Feminizing the Church?
I know I’ve mentioned it here before, but I loved Obi-Wan Kenobi’s line from Star Wars that “many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” So I am amused when I read mainline authors who state things like - “biblical inerrancy and literalism are dead and gone.” Oh really. Have you ever met an evangelical? But from their point of view and context such a statement is true (practically speaking). Same with gender and race issues. From my vantage point using racist phrases like “back of the bus” or spouting sexist ideas just isn’t humane or Christian behavior. Sure there is the occasional complementarian/egalitarian debate, but the extremes of sexist rhetoric are not par for the course. I get lulled into believing that perhaps women are respected these days. But then reality hits and I come face to face with “you have got to be kidding me, people actually believe this?” sort of sexist crap. So here we go again (from my currently snarky point of view of course).
Although I’ve encountered the idea off and on for the last few years, the stirrings of the “feminization” of the church argument are arising again. I expect to hear it out of a certain Seattle megachurch, but I’ve encountered it elsewhere (here and here) recently as well. The argument basically asserts that all of the problems in church exist because the church has become too feminized - or in other words, women are to be blamed for the church’s issues basically because they are women. Of course the arguments are usually not so blunt - they generally revolve around the need for more testosterone or masculinity in the church (by which is meant strong, in-your-face, adventurous faith that has no place for “weak and girly” ideas like compassion, community, and tolerance). Usually John Eldridge is involved as well. What astounds me is that those spewing out such ideas have no clue how twisted and offensive their ideas are. For some this is about a misguided but genuine desire to make the church better, for others it’s little more than glorified self-interest ploy to make church be more like guys night out or their glory days in college.
So to the guys sitting there with the “I don’t get it” expression on their faces, here’s a few of the reasons why this argument is seriously offensive -
- It assumes female = bad. When the point is that the church is failing and needs something better than what it’s got, to define what’s happening currently as the feminization of the church assumes that if something is feminine it is bad. Women hear this argument as saying that which is feminine is bad/wrong so therefore it is wrong to be a woman (or at least not as good as being a guy). Do you guys really think this? Honestly? Do you really think that attributes that you define as feminine (more on this later) are so bad just because they are not male? Mayhaps some of your ideas for the church have merit, but it’s really low to present those ideas in a way that demonizes and blames women for being women. So if you have an issue with open compassionate community don’t label that as feminine and then blame women for destroying the church with it.
- It is based on a false view of church. Sorry to burst the bubble, but in no way are women running the churches of the world. It is kinda hard for the church to be “too feminized” when in most churches the women remain muzzled and are forcible “kept in their place.” Even if a particular church has more women than men, they are not the ones who hold power. And in the churches where women are respected as fully human complaining that you can’t be fully male if you aren’t allowed to ignore the women or generally be sexist isn’t persecution or unfair, it’s about being a decent human being.
- It is based on particular and very limited conceptions of masculine and feminine. Sorry to break it to you - but the testosterone obsessed, wild at heart adventurer who worships a macho Jesus created in his own image isn’t the sole definition of masculine. Sure it fits some guys, but it leaves a lot of other guys out. These guys are then told by the church that they aren’t “real men” (or even biblical men) unless they fit this 20th century social construct of a man. The same is true of the limited definitions of feminine as well. Operating under the idea that all men and all women must fit into certain stereotyped molds is a tad absurd. It not only ignores individual personalities, but it allows the dominant clique to dictate social behavior. In a word - it’s oppressive.
- It assumes cooperation of the genders is impossible. Instead it makes the church all about power plays and personal needs. If men are afraid of women’s voices being heard in the church and want to retain power at all costs, what better way to do than to demonize the feminine and elevate the masculine (or at least your particular definition thereof). Did you miss the memo on the whole “there is no longer male or female” verse? It doesn’t have to be a battle or a power play. (and no sorry, but hierarchy isn’t “masculine” and cooperation “feminine” - one dominates the other serves and last time I checked we were called to be servants). To claim that the church just needs to be more masculine elevates men to being more important than women. While I know there are guys who have an unhealthy obsession with being on top so to speak, demeaning and hurting others doesn’t seem like the best plan for “rescuing” the church.
