Are you curious if faith, feminism and Christian womanhood can intersect? You've found the crossroads. Ruby Slippers is the sparkly nexus of femininity, spirituality and sexual renewal.
Some Questions for Mark Driscoll
Nearly five years ago I finished a three year project about femininity and the ways men and women’s souls are distinct (Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home). Since then I’ve discovered that it’s not just women wrestling with their gender.
Men are as confused about what makes them masculine. Men feel like they’ve got something to prove as well. A friend sent me this video from a blog. I watched it, did not do any other research on the speaker and commented on the blog. I was told by aforesaid blogger that I clearly didn’t know enough about the speaker to comment. Since then I’ve read a bit more about Mark Driscoll in a Christianity Today article that was, as Mr. Driscoll writes in his own blog “a fair story.” So while I’m not a Driscoll-expert, I have read enough to make a comment on the way he views “femininity.”
I’m not out to slam Mr. Driscoll. I admire his verve, his boldness to confront and his quickness to ask forgiveness. I believe he loves Christ deeply, whole-heartedly. But I believe his view is incorrect.
I believe he’s using his gifts to pin men with more responsibility than God intended for them to handle and to distance women even farther from coming home to their femininity. Given my writing and peculiar ways God has drawn me into gender studies, i cannot remain silent
Mr. Driscoll represents a common attitude and belief in conservative Christianity that needs to be addressed.
The worst part is that I don’t think Mr. Driscoll has any idea of what he’s doing. Some call him a bully. I believe he lacks self-control and humility. But I have yet to meet him.
For thousands of years, and even in some chauvinistic cultures today, men must vie against one another to prove they are “real men.”
In America, you might see the male ego more clearly on city streets where windows and doors are chained shut.
In gang culture there is a basic barbaric maxim: honor is a slice of one pie. You get a slice not by loving Jesus or living as a loving, gentle, humble servant, but by robbing someone else of a slice.
You get a slice of honor by shaming someone else out of theirs. Mr. Driscoll, it so happens, grew up on these streets, under this maxim.
This code of living isn’t gone from Mr. Driscoll’s logic. He might be right that many Christian men are too passive. He might be correct that churches are often tacky.
But to win back the honor for men he’s stolen a slice of honor from women. He shames women by using “feminine” as a slur against men and women.
I’ve used and defined feminine in Ruby Slippers to mean “the unique, unfallen ways God shows himself on earth in women….femininity is the way females are made in God’s image.” But Mr. Driscoll doesn’t agree. He uses “feminine” as an invective, as a catch-all for the ways women are chickifying his church.
His popularity aside (speaking of which popularity is never a good gauge of accuracy, not with Jesus, not with Mr. Driscoll), we have a worldly idea dressed up by a pastor, fed to men and women: that femininity is inherently embarrassing.
From his words, I can only surmise that innovative, young men count more than faithful Church-attending women. He doesn’t need to shame women to elevate men. But even in our Christian culture, he’s been given a slice of pie.
I shouldn’t be surprised that I’m offended. I read that Mr. Driscoll offends lots of people.His justification, “Dude, this is what Jesus said.”
I’m going to take Mr. Driscoll and Jesus seriously here. I want to list some of the ways Mr. Driscoll has unjustly accused men and women. It’s up to him, I believe, to show the link between his offensiveness and Christ.
- Where does Jesus teach or model that males are going to create the culture of the future?
- Where does Jesus say that 20-25 year old males are the only innovators in his church?
- Where does Jesus say that tacky church colors or architecture are inherently feminine?
- Where does Jesus say that “soft-spokeness” in a man makes him feminine? Where does Scripture say women who are soft-spoken are feminine? (Peter says it’s a ‘gentle and quiet spirit,’ not a ‘gentle and quiet’ mouth.(I Pet 3:4)
- Where does Jesus (or Scripture) say that men are supposed to protect women by leading them in church and family? Wasn’t the first provider God, then Eve who provided herself to Adam? I realize Scripture says the husband is the head of the wife. But this is a hotly debated, flexible and freeing metaphor, one in which we need both men and women’s metaphorical intelligence to interpret and then apply.
