The CBE Scroll

Blog voices from Christians for Biblical Equality

“Set Apart,” but is it by Fear?

Filed under: Complementarianism, Feminism, Gender Equality — Megan at 2:05 pm on Friday, September 29, 2006

A prominent sociologist on evangelicals, Sally Gallagher, has much to say to egalitarians in her article, The Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism. She questions, when 56% of evangelical women are employed outside the home and when many evangelical marriages are egalitarian in practice, why evangelicals as a whole have still rejected mutuality and partnership between the genders.

One important point she makes is that well-known evangelical leaders have effectively linked evangelical feminism with androgyny. I have personally seen this many times from complementarian writing—statements like “evangelical feminists and their efforts to blur the genders that God made so beautifully distinct.” Complementarians have had definite success in convincing many people both that androgyny will be the awful result if we embrace gift-based leadership and that secularization of the church is the purpose behind egalitarianism.

In light of this, I can’t help but believe there is a huge issue of fear in the evangelical church. It seems to me that much of what we do in the church is more of an effort to preserve our way of thinking (because our interpretation must be correct) rather than actually critically thinking and dealing with Scripture and culture (of both the past and the present). This is particularly fascinating to me since evangelicals distinguish themselves from fundamentalists in their insistence that culture should be engaged.

How do we combat fear in the evangelical church?

Evangelicals talk a lot about being “set apart” from the world. But that distinction often seems to be based in fear—a strict definition of what we are not rather than what we are. When discussing the evangelical identity as set apart from the broader culture, Sally Gallagher suggests that evangelicals could accept mutuality and still be distinguished from the “secular” world if:

“…they were demonstratively more egalitarian than the broader culture in sharing responsibility for, and not just helping each other with, paid and unpaid family labor.”

What if the church was about radical equality—where Christians practice mutual submission characterized by love, humility, and selflessness, where Christians’ gifts are used for the glory of God, and where gender is neither blurred or stereotyped, but celebrated? This sounds like the example of the early church. It also sounds like a way that evangelicals can set themselves apart from the rest of society—a way that evangelicals can still be evangelicals.

31 Comments »

Comment by Leigh

September 29, 2006 @ 4:26 pm

Wow! I am just coming out of a church that is part of a patriarchal denomination, and you’ve hit it on the nose with this post about fear.

If only I had counted the number of times I’ve heard someone call something “dangerous” (e.g., the TNIV) or an idea “scary”…I could write a more specific post.

It’s crazy the change that occurred in me, as I continued to try to worship where I was (not saying that everyone would be affected in the same way, and NOT to imply that these folks are not Christian). My world kept feeling smaller, and smaller. Which was the opposite of the way I experienced the world and life just after my conversion experience, which was that suddenly the world felt like a bigger and *less* frightening place.

I’m glad that I’m not the only one to notice fear–a fear of ideas, I think, yes–in the evangelical community. It perplexes, saddens, angers and frustrates me. You ask good questions: Why is it, when evangelicals arguably practice some tenets of egaliarianism, why do they resist accepting the biblical foundation for the practice?

A request: Please define “androgyny.” I’ve not looked it up, lately, but the definition I have heard and used in the past is a person simply having some characteristics that are considered masculine, and some that are considered feminine. So androgyny to me would seem to indicate that one is human.

Comment by Kathryn

September 29, 2006 @ 6:35 pm

“For God hath not given us a spirit of fear…(2 Timothy 1:7). “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casteth out fear…(I John 4:18). As these verses make plain, fear doesn’t come from God. We can claim these promises. We need to continue pointing out to our complementarian friends that, far from “celebrating” gender differences, complementarians actually use those differences as a weapon against women. We can “celebrate” without doing that.

Comment by Douglas LeBlanc

September 30, 2006 @ 6:46 am

Bradley Wilcox offers a far more hopeful reading of evangelical households in his book Soft Patriarchs, New Men.

Comment by Lainie Petersen

September 30, 2006 @ 11:04 am

I think that there is often a confusion among “complimentarians” about three aspects of the gender debate:

1. Gender differences
2. Gender roles
3. Gender hierarchy

Are there differences between the genders? Certainly. Yet most people, regardless of their politics, are not androgynous: In fact, androgyny is so rare, most people are jarred by it (think of the character “Pat” on Saturday Night Live). As Patricia Gundry has noted, femininity and masculinity are inate qualities that really can’t be defined, but we are all aware of their existance. In the case of other “sex differences”: Verbal ability, spacial awareness, upper body strength, aggression, etc, while these differences do exist, they are not uniformly distributed in individuals, which brings me to the next issue of gender roles.