So I’m all for men seeking to understand what it means for them to be men. But don’t do it at the expense of women. Don’t blame us for your identity issues or because you feel inadequate when forced to live up to some Hollywood caricature of “male.” Go on your adventure. Have spiritual moments playing football or whatever. Get involved in church. Open up. Express yourself. Discover yourself, but don’t force others to be just like you. Allow God to work in their lives just as creatively as he has worked in yours. But please please please don’t demean others in this process. Don’t create scapegoats for imaginary problems.
And please stop casting women as the villain. It’s so simple and basic it almost hurts to have to ask. But if you really want to “man-up” - take responsibility for your spirituality and stop pushing the blame onto women.
Julie Clawson
Topics: rants, Gender Issues |
October 1st, 2008 at 4:25 am
Thanks for articulating that so well, Julie. I’ve had conversations with people I know (including some whom I truly like) where I’ve tried (unsuccessfully) to explain this. Sigh.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:16 am
Great stuff. The power play mentality, whether from men or women (though, historically, from men) is simply not of Christ. It is in appreciating and celebrating the differences and gifts that men and women bring to the table that we will be more greatly blessed as the church.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:19 am
Are you familiar with Leon J. Podles’ book, published in the 1990’s titled “The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity”?
Not associated with John Eldredge (who wasn’t around back then) or with the Promise Keepers (who were), Podles writes primarily for a Catholic audience. From Amazon customer reviews:
“Many people have noted, and worried about, the fact that men are so much less likely to regularly attend church in the West than women. In this book, Leon Podles examines this phenomenon from a historical perspective, and concludes that it is not a new problem, but one that extends all the way back to the thirteenth century! Immediately following that, the author takes a powerful look at masculinity (as opposed to maleness, the mere fact of being a male of the species) from the viewpoints of biology, developmental psychology, and anthropology. Then, there are chapters that trace the evolution of Judaism and the first millennium church, neither of which suffered from a lack of men. Finally, the author examines the changes in Christian thinking that began in the thirteenth century, follows trends in masculine development in the absence of Christian influence, and finally provides some suggestions on reversing this “feminization” of the church.”
Picking holes in Eldredge is like shooting fish in a barrel. But books like Podles’ require more sophisticated grappling with the question of whether the western church has been feminized.
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Impotent-Feminization-Christianity/dp/1890626198
October 1st, 2008 at 8:31 am
I can’t believe you called me and my church out in Seattle like that.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:16 am
Amen Julie.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:28 am
Yes Eugene, clearly you guys are who Julie had in mind.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Julie,
Great post. A certain pastor from a certain church in Seattle spoke at my certain seminary last year, and his blatantly chauvinistic message was not just appalling; it was downright simplistic and silly, as you have noted here.
I’m sure this term is already out there, but I like to think of it as “frat boy” Christianity. I’m all for men (and women for that matter) stepping up with their faith, but I don’t think doing so means being willing and ready to kick the crap out of someone at a moment’s notice.
October 1st, 2008 at 10:56 am
“I’m all for men (and women for that matter) stepping up with their faith, but I don’t think doing so means being willing and ready to kick the crap out of someone at a moment’s notice.”
Amen. In fact, it means just the opposite.
October 1st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Thank you for taking the time to look at my piece on testosterone in which I, apparently, spewed out offensive ideas. You correctly state that the church appeals to few women. It appeals to even fewer men, and is appealing to fewer as the years go by. Statistically, those parts of the church which appeal least to men are precisely those parts in which I have spent my life and in which I feel most at home. Frankly this worries me - and why shouldn’t it?
