The CBE Scroll

Comment by PS

September 9, 2006 @ 6:25 am

Whenever we label with words, we limit something. Can we, should we, really limit Jesus or the Christians that follow Him? Aren’t we then saying that God is too small to do such and such?

Comment by Brian Andrews

September 9, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

I don’t understand the problem with encouraging men to be men and women to be women. There is enough gender confusion in our (American) society. Homosexuality has been normalized in the culture and in some parts of the “church.” We even have preteens on Oprah telling her and her audience that they want to be the opposite gender. And Oprah encouraged their parents to support the children in this!

The church needs to stand up and say, “No, God created us male and female. Both are in the image of God. Both are beautiful aspects of His creation. You are not the wrong gender.”

Male and female are not interchangeable. They are beautifully different. We are equal heirs of salvation in Christ, of course, but that doesn’t mean we are identical.

Comment by Kathryn

September 10, 2006 @ 8:53 pm

Re: comment # 2: My quarrel with complementarianism is not that men and women are different; we all know that they are, and that God made them that way. My problem is the way so-called complementarians have used the differences as a weapon to keep women out of the pulpits of their churches. In my childhood in the South, the differences (and the Bible) were used as a reason to keep women and black people out of any kind of authority, whether political, economic, or religious. That oppression was the true “step” down the slippery slope towards the breakdown of our society and the acceptance of homosexuality, although comps surely don’t realize it. That said, I agree we need role models for young boys. We need men to show them how to be like Christ. The model for all Christians is Jesus. The John Wayne method may work in the movies, but leaves a lot to be desired in real life. The shortest verse in the Bible is “Jesus wept.” Humility, love, seeking to serve rather than rule or control others, including wives, these are the hallmarks of a true follower of Christ. These, unfortunately, are not the ultimate results we get from complementarianism, where the emphasis is on “male authority,” no matter how benign it may seem to be.

Comment by sally

September 11, 2006 @ 2:11 am

Re: comment #2:
I think we should be encouraging people to be godly and Christ-like. The hormones (someone said men have 30 times more testosterone than women do) will take care of the men and women part naturally. The more we focus on ‘what men are like’ and ‘what women are like’ or worse, ‘SHOULD be like’ then we start to deal in stereotypes and deny the individuality of different people.
In my family, we all just got on with it. We never had this huge on emphasis on me learning to be a ‘godly woman’ or my brothers following my father as a role model. We learned from both our parents and just thought of ourselves as people who were striving to follow Christ.
For myself, I’m a woman, but I don’t find it easy looking after my little kids all day every day. I know some men who enjoy that more than I do. Am I ‘unfeminine’? Worse, are they unmasculine? I know many men who have what would be considered ‘feminine’ traits - my husband included. He’s quiet, he has a gentle voice and loves music and writing (and decorating the house!!). He’s not gay. He’s not being unmasculine. He’s just himself. Yet if he was pushed into being something he’s not, just to please a stereotype or a cultural norm, he’d be unhappy and not fully himself.
It’s a useless conversation to say men should be encouraged to be men and women should be encouraged to be women. We are men and women. We are not MORE masculine or MORE feminine because of the way we act. We already ARE masculine and feminine, just because we exist, with the hormones and physical makeup God has given us.
Much better to encourage us to crave and pray for the fruits of the spirit, to desire the spiritual power of Christ and to show the love of God in our lives.
Have a good day y’all.

Comment by Marissa

September 11, 2006 @ 9:24 am

Re: comment #4:

I appreciate your insightful comment. Your parents sound like wise people. The culturally defined concepts of ‘masculine” and “feminine” can be limiting and destructive. In a class I took in college, we were having a very similar conversation. A gentleman in my class was very upset at the idea that the question “what does it mean to be a godly man” was not the right question to ask. In frustration, he exclaimed, “then what should I be pursuing?” My teacher said,

“You should be asking what it means to be Jimmy: who are you? What are your strengths, gifts, and passions? How has your experience formed you? What is God calling you to become, as Jimmy? That is more productive then trying to mold yourself to fit a preconceived notion of the “godly man” or “godly woman” which may or may not make any sense in your life context.”

This bit of advice was very freeing for this individual and for others in the class. When we engage in whom God has made us rather then the latest cultural stereotype we allow the Holy Spirit to work through us in our communities with the fullness of how God designed us.