Gender roles are artificially constructed notions of how men and women are supposed to act and fit into society. These roles, such as men are to be leaders, protectors and providers and women are to be supporters, nuturers, and caretakers, are typically based on romantic ideas about gender differences. They tend to fall by the wayside in times of necessity, or in situations where the individuals just don’t easily fit into these roles, thus calling the notion of “complimentarianism” based on gender essentialism into question.

Complimentarianism, of course, isn’t really complimentarianism: it is patriarchy (which at least some comps are finally admitting). If men and women had separate but equal roles, I doubt that we would be having these discussions. As it is, men and women’s “roles” aren’t that separate, because men and women aren’t that different, but in the complimentarian scheme of things, men have priority. Men make the decisions. Men lead, women follow. Women don’t have the same privilege of self-government that men do. There is nothing particularly complimentary for this situation, except for married men, who (no matter how immoral, ignorant or weak they are) get their own personal someone to boss around. (It is also complimentary, I suppose, for male church leaders, as they have less competition for their place in the hierarchy.) But the women don’t get a “compliment.” Instead, they get someone who gets to tell them what to do, not because of ability, but because of gender.

The fear of androgyny, IMHO, is not so much of a fear as it is a smokescreen. The complimentarians have invested so much of themselves in gender hierarchy that they will protect it in any way possible. The “androgyny” business is just a way of protecting their interests: Selling patriarchy to women will always be difficult, so throwing a few disturbing threats into the propaganda often proves to be a neat trick.

Comment by Beyond Words

September 30, 2006 @ 1:56 pm

Douglas, just curious, are you recommending this book? The excerpt I read was tellng men to take back their roles–and be firm with their wives. The response from the wife was predicted to be: “But I’ve been taking care of the kids and the house and paying the bills all these years and now you want to be in charge?”

I’m praying that men and women will come together and do the work of raising families in the Kingdom of the Beloved Son (Colossians 1:13) where people lay down their lives for each other instead of snatching power back and forth and perpetuating a cycle of disrespect and resentment.

I believe Jesus died to destroy such power structures. There seems to be an assumption that if men don’t lead, women will dominate. What it typically looks like in most homes and churches is that if men don’t do their share, women will pick up the slack.

Women don’t want to dominate men. They just want men to do their share and they want men to treat them with the same mutual submission they give each other.

Comment by Kathryn

September 30, 2006 @ 6:19 pm

Another thing we could do is to disciple new converts to the Christian faith (in all it’s aspects of course). Perhaps we have a tendency to leave that to the complementarians too much; not to paint with too broad a brush, but perhaps egalitarians need to take more action in the area of teaching new converts and “making disciples” (Matt. 28:19).

Comment by Cheryl

October 1, 2006 @ 9:51 am

It is so sad to see the fear that many men have of women who use their gifts for God’s glory. They cannot accept these women as joint heirs when these fellow heirs use the gifts that they have been given by their inheritance through Christ.

In contrast it seems to me that strong godly men who are confident enough in their Christianity and their manhood are the ones who are willing to use their privileged position in society and in the church to clear the way for their sisters in Christ. I have seen some precious brothers use their position not to push down the gifts in their sisters, but to encourage other men to listen to them and to allow them to teach and lead with their gifts. These men should be greatly appreciated. They are needed to help other men who feel like their manhood is threatened by a godly woman who is confident in the use of her gifts, to understand that God is the one who ultimately decides who serves, leads and protects the flock from error by the gifts that he graciously gives to the church without regard to gender, social position or race. When men finally accept women who use their gifts for God’s glory as a benefit to them instead of a challenge to their manhood, the church will give a strong sign to the world of our mutual love and respect.

Comment by Anias Nin

October 1, 2006 @ 11:06 am

Such a great post. Such a great idea. I so wish it could be that way.
I’m afraid to say that I don’t have much hope for the church ever actually being that way. I mean, in the Millenial Age (which is another subject entirely, sure, but now?
I don’t know. I guess I’m just frustrated with the way things are regarding equality in the church. I should probably pray that God will give me some hope for the future, because, as of right now, I have very little.

Comment by Kathryn

October 1, 2006 @ 12:36 pm

Lainie, you said it just right: Gender roles are indeed “artificial” ideas about how men and women are to conduct themselves.

Comment by LJR

October 1, 2006 @ 3:40 pm

The “egalitarian thought leads to androgyny” argument is one scare tactic that doesn’t work with me. If anything, I disprove it.