I live within a church that had the world’s first woman Anglican bishop. About 70% of our clergy are women and most positions of seniority, lay and ordained within the church are held by women. Yet I continually hear the need to defend women’s place in the church and of the iniquitous things that men did and continue to do to women within the church. And all the while, the leaching away of men from our congregations continues apace.
We have a problem. Note: WE, men and women of the church have a problem. And just as the denigration of women and the feminine is not the answer, neither is the denigration of men and masculinity.
I stand by my claim that the church fails to celebrate testosterone and the gifts testosterone brings. This is NOT the same as saying that the gifts of women are second rate or are to be dispensed with. There is something missing from the church, which is not the same as saying that there is something wrong with what is already there. Rather than state that the co-operation of the genders is impossible, I am trying to say that without the co-operation of the genders the church is dead - especially as far as men are concerned. The condescending and scathing tone of your penultimate paragraph seems to me typical of the way men are regarded within the church. Small wonder then that most of us seeking a spiritual path need to look elsewhere.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Karl and Kelvin - yes Eldredge is easy to pick apart and my last paragraph was echoing ideas presented in his works. That does work for some guys and except for the tendencies to violence it encourages I don’t want to dis that. I have heard of The Church Impotent although I haven’t read it. Sure it may need a nuanced argument to deal with a nuanced piece, but that doesn’t justify the anti-woman sentiments it has produced.
Kelvin - what I am hearing from you is the age old argument that having women in leadership in church at all means that men no longer have a voice (are impotent so to speak). The idea seems to be that if men have to put up and respect women, then their testosterone is suppressed. I am all for the celebration of the masculine, but not in the ways that exclude the feminine. The presence (or the leadership or even the majority) or the feminine does not mean that there is no place for masculinity. Nor does women continuing to fight for their right to be there mean that men don’t belong. Reading pieces like yours tells women that we are not wanted (as do the many other more direct means that we continue to be suppressed). Women still are trying to find a welcoming place in most circles and to be told that our mere presence challenges masculinity and keeps men away from the church is insulting. We have got to get past this either/or approach - both men and women should be welcome for who they are in the church. Balance and acceptance should be the goal. But when women barely start to get a foot in the door and men start complaining that they are there at all and are ruining everything the process comes to a standstill.
October 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Julie, I owe you a serious apology, if that is what you have heard from me, as I didn’t (and don’t) mean that for an instant. I have been seriously remiss in my ability to express myself. It is not the presence of women in leadership that bugs me. It is the absence of men in congregations. I don’t want a single woman taken away. I want more men added. I think the culture of the church often stops this happening. But again, the remedy is not in removing something, but in adding it.
The Star Wars quote you began with, “many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” is powerfully true of me, and of you. It is also true of much of what is presented in churches. A version of the Gospel is often given which reflects the points of view of those espousing it: largely elderly, largely female. It is given in such a way that a listener might assume that this is the only possible way the Gospel might be seen. In my part of the world it is often characterised by paeons on community and inclusiveness. Now these things are noble and worthy. Of course the church always needs to be an inclusive community. But the description lacks something: anything that would appeal to men who are only incidentally fascinated by the prospect of spending a life trying to nurture c&i - ie most of them.
Who adds the extra bit? The bit that will fire the imaginations and move the spirits of men? Not women. It’s only men can do that. It is not women’s fault that men are not in the church and not women’s responsibility to bring them in. I guess all that I, personally, might ask of women is to recognise that what is distinctively male has a place in the church. And not to get in the way
October 1st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
This is something that I’ve struggled with a little bit. I’m not a pie-baking, craft-making sort of woman and yet as a woman in the church I get boxed in. If I want to “be a part of the group”, I have to do the girly stuff. Do they have guy stuff? Sure, but that’s only for guys…it would be awkward for the guys if there was a woman present. I think each of us in the church should be able to fit in where are passions are and if the ICs actually allowed this to happen, I think it wouldn’t be as big of an issue of whether you have enough male or female things.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:14 pm
no, feminization is not bad, unless you are male. Just as masculinization is not bad unless you are a woman. You miss the point if you think that to make statements like this is “offensive to women”. Would it be “offensive to men” if women stated that there is so much male influence in the church that it overshadowed the feminine? I think these people are talking about balance. Not annihilating one side or the other.
