Dear Jory Micah,
I want to start this letter by expressing my gratitude for your fiery determination to make this world a better place. Your work as an advocate against sex trafficking and abuse is to be lauded. We need more people in the church standing up against such terrible results of sin in this fallen world. But I also am very concerned about your work in the church and in breaking the so-called glass steeple. This letter is written out of love and concern from a fellow sister-in-Christ, who loves theology and church history (and would like to get advanced degrees in these fields if God wills it and opens doors). I also live in the Pittsburgh area! If you'd like to meet up, I'd be happy to do so!
I read through several months worth of your Facebook page, some of your blog, watched a few of your videos (specifically your most recent video concerning the loss of your job) and read your master's thesis. I'm very sorry that you lost your job as an adjunct professor. My dream is to teach and I couldn't imagine losing my dream job. However, I'd like to share some thoughts with you, honest thoughts.
You talk a lot about "breaking the glass steeple." This very concept is what your master's thesis is based on: the idea that complementarianism is anti-biblical, suppressive, and even abusive.
This is not necessarily what I have concerns about, though I do not agree with your general position. Let me start off that the concepts of complementarianism and patriarchy, to use the terminology that I read in your work, are much broader than what they appear. Patriarchal structure in the family has thousands of variations in the world and just as many in the church universal and historical. It may be wise to specify what type of complementarianism and patriarchy you are addressing as opposed to painting wide brushstrokes.
Additionally, the egalitarianism that you support is a very new phenomena. I'm by no means a professional historian, I'll admit, but from what I can tell, the family and gender structure in the history of not just the church but also the world has almost always been (with exceptions) in such a way where men hold the highest leadership and the highest authority. This is not to say women do not lead and do not hold authority, but historically, biologically and scripturally, it is acknowledged that they are weaker (not weak, but weaker), and that men are to hold the highest authoritative positions. This is not simply the so-called "cultural backdrop" of the Bible and of church history, but the case from the Fall, where God tells Eve that her desire shall be for her husband, and he will rule over her.
The basics of historical study demand that we historians study the past through the perspectives of those who lived it. And scripture demands that we study it for what it says as opposed to playing the "you're putting it out of context" card when someone disagrees with us or looking for proof where there is none. I am afraid, Ms. Micah, that I see more forcing your own 21st century white American perspective on the Bible. I do not deny that there were church mothers and that their work has been severely unacknowledged in the days between then and now. But I cannot agree that the women in the early church had an egalitarian role such as you suggest in your thesis. The early church structure drew a lot of its makeup from the synagogues and from the Old Testament, and also from the teachings of the Apostles (which, in addition, included only men ordained for the position by Jesus directly, as in the Twelve and Paul [one of the qualifications for the selection of Matthias was that he had followed Jesus during our Lord's tenure here on earth]). In the structure of the synagogues and in the Old Testament, women held many positions (look at Miriam or Anna or Deborah, for example), but they did not occupy the position of priest, rabbi, or such equivalents.
The Apostles teach that men are to lead alone as ordained officers in the church. The qualifications for ordination as laid out in Titus 1 are all in the masculine. An elder is to be the husband of one wife, a man above reproach. In 1 Timothy 2, contrary to what your thesis states, Paul is giving instructions on the pattern and structure of worship in the church. He asks women to dress modestly (modestly does not mean dowdily, but modesty is, contrary to some of your previous statements, a repeated and gentle command for women throughout the New testament) and to submit, and not to assume authority over a man.
You also suggest that Christ has no gender when returning to heaven. After going through various classes this past week addressing ancient Trinitarian heresies, I'm afraid I had to slide this conviction into the same category as said heresies. Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man (emphasis on man). If He still has the scars in His hands and side in heaven, how would he no longer possess his masculinity? How come, then, that John saw Him glorified in the form of a Son of Man? To suggest this has two conclusions: one, you either believe that humans can have no gender, or two, you believe that Christ lost elements of His humanity upon His ascension. I'd love to know if it is either or something else, because I am still failing to grasp this statement that Christ has no gender while sitting at the right hand of God, interceding for us as our elder brother, our great high priest, and our king (all clearly male titles), fully God and fully man.
I write all this not necessarily with the intention of changing your mind, but rather to clarify some things that I find in your teaching to be inconsistent with plain and simple doctrine laid out in Scripture. Some of your teaching I would agree with if I found it more plainly laid out in Scripture, but I cannot. For example, you discuss Mary the mother of John Mark and how she hosted a church in her home, and draw the conclusion that she was therefore the pastor of that church. There are other such conclusions that I found in your thesis and on your blog. Such conclusions are based in assumptions and guesswork. While these church mothers are to be commended for hosting church functions in their homes, hospitality, which was a feminine jurisdiction in this era, does not equal ordained leadership.
Thirdly, you make the statement that "a woman's place is wherever God calls her." I agree. But I think the line needs to be drawn between God's calling and personal feelings and desires. No matter how we may feel we are called, God's calling for us all never goes outside the commands in His Word, and His Word makes it very clear that the ordained office, in His providence, is designed for men alone, and more specifically, men he calls. God will not and will never call any of us to something contrary to His Word. He cannot. God cannot contradict Himself in such a way. This is not to say women are supposed to stay out of influence and refrain from service, teaching, hospitality, theological study, and work in the church. Quite the opposite. But God in His providence has ordained the spiritually authoritative positions of minister, elder and deacon for men.
Complementarianism takes many shades, but regardless of how strongly one holds to it or disagrees with it, it is clear that God created complementarianism to be the pattern in daily life and in the church. Biologically, emotionally, and psychologically, women and men compliment each other. Women do things men cannot do, and men do things women cannot do. To deny so and to deny the biological and historical realities of complementarianism is a 21st-century Western concept, not a New Testament one.
Lastly, and most importantly, I feel most strongly about your general attitude toward those who disagree with you. Even if you disagree with me on everything I have stated before this, I went through many of the comment sections of your Facebook posts and found an attitude very different than the commendable, cheerful, encouraging demeanor you wear in your videos. I understand how it feels to be trolled. I have my own personal blog and I write here on Odyssey and face trolling. But just because someone disagrees with you and comes across strongly about it does not mean they are trolling you. Many times, they want to engage in purposeful conversation with you. Deleting comments and blocking people who merely want to hold a conversation with you out of curiosity or concerns silences them, is somewhat abusive, is not out of Christian love, and is the exact opposite of the attitude of love and kindness you say complementarians and your other opponents lack.
In conclusion, I do not intend this letter to be anything other than food for thought written out of sisterly love and concern. I am sorry that many people have treated you nastily and have legitimately trolled you. That is not at all my intention. I hope that this article gives you things to consider and maybe even opens a door for communication. I also hope that the Lord blesses you, your family, you with your new job at Starbucks and in your walk with Him.
Love, blessings, and in Him,
Rachel Stevenson
Like what you read? Disagree? Join an Odyssey community to continue the conversation.