When I was in a strict patriarchal church, and to a lesser degree in a “soft comp” church, it was vital for me to muffle anything feminine about myself if I wanted to get any respect or even a chance to voice views on issues I cared about. If I didn’t, all anyone cared to talk to me about was stuff about finding a man, getting married, and anything else keeping all of the focus on men. (Ugh. Couldn’t anyone have a serious discussion about anything else? I didn’t realize until much later how much the women’s ability to focus on Christ was hampered.) Other than the obligatory church dresses, I played the part of a sexless/genderless creature pretty well. Even then, the efforts of men to keep my voice and those of the other women in check whenever we would participate in class or raise tough questions in church became too much to bear. Being female and Christian wasn’t worth the garbage, but I couldn’t give up any of those parts of my life.

That was before the fateful day I stumbled across Biblical equality.

If the androgyny argument were true, I should have the “Pat” act down by now since I’ve been a committed egalitarian for five years, right? Wrong! If anything, I’m more stereotypically feminine than I’ve ever been in my life. *examines current attire* Wearing pink? Check. Skirt? Check. Long hair? I need a trim now. I could go on and on. At the same time, my theological studies have gone deeper than ever. (It’s nice to know there are people who really think women can learn more about Scripture than Ephesians 5:22 :D )

My fiance sees the difference, and he has happily discovered that his masculinity is not harmed at all by Biblical equality. If anything, we can relax in who we are and not worry about dividing spiritual gifts or anything else along sex lines. He’s all man, I’m all woman, we’re growing together with Biblical equality, and we’re finally free to be the people God made us to be. Androgyny? No need; therefore, nothing to fear.

Comment by Craighton

October 1, 2006 @ 7:53 pm

This post is outstanding as it evaluates the evangelical gender equality struggle accurately, describing the complementarians as using fear techniques. Complementarians have outflanked egalitarians in many ways, using the persuasive techniques they use. We may not like them, but they are a whole lot more effective to the majority of people than endless complicated arguments and clarifying biblical histories and reinterpretations.

I think it was James Dobson who said that evangelicals don’t like soiling themselves with “politics” because it’s unaesthetic — it’ll get you dirty if you participate or even support ideas and group efforts that support those ideas. Sometimes, on my not-so-great days, I feel like CBE needs to hire a good political consultant.

Evangelicals still haven’t come far from their fearful fundamentalist roots. They say that they’re for engagement with the world, but do it fearfully, if at all. They’d rather send their children to far-off, “darkest” Africa than send them to Hollywood. Higher education is still suspect, maybe not as bad as it used to be, but still seen as better within the protective cocoon-like environment of Christian colleges.

As comments 1 & 2) pointed out, God is neither a god of fear nor of smallness. If your Christian world is marked with either, look around to see where you went wrong or who sent you in the wrong direction, and move away. Sometimes heading for the true, honorable and just means reversing direction.

Anias Nin (#8): When the church gets you down, look even more steadily at Jesus Christ. He treated women well, encouraged them, and approached them with the same mind-engaging dignity as men. And there is biblical evidence that He was surrounded by both female disciples and apostles. Concentrate on Him and give Him your devotion; not man-made institutions. Then find ways to involve yourself with other Christians.

Comment by Megan

October 2, 2006 @ 7:53 am

Re: comment 1
Thanks for the opportunity to clarify—I was referring to androgyny as meaning “undistinguishable between man and woman.” Like Lainie mentioned in comment 4, “Androgynous Pat” was a character that no one could determine his/her gender. And I agree with Lainie that most people feel very unsettled when the gender of an individual is difficult to determine, which makes the link between it and egalitarianism a particularly strong scare tactic.

Re: comment 8
I definitely understand your frustration—I think we’ve all been there. I do think, however, that things are looking up, and that, while we may never reach our ideal, small, positive changes are being made each day. CBE has convinced me of that. Blessings to you!

Re: comment 10
Thanks for this comment! I have heard often that women who are called into church leadership discover that they are expected to act more manly if they want to succeed. Interesting then, that the Christians who reject egalitarianism because of “gender blurring” are the ones that are unwittingly forcing masculine behavior on women leaders instead of embracing God’s gift of diversity!