I don’t particularly like Eldridge (mainly because I think he draws way too heavily on sources that are secular rather than biblical) but as another poster pointed out, there are many far more scholarly works that make the same point in a way that is much more difficult to refute.
I grew up around a lot of first wave feminists. By osmosis really, I got the idea that the stuff men did was far more important and if I wanted to be valuable, the more like a man I could be and the more “male” stuff I did, the better off I was. I never fully bought the whole feminist thing either, even though I was indoctrinated with it.
Sorry, I am complimentarian; I don’t buy that to be respectful of gender you have to have complete interchangableness of the genders except for a few bits of biology.
October 1st, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I was observing a class the other day for my teacher credential program at the teacher was talking about the difference between the way men and women deal with problems, and I thought to myself: the only reason that kids think that women talk about their problems and men fight or just make up without talking is because that is what we tell them in school. This is the way we socialize them.
I just wish the church would be a bit different than the school system, but so often it is one and the same.
October 1st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Liz - I think you miss the whole point of what egalitarian means.
Cristi - I find most things in church that are geared for just women to be nauseating to put it mildly. It’s not just about having stuff for men or women or promoting stereotypes of what men and women “should” be like. Like you said it should be about making room for the passions to thrive.
Kelvin - I think we both would agree that that which is “make” has a place in the church. Your personal definition of male is most likely different from mine or even my husband’s. There should be a place for all of that in the church - but I would rather refer to it as accepting who people are instead of trying to lump together all men and women into just two categories.
I am surprised by your experience. The recent push for community and inclusivity in the church has been coming mostly from men (at least in my experience). This isn’t an elderly woman thing but a bunch of male theologians digging deep into scripture. I honestly have a hard time understanding how you can say that the idea of inclusive community holds nothing that can appeal to men. Are you saying that all these guys that are talking about it and living it out aren’t “real men”?
And I would differ with the idea that women can only minister to women and men to men. I think there are parts of our spirit that go beyond gender. I would be very disturbed to attend a church that insisted I only be taught by women because they suppossedly were the only ones who really understood me. This seems awful lot like just a reframing of the attempt to keep women out of leadership roles over men.
October 1st, 2008 at 11:03 pm
I am not coming from an egalitarian point of view. At least if “egalitarian” is taken to mean exact same roles in the church.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:54 am
I think there are differences between men and women and differences between men and other men and women and other women. And I think there are benefits to having times when men gather with other men and women with other women. But I think the main thing is to bring all their voices to the conversation, all these people to the table, and to give them all a place to lead and teach and serve. Rachel and I serve at co-pastors at Immanuel and she pastors to both men and women, as do I. There are areas where my being a man helps me to pastor men and areas where being a woman helps Rachel to pastor women, but also areas where being Kester and Rachel help us to pastor to specific people simply because of our specific gifts and personalities.
October 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
Julie- let’s deal with the easy one first. I hope I never suggested that men can’t be ministered to by women (and vv). If I implied that, I didn’t mean to. I do think though, that if the church is to become more attractive to men it will have to be men who take responsibility trying to make it happen.
My experience of the push for community and inclusiveness is not particularly recent. It extends back over 20 years or so and, here at least, it is strongly driven by women -lay women, women priests and a woman bishop. My experience is that at a parish and diocesan level, such an emphasis leads in practice not to open and inviting congregations, but to cozy but insular ones. It has led to rates of decline far greater than the national average for Anglican churches. It has led to the virtual absence of men, and the absolute absence of young men through most of our diocese. Most,not all, because the very few parishes which have steadfastly stuck to a different ministry ethos do have men, even some young ones.
