The CBE Scroll

Comment by Mary Ann

September 20, 2007 @ 2:30 pm

In answer to questions one and two:

I think egalitarian role models can help people transition from gender-based roles to biblical equality in demonstrating practically what that looks like in everyday life. Most people assume (wrongly) that being egalitarian means being androgynous. Another extreme is the assumption that men become ‘soft,’ passive ‘sissies’ and ‘pansies’ and women become domineering, bossy, and overly aggressive.

But, being egalitarian doesn’t mean any of those things. I can be an egalitarian woman who teaches and leads in the church and makes decisions in the home with my husband… and still embrace my femininity! My husband can submit and yield to my ideas and thoughts as much as I submit and yield to his ideas and thoughts - and he can still be ‘a man.’ My husband and I can have a home where we always make decisions together and are able to achieve this agreement without him dictating them all or always having the final say (or the veto power).

Many people don’t get a chance to see how ‘egalitarianism’ plays out. I think it’s crucial to have role models who embrace biblical equality and are walking intimately with God so that this biblical way of life can be more tangible. It makes so much sense when you can see it right in front of you.

I want to be a role model for someone else by doing just these very things… allowing the truth of biblical equality to play out in my life in ways that are tangible - and eye-opening to all those around me.

Comment by tiro

September 20, 2007 @ 2:32 pm

Joy Dawson was a role model for me of what God could do with a woman called to minister and dedicated to obey God rather than men. However, God did not let me run into her until after I had acknowledged what God was telling me, that God will use whomsoever he wills.

Seeing the anointing upon and through Joy Dawson was like the final touch, the proof. I thought that men’s disdain for women would limit God because people wouldn’t want to listen to a woman, but Joy proved otherwise. People, men and women, listen when God moves through someone. Sometimes, people who would never pay attention to a woman are shocked when God anoints obviously. They struggle with the dichotomy of their teachings against the reality of God moving.

There will always be those who will refuse to believe God, even in the face of his realities. And, there will always be those who can be moved by God working in ways they thought God couldn’t or wouldn’t.

Comment by fjs

September 20, 2007 @ 2:36 pm

When I was a child in the late sixties and early seventies, my family attended a church pastored by a husband and wife team. She was usually a more dynamic preacher than he was. Having had this experience helped me know that women could preach. Even though I waded through a lot of various evangelical church systems who taught that women should not be pastors, this image of a woman in the pulpit carried weight in my life. It produced enough inner conflict that I sought out biblical and theological answers around women in pastoral ministry.

Comment by Christina

September 20, 2007 @ 9:58 pm

I don’t know if my answers are going to be ‘to the question,’ but I would like to put down what I have felt for a long time now.

For question one: I always spot a certain perspective that believes that equality does not (and sometimes should not) relieve us from gender roles. I have heard people tell me that you can well be an equal to a man but you can still be feminine. Sometimes, they go to extent of telling me that I have to be feminine because I am a woman. But to me, it sounds like there is no point at all. What on earth does femininity mean? What does it really mean to be womanly and feminine? The acceptance of a stereotype will lead us back to the unequal status. Once we retain the notions of femininity and masculinity, extrapolating it to gender based roles is not so hard, for a society which unfortunately is still predominantly patriarchal. To me if we are equal/egalitarian, then we must do away with the stereotypical notions of gender.

All right, but does this mean we believe only in ‘unisexual everything?’ No, we still recognize the fact that male and female differ biologically! We are equal and we are not the same. And, this means our physiology and chromosomes differ. But when it comes to the intellect, dependence on the sex of the individual hardly matters. To me, only when we keep this in mind will we be able to become true egalitarians. An egalitarian role model will help people realize that, for a society to function happily and peacefully, both the partners (male and female) can and should be equals.

When an egalitarian role model embodies love in the form of respect and value for the other, irrespective of the gender the other belongs to, it will help bring about the transition. The notion that a family can work only if there is hierarchy should be challenged by leading families where mutual submission is promoted. It should also be shown that when we talk of biblical equality within the family, we are not talking of a competition but quite simply, co-operation! And, who gets to co-operate need not depend upon the gender of the partners. An egalitarian role model should primarily understand the very essence of being a Christian… the call to be a servant leader. The common notion of a ‘commanding leader’ must be questioned in order to make society understand that only when there is mutual submission in Christ can there be true biblical equality. When this role model begins to live out the equal life in its true essence, the transition should be possible, though not easy!

