact, called a person to ordained ministry. Calling is initiated by God and recognized by humans, and ordination is the response.

I contend that when we argue about gender and ordination, we’re treating ordination as if it were our own convention, something we control and decide, rather than a response to God’s call. God only calls individuals, not groups. Even if we confine the discussion to men, God doesn’t call all men indiscriminately. It’s not as though all men can become elders and no women can. Some men can–and no one else, men or women. When we keep the fact of God’s call to individuals before us, the answer to the question “Why men and not women?” becomes theological and not ideological. It’s not a question of men and women but of this person and that person. The answer to “Why Bill and not Jane?” is as inscrutable as the answer to “Why Bill and not Tom?” I don’t know why God gifts and calls people to different ministries, in different times and places. God does. For that matter, I don’t know why God had me be born when I was, in the place I was, to the family I was, or why anything in my life has happened the way it has. God does. It’s all part of God’s providence, and we can trust him.

Here is something to think about. When in the history of redemption have we seen other groups of people categorically excluded from certain activities or offices? Think back to the Old Testament and lots of peoples will come to mind, both within and without the Chosen People. Were any of those exclusions permanent and ongoing today? (That is a question for other Christians.) I can’t think of any, but let me know if you can. What I’m driving at is that, as far as we know, the office of elder is a temporary one for the time of the church, and all its trappings are temporary just the way those of the Kohathite lineage/office was (Numbers 4). The church in its present earthly manifestation is not where we place our hope or expectation, but in the new heavens and earth, in which Jesus will rule visibly. If women are excluded from serving as elders for the time being, that is not a reflection on their constitution, abilities, or value, any more than the restriction of certain priestly duties to the sons of Kohath was. And it just might be intended to teach us something. That is completely unlike the perverse values of a society that looks down on women as inferior or incapable.

What about women who are serving as pastors or elders? What should be our stance toward them? That all depends. If we remember that ordination is a response to God’s call, it will help us evaluate different cases. If a woman elder doesn’t care what God says in Scripture, we should regard her the same way we would regard anyone else who doesn’t care what God says–as a non-Christian.

On the other hand, if she is concerned to be obedient to God and conscientiously believes that Scripture does not exclude women from the office of elder, we ought to encourage her in her ministry. That’s right, encourage her. We can do that without believing that ordination is open to women or that God has called her to the ministry as a special exception, and also without compromising our own convictions on the subject. How? By recognizing God’s providence.

One of the mysteries of providence–and there are many–is how God can co-opt an evil intent, or even an evil act (e.g., Joseph’s being sold into slavery), for his own good purpose. If that’s the case, then surely God uses people’s misjudgments, including misinterpretations of Scripture or misdiscernments of vocation, for his own good purpose. God calls individuals, but as far as I know, it is no sin to misjudge whether God has called you to an office–at least it’s not the kind of sin that calls for discipline. I have no doubt that there are some men in the pastoral office who are not called by God to that ministry. If that’s true, it is certainly the case that some ruling elders aren’t called by God, if only because there are lots more of them! In spite of that, God is using them for good, effecting good things through them. (Something else to think about: even those who are called sometimes turn out to do bad, through which God accomplishes a greater good. Wasn’t Judas Iscariot called? This too is part of God’s providence.) If a woman who loves the Lord and submits herself to his authority in Scripture–as she understands it–is ordained in the PCUSA, let’s say, we ought to encourage her in her ministry. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t argue lovingly and Scripturally about whether God calls women to be pastors. But, as long as she is functioning as a pastor, we ought to encourage her in her caring for the flock that God has providentially entrusted to her. No, God may not have truly called her to that office, but he has nevertheless allowed her to come into it and has entrusted some of his own people into her care.

To summarize, I don’t think God calls women to be elders, so certainly I don’t think my own denomination (the PCA) should change its position on the subject. The question of ordination isn’t really about gender, though. It’s about calling, and God calls individual persons for reasons all his own. Why they are exclusively male is a theological question to be explored, not a fact to be resisted. That said, some women who are good Christians just are serving as pastors or elders. We shouldn’t think of them as “the enemy” or treat them as non-Christians. We should love them, encourage them, and, not least, work with them. Perhaps it will become clear in time that God has other great responsibilities in store for them. In the meantime, let’s work together for the common goals, the proclamation of the gospel and the safeguarding and strengthening of his people.

Technorati Tags: PCA PCUSA ordination vocation church christian presbyterian evangelical reformed gender