The CBE Scroll

Comment by DP

February 7, 2007 @ 12:40 pm

How sad! Unfortunately, I fear there are more “bad” programs than “good” ones when it comes to successfully avoiding gender stereotypes. This was a constant headache for me while I was a pastor and people were clamoring for some kind of marriage retreat.

Comment by PS

February 7, 2007 @ 1:24 pm

Seems to me that some type of sexual stereotyping and separation are a big part of church life and society in general. While I understand your point, I’m looking at the larger picture here. Do you know any churches where there are more males in choir, in Bible Studies, teaching Sunday School, etc. etc. etc. than there are females? We seem to take for granted that the women run the programs of the church, for the most part. In our church, we have men in some leadership positions, reading from the scripture publically, and all other jobs, but women outnumber men in all areas except ushering.

Perhaps having a men’s group studying something like this isn’t so bad. The women probably have their own way of tackling these issues.

Comment by Jeff

February 7, 2007 @ 3:57 pm

This is a vexing issue. My wife and I find it very difficult to go to most Christian marriage retreats/conferences for the very reason that most (at least that I know of) promote gender roles and stereotypes that we don’t find helpful. BTW-We just moved from Birmingham just over two years ago. We went to Beeson for seminary.

Comment by bobbie

February 8, 2007 @ 6:07 am

How much better if we were all committed to sexual integrity. Sometimes it’s easy for women to hide behind the “purity” label and yet have an active fantasy life, or a cold, stone frigid relationship with their husband that looks more like sexual anorexia than purity.

Comment by Leigh

February 12, 2007 @ 9:21 pm

I recall in my old church, announcements were sometimes made about groups that were forming to help men deal with issues of sin surrounding sex (usually these announcements mentioned at least pornography by name). Sometimes men would talk about those sorts of issues during testimony time.

I don’t recall any groups at the church that supported women with similar issues ever being mentioned. I don’t remember any public acknowledgment being made that women do struggle with issues surrounding sex–such as lust and temptation.

I *do* remember being confided in, by more than one woman, that they wished there were a support group that they could attend, not wholly unlike the one that the men so openly referred to. I was also frustrated with the situation, but admittedly, did not know what to do. If sexual sin in women was addressed, it did not appear to be in any sort of organized fashion. Yet it did appear to need to be addressed.

Comment by LJR

February 13, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

Wow, this is the opposite of most of the churches I went to. I’m used to all of the sexual purity pressure being on the women and the men, well… you know the old saying “boys will be boys”?

That said, I have been to one church with programs for men struggling with sex issues. Several friends of mine went through it. I’ve heard rumors about a women’s group there, but… I dunno. In most other churches I’ve been to, women either kept silent if they had a problem, got kicked out, or were somehow otherwise doomed to second-class status.

I guess the idea of men being held accountable for their sexuality is an improvement over the other things I’ve seen, but I’d really prefer to see a church extend to both men and women the opportunities for both accountability and forgiveness.

Comment by Tami

February 14, 2007 @ 2:23 pm

Over and over I’ve seen ads for one program or another for men dealing with sexual addictions. All sponsored by a church or parachurch organization. There are groups for women- women whose husbands are dealing with sexual addictions. Christian women’s magazines often have articles or letters in Q&A sections offering or seeking advice on dealing with a husband who has a sexual addiction.

It will take the brave soul maybe 5 minutes of pointed internet searching to discover that untold millions of women are dealing with sexual addictions in every corner of our country. No, you won’t find it in dry statistics at Barna. You’ll have to go to the sex-oriented message boards and chat rooms. They are littered with the broken lives of our sisters, mothers, daughters, wives and friends.

I hope one day the church can let go of its stereotypes long enough to see the ministry opportunity practically begging at their door.

Comment by Joel

February 17, 2007 @ 5:52 am

The concern raised here is an important one, one I think Christians need to take very seriously. I’ve been struck at how sexual integrity is so often set up to be a ‘man’s issue’ while women are to support and pray for their husbands. I’ve also thought that it’s sad that the church often fights the whole pornography issue solely on the basis that it ’causes men to sin’ without recognizing the temptation it can pose for women, or addressing the larger issues of the sexualization of the woman’s (and man’s) body (e.g. why do so many Christians have a problem with the natural act of breastfeeding, in public?) and the degradation of women in general (treating as sex objects, etc.).