- Where does Jesus say slaughter, fighting, intimidation are earmarks of a “real man”?
- Where does Jesus say that emotion is a mark of femininity? Mr. Driscoll is himself highly emotional, but he is not less masculine.
- Where does Jesus say that slow-moving, inefficient forms of government (church boards, Congress, committees) are inherently feminine?
- Where does Jesus say the fruits of the Spirit are more pink than blue? self-control, patience, gentleness, joy, peace are not more feminine than masculine?
Mr. Driscoll is not only familiar with street culture. He’s also been trained—by his admission—on John Piper and Wayne Grudem. Because of their teaching on women, Mr. Driscoll is going to believe the Holy Spirit gives out pink and blue spiritual gifts. According to their manual Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a woman who has the gift of teaching and exhorting must limit her authority to women and children of the church. For problems in this view see “Unmuted.” Mr. Driscoll will not be a believer in women who can expound, preach, lead or innovate in church. I’m not sure what Mr. Driscoll would say of the innovative leaders like Deborah in Judges, Priscilla in Acts, Nancy Beach, Anne Graham Lotz, Nancy Ortberg, Margaret Thatcher, Tina Fey, Condoleezza Rice or Bhutto. I have a feeling he wouldn’t be complimentary.
Mr. Driscoll is another unfortunate example of theology that justifies strict gender roles wedded to a fallen male-driven honor culture. The mixture is toxic, not just for women, but for the men who must now take all responsibility for success or failure. Not even God thought Adam should handle all that.
Mr. Driscoll and I agree, churches need help, marriages need help, men and women need help. Mr. Driscoll’s targeted passive, ‘feminized’ men as the real problem. I’ll be quick to admit that it is wonderful when men take ownership of problems, when they love their wives, when they show all the fruits of the Spirit. But because the complementarian/patriarchal culture makes men the leaders, the tie-breakers in marriage and the final arbiters and authority in churches, his culture must, ipso facto, hold the men responsible at all times.
I believe Christ wanted something better. Take a moment and think of the healthy marriages you know. Don’t they function with more equality?Women are given final say and authority in many areas because (as all healthy men know) women are gifted and knowledgeable about life too and understand some areas better than men. Even Jesus thought so when he made women the first preachers of his resurrection. So, please let’s not assume men are responsible for church problems that span beyond their gender (Sure it’s tempting to tag it all on men, it easily absolves me of responsibility and action–before I studied femininity, I would’ve flocked to Mr. Driscoll’s church and signed off on my character and career goals, too).
Assuming responsibility is a mark of healthy humans—men and women—not of “real men.” Anytime a man is using his masculinity he will increase the health of the church. But the same applies to women. Men who own up to their mistakes and accept responsibility are a breath of fresh air, but let’s not confuse healthy humanity with masculinity. The most masculine man I know is my husband, but his masculinity is measured, not by how many slices of pie he’s stolen from other men, not how many deals and conflicts his won, not by the authority or leadership he demonstrates, but by how much he is like Christ—in both tenderness and strength.
Masculinity is no savior of the church. It wasn’t even Jesus’ masculinity that saved us, it was his deity and sacrifice. You get a church with only men in charge then you have a church with another problem–only half of the image-bearers on earth are represented. And God said it best, “It is not good for man to be alone.”
–re-posted with some edits from the archives October 9, 2007
July 21st, 2011 at 4:05 pm
Thank you for writing that maleness is not defined by the culture of violence or Middle Class values of toughness. You can add John Eldredge to the same school of Jesus as John Wayne theology. Also, thank you for defending poetry in the comments section. As a <a href="” title=”poet”> and a male I remember stumping an Old Testament Prof (and close friend) by pointing out the majority of the Bible is in Verse. God loves poetry. The Problem is less that we are not male enough, but that we have forgotten to like face to face.
