The CBE Scroll

Comment by Kathryn

October 5, 2006 @ 7:45 pm

Thanks to Andy for providing alternative reading suggestions. Too many people state problems without offering solutions. Thanks to CBE for providing this forum to do exactly that.

Comment by Kathryn

October 5, 2006 @ 7:48 pm

When I said that “Too many people state problems without offering solutions,” I was speaking in general terms.

Comment by Rob

October 6, 2006 @ 11:43 am

I’m a recent convert to egalitarianism (well, “convert” isn’t the right word: “discoverer” would be more accurate). And I got to say, I loved Wild at Heart. Haven’t read Captivating, so I can’t speak to it.
However, I do know that a lot of egalitarians have the same issues with Wild At Heart as they do with Captivating.
From what I’ve read and heard in the egalitarian camp, there seems to be a good amount of reticence toward any form of gender stereotyping. Take for instance Tennant’s review. In the first paragraph, she admits to biology:

“Maybe because of some primordial wiring, I like to wear peasant skirts and make borscht, and I want to become a mother.”

But in the rest of the review, other certain feminine (albeit average) characteristics are shunned.

Just as in Wild At Heart, it won’t apply to all men in all parts of the world. But I think the reason it’s so popular in America isn’t necessarily because it’s by and large a complementarian book. I think it’s because most men here fall within that central part of the bell curve of Western masculinity.
What’s so wrong with a guy wanting to beat his chest once in a while?

Comment by Kathryn

October 6, 2006 @ 1:14 pm

Re: comment #3: Hi Rob. Glad to have you with us. You’re right, there’s nothing wrong with wanting to beat your chest once in awhile; it’s the other stuff, the “baggage” of complementarianism, that of not allowing people to be fully human, to be all that God intends for us to be, that is so emotionally and spiritually painful at times. I’m sorry that Wild At Heart and Captivating are symptoms of this.

Comment by Lisa in FL

October 7, 2006 @ 5:58 am

DH read Wild At Heart as part of a church men’s group and he thought that it was, frankly, silly. It was great for the guys who hunt and camp, but DH is an artist, quiet and thoughtful, a person who doesn’t like sports even a little. This book had nothing for him and seemed to suggest that if he didn’t fit in to the American concept of masculinity he couldn’t be a real man with a real relationship with God.

I picked up Captivating and read it out of curiosity, and had the exact same reaction. When the book asserted that “all” little girls wanted to be beautiful, I had to shake my head. I didn’t care a bit about what I looked like as a little girl, since I was too busy climbing trees and reading books about knights slaying dragons, and believe me when I tell you that I did not cast myself in the role of damsel. When I got older and learned that my culture equated my self-worth with beauty, then I cared (and hated myself, since of course I could never measure up).

“Play a role” in a man’s adventure? Please. DH and I are on our life’s adventure together. And having a fantastic time.

Comment by ShawnaRenee

October 8, 2006 @ 7:54 pm

I read the CT article, and my response to it and the book is What is Beauty? Cheers to those who said they read it. The cover turned my stomach enough, I don’t think I could even pick the book up, let alone read it.

Re #5: Lisa you and your hubby sound like me and my hubby. :)

Comment by Rob

October 9, 2006 @ 11:15 am

Re comment #5:

It was great for the guys who hunt and camp, but DH is an artist, quiet and thoughtful, a person who doesn’t like sports even a little.

Even this statement seems like a generalization regarding the kind of people that would like Wild At Heart. I’m not a hunter and only camp very occasionally. I’m no mountain-man, but I’m fiercely competitive. I’m more of an introvert, with a lot of artistic leanings. But that doesn’t mean that I can’t relate to the topics in Wild At Heart.

Personally, I feel that Eldredge was writing with archetypes in mind. For better or worse, there are lots of classic stories of men (and women) in epic adventures without a hint of intended sexism in the subtext. It’s a constant source of inspiration in the great movies. Here’s something I wrote about the topic.

Comment by lynn

October 11, 2006 @ 6:07 pm

–I just had to say that I struggle with all these issues and self-hatred as a woman, and while I don’t want to make any men or women anything they aren’t, I get scared of “archetypes” as ways of understanding people. Growing up in a Christian school (where I found out later women teachers were paid less than male ones) I was told by a teacher that men “provided the intellect in a relationship, women the emotion”. (this teacher also constantly asked why women always “went for the jerks”.) I felt as though I were being called stupid to my face. Another teacher read Proverbs 31 and said she hoped the girls grew up to be like this, and that the boys grew up to be like Jesus. I remember thinking, Isn’t Jesus way, way better than any human, however good? How come you always get to be Jesus? I felt sort of like an alien or a bad Xerox, not someone created in the image of God. It has taken and is taking me a long time to trust the way God made me and accept it. I know I have knee-jerk reactions to things like this based on pride and fear, but I am comforted to know that there are people like the ones on these boards.