Anyway, I am on board with the thrust of the blog entry here and very much appreciate the need for all people, of all genders, to commit to sexual purity. But I also recognize that stereotypes do not always come out of thin air. My instinct is that men do struggle with issues of sexual purity more than women (the high number of male sex offenders in comparison to women is astonishing) and this likely is not all a matter of nurture (it may be partially related, but I think there is something of orientation and genetic disposition at work). This is not in any way to suggest that many women do not struggle with sexual sin (far be it!). I’m simply trying to look at this objectively. At any rate, while I appreciate the suggestion of the author to throw “off the traditional stereotypes of men as sexual and women as emotional, and … [that all] face sexual temptation”, I think it would be unwise to try to equate the temptations that men and women face as if there are no differences in intensity, at least in particular areas (as the entry could imply).

Again, I’m on board here … I just think it needs to be nuanced. The final sentence is of course right on track (”What a powerful congregation would exist if the men and women respected each other as fallen-but-redeemed brothers and sisters, and prayed for each other to be transformed body and soul into Christ’s image!”) but I’m not convinced that we need necessarily equate the ways men and women fall (or the things tempt them) in order to do this. In some ways a greater respect and sensitivity can be shown when we are attentive to our differences, individually and in gender (provided we do not ‘construct’ and ‘project’ them upon each other, male or female!).

For the record, I think that the church mentioned should have addressed the issue as you suggest, as an issue that applies to both genders. I’m just a little uneasy here with the potential to flatten the discussion.

Just some thoughts, open to persuasion and criticism …

Comment by Andy Rowell

February 18, 2007 @ 1:30 pm

Not directly related to this post but I just thought I would let people know about the “Gifted for Leadership | Community for Christian Women” blog run by Christianity Today and Leadership journal. Lots of great women on the editorial staff. It was just started in January 2007.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/giftedforleadership/

Here are a few that would be of interest to many of your readers:

The Sin of Humility

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/giftedforleadership/2007/01/the_sin_of_humility_1.html#more

Gifts, not Guilt

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/giftedforleadership/2007/01/gifts_not_guilt.html#more

Almost all are good!

Comment by Leigh

February 20, 2007 @ 5:21 pm

“I couldn’t help but wonder how much more effective this program would be if the leadership threw off the traditional stereotypes of men as sexual and women as emotional, and recognized that all adult human beings, male and female, face sexual temptation…”

If I may…I didn’t take this post to mean that differences between men and women (as generalizations, not as stereotypes) should be ignored, or that differences between individuals should be ignored.

If I understood it, I think it’s really the top-level stereotype that’s being assessed here, and found wanting: Men have problems with sex, while women have problems with emotions.

The presumptions that these blanket statements are always true are harmful to men as well as to women, in that women don’t feel comfortable talking about their struggles with sex–in whatever form(s) they may take, and men are uncomfortable opening up about their emotions.

An aside: While not denying the value of single-sex groups with various purposes, I find it interesting to have heard, “What if some of the men are struggling with pornography? as a reason to separate a group of people along lines of biological sex. When, really…sexual sin was not the focus of the group.

Mainly, though, the thought strikes me that perhaps some men who struggle with pornography could be helped by interacting with women. That there could be benefit for the women and the men if women were involved directly as a part of dealing with the issue of pornography, and recovery.

Of course, I’m not a therapist or counselor of any kind.

Comment by sally

February 24, 2007 @ 2:53 am

>

That’s a really interesting idea Leigh. I think some certainly might benefit if they got to see women as people somehow - whether that’s through a group setting or something else.

