I read a recent blog article on the current trend in conservative evangelical churches against the “feminization of the church.” That phrasing has always left me uncomfortable. I’ve downplayed my concerns for years, but I think that was wrong on my part. Why? Really, it’s the same reason that I don’t accept cries against a masculine view of God. God speaks of Himself in masculine terms (the occasional feminine one, but overwhelmingly in masculine, husbandly, fatherly terms). But at the same time, the very first person to speak of the church in feminine terms was God Himself through His inspired Word. Throughout the Old Testament, Scripture uses feminine imagery for God’s people (such as the entire book of Hosea). In the New Testament, it is starkly clear and unavoidable in Ephesians 5. Like it or not, you and I, male and female, are part of the corporate BRIDE of Christ. And there is a reason God speaks of it that way. God wants us to understand something of our relationship with Him through this terminology.
The truth from Scripture is that God first feminized the church! And we conservative evangelicals need to just deal with it. As a woman, I have little sympathy for men who squirm with discomfort at the idea that they are part of the Bride of Christ. Do you know how many HARD, UNCOMFORTABLE things Scripture says to women? I daily have to wrestle with God to submit to His vision for me when it conflicts with my own for myself. Respect? Submit? You can try to paint them in glorious tones but the truth is that these are hard, hard concepts for women to embrace. Yet embrace them we must for our good and God’s glory. There’s a part of me that feels like telling men to just “man up” when it comes to dealing with the imagery from Ephesians 5. “Buck it up. Deal with it. We women have to do it ALL the time with Scripture. You can too.” You can hear the grace oozing out of that response, right?! (That was sarcasm.) I, of course, don’t tell men that. Actually, I don’t attempt to tell men much of anything. But I am mentioning it to myself on this blog. I know some men read along, and I hope that you can hear this and just be caused to think.
When conservative, complementarian evangelicals (of which I am one) use the phrase “feminization of the church” in a negative sense, they are usually talking about types of songs or preaching, maybe the style of dress or decorations in the sanctuary. But I’m afraid part of the by-product is downplaying the significance of how God Himself in His inspired Word talks of us in relationship with Him. Maybe there is something about the inherent nature of our relationship with God that is easier understood by a woman than a man. I feel for men who struggle with being the Bride of Christ. I am thankful that analogy brings me comfort and peace. It has, in fact, brought me MUCH comfort and peace over the years. I understand what Paul is teaching through that analogy in Ephesians, and I am blessed by it. I am sorry that for a lot of men that analogy is uncomfortable and even threatening. But I still think it’s unhealthy to downplay it.
If conservative evangelicals want to refocus ministry efforts toward men who have often been overlooked, we need another rallying cry than one against the “feminization of the church.” Scripture feminizes the church! You can’t hold tightly to the Word of God in one hand and decry the way Scripture talks of the Body from the other. I’ve heard the idea that if you get the man into church, you get his wife and family as well. That is true. But if you get the man into church while downplaying and even mocking how Scripture speaks of his corporate identity in the Bride of Christ, what happens to his wife and family in the church as a result is not necessarily a good thing.
*This is a charged issue. If you want to comment, please be respectful – no piling on!! And if you want to push back, that’s fine too. I can take it. But no attacks against specific people or ministries, please.*
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Amen and Amen again.
I guess I don't get why this is "charged." But I am out of the loop on a lot of things. You can't get away from the Bride in the NT...or OT for that matter. :) I don't see why it is negatively perceived.
I guess I would choose the word "emotionalizing" rather than feminizing when it comes to sappy music or lame preaching. That is a product of our driven-for-sensation generation I think. People look to be entertained. I think of the Calvin and Hobbes comic where Calvin is sitting in front of his TV and says, "Pander to me." That is today's church, I fear.