Comment by Lori

October 2, 2006 @ 1:12 pm

Re: #10

If the androgyny argument were true, I should have the “Pat” act down by now since I’ve been a committed egalitarian for five years, right? Wrong! If anything, I’m more stereotypically feminine than I’ve ever been in my life. *examines current attire* Wearing pink? Check. Skirt? Check. Long hair? I need a trim now. I could go on and on. At the same time, my theological studies have gone deeper than ever. (It’s nice to know there are people who really think women can learn more about Scripture than Ephesians 5:22 )

I hear you, sister! Back at university, I was a stereotypical feminist/egal.: cropped hair, always wore pants, loved sports, etc. Now I have long hair and love wearing dresses. Somehow I have discovered a passion for pink, so much so that half my wardrobe is that color. Above my computer hangs a giant poster of my idol, Audrey Hepburn, a woman who embodied the virtues of grace, diginity, and femininity. I love Victorian lacy things. Any comp. who met me now would swear I was one of them because I’m so stereotypically female. And yet because I have a passion for preaching and studying difficult subjects like Greek, many of them would also consider me “masculine” and therefore disobeying God for not staying within my “role.” Go figure. (I must confess that I still do have one “masculine” characteristic. I still love sports.)

My fiance sees the difference, and he has happily discovered that his masculinity is not harmed at all by Biblical equality. If anything, we can relax in who we are and not worry about dividing spiritual gifts or anything else along sex lines.

Again, I hear you. *Both* hubby and I are called to preach. We would *both* love to be missionaries someday. It feels so nice not having to worry about what I’m allowed to do, or whether he should do something because that’s *his* role.

Comment by Lori

October 2, 2006 @ 1:28 pm

Re: #11

I think it was James Dobson who said that evangelicals don’t like soiling themselves with “politics” because it’s unaesthetic — it’ll get you dirty if you participate or even support ideas and group efforts that support those ideas.

Are you sure that’s Dobson? I mean, he’s one of the leaders of the “values voter” movement. I used to listen to his radio show, and he was always talking politics on it. I still get the Focus on the Family newsletter, and that’s virtually all they talk about.

Sometimes, on my not-so-great days, I feel like CBE needs to hire a good political consultant.

Or a good PR rep. Remember a while back ago when that woman was saying that CBE advocated Goddess-worship? That’s what I reccommended. :)

Evangelicals still haven’t come far from their fearful fundamentalist roots. They say that they’re for engagement with the world, but do it fearfully, if at all. They’d rather send their children to far-off, “darkest” Africa than send them to Hollywood. Higher education is still suspect, maybe not as bad as it used to be, but still seen as better within the protective cocoon-like environment of Christian colleges.

I couldn’t agree more. I hang out on a forum that leans towards fundamentalism, and most of the posts there are about how evil the world is, and how you should avoid just about everything in it. In the TV folder, one guy said that he was disappointed to see how many discussions there were about secular TV shows. He basically said that all good Christians should only watch Sky Angel, the Christian satellite network where you can watch squeaky cleans shows and documentaries about creationism.

I’ve seen the same attitude in just about every comp. I’ve talked to. Virtually all of them have said some variation of the following: egal. is just a bunch of feminists who want to undermine the church, just like they’ve destroyed our society. It’s as if they feel that they’re living in a fortress and have to guard Christianity against the hordes of feminists at the gate. Sadly, such a mindset rarely brings true peace or joy, because who can have those things if you’re always angry and fearful?

Comment by Craighton

October 2, 2006 @ 6:20 pm

#14: Yes, I think it was Dobson. He was saying that it was one of the difficulties he has to fight — to get evangelicals to commit their funds and action-oriented supportive activities toward political action goals. Such things in the minds of fundamentalists/evangelicals have been “dirty,” uncertain, and likely to get you out of the will of God. I remember a time when this group was scared to vote. With the advent of the religious right, that’s less true now than a decade or two back, but the feeling that politics is not a very holy activity is still around.

Comment by Douglas LeBlanc

October 3, 2006 @ 6:34 am

Beyond Words writes:

Douglas, just curious, are you recommending this book? The excerpt I read was telling men to take back their roles–and be firm with their wives. The response from the wife was predicted to be: “But I’ve been taking care of the kids and the house and paying the bills all these years and now you want to be in charge?”

I interviewed Brad Wilcox for Christianity Today when he wrote this book a few years ago, and I read the book in preparing to interview him. I can say with certainty that at no point does the author urge men or women to do anything.

Brad Wilcox is a sociologist, and Soft Patriarchs, New Men is a heavily academic work.

He may well quote an evangelical leader as advocating that men take charge of their households — what you describe sounds like something attributed to Dallas pastor Tony Evans.