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Tito,
I think all men can get comfortable with face to face again. I think Jesus was comfortable with this kind of communication, though I cannot site any chapter and verse on it.
I agree that Eldredge has some flawed views of masculinity, too. We’ve spoken about that here in case you’d like to hear more: http://www.soulation.org/Video/CorsetsAndTiesFullVideo.html
Thank you for writing in,
Jonalyn
July 25th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Jonalyn, this is so interesting and I really needed to be reminded of what Jesus DOES say about all these things right now. In fact, I just pulled out RUBY SLIPPERS the other day for a re-read for my soul feels so dry. Oh, and I bought my mom a copy of your book over the weekend, too. I mean, I don’t want her slopping up my beautiful Jonalyn-authographed copy, do I?
July 26th, 2011 at 10:06 am
I’d be interested in knowing what your re-read feels like. Thank you for telling me you’re reading Ruby Slippers for refreshment. Makes me want to write another book on women. Now, if only I could find a publisher!
July 29th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Jonalyn – you could absolutely write more books for women. Your voice is so honest and unique and free-ing for women’s souls. I have had my sisters, mom and good friends read Ruby Slippers and all have been really moved and provoked into good thought from your ideas. I hope publishers see the void that you speak to!
July 29th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Coryn,
Thank you.
July 26th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
Well, maybe, you should write the book because you see the need and the publisher will come later. Or you can always go the e-book route. I would rather read a book by you than many other female writers because I trust you and your interpretations (I don’t blindly follow everything you say, but I have come to an understanding that what you write is generally in line with what I have discerned to be correct.) You write intelligently, yet thoughtfully, gracefully and fearlessly. It’s a strange, wonderful mixture that inspires. I truly believe this about your blog. I don’t always comment but I read and ruminate on every post. So on days when you think no one is “listening” and it doesn’t really matter if you make one more post…just know that it does. And there are women out here waiting for your next book…however it may come.
July 26th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
Amy,
You are making me want to write even more. Honestly, Amy, your words help me refuse to give up.
Thank you for these creative suggestions and eager spirit.
You poured goodness on me today!
Gratefully,
Jonalyn
August 2nd, 2011 at 10:13 pm
J, don’t you DARE give up! Writers help the rest of us remember we’re also members of the human race, and help us think in ways we otherwise would not.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:01 am
M,
Duly noted. You made me smile.
August 3rd, 2011 at 11:13 am
Jonalyn,
Any time you need a boost, you just let me know. I think the world of you. I was telling my mom what it means to *ME* that a female writer is willing to intellectually engage with people like Mark Driscoll, what it means to *ME* that a woman can be intelligent, capable, emotional, uniquely feminine and hold her own in a debate, what it means to *ME* that you don’t play the “dumb woman sidekick” role to Dale (and that he LOVES you for it).
My whole life I’ve never “fit in” to the traditional church woman role. I hate cooking and hospitality (not that I’m unfriendly, just that the details of all the food and place settings makes me crazy. I’d just rather engage!), and find myself more at home engaging, teaching, learning. While I’m as neurotic as Martha, I definitely have the eagerness to learn like Mary (as if those are the *only* females in the Bible we can compare ourselves to, but you know what I mean…).
And there have been women who challenged and encouraged me simply by being there and being bold…but not many contemporaries. You, Jonalyn, are a contemporary and I do think your voice is unique. Take a break, think about it, but never, ever, ever, ever, ever give up. I do believe that God has a strong call on your life to speak for women. It’s just a hunch, but a strong hunch.
Thanks for teaching me about what it means to be a human. A female human.