And as far as decorations go...those same men probably have wives who have decorated their homes in florals and foofie stuff. Not every location needs an elk head hanging on the wall. They can watch Red Green to get their Possum Lodge fix. :)
It requires humility to embrace an identity that suggests weakness, dependence and a need for leadership. That is what salvation requires, and what the life of a sheep looks like. So....I do wonder what the *real* issue is. KWIM?
Thanks, Diane. Good insight. I love your last paragraph. That is salvation!
What's interesting about this is that if we switch over to "emotionalizing" instead of "feminizing" we still have a problem. David was practically THE whiny navel-gazing self-aggrandizing emo kid of the entire Bible! But pandering is an old concern and I think is a good way to phrase the worry. The double-edged blade of that is that it's just as dangerous to pander to "masculine" Christianity as it is to pander to "feminine" Christianity. God saw fit in His wisdom to ironically unload the most emotionally overwrought passages of Scripture through men. :-) For every guy who would say Christian men need to nut up, grab their cup, and all that jazz there's Job wishing he had never been born, David lamenting that he in his righteousness was being attacked (when we all know he was actually a profoundly flawed man), or Jeremiah going so far as to say that God has given His people a raw deal. God seems to be less angry with Job for his complain than he is with those men who would deign to defend and justify God's character over against Job's complaint.
What good does it do us to say that God made male and female as bearers of His image if we reduce those distinctions down to stereotypes and don't learn from the examples of the flesh and blood men and women in our lives? At the risk of over-using yet another conservative evangelical trope, there is a "gnostic" tendency to define masculinity and femininity in abstract terms that can be extrapolated from scripture that we read into the scriptures rather than realizing that we are actually not given a playlist or a script or a rulebook that is all that detailed about what it means to be men and women.
WtH, I ALWAYS love your insight. Once again, you make me think.
And, once again, you make me think Wendy! A post like this reminds me to be careful about hearing something so often that you start to accept it as true without really examining it in the light of scripture. Oh so easy to do - especially when statements like the ones you talked about are said confidently and boldly. And I thought WtH insights on "emotionalising" helpful too.
Well, I'd say that emotionalization in preaching and music means that it is designed to appeal to the emotions rather than necessarily to convey truth. I've been in churches where the preacher had eleventy-seven verses to the invitation, passionately throwing every option possible at the congregation so that no one could honestly remain in their seat. I've heard preachers tell funny story after funny story and everyone leaves feeling warm and fuzzy...but there's been no preaching. I've heard music that repeated itself over and over and worked people into a frenzy. This is all emotionalism.
But neither should church be devoid of emotion... after all, "God so loved the world." The examples of David, Job, and Jeremiah depict human reactions, IMO. I am grateful that in His wisdom God did not allow these individuals and others in scripture to be put forward as super-human stoic types. Honestly, how would I (or anyone else, regardless of gender) react if I were 1)ostracized and being pursued by my own son and a pack of his cronies seeking to kill me; 2) if I had everything on the horizontal level subtracted from my life in a matter of hours, and even my spouse turned from me; or 3) if I had been sent by God to convey His message to a rebellious people, poured my entire life into this service, and it was continually, violently and adamantly resisted? That's not to mention say, Jonah. Another human/emotional reaction I'm ashamed to say I have had as well.
All this to say that obviously emotion has its place. Jesus wept, grieved, was righteously angered, loved, and I believe He had a good sense of humor too...children don't readily gravitate toward grumpy, melancholic men. :) Balance is the key, and that is what is so difficult for human beings to achieve.
You are bang on target, Wendy! Complaints about the 'feminization' of the church make you (and me, and a lot of other women) uncomfortable because they imply that something 'feminized' (feminine?) is bad. 'Feminine' appears to have been redefined as 'emotionalized' or 'silly' or 'foofie' (love that btw). BUT Proverbs 31 uses a lot of masculine/military vocabulary to describe the godly woman. For example, she is called an 'eshet hayil' which is the femininized (!) version of 'mighty man', i.e., David's 'mighty men'. Hm.
There's a big disconnect here between the Bible (as you have so deftly noted) and this culturally-specific imposition of a certain view of Church, and of femininity.