Comment by Julie

October 11, 2006 @ 7:18 pm

Re: #7
I read your other writing on this topic. Go for the wilderness adventure/rite of passage/prove yourself quest if that is what you dream of. My problem with the Eldredges is that they seem to deny women the same thing. My girlhood fantasy was dog sledding alone across the arctic! I think that both men and women are infinitely more complex than these books assume. Lets give each other the freedom to be who we are, and not say that a love of adventure or beauty is restricted to a particular gender.

Comment by Janet Macor

October 12, 2006 @ 7:17 am

Re: Comment #7:
I read through your ‘article’ on heroes. I thought it very strange that you tagged on Jesus Christ, who is God, at the end of your list - as if He was in the same category as the imaginary men in the movies.

Those imaginary men fought, killed. Jesus laid down His life and didn’t fight back.

Those imaginary men sought after treasure, accolades for themselves. Jesus came to serve others and put Himself second.

Those imaginary men are heroes in a culture who hates God. They are the heroes of men who neglect their wives, children, society to pursue their own desires.

They are not heroes in the eyes of our Lord.

Even the title, Wild at Heart conflicts with everything the Bible says what a man should be like — self-control, humble, gentle, self-sacrificing, etc. These are not qualities of the worldly heroes in the movies.

Comment by Kathryn

October 12, 2006 @ 2:18 pm

Re: comment #8: Lynn, thank you. The struggle you describe sounds all too familiar. I went through that myself. I don’t guess there is a woman anywhere that hasn’t heard that nonsense. Even if she rejects it, it is still hurtful at the time. You are made to feel as if women are “defective,” but it is not we who are defective, it is the bad theology! You are wonderfully made in God’s image, and He doesn’t make mistakes! I remember in the 1970’s when Southern Baptists were teaching people outright that women could not lead churches because they were prone to false doctrines in ways that men were not. Even then, I knew that that could not be true. The women I knew demonstrated a clear commitment to godly doctrine, including my own mother. What of godly Bible women? They disproved the myth too. Male superiority was the cornerstone of Southern Baptist teaching on relationships. They are more subtle now, talking about “equal but different” or “gender roles,” and things are some better, but the message of “male authority” still resounds. Of course we are different, but the great thing is, we are all called upon to be like Jesus (Romans 8:29, among others)!

Re: comment 10: Janet, thank you for drawing such a clear distinction between the Christ of the Scriptures and the “John Wayne” model of men which is too often held up as “normal” even for Christian men.

Comment by Beth Durden

October 13, 2006 @ 10:55 am

Re comment #9:

I think that both men and women are infinitely more complex than these books assume. Lets give each other the freedom to be who we are, and not say that a love of adventure or beauty is restricted to a particular gender.

That’s exactly what I was thinking! I’m sick of these Christian living books trying to mold men and women into one little idea of what a “man” and a “woman” should be like.

Comment by Rachel

October 28, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

wow! thanks for all the discussion. I am a student at Northwestern College in St. Paul, and there are many guys and girls on campus who are reading these books, and books like them, much to my displeasure.

I was a tomboy as a little girl, and even though it was promised that I would grow out of it, I never did ;-). It has been a struggle finding my place in a largely complementarian school, where doctrines are more influenced by tradition and upbringing than clear consideration of the Scriptures. I’ve even cried a few tears over the fact that I’ve never felt like I was less of a woman because of my personality and my gifts. My heart is not in the home–it’s on the battlefield, and it’s hard explaining that to fellow students who have been indoctrinated to view me and those like me as “liberal feminists”, rather than as God’s unique creations tailor-made for His purpose.

I never set out to be an activist, but the more I see the kind of unBiblical and demeaning material out there, which many girls my age are taking as pure Gospel, the more I feel compelled to say something. I am not a perversion of nature–I am a co-bearer of the image of God, and I am through with allowing my dignity to be taken away from me because I do not fit into a cultural mold.

Peace.

Comment by Amber

January 1, 2007 @ 4:09 am

Kathryn wrote above: “I remember in the 1970’s when Southern Baptists were teaching people outright that women could not lead churches because they were prone to false doctrines in ways that men were not.”

Quite an interesting theory they had. Unfortunately, for them, it is completely illogical. If men are not prone to false doctrines, what can explain all of the men participating in, leading and creating false religions. Even Aaron, Moses’ brother, formed a gold calf for the Isrealites to worship! Do the Southern Baptists think women are prone to false doctrines in ways any worse than that?