Now I hope that the reasonably equitable mix of gender, age, ethnicity and sexuality in my own congregation is not merely accidental. I hope I have manged to foster that. It is not community and inclusivity which are the problem. It is the elevation of these to equivalence with the Gospel that is the problem. The good is made to substitute for the best and it cannot bear the weight. Like any idol, community and/or inclusivity must sooner or later fail.
Now, the really tough one. Manhood. I’ve got to confess that my own circumstances have forced me to rethink this issue of late, and the processing is not all done yet. But it does seem to me that the particular strengths and gifts of men, particularly young men, are not just missing from the church they are scorned and derided. Our Diocese could sure use a few gung ho young guys out to make a name for themselves - as indeed I once was. God knows, they will think better of it and grow out of it in a decade or two, but in the mean time the church would be infinitely better off for their efforts.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
What a great post!
I can think of so many people that I wish would read this.
Thanks.
October 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Julie,
Good post. Very thoughtful. By the way, speaking of that certain militant chauvinistic pastor in Seattle, does anyone think the current sermon series is anything less than him “acting out” in public? I mean come on have people really just lost their minds? Julie do you have any thoughts?
October 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Rose - no I haven’t been following the sermon series… sometimes it’s just healthier for me to stay far away from that world.
Liz - are you opposed to men and women serving in the same roles in church or the idea that men and women are the same? I’m confused.
Kester - I agree, bringing the different voices to the table to be used where they fit the best is a great thing. There are women out there who do great in women’s groups and need that sort of support. Others of us see such things as particularly evil forms of torture. To assume that all women or all men need the same things, or are bringing the same things into church really fails people on the whole. We are all different - but often gender is the least of the differences between people and it is insulting to be told and treated otherwise.
Kelvin - I think we are coming from very different backgrounds. The culture you describe in your history is far outside of anything I have ever experienced. I would have to disagree that only men can get men into the church (and that community is a feminine idol - but that’s a theological issue). People can get people to church - and I think culture and theology have far more to do with that than gender. But I am curious what you see as the strengths of young men that you think the church scorns. Are these universal or biblical traits in your opinion?
October 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I am opposed to men and women in the same roles in church. There. I’ve said it. You can take me out and stone me now.
There is a HUGE difference between what you call a “back of the bus mentality” and a legitimate examination of scripture as to the roles therein. A lot of God’s ways run contrary to the way we think in the natural. The way we think in the natural is knee jerk; like yours. Its WRONG in your eyes to not have men and women be completely interchangeable and therefore, anyone who would even question the biblical grounds for totally identical roles must be a “woman hater”.
I think it was very telling that somewhere I read that some woman pastor was all fired up and said something about “It not being a matter of what scripture says but a matter of justice”. Okaaay…I mean, why even call yourself a Christian if you dismiss what scripture says and relegate scripture to a “back of the bus” mentality when it comes to decision making. Whether or not something seems right in our own eyes should take a second place to what scripture says. This is not even about interpretation of said scripture. The fact that this woman would even make a statement so dismissive of scripture reveals where her heart is really at. It was probably made completely unintentionally, a Freudian slip as it were; yet it completely and totally sums up where I believe the woman as priest movement is coming from: complete dismissal for scripture in the cases where that scripture might contradict their own agenda.
Even the very idea that someone would be grasping for leadership tells me that they have NO concept of what leadership is really about it. Most of the pastors I know that are genuinely called of God laid down on their knees and implored God to let this cup pass from them.