Amy
P.S. Have you and Dale ever seen the movie MARTIAN CHILD? I’m always reminded of Soulation when the one character, Harley, says, “A little Martian child chose you to learn what it means to be human.” (paraphrased)
August 4th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Wow Amy. Thank you. I love that your comment is speaking what I have sensed God giving me to tackle- Martians, femininity and all. Love being your contemporary.
P.S. GREAT quote
July 28th, 2011 at 8:20 am
Thanks Jonalyn for being respectful and thoughtful in your assessment of a persistent issue and bringing some VERY important points out that we all need to remember. I agree that Mr Driscoll sincerely believes how he is approaching the gospel is right but as you remind us so well, ‘It wasn’t good for man to be alone.’ And I don’t believe it needs to be one OR the other, rather both in all it’s complexity and beauty.
If it’s ok I’d like to post your link so others who might not normally see your blog will have the chance to be reminded of some very important truths. I’ve also commented in the past regarding Mr Driscoll’s ‘hill to die on’ message, but you have put forward a well-rounded overview. More people need to consider the final conclusion of Mr Driscoll way of thinking.
July 28th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Kim,
Feel free to post a link.
Which of Mr. Driscoll’s final conclusions do you find worthy of further consideration? I’d love to know!
Grateful you wrote!
August 2nd, 2011 at 11:17 am
Earlier in years at a pastors/leaders conference he spoke about his “hill to die on”, which is his conviction of male-only leadership. As he put it, “It’s a big boy job” and only big boys need apply.
More than anything I felt sad. Sad for him, for those around him and the kingdom as a whole, as with that attitude the limitations on both the Holy Spirit & people is strangling. I also made the observation that an unrealistic responsibility was then placed on men, not to mention the question of what does he do with women such as Deborah, Priscilla etc?
I put forward that perhaps a better, “hill to die on” might be unity. As this is what Jesus prayed for in the garden.
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.” John 17:20-23
August 2nd, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Yeah, and also Pheobe and Paul’s veneration of her and her spiritual leadership… I think we’ve lost a lot of what the original believers knew.
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:58 am
Kim,
Sadness is a good response. I wonder what makes Mr. Driscoll doing believe that a non-essential (gender and patriarchy is never mentioned in any creed or major doctrine of the Church, nor is it an essential in Jewish theology) is a hill to die on. What motivates him?
Unity – a good idea, something worthy of our entire lives, rather than a desire to “remain on top.”
This passage in John 17 is one of my favorites… thank you, Kim
August 3rd, 2011 at 8:41 am
Recently, I asked an elder in my church if he believes that women can teach alongside men and be in “pulpit” ministry/teach the entire assembly containing, wait for it…actual MEN.
His response was: “No. Women are saved through childbirth.”
Silly me!…I was under the impression that ONLY JESUS SAVES… ;o)
And, I guess as a single woman with no prospect to make a child within wedlock (the normally and only acceptable parameters for baby-making) – I guess I’m doomed??
I was also told that women have no place in large-scale/broader leadership arenas because we are “too moody” and our physiological make-up makes us unable to be stable enough to lead effectively. Part of me ALMOST agreed – I mean, for a week out of each month I hardly even want to talk to people and be nice because hormonally I’m “out for the count” socially.
I feel downtrodden.
What’s the truth here?
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:05 am
Anon P,
I hear you and your frustration, the problem is that this criticism is toxic and dishonest.
Men are also moody, they struggle with improper emotional reactionism.
About that time of our monthly cycles…. how about consider how this week or so actually raises our awareness.
Being prickly and “moody” is the negative, unkind side of a heightened sensitivity which is a gift to the church, our families and our God.
Heightened sensitivity makes us fine-tuned to hear, see, know, help more. It is up to us and Jesus to turn this “liability” into the strength that it is: once a week we are reminded that we bear life, death, hope, pain, future for all humankind.
I wrote more extensively on this in Ruby Slippers, Chapter 5 “Natural Woman”.
btw, you are being downtrodden… Jesus had firm words for people who tied burdens around people’s necks.
