Willow Branches in Autumn Winds

Mark Chanski author of the books Manly Dominion and Womanly Dominion, was interviewed recently on the CBMW gender blog about this concept of dominion. Chanski says that both men and women were given the “Dominion Mandate” in Genesis 1:27-28, but that since men and women have different roles according to Scripture, their dominion looks different.

Male dominion means a man should seek to “subdue and rule in every sphere.” He should be bold and aggressive. “He dominates his environment instead of letting his environment dominate him.”

Women should also “put on a dominion mindset of bold activity… But women, unlike men, are faced with an additional fierce life challenge. They’ve also got to ‘play their position.’” Chanski goes on to say that women have not been given the position of “Family Leader, Breadwinner, and Pastor.” Instead, Eve was made as a “helper suitable (Gen 2:18), a child nurturer (Gen. 3:16) and a submissive learner (1 Tim 2:11-15).”

I have several problems with what Chanski says in this interview, and, although I disagree with him on the biblical foundation for traditional gender roles, my issues are more with his logic in communicating his beliefs in this interview than with my theological disagreements.

For example, Chanski specifically says that women are the only ones with the challenge of “playing their position.” This implies that while women are to be boldly active in their limited roles as helper, child nurturer and submissive learner (btw, how can you be boldly active and a submissive learner at the same time?), men are to be boldly active in whatever role they wish—according to Chanski, men are not limited in the same way women are.

There are many examples of women in contemporary evangelical Christianity with gifts of teaching or leadership, but because of what the Bible seems to say about what women are allowed to do, they have set aside those gifts in order to become wives and mothers who focus on the home and children. Or they have used their gifts of leadership and teaching in the women’s ministry at church, respectfully leaving it to the men to teach the whole congregation.

But have you ever heard a story of a man who loved kids and had a desire to stay home and nurture them, but gave up that desire because it was his God-given assignment to be the breadwinner? Or a man who loved to cook and was gifted in hospitality, but rather than using those gifts in the church by organizing potlucks and coffee hours, gave that up so that he could be an elder?

According to Chanski’s logic (and the logic of other complementarians?) it doesn’t ultimately matter what men or women are gifted in, what matters is that men are supposed to do certain things and women are supposed to do certain things. (This may explain why I have been in several small groups led by men who were clearly not gifted in small group leading—the role has more “authority” than the gift.) If we are each given specific roles then we are both limited—both women and men should be “playing their position.” But Chanski describes this as a challenge unique to women.

Later in the article Chanksi gives some examples of women in Scripture who asserted their dominion. He has just mentioned that women are supposed to be submissive learners and child nurtures, but he lists Deborah and Priscilla as examples of godly women who were bold in their challenging assignments.

He specifically mentioned that Priscilla “helped teach the great Apollos the way of God more accurately.” Now, he doesn’t explicitly say that women aren’t supposed to teach men, but he does mention 1 Timothy 2, where Paul states, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man.” In a list of ways to model biblical womanhood in the church, Chanski says women should “take up their strategic opportunities as strategic teachers. The church is teeming with needy women and children, and a wise Apollos will hear a discreet Priscilla.”

So, apparently a woman can teach a man if she does it “discreetly.” Of course, there is nothing in the Scripture to indicate that Priscilla was “discreet” in her teaching of Apollos. And Paul does not give any indication that women can teach men only if they go about it in the right way. But Chanski has to explain Priscilla somehow, so he imputes his own cultural assumptions onto the text.

While I believe that men and women, in general, are different, and that we need each other’s otherness in order to fully reflect the image of God, I don’t believe that the Bible explicitly assigns different roles to men and women, beyond the ones mandated by our physical differences. However, if you’re going to make the argument that it does, at least be consistent. If we have certain roles, then men and women both ought to stick to them. And if women aren’t allowed to teach or lead, then maybe Priscilla and Deborah aren’t the best women to hold up as role models for the rest of us.