October 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Julie, I guess my overall theology here is one of redemption. God redeems -that is makes holy - all of our humanity, which includes those bits of it which seem, at first glance to be repugnant. God redeems the humanity of men and women as that humanity develops through the various stages of our lives. I know it doesn’t ring many bells for some women, but Levinson’s Seasons of a Man’s Life is a book which has helpfully described my own life journey and that of other men. The strengths of young men which are often scorned by the church are those described by Levinson as the Early Adulthood stage- whose tasks include forming a dream and giving it a place in a life structure, forming nurturing mentor relationships, choosing and building an occupation, extablishing life partnerships and family. And yes of course women are doing just these things at this stage also, but I have no knowledge, neither does Levinson of how they do this or what it feels like. Young men in this life stage are often competitive, task focused, and deeply, fundamentally self centred as they necessarily work out their place in the world. They are sometimes driven, very goal oriented,and often overly aware of success/failure and the outward markers (congregation size, income, magnificence of buildings, whatever) of the same. This stage doesn’t last forever. The guys are on a path and provided they don’t get stuck, they’ll grow out of it. The characteristics displayed by these young men can be derided as anti-gospel by good, middle class community focused liberals, but they are not. They are part of the humanity of young men which Jesus died to redeem and which, given a place in the whole human spectrum of the church, are a gift.
I am a bit doubtful about women being able to address the issue of the paucity of men in the church for two reasons: 1) I’ve never seen it happen. 2) The reaction of women to the problem - which usually takes one of two courses: immediate and vehement denial that there is a problem, or almost immediate change of subject to that of women’s ordination (You think you’ve got problems? What about US!!???) I’d be delighted for you to prove me wrong.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Like two ships passing in the night.
While I’m not going to say I agree with everybody, but there are lots of good points being said by a lot of people here. Kelvin makes a lot of sense, but these are trigger issues as gender is just about the most highly charged issue around these days. I see a lot of miscommunication in these comments.
Women are starving for insitutional power and a place and a role there (and deservedly so, of course), and often forget that that’s only a piece in the puzzle–but when you crave a certain form of justice it is hard to think about anything else. What could men possibly have to complain about, since they supposedly have all the power? Poor person wants to be rich, rich person envies the poor.
I’m just gonna throw out a few examples, but off the top of my head, there is the natural comraderie of women, the centrality of their role in the family and with children, the social acceptance in expressing emotions, etc. But our society values careers and economic power, and we don’t value the family anymore, so we certainly don’t see that as worth much. Try living as someone hungry for these things but shut out, and you may have a different opinion.
There are stirrings out there of a masculine movement, much like feminism, where men deal with what it means to be male and masculine. Men aren’t anywhere near as aware of this as women today are of themselves. I hope it blossoms, as a strong feminism requires a strong masculinism so that we can together create a better society. If half of society is enlightened but the other half isn’t, we’re going to have some problems. But it also means that many of the assumptions and perspectives of feminism are going to be challenged–not with mysogyinistic ideas, but with an enlightened masculinism.
I think the idea that the Church has not spoken to men for several hundred years is a fascinating one. Sure, looking at it from a point of view of hierarchy, it seems like an absurd idea. But the more I’ve been thinking about it, the more I wonder. Women fill the pews at church, and in many ways always have for as long as anyone can remember. Men who are in the church are often stereotyped to be the effeminate men. Now, it is still men in all the positions of authority in most churches, but the idea that the chuch doesn’t speak to the vast majority of men is downright true. We can argue about when and how to bring women into the hierarchy, but then we forget about the vast majority of the population who just isn’t showing up at all–we’ve forgotten the gospel. The gospel needs to come first, I totally agree with that.
The whole outrageous idea here is that men have needs too–and in many ways society hasn’t dealt very well with men. I know most people these days are in no way prepared to hear that. Women are oppressed but maybe healthier. Men are oppressed too–not in terms of career. In terms of emotional involvement in their own lives. Men have few emotional supports, few avenues for discovering that, few ways to connect, and there is no clear idea what it even means to be a man anymore. Our society has almost completely failed men. Look at graduation rates for high schools and colleges and it’s obvious that within a generation it will be hard to find men in many upper-level professions. It’s a simple matter of doing the math.