Keep up the good (and gracious!) insights.
Good thoughts! Both in the post by Wendy and in the comments. Lots to chew on.
My perception has always been that "feminization" of the church refers to the unacceptance of typically (God-given) "male" traits. We expect men to abandon, for example, a penchant for honorable heroism as displayed in war movies, perhaps, and instead be meek little church mice ala Ned Flanders. There is a godliness to being meek, obviously, but there is also honor in defending and protecting- both of which are predominantly masculine roles, and often seen critically in the eyes of church-goers. Or at least, that is the secular perspective of church-going men.
I often think of the old paintings of Jesus where he is pale and thin and of indistinct gender. This blurred line between holiness and immasculinity can hardly be the same as being unwilling to consider yourself "the Bride."
I very much agree, Wendy, that men are included in the Bride. However, the difference is the relation to God versus the relation to others. My husband is Christ's bride- is submissive to and dependent on Him. But in relation to me or others, this is not the case.
I still think we have to call whatever it is we are lobbying against something other than the "feminization of the church." Maybe we want to lobby against the feminization of God? But we have to do even that with restraint since God created the feminine too in His image (not saying God is female--don't extrapolate that out of this idea). You said, "There is a godliness to being meek, obviously, but there is also honor in defending and protecting- both of which are predominantly masculine roles, and often seen critically in the eyes of church-goers." I am uncomfortable with the dichotomy you set up. Was Christ not manly when He was meek? Was turning the other cheek effeminate? I would argue too that defending and protecting are reflective of the role God called women to when He created them as ezers or helpers. But that's another post.
If there is a problem (and I'll discuss that a bit more in a minute) with churches not being welcoming, open places for men then it needs to be called something other than the "feminisation" of the church. This phrase makes all kinds of crass assumptions, firstly, about the nature of femininity and secondly about the perceived value of feminine traits. It tends towards a charicature of femininity founded more in a 1950's world view of gender than in a biblical interpretation of how male and female should behave. One of my concerns in much of the discussion about the need for Christian men to "man up" is that it draws too heavily on stereotypical, Western, 1900-1950 views of masculinity. Surely being a "man of God" is about more than being willing to fight for your woman, hunt your own food, wear leather, drive gas-gauzzling vehicles and listen to rock music. It would also seem that men should, preferably, have some facial hair just to prove they're man enough to grow some! I joke - but that seems to be the image being portrayed by very popular, high profile Christian leaders. As someone else has already said Christ, in His human form, displayed a diverse and enlightening range of behaviours. Given He was in all ways perfect, should we not then assume that all these behaviours were also perfectly manly?
This leads me onto whether making church less "emotional", less "pretty", more "macho". more "rough around the edges" truly addresses the needs of men. In my view, to truly worship both our Bridegroom, Christ, but also our Heavenly Father, requires emotional vulnerability and intimacy. Is the challenge, therefore, more about teaching and encouraging men to explore and express this side of themselves rather than simply saying that these are feminine traits? Likewise as you, Wendy, are committed to, we should encourage women to build their knowledge of God (theology), learn to stand firm, be confident in their faith - perhaps traditionally "masculine" traits?
Can I also make two very quick comments - is it only me who notices the occasional overlap between those who decry the "feminisation" of the church and the "angry men" discussed a few days ago? Also a comment that some of those who preach about the "feminisation"of the church have openly discussed in other arenas the difficulties they have in intimacy in other areas of their life e.g. with their spouse, their children, in pastoral care. Perhaps fear of intimacy, fear of becoming over-emotional, fear of losing control contribute to the backlash against whatever they see "feminisation" as?
Thanks, all, for the thoughtful comments! In general, I want to avoid "piling on" (which I think of as adding reasons for guilt or defensiveness on an issue once the problem is already established). My burden is more toward people who don't agree with me, and I'd like to provoke thought without making people feel defensive. I'm not saying anyone is doing that -- just that I want to avoid that.