My husband thinks that having problems with pornography is much deeper than just having problems relating to women though. He thinks it’s a symptom of something else. Don’t know what - he couldn’t tell me off the top of his head! (:

Comment by Jon Trott

February 26, 2007 @ 3:52 pm

Pornography most accurately can be called a very potent psycho-sexual drug. It is designed by its makers to turn its users into addicts. Men caught in its daily use are often ruined in their sexual expressions within a marriage; even during lovemaking the wife often is replaced mentally by the husband’s previously consumed pornographic images. He literally is making love to the porn “star” of his choice while his wife’s body is a vehicle to that end. Need I comment on the anti-feminist resonations contained there?

But yes, women do use pornography, and in startling and growing numbers. They, too, are being targeted by porn producers. Splitting the sexes apart and suggesting that women don’t really experience the sharp pain and power of sexual temptation is pure hogwash.

The positive side to this is that egalitarians / mutualists can point to what joy the marriage bed’s purity holds for a couple unburdened by gender roles and free of pornographic addiction. Without being overly specific, let me just say that a woman’s sexual pursuit of her husband, all but absent in many evangelical models of marriage, is the norm in Song of Songs — certainly the Bible’s sex manual if there is one. The imagery in that book only gets more erotic as one studies it. So does the very active role of the woman (the Shulamite), who is decidedly “improper” in her heated desire for her husband.

Sex roles ruin more than women’s freedom to lead, exercise giftings, and be secure in their worth in Christ. Sex roles also ruin sex. By extension, they distort teaching on how to protect the Church and its members from sexual failure, whether dealing with porn or adultery or other matters.

I didn’t mean this to be long, but must say one more thing. In the matter of sexual sin on the husband’s part… should he confess to his wife? I think that in a mutual marriage this would be far more easily done by the male, and more readily (if unhappily!) received by the female. She in turn would feel she had real authority which she could exercise in addressing his sin and its effects upon her and their family.

In a non-mutuality marriage, to whom would the husband be accountable? Not, most likely, his wife. In more cases than not in my opinion, this would not bode well for him remaining pure or for healing their relationship.

There’s so much more I could say on this topic, but will cork it for now.

And as I often say… without growing tired of saying it… CBE folk, you are my heroines!

-Jon

Comment by Kathryn

February 27, 2007 @ 12:16 am

Re: comment # 12: Thanks Jon for that insight. I had never thought of it in quite that way before.

Comment by Jackie

March 1, 2007 @ 9:22 pm

I have a different take on this. I’m actually glad that there are churches out there that take seriously purity for men. Too often purity is seen as a feminine trait. Women are to be meek, pure, and virtuous (as in sexually pure), while men, well, men have needs, and they are strong—and of course men who have needs, strong men with needs can’t control themselves.

As a result I think the overall message of the church has abandoned men–while short changing women. Most messages about chastity and purity are wrapped in pink bows with frilly lace. Rarely does it come in more “masculine” packages. As a result, young men are left to either struggle alone or given tacit approval to sin. And of course, issues like pornography, rape etc are just ignored.

And, in my opinion, because the church’s message on purity is usualy lopsided we leave women in an unteneble position. Around the world our sisters in the Lord suffer because they are deemed “unpure”, women who are raped, abandoned for new wives (as in polygamous societies) or suffer sexual abuse are shunned–BY CHRISTIANS! The men who perpetrate these acts are often excused because men aren’t expected to be pure. (I think for instance of the women of Christian women in Burma, who once left devastated by their “husbands” are rejected as not pure enough by believers.)

So anyhow, I don’t think have a programed aimed at men is necessarily a bad thing, as long as it is part of a whole body of teaching. In fact I think programs that teach men that they are responsible, that they do have control can redress some of the imbalance. For too long women have been expected to be the guardians of sexual purity, while men have been left to immulate some of David’s less holy habits uncorrected.

Comment by Joanna

March 2, 2007 @ 10:03 am

I think I should introduce myself first…kind of rude to but into a conversation without an introduction.

I am Joanna, I have been involved with CBE for about 12 years, maybe longer. I live in NYC…my mom is a pastor?