It’s like Uncle Scrooe, if I may use a crude example because I can’t think of a better one right now–sure, he’s got his hands on the purse strings… but that’s about all he has in life. Is he someone to envy? What if he represents the so-called successful male? Such is the state of the “priviliged place of men” in society today. It won’t be long before women discover this, too. Cold busnessmen, thrown into their work because they don’t know where else to go or what else to do. What success!
October 6th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Kelvin - I’m confused about how you speak about dealing with young men. On one hand you say that who they are needs to be acknowledged and spoken to, but on the other you say that they will hopefully grow out of it all. But apparently if the church wants to help them be less selfish and competitive then the church is ignoring the needs of young men. Do we have to affirm certain behaviors just because a section of a particular demographic displays them?
And honestly try to understand how women feel about this. This conversation ALWAYS gets framed in ways that blame women and says there is too much “woman” in the church. Is it at all possible to address the issue without doing so? Pushing for positive conceptions of how to reach young men - that don’t alienate or degrade women or non-stereotyped men - without blaming others for being ourselves would be helpful.
Frank - I agree that men are often not allowed to be themselves and explore who they are. I am more scared about raising my son in today’s world than I am about raising a daughter. And I’m scared because of the new masculine movement that exists mostly as a backlash to feminism. While feminism has an element of self-discover as part of it (which I hope men can have as well), it has also been mostly a call to be treated with respect as equals. The new masculine movement springs out of theologies that don’t think women are equal or deserving of respect. Women are lesser “weaker” creatures and real men must assert themselves over and against anything traditionally female. It is less about self-discovery and far far more about playing a role that demonstrates one’s superiority above women. These are messages I don’t want my son to be fed - especially not by the church.
And it is too easy to say that the church has been ignoring men for hundreds of years. Come on really? You say the gospel should come first - but have you stopped to wonder if all the stuff that gets labels as feminine is just the gospel? If a man thinks that the center of his identity is to be aggressive, selfish, competitive, and strong and Jesus is telling him to love others, be meek, and turn the other cheek - the issue is with the message not the gender.
I’ll say it again. I’m all for men discovering themselves and exploring for each of them personally what it means to be male. But the way this conversation has arisen in the church is way off track and has done far more harm than good.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Julie; Ahhh… paradox, the stuff that the Universe is made of. Don’t you just love it? let me take a jump sideways. Think of the gifts children bring to a church -openness, a sense of play, a fresh naive way of looking at things….whatever. These are things that are marks of immaturity and one day the child will grow out of them.They are at the same time inexpressibly valuable gifts to the church, and the church is impoverished if they are absent.So the role of the church is simultaneously to treasure the gifts of children and to help them grow beyond those gifts. So with young men. There are ways of behaving and thinking which are appropriate for the tasks needed by men in that life stage, which will one day be grown out of; but they are gifts while we have them.
It’s a matter of naming I suppose. Aggressive, competitive, strong or energetic, focused, self confident? Yes, these behaviours can be affirmed. Why not? All our behaviours can be redeemed and have a place in the Kingdom. Jesus displayed a fair range, well beyond the gentle Jesus meek and mild bit. How meek and cheek turning was Jesus to the Pharisees and the money changers? How inclusive was he of the Syro Phoenician woman? It isn’t a case of vaunting one set of behaviours over another, but recognising that we all can be redeemed - every part of us and at every age and stage.
And I’ll say it again. To affirm men and to lament the lack of them in the church is not to blame women and denigrate them, although I can acknowledge that women seem to feel that way.So, for those of us that keenly feel this problem what do you recommend that we do?
October 7th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I really can’t comment about the new masculine movement as I don’t know much about it. But I do support attempts for men to figure out what it means to be men. I don’t support oppression of women, but so far I haven’t heard it on this thread. But I do think these ideas are going to be uncomfortable for people because our society isn’t used to hearing them.
