Anyone Can Cook

“You must be imaginative, strong-hearted. You must try things that may not work, and you must not let anyone define your limits because of where you come from. Your only limit is your soul. What I say is true - anyone can cook... but only the fearless can be great.” Chef Gusteau

Ratatouille is one of my favorite Disney movies. I always assumed it was due to the cooking theme. I love to cook. I enjoy feeding people. And I am good at it. But now I realize it is more than just the cooking. It is the idea of succeeding in a world that tells you that you are different; that because of your race, gender, or ethnicity you cannot accomplish tasks for which you have been gifted. Ratatouille is the story of a rat who desires to be a chef. This is a story of a woman who desires to be in ministry.

I had two favorite stories as a young girl. The first, Amy Carmichael - a missionary to India. The second, a woman in the Bible named Deborah. I love the story of Deborah because it is my name. She was strong, confident, and decisive. The name Deborah, while meaning “bee” comes from the Hebrew root meaning “to speak” and speak she did. She was the voice of God to the people. It is not uncommon for the Word of God to enter the world through a woman. In fact, it is entirely logical considering the Incarnation. Why do we seem to struggle with it so much now?

In the 16th century theologian John Knox spoke out against the suitability of women (Queen Mary) in leadership and in so doing wrote of Deborah, “She was exempted from the common malediction given to women...and made prudent in counsel, strong in courage, happy in regiment, and blessed mother and deliverer to his people.” That does not quite seem the proper apologetic necessary to ban women from leadership. Essentially it means that God is sovereign. It means that if God sees fit, He is able to gift and call a woman into ministry if it suits His purposes regardless of the circumstances surrounding the cultural phenomenon. Based on the Biblical precedent set by Deborah’s story, it is not outside of God’s character to perform this function whether it is the norm or not if He so desires. Now the question becomes, “Does God desire that women lead?”

It would seem from my experience that there are women gifted to lead in ministry. They do not lead because there are either few to no opportunities to do so or they have been told that God does not allow it. Based on the aforementioned logic, God does allow women to lead even when it is not the social norm. It is not for us to speculate why He allows it, simply that He does allow it. For if we speculate in Deborah’s case as to why she was allowed to lead, then we must also speculate in the NT case of Paul’s prohibition for women leading. And since we cannot question one, then we should not question the other. It suffices to say, it is allowed. But if we were to speculate, an image comes to mind. 

The rat, Remy, in Ratatouille, watches outside the kitchen one evening after stumbling on Gusteau’s restaurant. He sees the newly hired garbage boy, Linguini, fumbling around the kitchen clumsily. Linguini knocks over the soup and spills some onto the floor. Quickly mopping up the mess, he turns to the soup and tries to replace ingredients in a frenzied hurry. Remy watches closely before panicking, “He’s ruining the soup!” Linguini was not a chef you see. He was not trained as a chef. He could not cook. Oh sure, he could scrounge up some hamburger helper perhaps, but he could not offer the 5 star fare customary at Gusteau’s restaurant. Linguini, as we find out later, is the son of the chef; by birthright the owner of the restaurant, but he could not cook. Some commentators are of the opinion that Paul’s words that women should not lead in ministry were a result of their inability to “cook”. Quite frankly, I do not blame him. I would not come to a five star restaurant and be happy leaving with a sloppy soup. If you do not know how to cook then you should not be cooking! Remy, however, can cook, but he is a rat. So, the question arises, “Can anyone cook?” And if anyone can cook, then is not everyone a cook? 

Luther argued so when he taught the priesthood of all believers. I do not imagine the issue of ministerial gifts exercised by all was in mind when he began. Luther’s emphasis was a matter of mediation. However, in so stating, the possibilities toward spiritual equality swung open. As theology developed and evangelicalism grew, the case solidified. Stanley Grenz writes that “the evangelical emphasis on the shared responsibility of all people of God for the work of the congregation leads quite naturally to an egalitarian view of the pastorate...the principle of the universal priesthood implies that the Spirit’s call of some to the pastorate arises fundamentally out of his call to all believers to be ministers of Christ.”

But there is an issue of representative character. This is the proposition that since Christ was male, then the leadership qualities for those aspiring to the priesthood/pastorate include maleness. As some have suggested, the leader representing Christ at the table cannot be female because a woman cannot fully represent God. Patrick Reardon invokes the imagery of iconography to further assist in the point and necessity of male priesthood. This calls into question the purpose of the Incarnation. Church Fathers assert that whatever the Son did not assume in the incarnation, he could not therein redeem. This is a little difficult to wrap the mind around so I will try and make it as simple as possible. Basically the plan of redemption involved Christ becoming like us in every way, yet without sin. If Christ did not fully identify with us then He could not redeem us. This has vast implications on Christ’s sacrifice for all of humanity to include women if we understand the Incarnation’s purpose to be dependent on his maleness as opposed to on his humanness. If the emphasis is placed on Christ’s maleness then he could not have redeemed women and we are still fallen. If Christ did redeem women then the Incarnation was about his assumption of human likeness and flesh irrespective of gender. Only in this manner could he have redeemed all humans. When we place soteriological value on Christ’s maleness then we negate his ability to represent all humans, male and female. Furthermore, God created man and woman in His image and if the salvific grace hinges on Christ’s maleness then he could not be fully God. But Christ is fully God, thereby making the assumption of human-likeness to be the prominent factor in the Incarnation. 

Now please do not assume that I am saying Christ was not male or that he was some sort of androgynous being. No. He was male. He was circumcised on the eighth day, for crying out loud. No one is doubting his manhood; it was historically and culturally necessary. But the implication of telling women that they cannot be “representative” of Christ because of gender has farther reaching effects. How can I then be Christ-like, bearing His image or representation to the world? I can never be Jesus to anyone. I am exempt. That would actually be a huge load off my mind. I am not sure how everyone else views Christ-likeness, but some days it can be the hardest part of existing. Being a Christian is not easy. And if it is, you are not doing it right.

Some will argue that ultimately women cannot be set apart for ministry because of the hierarchically structured Church. Men lead and women support and the church structure reflects the order of creation. I could actually buy into this one, because it sounds logical. However, there is a problem. A breakdown occurs when we acknowledge that not all men are priests and leaders in their churches. So if they are following or filling supportive functions or roles then are they filling the role of a woman? That seems rather absurd. This would mean that for a man to accept the authority of another man would be akin to homosexuality IF we are to base this function on gender and the created order. We cannot all be women in the congregation and all be men in the priesthood. The created order would dictate that men cannot lead men and women cannot lead women, because based on the created order only men can lead women and only women can support men. This is starting to look like one big chaotic episode of Hell’s Kitchen. The only logical setting in which to invoke the created order then lies in the relationship that exists between one man and one woman, not in the diversity of the Church where there are many men and many women. 

All the arguments aside, when we come down to the basics of the polarities, two truths remain. If I am called to the priesthood as a complementarian then I am extraordinary. If I am called to the priesthood as an egalitarian then I am ordinary. But in neither instance can I be construed as disobedient unless God has never and will never call a woman into leadership. But He has, and He does, therefore, I am either extraordinary or ordinary, but disobedient I am not. 

Anton Ego, a food critic, closes the script for Ratatouille with this quote, “In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto, ‘Anyone can cook.’ But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist; but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France.”

I did not go to seminary to become the world’s greatest chef. Half the time I do not even desire to be in the kitchen. I went to learn how to cook in order to serve those around me to the best of my ability. If the Spirit decides to endow me with gifts as the Chef de cuisine or the Sous chef then I am going to do just that - extraordinarily or ordinarily. But for now, I am just Anton Ego, I love great food and I know how to cook.