My wife and I have chosen egalitarianism for the entire 18 years of our marriage, and I do not urge the complementarian model on anyone.

I am indeed recommending Brad Wilcox’s book, because it is such an important counterpoint to the stereotypes that we egalitarians are often tempted to indulge regarding our fellow Christians.

Comment by Douglas LeBlanc

October 3, 2006 @ 7:28 am

As I expected, the passage that Beyond Words described involves Brad Wilcox quoting remarks by Tony Evans rather than dispensing advice. Here, courtesy of Amazon, is the Search Inside feature for the book.

I tried to link directly to the relevant page, but that doesn’t work. Search for Tony Evans, then click on the link for page 1.

Comment by Beyond Words

October 3, 2006 @ 8:25 am

Thanks for that clarification. When I saw the Tony Evans quote, I thought that was the intro to the book. This book does seem to be a very valuable contribution to the role men play in their marriages and child rearing.

Comment by Lainie Petersen

October 3, 2006 @ 8:49 am

Mr. LeBlanc:
Thanks for the clarification.

I seem to recall that there was a recent article by a Southern Baptist clergman/professor who bemoaned even the “soft patriarchy” that some seem to espouse. He was cross because even in so-called “complimentarian” homes, decisions were being made via negotiation and “mutual submission” rather than by the father directly. The writer was calling for a return to patriarchy, nothing “soft” about it.

What particularly disturbed me about his article was that some couples who have good marriages . . .who have found ways of relating that work well for them, *might* feel that they have to change their relationship. Given the fragility of so many marriages these days, I find myself concerned that people may harm their marriages by trying to force it to fit into somebody else’s mold.

Comment by Dana Ames

October 3, 2006 @ 1:44 pm

I think the fear has to do with men losing their (misguided) source of identity as patriarchy wanes, and I can understand that angst. I think the fear has more to do with not being “biblical;” if one denies what the bible is “plainly ” saying about this subject, what is to prevent someone from denying other truths and eventually become apostate?
Dana

Comment by Douglas LeBlanc

October 4, 2006 @ 3:31 pm

Brad Wilcox’s book does not suggest that all complimentarians are soft patriarchs, or deny that some patriarchs have harder edges than others.

Every movement has its share of hardline voices. I hope that as egalitarians we will not make universal pronouncements about complimentarians based on those hardline voices.

Comment by Kathryn

October 4, 2006 @ 7:27 pm

It has been my observation that complementarianism starts out soft and hardens over time. Those “soft” patriarchs may be new to the cause.

Comment by molly

October 5, 2006 @ 2:59 pm

Douglas, I really appreciate your points. It is so true that just as egalitarians are often resoundly misunderstood and stereotyped (which is annoying, at best), it would be to the egalitarian camp’s advantage (I think) to take great pains to refrain from doing the same.

The truth is, while some things are the same across the board, other variances in the patriarchy/complimentarian camps are massive. I think it will help promote conversation between the two camps when stereotyping is something we attempt to avoid.

It is very difficult to speak against patriarchy/complimentarianism without generalizing, of course, or without giving a zillion disclaimers (at which point one begins wondering if it’s even worth trying to say ANYthing-lol), but at the same time, our discussions ought to be full of the very mutual respect and submission that is being advocated, including towards the camps that we differ with. It’s a worthy goal, anyway. :)

Comment by Susan

October 5, 2006 @ 4:36 pm

This is a great forum! Today I did a quick scan of “Married but Not Engaged” by the Coughlins. I mainly was interested in the premise that there is a difference between how men behave before marriage and after according to these authors. Surprisingly, I stumbled across some interesting material about fear and the role it might play in Christian men sometimes being passive as they try to emulate Christ and the frustration women often feel for being forced into a role of matriarch when they thought they were sharing their lives with someone believing in a democracy. There were several thought-provoking lines in the book that whether I agree or not, gave me an opportunity to see things from yet another perspective. While I have heard and read much about fear of equality and the supposed demasculation of men, it seems we never get too far away from needing to constantly reassure men (and some women) that elevating women to roles of leadership (in the church and life) is not to take away from men, but rather to follow Christ’s example in equality. We can serve side by side, using our gifts that God has given each of us, not bound by some threat or fear to our own respective genders, but in true service. No one has to suffer for inclusion, and certainly no one should suffer the pain and frustration of exclusion! How we squelch the pervasive fear of so many, remains the BIG question. Fear is seemingly based in lack of knowledge and thus the answer may be in the continuing dilligence of CBE, etc., to keep plodding along with truth and courage. I applaud your efforts and continue to pray for your organization, along with the many people who need to hear and know the truth!