Let me know if this does or doesn’t help and if you want more clarification!
August 3rd, 2011 at 11:15 am
Oh, crap. I’m not married, nor do I think I can actually conceive a child. I guess I’m doomed to hell. I’m so glad Jesus has something better to say about this topic.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:13 am
Jonalyn…that was inspiring! “Heightened sensitivity makes us fine-tuned to hear, see, know, help more. It is up to us and Jesus to turn this “liability” into the strength that it is: once a week we are reminded that we bear life, death, hope, pain, future for all humankind.”
I guess his reasoning is taken from:
1 Timothy 2:
11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.”
It’s difficult to “argue” with – though, it should not be about blind opposition for the sake of it…but, I cannot help but feel I am missing context from this piece of scripture. Any elightenment afforded would be great! – p.
August 3rd, 2011 at 9:59 am
Anon P,
Have you seen our article giving a historical explanation for 1 Tim 2? It’s at Unmuted: http://www.soulation.org/articles/unmuted.html
Go to the section on 1 Tim!
August 4th, 2011 at 7:49 am
Hi Jonalyn,
Read the article last night. Eye-opening. Going to further research some of the points brought up. That point about the Ephesian culture of that time being saturated by the worship of Artemis was very enlightening. Thank you so much! I’m newly encouraged and love the freedom that Jesus brought to us…for, it was for freedom’s sake that He set us free!
August 10th, 2011 at 2:43 am
Thank you for posting your article which contains several good points and for the gracious spirit in which it was written. Too often I have read blogs on one side or the other which are very inflammatory in language.
I am from the “other side of the aisle” and I wish to address the first two question which you poised; hopefully with the same respect in which you wrote.
Doesn’t the pattern of the New Testament lean toward the idea that “young men shall have visions”? When Jesus picked whom his initial leaders would be, did he not pick 12 young men, not because they were more valuable than women or older men, but because many young men have an aggressive drive that lends itself to pioneer work? Putting them in that position did not take anything from the aged or the women who are also just as essential at making the whole thing work, it was just an understanding that young men tend to have entrepreneurial bent about them. Throughout the New Testament women play an absolutely essential role and yet when Paul writes letter to two pastors in pioneer situations we find him writing to Titus and Timothy, two young men.
Though we live in a secular culture, we still are God’s creation. Most of the pioneer changes in the world today are coming from young men. Think of Facebook, Google or even Microsoft… boys aggressively pursuing a vision until they get it right.
(I write this as an older man who has lost the aggressive entrepreneurial spirit I once I had. I do not feel less valuable because of it, but I seek to find my place in ministry in other ways.)
August 10th, 2011 at 7:46 am
Chrysostom,
Thank you for valuing a charitable, even-minded, kind discussion.
You questions bring up some good thoughts, they remind me of a pattern many have pointed out, and a positing that I leaned toward myself until I found too many exceptions. The passage you quoted from “young men shall have visions” is from Joel 2:28 and quoted by Luke in Acts 2:17. Fascinating to me is that the same passage says women will prophesy, which in my mind and study means women have truth to share with men and women, insight, knowledge, ideas from God that others do not know, special and sometimes exclusive ideas (as the prophetesses Miriam 15:20 – Deborah Judges 4:4 – and Huldah 2 Kings 22:14 example).
Yes, Jesus does pick only 12 disciples. We know he was not perfect in his choice, however, as at least one fell away, betrayed him. We also know he designated a role for Mary that was the same as a disciple. At least his is how I understand Mary’s sitting at his feet, a symbolic place reserved for disciples.
Often church theology makes more of the 12 disciples that even Jesus does. He gives commands and instruction to whole groups of his followers or apprentices. He calls anyone his disciple who follows his word. As women often do this as well as a man, and do in Scripture, I see no reason to glorify the roles of the 12 unless I have special evidence that Jesus did as well. See for example Jesus charging larger groups compare Matthew 10:1-15 with Mark 3:13-35 (especially 33-35) and most importantly Luke 10:1-17 where SEVENTY are given the same mandate as the TWELVE. I think it was quite possible that in this group of 70 some were women, especially given Mark 15:40-41.