I think there are some really great, God-loving groups that have been burdened to reach men in particular. I don't want to attack that at all. I just want us all to think about the precise ways from Scripture we can and cannot talk about these things.
Hey Wendy,
Looks like there has been a lot of response to this post. I haven't read all the responses, just the main article. But again I agree with you. It is only when men and women fulfill their roles in Christ that the image of God can ever hope to be shown to the world. it takes both - not one or the other.
If you think it is hard to submit - try loving like Christ loves the Church - now that is a challenge - I would rather submit any day. But as a man that is not what I am called to, I do need to man-up and love in a sacrificial way. I need to lead my wife/family/ministry by loving them the way Christ loves them - that is my act of submission.
Submissive headship? Might be the title for another blog?
I find it difficult to imagine myself as anyone's bride, especially a man, but that is something I need to grow in, because it is not until I understand that better, can I understand better how to love my wife, and better understand how Christ loves me.
Your are providing a great ministry - especially for the ladies, but the guys can learn a thing or two as well, as the "read along", thank you - keep up the good work!
Wendy- Definitely agree with you there! God, in His wisdom, does not limit men and women to stereotypical roles! But there is certainly a difference between godly meekness (such as displayed by Christ- and to which we are called), and the doormat reputation Christian men can tend to have. I do NOT find my husband "feminine" when he is meek or nurturing, but I do admire when he has the strength to stand up for truth in ways that I do not (or maybe will not).
Your reply has really caused me to think! Perhaps you are right in "feminization" being the incorrect term- it doesn't seem to me that it is the placement of (predominantly) "female" traits, rather the removal of (predominantly) "male" traits that is the issue.
Greg, thank you so much for your male perspective. It's good to have a man speak up on this topic in particular.
Liz, thanks for your response. You are making me think too! I am starting to think that we may be emphasizing traits rather than roles. What God gives us in Scripture is ROLES -- the woman as the helper to the man in the image of God, focused on the home, bearing and raising children, the man providing (in toil) for his family, loving his wife, and so forth. But maybe where we start to mess up is when we define the traits that go along with them as male or female. But men and women regardless of the role are called to be meek like Christ. Both must defend, protect, and provide for. Both must nurture. They may do it in different ways in their different roles--but the traits themselves transcend gender.
That's the first time I've put that in words and am still working it out in my mind as I think through Scripture. Are their verses that attribute defending/protecting as a particularly male attribute? Or is it just a God attribute that male and female reflect in our own jurisdictions?
Wendy, thank you for this conversation. I'm really enjoying listening to it.
Hello, my name is Terri. (Sorry I had to post anonymously my AOL account will not verify.)
I just thought I would chime in on this topic. They have written books, they give seminars, teach and preach the feminization of the church( big bucks). And it will continue to get worse as we endure this tidal wave of ultra fundmentalism in the church. Blaming women is common fare, backlash to womens equlity is also common.
Now, this statement I would have to disagree with.
When conservative, complementarian evangelicals (of which I am one) use the phrase “feminization of the church” in a negative sense, they are usually talking about types of songs or preaching, maybe the style of dress or decorations in the sanctuary.
I wish they were talking about songs, dress, decorations and such, but these things are trivial matters to a die hard Complimentarian. The real crux of the matter is that they believe that men have adopted a 'chickified" church style (instead of the "He-man Warrior)so, what we have is a church that caters to women (and of course women are responisble for this as well.) I don't see why the men are so worried. The church might be a 60/40 gender split, but men by far are still the visible leaders. I guess the decor (flowers and pastels) can play havoc with a mans masculinity, they are more visual then women, right?