Ok, I have two thoughts. First, is in response to Jon. I don’t necessarily believe that the sexual brokenness women have is exactly the same as men, i.e. often pornography. I do believe that many women are sexually broken and that it is taboo in the church to talk about women’s sexuality, let alone their sexual brokenness. This recent article in the NY Times addresses what I think is really a lot of women’s issues, which is using short-term hook-ups to meet their physical and emotional need for intimacy.

Secondly, I am taking part in a widely used ministry to help bring healing to the sexually and relationally broken. One of the chapters in our reading the other day really took me by surprise. The writer writes,

“In relation to the divine masculine will of the father, we are all “feminine”. By that I mean that we can only respond to the way that he has provided for our salvation and healing…the faculty of the soul that receives from the Lord and from others is the feminine component of spirituality and personality. It applies to both men and women, especially as they to know and be known by the father. However, whole woman embodies the good of the feminine more than man. That is obvious in her heightened capacity to take into herself outside stimuli, to make herself a home for another.[I think here he is talking about giving birth]“

I am having huge issues with this text. Anyone have any experiences with this program or just wants to comment?

Comment by Jon Trott

March 4, 2007 @ 12:48 pm

Joanna, I agree, but might go even further. I’m not much of a fan of making any generalizations re gender and porn, or gender and specific sexual cues (”turn-ons”). While I do think that in general men may have been trained to react more to visual cues than their feminine counterparts, this is quickly becoming a more ambiguous situation. As advertisers become ever more adventurous (i.e., offensive!) with overtly sexual imagery, I wonder just how “real” the difference between genders will turn out to be re visual imagery as sexual cue. These ideas, however, aren’t fixed in stone, at least necessarily in part because I’m relying on subjective projections of the future. So for what it is worth… hehehe.

Second, the quote you offer is offensive conceptually to me. It reminds me of C. S. Lewis’ subtext in part of his science fiction trilogy’s last book, That Hideous Strength. One of the major themes regarding the female heroine in the book has to with her having failed to bear a child to her husband. Another character (a re-animated Merlin the Magician) actually wants to kill her for her failure. Later in the book, she comes to her husband’s bed in a symbolic “surrender” I personally found moving on one level, but disturbing on another. (This theme will soon be dealt with in a book on Lewis and women by Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen.) At any rate, Lewis directly parallels the female’s salvation experience with a “giving in” that directly draws attention to God being masculine while all humanity in comparison is feminine. Again, the idea of masculinity being about power, the active “sun,” while the feminine is about relative powerlessness, the inactive “earth,” is potentially anything but Christian in my opinion.

In fact, the more I think about that theme, and that scene, it reminds me of D. H. Lawrence’s views on women and sexuality. Lawrence’s idea of women was — yeesh, this may be a bit PG-13! — that a woman who surrenders to the male sex urge is completed as a woman on a spiritual level and physical one. Lawrence takes this to an extreme in Lady Chatterly’s Lover, where he calls a woman seeking clitoral stimulation disgusting and “beakish” (a reference, I suppose, to the woman actively seeking sexual stimulation for the clitoris). The only real sex for D. H. L.’s women characters occurs via the surrendered female’s vaginal orgasm, in which the woman yields herself completely to the male in intercourse. This bent of Lawrence’s is, of course, dealt with at length in Kate Millet’s Sexual Politics, and greatly, convincingly, expanded upon.

I’ve written about some of this via various posts on my feminism blog, Are Men Really Human.

I hope this clarifies some of my thinking.

Comment by ArbutusSider

March 21, 2007 @ 2:59 pm

Jeff’s comment, #3 on Feb 7,
his difficulty finding Christian marriage retreats and conferences that do not have “unhelpful gender roles and stereotypes,” prompts me to make a suggestion. My favorite is the annual Smart Marriages Conference coming up on June 28-July 1 in Denver, CO. To learn more about it check out the web site smartmarriages.com.

I love this web site for all the resources it provides churches and other community organizations that are focused on marriage education and marriage enrichment. The conference brings together a delightfully diverse group of people, primarily Christian and primarily consistent with biblical equality. A must for anyone interested in developing or expanding a marriage and family ministry in their home congregation.