One possible reason for Jesus choosing only 3 men (Peter, James, John) to be near him in those intimate moments of The Mount of Transfiguration and crying and praying in the Garden of Gethsemane is that as a male Jesus wanted males near him. There is the question of propriety of inviting women to spend an all night vigil with him.
Still, however, Jesus asked Mary Magdalene to preach good news (John 20:1-18), in my mind, to lead his disciples into the most important message they would have.
Now, Biblical evidence aside, I do not think all men have an aggressive spirit suitable for pioneer work. In fact, I often have as much if not more of that pioneer spirit in my line of work. As a women on apologetic’s panels in philosophy classes or behind the pulpit I notice that the lack of women in leadership roles has much more to do with the absence of women pioneers in the church than it has to do with anything naturally less aggressive in women. In fact, if you look at places where women are encouraged to take role models of leadership, you see women rise in aggression, leadership and entrepreneurial abilities.
And speaking of pioneering work, I believe the work to customize mothering or love to a family takes as much ingenuity, fast-thinking on our feet, courage and innovation as the founders of Facebook, Google or even Microsoft.
Women also aggressively pursue a vision until they get it right, which why God uses a mother’s love to compare his own love for us in Isaiah. Would it help if I had a few examples from modern times of women who burst glass ceilings with innovations? If so, please let the know!
Do you know men who are younger and don’t feel that aggressive entrepreneurial spirit? Men like Isaiah who spent more of his time lamenting than moving and shaking? I do and I’ve often thought they need role models of how to be fully themselves and faithful to their gender before God without having to copy more aggressive men “leaders.”
Thank you for your respectful, kind questions. I hope you will comment again!
August 10th, 2011 at 11:48 am
Thank you Jonalyn for your quick and thoughtful response.
I think,once again, I agreed with every point you made. I would be the last to concede that a mother’s love can’t be an entirely tenacious phenomenon. “Like a bear robbed of her cubs” Mothering is one of the most undervalued and least understood jobs in both of our countries.
I agree with your points that Jesus did indeed choose women disciples; something unheard of in his day. Does your point not prove too much? As we both know Jesus scandalized his own disciples with his unorthodox way of relating to and esteeming women. Why then, out of this large group of disciples, who were mixed in gender, did he pick 12 young men to become apostles?
To answer your question, yes I know many young men who lack leadership qualities. So many are woefully passive. Some weeks ago when a drunk man walked into the church and started harassing a young lady many of the young men just looked on as if it was a video clip. Chivalry has been neutered. Young men have not been at all taught what it means to be a masculine or how to properly relate to women.
I’m sorry… I think this old man is beginning to sermonise.
I attend a CoE (Church of England) we were among the first to ordain women and now we ordain more women than men annually and we are on the verge of ordaining practising homosexuals as well. According to the BBC only 33% of those who attend Sunday morning are male. It is rare to find strong young men in our churches. Many of the young women in our church bemoan the fact that there are no Christian men to marry and the ones who are there are very passive. This sort of environment is healthy neither for men nor women.
Eldership is a part of the body of Christ but it is not the most important part. I do not feel less important because I am not one. I contribute as a teacher and in hospitality. Should I feel less valued because I do not have the office of oversight called “elder”? I think not. Likewise, is it not possible to believe that women are just as important as men in the work of the church without believing that they are interchangeable in regards to eldership?
August 10th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Chrysostom, I love your reply and your tone in this discussion. Thanks for demonstrating kindness on such a hot topic!
A few things jumped to mind when I read your last entry.
