Why should I care?

 If anyone ever asks me about am I complementarian or egalitarian I get a very strong feeling of annoyance.

Why should I care? I am not married and I have zero calling to be in any form or leadership or preaching. So therefore how does it impact me?

It's BS straight from the devil to distract us from things that are way more important.

As a single female I have the best freedoms in this debate - I can listen to whatever preachers I like, I can read whatever books I like, I can pick and choose based solely on what I understand what God teaches us in the bible and spend not an iota of energy thinking about gender.

Now any man of the complementarian bent, I will raise an eyebrow at if they *ever* read a book by a female. I mean, seriously, hypocrites. They can say 'oh it's not teaching' ..'or leading'. Um really? You've let those women's words into your mind and you think you can always let women's words have no impact on you?

Which goes to show how non-sensical and disruptive it all is - because if you *don't* let women's words into your minds to impact you, you totally cripple the church.

And central to the church is Moses and the codified understanding of 'Love the Lord your God'.  Exodus is to me where it first made sense to me that God loves us and loves me because of what God is like. God is tearing his hair out trying to love his people and time and time again no matter the love showed to them, they turn their backs on Him.

But who taught Moses?  It was his sister and his mother. Moses taught clearly enough that his zeal for his people was enough to kill a man and then was called to stand before our holy God who could have destroyed him with His very holiness.

His mother and his sister. They were the ones who taught Moses in the Princess's household. They taught him well enough that despite his feeble speaking he led. He led the people of Israel for over forty years. That is a long, long time.

Where God wills people will lead. But he prepares them and moulds them. Be careful of context. In all of this debate be careful of context. Just as David was prepared in all sorts of experiences and learning before his battle with Goliath and his kingship, so was Moses prepared. Moses was prepared for dealing with government growing up in the palace. And he was prepared for his theological leadership by a woman.

There were two other figures with Jesus transfigured on the mountain that day. And at least one had been taught by a woman.

In all of this incredibly stupid debate where people claw in hatred of one another and the devil laughs and laughs at how we hate one another, God does what He wills. Deborah will judge, Phoebe will deliver a letter and preach it's contents and Jael will use that tent peg.

It annoys me further that I could write a lot more on this.

The death of a statesman

 Definition 'Statesman' : a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure

The only person who I can think of who meets this today is the Queen. Forgetting the gendered nature of the term - or actually in spite of it and sometimes because of it - she has persuaded and made apropos political points with grace, intelligence and humour.

She in her twilight and soon will be going home. It's funny to think I might get the chance to meet her in heaven. 

Anyway... the reason I brought up the idea of statesmen... and our lack of them... is the way the world is going in the way people are arguing with one another, scoring cheap points and not listening to one another. Trying to think what could be done about that. And it's going to be done with statesmen (and women).

So... how does one become or do the statesman thing?  Well first of all they need the position of authority. And here I want to draw a really sharp line between the difference between 'authority' and 'leadership'. Authority is granted by position and/or skill. This is where knowledge is power comes into its own. Leadership... there are 60 million definitions and that is kind of not my point today so I'll just stick with 'one who leads'. You ain't got no followers, you ain't leading. To see how they are different, you will meet people who are not high up in an organisation who have that certain something such that people follow their suggestions, come to them for solutions, and look to them when things are uncertain.

So yes, often the authority will be a leader. But a leader doesn't always have to have authority. Sure, their influence possibly directly in that organisation on that financial or decision structure from a legal buck-stops-here might be not in black and white. But everyone knows. And that's a leader.

And they don't have to be loud. Or extroverted. There will be something about them. Often they will have a certain skill in a certain area. But as not everyone can be everything they know how to lead others.

Anyway... how does this relate to statesmen? The difference between a leader and a statesman is that a statesman has a level of dispassion and longevity and is clearly known to see both sides fairly. They're respected even if not agreed with. They have a patience and a depth to them. A super high EQ. And they influence in quiet and polite ways.

I have seen this done only once that I can think of in people I've met. It was in an online game, one of those games where you spend a lot of time with people and you get to know the various communities and who is who and what everyone is like. Everyone liked Nick. And he was a skilful player. And as one of *the* most skilful players he was quickly collected into the guild of all the other most skilful players. The elite of the elite. He decided not to be the guild leader. But such as he was everyone treated him that way. And this mob of elite players - competitive, intelligent guys, who were cruel or kind as it pleased them, childish and selfish and carelessly hurting - Nick stood above in the way he treated others. He had a saying that something was 'classy'. And about being 'classy'. Or that something else was or wasn't classy. And he modelled that. Players who had been sniggered at and laughed behind their backs he courteously talked to to improve their game play. I watched him do this and it was a model of humble teaching that was just brilliant. Nick being an excellent player knew his stuff.

So he impacted everyone around him - by his character.

It was more than just leadership because he just didn't lead people through projects, completions, game winning victories and guild successes. His character impacted the people around him to change their characters. 

Those elite players who had been treated with caution because you didn't want them to make fun of you, became what Nick embodied: 'classy'. They became polite, inclusive - because they could see that they could do that and not only could they still be elite and competitive and brilliant and successful, they would become *more*. The idea of 'classy' was a character thing. Nick impacted them. And all who met him really. We saw the value of this. We saw that this character thing was something to aspire to.

Rudyard Kipling's poem 'If' encapsulates part of that. Again people trip over the gender thing but I wish they wouldn't. We've spent years reading 'men' as 'people' so surely we can focus on the meaning and brush over that.  It's a turn of the nineteenth century 'classy' description. 

So here when I look at Jesus, I see the greatest statesman there ever was. And I want to be like that. The calm, the kind, the steadfast, the faith, the trust, the intent seeing of others with intelligence and grace. The impact. Not for myself but for .. I guess it's love ultimately.

I pray that there may be other statesmen. Long live the Queen for however much more time we have her for. 

Classy