Comment by PS

September 11, 2006 @ 10:24 am

I’m about as close to Ms. Sally Homemaker as you can get, a good wife and mother. I’ve also held just about every job, committee assignment, etc. in my church, including preaching, lector, worship leader, Sunday School superintendent, council president, etc. But I don’t play piano or sing solos. I’m just grateful to live in an age when I can be me. And being me doesn’t mean JUST serving coffee in the kitchen and sewing for the bazaar, although I do those things as well.

I’m not saying these things to brag. Just to point out that if I had lived in another era or attended in a different denomination, someone would be telling me that I am NOT ALLOWED to use the gifts that God created in me.

Comment by Kathryn

September 11, 2006 @ 1:03 pm

What does it mean to be male or female? From most of the responses here, it means I am free to be me! I don’t want to be locked in to a rigid definition of those words. Like PS, I too am grateful to live in a time when I can just be myself, and not have to conform to a rigid “role”.

Comment by LJR

September 12, 2006 @ 9:22 am

Re: Comment #2:
Brian, I’m going to make you pass out by saying this: I actually agree with you on that comment as it is written.

That said, what you’re talking about isn’t an issue among those of us who believe in true Biblical equality. Men and women are different, yes. No doubt. Absolutely. The issue isn’t “are men and women different?” or “are men and women interchangeable?”. The issue isn’t even the dreaded H-bomb, since CBE’s doctrinal statement clearly supports heterosexual marriage and celibate singleness.

The real issues (well, two of them anyway) are “are we all allowed to use our gifts?” and “can we all learn from one another?” Others and I say yes to both here, but too many sexual hierarchs say no to both. Men can use all of their gifts in many churches, but women are either absolutely never allowed to use some of their gifts, or they must use them where men will never be exposed to them (It’s as if a woman showing that she knows her faith and doctrine well enough to teach it will spread girl-cooties or something since there really isn’t anything in Scripture preventing a woman from teaching anybody if she is teaching sound doctrine).

Please, please, please do not confuse the issues. There is nothing here against men being men and women being women, and nothing against people living traditional lifestyles if that is what they desire. On the other hand, there is plenty against quenching the Holy Spirit and demeaning other Christians who don’t look physically like one narrow mold. The issues you mention and the ones we address are very, very different. They don’t need to be mixed up.

Comment by Psalmist in Texas

September 12, 2006 @ 11:46 pm

I’ve been following a blog conversation elsewhere in which the “dividing line” between hard-line traditionalists and biblical egalitarians has been defined (though I suspect that was not the intention in the conversation). It goes something like this: God has “a” pattern for men and “a” pattern for women (that’s the traditionalists’ view, and they truly believe they have a solid biblical foundation for it); and God has a unique pattern for each human being (that’s the egalitarians’ view, and we also find a solid biblical foundation for it). Recognizing that the traditionalists’ view rejects any pattern that they believe does not align with the “man’s pattern” or the “woman’s pattern,” is actually helping the conversation.

Given that both the “man’s pattern” and the “woman’s pattern” involves marriage and children, I have to reject it as “the” pattern for every man/every woman. Common sense, as well as the many singles and occasional childless married people of Scripture, compel me to reject this. The argument that occurs when this objection is raised is the Achilles’ heel of the traditionalists’ argument: “Well, yes, singles can’t be parents [actually, that's not true, either, but that's another issue], but they need to be *ready* to be parents for when [?!] God brings that to pass. And we shouldn’t redefine the pattern because of the few exceptions.”

That’s the problem with the entire “gender roles” thing, including the “Iron Jesus” model for men. When it fits, it fits. When it doesn’t fit, it’s assumed there is something fundamentally wrong with the man or woman who doesn’t measure up to it. Strong women, quiet men, and singles are “other than.” And I find it ironic that neither Jesus nor Paul nor Mary and Martha of Bethany, would be considered “biblical men” or “biblical women” according to the gender role advocates today, because they were unmarried and had no children.