I agree that women disciples does not mean women apostles. Apostles carried a revelatory authority like that of the prophets of old and were not merely “students” of Jesus, as “disciple” implies. But I think that God selecting males to be apostles could have many different explanations. I’ve heard it used as a point that only God can entrust males with leadership or with revelation, etc. Many other explanations could come to mind, including a culture that thought a woman’s testimony like that of a thief (if the gospel goes to Jews first, they why try to tell the Jews about the gospel from a mouthpiece they consider irrelevant?). Even for practical purposes, a male apostle would be better respected as leaders of the new Jewish sect, could travel more easily, could navigate the laws of the day, could be free of possession as women would bear, even in their own country.
So, on my view, male apostles neither speaks for nor against whether women could hold that kind of authority. We see a description of what happened, not what should have happened. We know God is not against given women authority, as he gave it to Deborah once upon a time.
I’m very saddened by the passivity you mention among men. I see it from some too. And I wonder if the issues lay much deeper than can be solved by a Driscoll philosophy of masculinity or the many different masculine options the church is trying to frame these days. What I have found is that the msculinities purported in the church are those of “leadership” as if “leadership” is a virtue. I view it as an ability, which can be used for good or bad. And not all men have it. Virtues, on the other hand, are seen in secular culture at large, as being, “weak” in general. Courage is given higher regard than, say, gentleness, for a trademark of secular masculinity is vying for control, reputation, and competition.. When I give lectures on masculinity, I’ve found the majority of men believe that the Fruit of the Spirit are largely feminine qualities. This is because the host culture of secularism, often resulting in barbarian views of being a “man,” see the Fruit of the Spirit as feminine. And they see femininity as a disdainful quality, “beneath” them. Hence, why being a “daddy’s girl” is positive and being a “mama’s boy” is not.
The problem I’m finding in the church is that the church is trying to redefine Scripture to meet the secular definitions and so make male “leaders” without the undergirding of virtues that make these leaders. The goal becomes “being in charge” or “taking charge” rather than showing wisdom and not worrying about who is in charge nor feeling threatened or insecure about being a good follower.
I would expect, in such a time as this, for women to be ordained more than men and to fill churches more than men.. for this very reason. To follow Jesus is not a “strong” thing to do. Spirituality is not a “masculine” quality in general.
What we have to be okay with is being considered “weak” in the eyes of the world, and to practice the virtues that, I believe, truly exemplify what it means to reflect God’s image. The Fruit of the Spirit are those virtues and should be practiced by both men and women.
The sooner we can own that in the church the better. Deconstructing the Bible to fit secular notions of masculinity is never a good idea. And I’ve seen a lot of men take the secular version of masculinity, cloak it in Bible verses, and so become narcissistic clergy who are a “man’s man” (as if that phrase actually makes any sense), making fun of other men with feminine put-downs (like calling them “sissies” which Driscoll is on record doing).
I also know men who have and have had a hard time finding a good gal at church. It’s hard to find people with passion who genuinely love God who are not playing the “Christian” part, but have a self that is growing healthy. I used to be one of them. So it isn’t a guy or girl problem. We all face the difficulty of finding someone strong enough and worthy enough spending the rest of our lives with. My sympathies go out to all who want to find a life-partner who is their equal, and I encourage all of them to wait till that find someone who can match them without assigning blame that “all guys” or “all girls” are just….–fill in the appropriate excuse.
Along the ordination issue, I see no correlation between ordaining women leading to ordaining homosexuals. Being a woman is not a vice (I think we could agree)… but practiciing homosexuality has been a vice through the ages. Ordaining anyone with vices reflects deeper systemic issues in a church well beyond the genders.
On Eldership… I’m also not an elder. But I do wonder if we can sometimes lessen the real issue by saying we are not elders and content, therefore women should be content too. If we had the gifts of leadership and felt called to it for the benefit of the body and were disapproved our whole lives, not based on character nor ability, but based on our gender, we would wonder, I think. And we would ask “why?” For it isn’t just a singular woman being excluded but an entire class of people of the female sex. This is a big difference than just a guy here or there not filling that office because other guys are.