Comment by Kathryn

October 5, 2006 @ 10:47 pm

Thank you Susan for highlighting an important point: Elevating one sex to equal authority does not mean debasing the other! Of course, every egalitarian on this blog knows and appreciates this, but it bears repeating from time to time, and can even be reassuring to someone who is wavering on the edge of equality, and help persuade them to come on over. You made another important point too: Quite apart from the issue of equality, being “Christlike” is not the same as “being passive.”

Comment by TeriLynn

October 7, 2006 @ 2:17 pm

re: post #22
“It has been my observation that complementarianism starts out soft and hardens over time. Those “soft” patriarchs may be new to the cause.”

This is what I have seen also. I’ve watched some very gentle people turn viciously aggressive with the complimentarian/patriarchal message the deeper they got into the philosophy of it.

Those who take the term at face value as speaking of complementarity in relationships, are not IMO true modern complementarians. Fact is that egalitarian marriages are more complementary than the model the comp leaders teach. Now that’s confusing, ey! :)

Comment by molly

October 7, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

Thanks for the conversation all. Just a few thoughts…

Elevating one sex to equal status doesn’t *actually* debase the other, but for those who have been taught that their status is based on the unequal status of the OTHER sex, it…does serve to ruin them if the lower sex is brought to equal standing.

The previously “high” gender is now… what? For his entire religous and/or cultural life, he has been defined as a man BECAUSE he was in charge…. His rule is what makes him manly, in other words. So you take away that rule and… now what is he?

I think that women have a lot to gain by equality, but men, honestly, have a lot to lose (even if it is only a perceived loss).

It makes sense that they would struggle against the change, and also that they would struggle finding their own identity once ruling-over-her is no longer their main gender characteristic.

Comment by Kathryn

October 8, 2006 @ 2:46 pm

Thank you Molly for your insights. As a Southerner, I have seen what you describe at the height of the Civil Rights movement. Those in power very often do not want to move over and make room. This is, I’m sure, a human condition. In my last comment, I was trying to say that we should not elevate women by putting men down.

Comment by Layne

October 28, 2006 @ 1:35 am

The scriptural model FOR BOTH SEXES is one of submission and servitude. The assertion of rights and equality is a relatively modern, western (and dare I say somewhat feministicly perpetrated) idea that flies in the face of what Jesus taught. I’m all for defending the helpless. Unless that helpless person is yourself. It is not our place to take a stand for our “rights” or even to assert our giftedness. The Christ-like way is to serve with humility and self-debasement, considering others as more important than ourselves.

Comment by Marissa

October 30, 2006 @ 2:20 pm

Re: Comment #29
I see how someone could be against people boldly proclaiming their own greatness. It is not scriptural to think of ourselves as better then others, or more important than others. It is also not scriptural to treat the more honored in society with better treatment, position, and authority then the less honored. Or to let injustice happen right before our eyes and not stand up and speak. (please reference James 2:1-4)
The heart of the egalitarian movement is redeeming in society and the church what God has already set in place. Egalitarians are not trying to exalt women above men or assert their superiority. Rather, egalitarians are giving a voice to those who, for many reasons, are not granted a voice, even in their own communities of service Egalitarians ask that each individual be evaluated on their personal gifting, their own life of Christian witness, and not limited by their gender. Because our society, and many of our churches, do not follow this model, gifting based on the individual is a biblical truth that needs to be proclaimed and addressed. Egalitarians enter this discussion with honor and humility, knowing that the gifting is from God and not because of our own efforts or talents.
Asserting the ability to lead based on gifting and not on gender comes not from pride, or egotism, but rather a desire to see people flourish and live more fully with their God-given abilities. Jesus begins the Sermon on the Mount by blessing many groups of people who were considered cursed and untouchables in his society. He then closes that blessing with these words:

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead, they put it on a stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matt 6:14-16).

May all people be able to let their good works shine as a testimony to God.

Comment by Kathryn

October 30, 2006 @ 10:42 pm

Re: comments 29 & 30: Yes indeed. We are to speak out on behalf of the oppressed, not to assert our own rights, but to give a voice to those whose voice has been squelched because of the rottenness of prejudice. Very often it is our own people who have been silenced. As a woman, I can certainly claim that, and while I wouldn’t mind it too much for myself, I do mind that it has happened to us as a whole. I also mind that God’s own voice has been silenced as a result.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>