God places no emphsis on such things in the Bible and being properly masculine or feminine is NOT a fruit of the spirit~ love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.....nope not there. :)
Terri, thanks for commenting. This obviously struck a nerve with you. I don't see the same heartless agenda you see. I do think that complementarians need to self correct on several issues--how we present the curse in Genesis 3:16 and our views of women deacons in particular. But I still believe that there is great value spiritually to understanding and embracing the things that make us different as men and women and the different ways God uses each of us to bear His image. In other words, I'm a firm complementarian just in case that wasn't evident in my earlier writings.
Hi, my name is Dana.
I have to agree with Terri on this point: In churches that are led by men, pastored by men,and eldered by men, why are there complaints about feminization? I also agree that in some ways, women get blamed and belittled because of it.
And I agree with you, Wendy. The church, made up of men and women, is the Bride. She is feminine.
The question is: what is the identity of a masculine man in a feminine entity?
I think this is the struggle for the men. Of course, the temptation is to try and change the identity of the Bride, but that is not easily done, because she has been define by Her Bridegroom.
Dana again.
Wendy, yesterday I used your comment above to try and map out male/female - divine/church roles as the church responds to Christ. I didn't get very far, but what I did was pretty illuminating (for me, anyway). I had no trouble mapping out women-church roles, but came to a screeching halt when I tried to do the same for men.
Women: helper (wife helps husband/ church helps Christ in Kingdom work); focused on home (wife/mother's focus on family/church's focus on family of believers); bearing/raising children (mother with children/church with new and maturing believers)
Men: Providing (husbands to provide for wife/in what way does the Church provide for Christ?); loving wife (husbands are to love wife/the church is to submit to Christ)
So I do see the men in a bind. It seems that they must find a way to be masculine men that respond to Christ in a feminine way.
Interesting, Dana. Thanks for sharing that. Men are called to specifically reflect aspects of Christ in His relationship with the church even as they are members of said church. I think it is a lot to work out -- to find the balance.
(Terri)
Well, the rub for women is that are not fully capable of imaging God or Jesus as both (Even though God is proclaimed to be Spirit) is also called God the Father (male). Men internalize this as superiority of fleshly maleness over femaleness. That is why the medieval church at one point in history had a hard time coming to a conclusion on whether women had souls!! What I am basically saying, is that men feel a sense of entitlement (socially, spiritually) based solely on the fact that they are male, and the world and church have fed this and nurtured it. Sure, the severity of the subjection may vary from time to time but, like the ocean's tide (that recedes) it always comes back.
Terri, I'm uncomfortable with the broadness of the statement that "men feel a sense of entitlement ... based solely on the fact that they are male." That hasn't been my experience. But I've been privileged to have some pretty good men closest to me in my life -- my father, my husband, my pastor. I know others may have had a completely different experience than me.
The fact that there are issues between the sexes within and without the church ought to surprise no one since it's predicted in the first moments after the fall. But all of our discussions on the topic will be meaningless if we don't
1) correctly understand the nature of the curse, especially for women
2) correctly understand the answer to the curse through the gospel
But all that is another topic for another day. I feel another post brewing.
Dorothy Sayers once commented, concerning the great discussion about what it means to be human, that women were not welcome at the table. Although she was speaking about the academic environment before women were allowed a college education (which means it's not a universally fair assessment today), I think she raises an important point. Women's general absence from these types of discussion throughout history has shaped the way we think as individuals and as a culture about what it means to be male and female, and human, made in the image of God.
So I agree with CeCe's assessment, that the more women grow in their understanding of the Scriptures and in the knowledge of God, the better the discussion will be. These are incredibly thoughtful topics you raise, Wendy, and I am profoundly grateful to you for exploring them with such grace and candor!
Wendy, LOVE this post! Especially the statement at the end about Scripture. You are such a defender of the Word of God, and you do it with a cautious humility that I admire.
Thanks, Sharon! Why this topic is such a minefield, I don't know. But you gotta say what you gotta say. :-)
Your comment is interesting, Liz. I have a different reaction to the scenario you describe. I am much more disturbed by leaders who seem afraid to involve their wives in helping them. I'll have to think through that some more and may post another comment later.
Post a Comment