The biblical view of men and women’s roles, as I understand it, is that men are to lead and women to help and follow. Helping and following are fairly passive. To do them well requires a patient ‘sitting back’, waiting to see how things pan out or what we are asked to do. They require women to adapt and mould themselves to whatever situation presents.
But this is too simplistic. Done well, there is a strange activity, alertness and intelligence to the passivity of helping and following. Like ninjas (perhaps) women need to have a ‘readiness’, so that once we see what to do we can take action. There is also a creativity and generativity in changing ourselves and in working out how best to help or how best to achieve what has been asked of us. It’s not a robotic completion of requirements, but an innovative contribution – yet one that has the humility to be ‘overruled’.
The man’s leadership also has an active/passive mix. It is active in that he does lead, and yet, his goal is, in a sense, passive. He aims to serve the woman and sacrifices himself to help her be all she can be.
As I always say, it’s like dancing.
3 comments:
oh dear. oops. one great danger for our generation will be letting Aaron Sorkin inform our theology, let's be honest!
e e cummings? as in no capitals?
yes. that's right.
Post a Comment