I have trouble understanding why it is considered necessary to add to the Scriptures in order to decide who’s “manly” or “feminine” enough to be a “biblical” man or woman. For that is precisely what is happening. We’re allowing the culture (or a reaction to it) to dictate what constitutes masculinity and femininity, and giving that significantly more weight than being Christlike when it comes to measuring one another’s faithfulness. I think of the most godly man I’ve ever known: barely 5′6″, probably not more than 130 lbs, his only athletic interest was golf, he reveled in working alongside his wife on decorating their home, took an extremely active role in their children’s day-to-day activities, enjoyed dressing fashionably (friends called him “Mr. G.Q.”), was a voracious reader, wrote elegantly, and was the most compassionate listener I’ve ever met. His most notable flaw was a propensity to gossip, which he recognized and worked hard to overcome. “Ironman,” he was not! But he was absolutely godly and quite a good role model for both men and women, who were drawn to him because of his love for people and absolute competence in his work. Yet because of his physical attributes and his various interests, Christians I’ve read would consider him a “girly man” and dismiss him as part of the “feminized” church. It angers me to think of all the harm this kind of cultural stereotyping does to the body of Christ. It’s junior high school all over again: ruthlessly judging others by their outward appearance in order to decide who’s “in” and who’s “out” of the club. I suspect there will be some shock and grief at some point when the advocates of this ungodly kind of judgment recognize that in doing it to those they deem the “least,” they’re doing it to the Lord.

Comment by Lori

September 13, 2006 @ 7:03 am

This issue really touches a nerve with me, for a couple of reasons. I’ll start with women first.

I have no problem acknowledging differences between men and women. I think that such differences are abundantly clear. For instance, even though I believe in the egal. cause, I’m still a woman and I still have many “feminine” characteristics. I hate conflict and agression. I love the color pink. I have a giant poster of Audrey Hepburn above my computer.

However, I also have some “masculine” characteristics. I love sports. I hate shopping. I love science and math. Therefore, it really bugs me when people, Christian or otherwise, tell me that women are supposed to do this or supposed to be a certain way. I especially get annoyed when Christians tell me that it’s sinful for women to be “too masculine” or for men to be “too feminine.” God created each and every individual human being as a unique person, so who are we to tell a person that they have the wrong personality because it doesn’t fit our preconceived notions of what the genders should be like?

This also extends to what the genders are allowed to do. It really, really gets up my wick (as the British say) when I’m told that God doesn’t want me to do something simply because He created me as a woman. To me that is nothing more than the “separate but equal” nonsense that racists used to keep black people “in their place.”

This attitude affects men, too. Neither my father nor my husband are “manly men” in the stereotypical, Braveheart sense, and I highly resent being told that they’re not “real Christian men” because of it. My father prefers to pour his passion into the Word of God. Confront him with a Mormon or an atheist and he can run circles around them proving them wrong. However, he’s also an introvert who prefers reading books to doing “masculine” things like camping, hunting, etc. In fact, if Dad ever read Wild at Heart, with its emphasis on men finding God in the wilderness, he’d probably laugh.

Same thing for my husband. He has no passion for outdoor pursuits, but if your computer ever breaks down, he can take it apart and put it back together again for you. The most “masculine” activity both he and Dad engage in is cheering on their favorite sports team.

This emphasis on gender differentiation also has a negataive effect on relationships. Although my parents never preached egalitarianism (they had never heard the term until I told them), they modeled an egal. marriage for me. Mom has served in a variety of church roles throughout their marriage. She and Dad treat each like equals, and Dad even acknowledges that Mom is better at some “masculine” things, like balancing the checkbook. Mom, in her turn, has never desired to change Dad and make him into some kind of “man’s man.” I can’t imagine what it would have been like if Dad had insisted on having all the power in his marriage and had denied Mom the right to serve as God called her.

Their example encouraged me to wait for a man who would treat me the same way. My husband has no problem with me liking sports–in fact, I’ve now introduced him to the joys of American football and he loves it. He doesn’t feel threatened by me studying to become a lay minister–he was the one who encouraged me to do it because he felt I was gifted in that area. I literally cannot imagine what it would be like to have somebody tell me I can’t do this or that God, through my husband, says I can’t. I have no idea what it would be like to have to swallow my feelings and just accept whatever decision my husband made. I can’t imagine it and I don’t want to live it.

Comment by Beyond Words

September 14, 2006 @ 12:20 pm

I found this post while researching material for my youth group lessons. It’s about Joseph, Mary’s husband. Read the whole thing….http://www.leithart.com/archives/000366.php
Here’s a quote:

“…the Christmas story is death to every heroic culture, every form of machismo, which depends on the belief that man can save himself, often without women, or that man’s role is to shake his fist at the heavens. As (Karl) Barth makes clear, Christmas, and hence the gospel, stand utterly opposed to every hint of male bravado and pride. Had the church thoroughly grasped, taught, and lived this, would feminism have ever been necessary?”