Our society used to do a better job of socializing men. Men today have very little direction compared to women. Men DO have the political and economic power in our society–but like I said, it is often in an Uncle Scrooge kind of way–detached, cold, few avenues for emotional connection. Be careful what you envy.
I don’t think the church has been ignoring men, But I do think it hasn’t been connecting with them, which is different. Being male does not automatically mean aggression, competitiveness, and selfishness. There is a grain of truth in there, but it is as ridiculous and insulting as saying that women are catty, manipulative and vain. This is why we desperately need a masculine movement to balance out those stereotypes. Men need to hear better things about themselves and we need to find the language to do that.
I don’t know what the gems are of masculinity, but I have heard others talk about the importance of adventure and journey–quest, mission, direct challenge. The military is speaking to men and drawing them in, but the same level of adventure, daring, and mission can also be present in a homeless shelter or environmental clean up, but we never talk about those things in that way and that is why the men don’t show up.
I think you misunderstood me when I said the gospel should come first. What I meant was that by speaking only to a narrow segment of the population we are not putting the gospel first. The few women and even fewer men who actually attend church are arguing over who gets to lead, but in reality, 95% of the population isn’t even there. That is what I’m talking about. Gender related equality needs to happen, but it will be a hollow victory for women to share control over a church that no one attends anymore.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
kelvin - I too affirm paradox. I would disagree with your example about children and the traits you mentions being signs of immaturity, but that’s another issue. I understand the redemption of things as well. Your right no one set of characteristics or images of Jesus should eclipse the others. But all too often that is exactly what happens. Its the language here that is the issue - the framing of the complaint. I think we need to affirm that various examples that Jesus sets - but not to tell people “see Jesus was aggressive so it’s okay to be aggressive” without also telling them “Jesus was compassionate so you need to be compassionate as well.” Sure some people might be uncomfortable being told to be aggressive in standing up against injustice while others will be uncomfortable with learning to love and accept others. Neither can be discarded or shuffled to one gender or the other - despite what negative stereotypes might be in circulation.
Frank - From my experience a huge reason why numerous men and women are not in church is because the church treats women like shit (to be blunt in repeating what I’ve heard). And is oppressing women worth it to get a few joe sixpacks into church? A lot of churches here in the US seem to think so and it sure appeals to a lot of guys (which they tout as success) - but can we say that is even remotely biblical??? Finding ways to affirm men without defaulting to false stereotypes (which like all stereotypes have roots in truth) is key.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:09 am
I’m sorry for opening this can of worms again. I don’t drop by everyday and just read the post yesterday, along with all the comments. I probably wouldn’t be writing at all if it weren’t for Abraham.
I am helping teach a chronological Bible study to a lot of international students. Many have never read the Bible. Next week is my turn, and we are going through Abraham. Part of the preparation is reviewing what we have covered already. That means going back to Adam and Eve, and creation. God created a perfect environment and two perfect people. They were designed to live in community with God. God told them how to live to optimize life and living. They were perfect physically, mentally and spiritually. They lived in perfect harmony, perfect understanding with one another. My urge to comment here springs from the realization that Adam and Eve wouldn’t have and wouldn’t understand the gender problems we are having.
And then, they chose not to follow God. And everything bad in the world flowed from that.
As I was reading the comments, I noticed the writers were working hard to respect, understand and value one another. And still they weren’t able to really “get” one another. (And it looks like at least part of this was one person wrestling how to connect one group of people with God, who are, for some reason I don’t understand, traditionally not interested in God. And that seems to me like a good thing to wrestle with. Maybe I need to read that book.)
Why is it that people cannot discuss important, vital areas ― religion, politics, gender, race ― without heated emotions getting in the way? A priori understanding? Apples in the garden? More importantly, how do we need to live so these clashes can be avoided? I’m sure Jesus had a few thoughts about it.