Remember the Spiritual Warfare movement? It was at it’s peak about 15 years ago. One of the (many) problems with the movement is that it took a really tiny handful of biblical texts and extrapolated an entire science out of them. The authors would claim they were simply teasing out the implications of the biblical texts, but really they had gone far beyond what the Bible has to say.
For a little while now, I’ve had a growing conviction that the conservative evangelical church has done the same thing with regards to gender. Now, you will all know I’m a very committed complementarian (I hate the word though, it’s so clumsy). Yet when I look at a site like the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, with paper after paper exploring biblical masculinity and femininity, I’m wondering if we are not building a house of cards on top of the scriptural foundation.
This view was confirmed a little when John Piper (who I respect so much) came out and said that, after careful thought, he didn’t think it was Biblical for a woman to be vice president. At that point I felt that he’d really come a long way from anything you would find in a plain reading of the biblical text.
I’m thinking we just need to get back to the teaching and terminology of the bible, and not move much beyond it. Everyone these days is worrying and talking about male leadership, but the bible doesn’t seem to use that phrase at all, so far as I can see. What does the bible teach about marriage? It calls men to “love” and to “sacrifice” (give themselves up). It calls women to “respect” and “submit”. The biblical priority for husbands is not leading but loving, and loving sacrificially. What would be the effect of listening to this call?
I’ve a feeling the ‘spate’ of thinking on gender in evengelical circles has been brought about by the number of post-feminist, generation X males reaching or dealing with middle-age. The focus seems mostly on men working out what it means to be a man more than anything, and it seems to risk becoming a little obsessive and too inwardly focused. That said, it is better to have these things talked about. I agree with your point about sticking with what scripture does say rather than what it may be saying.
At the end of the day I have to focus on being a being a husband whose sacrificial service to my wife might make me a man worthy of her submission.
Ugh
Spiritual Warfare drove me nuts. It was used by a lot of folks as a means of denegration of other cultures. Not just religeous belief but whole rafts of cultural practices were deemed evil. Had the odd row with the odd minister back then.
As for the gender agenda. Years ago a friend in our congregation at the time, a DO with DoCS and I ran a workshop for the congregation on just this subject. The pastor and a cadre of people within the church had shifted the focus onto male headship with the implied… no, the stated meaning that the man ruled.
We were actually talking about DV but the issue of male headship came up quickly. The minister tried to change the agenda by throwing in (frequently) the fact that some DV is committed by women. We took your stance Black & Craggy. ie; headship is service and sacrifice.
The outcome was odd. A woman who was a victim told her husband to get some help or get out. Great!
But the minister was upset at us for “causing” this to happen.
The man was an elder, as if that mattered.
Regarding the case of a woman standing up for herself against an abusive husband and being criticised by her pastor, a friend of mine, Donna Green, a woman of impeccable Evangelical credentials (outside her friendship with me, that is) has written a book, Not Under Bondage, dealing with marriage, separation and divorce from (an Evangelical take of) a Biblical perspective. Well worth a read for people and friends of people in or leaving an abusive relationship.
Eric.
Craig, thank-you for this post. I think it’s really easy for committed complementarians to be so caught up in “holding the line”, that they don’t question sites like the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, so I appluad your conviction to pursuing biblical truth.
The authors would claim they were simply teasing out the implications of the biblical texts, but really they had gone far beyond what the Bible has to say.
I agree entirely, some of the views being described as “biblical” understanding of gender make me wonder if people have read the Koran instead of the Bible.
But maybe not
“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.” (Dawood’s version of the Koran, Quran, 4:34)
Speaking of ‘complementarianism’ (is that the right word?) I couldn’t help notice when I was in the Melbourne diocese, how often our female priests, as it were, neutered themselves. It seemed more than just the short haircuts, clerical collars and age bracket. I’m not saying that women and men should be flaunting their sexuality, but it appeared to me that in that role these people somehow truncated their feminine energy. Rather than feminise their role they became quasi-men. Perhaps this will change (or even has changed) over time as women become more comfortable in the role.
Now this does not so obviously (to me) happen to women in other once male dominated professions, so I’m wondering if it has its origin in some deep seated discomfort with ‘the feminine’ in our faith tradition?
I remember once having this conversation with a friend of mine who is an Anglican priest. He quipped that perhaps the church does not need women priests as much as priestesses! Putting aside any Evangelical discomfort with the notion of ‘priest’, if that statement creates a reaction in you, could that be, in part, because there is a distrust of the feminine in us?
Just musing.
Eric.
Craig, I think you are misrepresenting Piper. He said that he didn’t think a woman should be Commander-in-Chief.
He also said that with the choices available, it was permissible to vote for Tina Fey, sorry Sarah Palin as vice-president.
I think CBMW do go over the top at times, but I am currently listening to Piper’s talks on marriage from a couple of years ago and his version of leadership is most definitely self-sacrifice. One quote [from a bloke who never watches tv and rarely goes to the movies] is that a man is called to be like Jesus, not Jabba the Hut.
He waxes fulsome on man being a servant-leader and on not lording it over his wife.
He says that you would expect that you might have trouble with men who deliberately distort the biblical teaching and dominate their wives and that this has occasionally been so in his experience.
But the main problem women have complained to him about is not domineering husbands, but men who won’t take the initiative and do not lead.
Craig, I think you are misrepresenting Piper. He said that he didn’t think a woman should be Commander-in-Chief.
So Piper ‘s not a fan of Geena Davis then :
“Commander in Chief” is an American drama television series from 2005 that focused on the fictional administration and family of Mackenzie Allen (portrayed by Geena Davis), the first female President of the United States, who ascended to the role after the previous chief executive, Teddy Bridges (played by Will Lyman), died in office from a sudden cerebral aneurysm.
Who said that truth is stranger than fiction - or is it the other way around ?
I’m thinking we just need to get back to the teaching and terminology of the bible, and not move much beyond it. Everyone these days is worrying and talking about male leadership, but the bible doesn’t seem to use that phrase at all, so far as I can see. What does the bible teach about marriage? It calls men to “love” and to “sacrifice” (give themselves up). It calls women to “respect” and “submit”. The biblical priority for husbands is not leading but loving, and loving sacrificially. What would be the effect of listening to this call?
I think the big difference between men and women is that in relating to the other sex, for both parties to get on, the woman usually is herself, and the man must not be himself, but must cater to what the woman expects or wants.
Maybe the misogenist is peeping out behind my mask, but sometime honesty is not good thing in relationships between the sexes. Thin skins or something like that..?
Ken, after the failure of my marriage I stumbled across the author David Deida. His book, The Way of the Superior Man, highlighted a number of things I could have done better, if I had known better. Keeping a sexual relationship going between a man and a woman does not necessarily mean being dishonest, but it does, I think, entail assuming some roles helpful to keeping the energy flowing. And perhaps it is too much to ask of one person to be everything for us.
Eric.
Eric, I suppose what I mean to say is that a man, when he is with a woman, cannot be the same to her as he is when with other men. Men with men are much more boisterous than when they are with women.
The masculinity is toned down, and a softer approach is taken. (Much similarly as one is different when in the company of children, but not exactly as when one is with a woman.) It is not decietful, but a more careful approach needs to be taken.
There as some things that a man should not say to a woman, because she may be offended. But man to man, such things are said, and no offense is taken. I think you know what I am saying. White lies sometimes are necesary, but I was not speaking of outright deceit. Us men do not ever want to offend women.
The old joke, is when a woman asks a man in the clothes shop, “does my bum look big in this?” The man may possibly think that is the case, but heaven help him if he says “yes”.