I often wonder why Levite males were priests. Women were excluded. So were the other men in the other tribes of Israel. Then I thought of what they had to give up to be priests… they had no land, they depended on the people. They were born into it. And they were not the last word in Israel. One was a High Priest, but that rotated. But other powers existed within the Israeli infrastructure, which were also spiritual positions. The King was one. So was the Prophet. The Levites had to answer to them too.
I’m okay with male Levite priests, just as I’m okay with women exclusively bearing children. We all get excluded based on our assignments from time to time. But the day a priests is “the final authority” all or a mother “is the final authority” simple because she bears children, we have a big problem on our hands.
What I often see today is that the Elder has become the place where all roads lead. He has assummed (and I’m unsure there is a Scriptural idea) the status of Prophet, Priest, and King. Many churches have a head elder/pastor that is expected to play all these parts. It is no wonder that many protestants joke that the Papacy is alive and well in protestant churches. We’ve replaced the Pope with our own.
There’s a distinction in philosophy that when something is permanently subordinated under something else. This is not simply a distinction of assignment but one of nature. So dogs are always subordinated under humans because they are inferior by nature. Humans are always subordinate under God because we are inferior by nature. Humans, however, are not permanently subordinate to one another… for we can interchange positions of “authority.” Thus, you could switch jobs with your boss and both of you remain equal regardless of your pay grade..
But what we’re dealing with regarding women is that we are being told women are permanently subordinate to men. Secular culture had said this for a long time. I have a book written by a nam in 1874 that says the idea that women are under men is a fruit of “pagan” idea. I’m not talking about a temporary subordination where women could switch roles with men. No, we’re told women cannot switch roles with men, period… but why?
Some say they don’t know why other than “God said so.” But in the history of Christian thought, just saying “God said so” has not been sufficient enough a reason, for it has often led to abuses and misunderstandings when failing to question our interpretations of Scripture and tease out what it’s really saying, especially when it appears in contradiction or when cultural context offers a clearer view..
Other’s say “women are less than men.” And that’s been the historical answer. It wasn’t, I believe, until the 1950s (a very new idea, no matter how conservative or liberal we are), that theologians began to re-cast the idea by saying “women and men are equal in nature but different in role.” It wasn’t until 1977 (I believe) that George Knight coined that phrase. Only, that phrase never really answered the question. Permanent subordination isn’t a “role” question… it’s a “nature” question. As long as women are permanently subordinate to men, women are, by nature, inferior to men, as dogs are inferior to men. That’s how the distinction works. If it can be shown that something or someone can be equal yet forever under another, then we would have a counter-example, but I’ve yet to see a clear one.
Some have tried to say that God the Son is always subordinate to God the Father, yet equal in nature. But this hasn’t been so either, not in the creeds. In fact, modern theologians often read back into Trinitarian theology and try to re-work the Trinity to fit their gender views rather than allowing the Trinity to stand alone. This has been a frightening development in evangelical circles… which tells me how hard it is for some men to release power (the secular idea of masculinity).. God the Son was never subordinate to the Father. It was only when he became Messiah in Jesus was he *temporarily* subordinate, for that is the role of the human Messiah in Israel…. anyway, the gender issue goes far and wide and I’ve yet to hear a good reason (though I’m open to one) why women cannot be elders other than “God said so” or that women are inferior. But nobody wants to admit the latter because it cannot be reconciled with the rest of Scripture, like Genesis 1..
Thanks for putting up with this long comment.
August 11th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Chysostom,
I continue to appreciate your tone. I look forward to your response to Dale. In the meanwhile, I wanted to include this article about women in the church: http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2011/08/the_newest_us_mission_field_wo.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+christianitytoday%2Fblog%2Fwomen+%28Her.meneutics%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher I thought it would help our discussion.