Comment by Liz

September 20, 2007 @ 10:59 pm

In comment on question two I have two thoughts.

One is that my dad was a role model for me in that he didn’t ever talk about being the ‘head of the house’ or assume any authority over my mum or me. In hindsight, this is amazing, since he was born in 1900, when a husband’s role was much defined in society and church. He demonstrated servant care for my mum, who was an invalid for most of my childhood and lived a very humble life.

As for female role models, I had many when growing up. Mostly they were historical figures like Elizabeth Fry, fictional characters like Jo in Little Women (who was based on the real life story of the author), and Louisa May Alcott. Missionaries like Amy Carmichael featured heavily in my reading and admiration. However, once married I found no role models for women in ministry who were wives, and so the issue of equality was one which burned in my heart until the children were grown and my husband and I had time to explore theological implications and thankfully discovered CBE.

Comment by Liz

September 20, 2007 @ 11:11 pm

Question four asks how I can be a role model for someone else, and my first thought is that I am a role model anyway (whether a good or poor one). To be a good role model for biblical equality, I need to be free from bitterness, blame, cynicism, and so many other negative attitudes which prevent people from seeing the light of God in my life. I want to hold out to people a far better way of living and relating to others which demonstrates God’s character. This takes persistence, long-term care for people who disagree, and strong statements about God’s goodness and my wanting to be biblical in my lifestyle and beliefs. Being a role model doesn’t happen overnight - people watch and evaluate over years to see if it ‘works.’ One must be prepared to be misunderstood, misrepresented, and often ignored but still love, love, and then love some more!

Comment by Trevor

September 21, 2007 @ 12:07 am

How can you discern if someone is a bad role model?

A recent counseling experience with a male person who is experiencing similar relational difficulties in his second marriage amplifies the point of bad role modeling. Picture this. The man relates how he is enjoying a warm and intimate discussion with his spouse when she believes that she sees, or is so overwhelmed by, such a look of knowingness and superiority on her husband’s face that she spontaneously slaps him. While her reaction may be less than desirable, and may have shocked her as much as it did him, it revealed her exasperation at feeling denigrated and violated by a glance. The sad thing is that the guy in question is trying desperately not to sunder another marriage, and while he is aware of the inner feelings of superiority that overtake him, he has no power to stop them.

My take on this is that he has unconsciously picked up a male/female relating style from his parents that was overtly patriarchal in the extreme. His mother has been perfectly content to be dominated by her husband, who at times resorts to abuse and cruelty. While my friend has no desire to emulate that side of his parent’s role modeling it has unconsciously become a part of his psyche. Unfortunately it has been reinforced in his current church where male headship is strongly advocated and taught, albeit in a loving and considerate way. Ultimately, this doesn’t help my friend, because it legitimizes hierarchal ascendancy and gives rise to the superiority and smugness that so incensed his wife.

Naturally my wife and I are trying to help our friend to consider another way of relating to women altogether, one that embraces him and his wife as equal partners of God’s grace. But, so ingrained is his childhood experience that we fear the bad modeling, even though it has been unconsciously absorbed, will never be entirely eradicated. While there are attractive things, for him, about mutuality, he lives in fear of vulnerability and weakness and will default back to that which is most familiar and secure. My point in sharing this is that we can pick up adverse ways of relating without even knowing how comprehensively it is influencing us and this is not an isolated case! Hence, the need for good egalitarian role modeling to counteract generations of unconscious absorption.

Comment by Jadon

September 21, 2007 @ 5:02 am

I think role-modeling should start when people are single (as I am). I’ve been observing the ‘gift of singleness’ versus ‘marriage mandate’ crowd lately, and a complementarian posture taints the real issues surrounding marital status. If egalitarian singles can express and engage their context effectively, I think that would go a long way to gain respect and appreciation for a non-complementarian lifestyle.

Comment by sally

September 22, 2007 @ 9:36 pm

Jadon, can you explain what you mean by ‘gift of singleness’ vs ‘marriage mandate’ crowd? It’s not obvious in my Christian context, so I’d like to know how it works if that’s ok. Thanks.

Comment by Jadon

September 23, 2007 @ 2:53 am

Sally (see comment 68628):

Essentially, these positions are trying to deal with extended singleness for Christians. The ‘gift of singleness’ group suggests that this is not a big deal because there is no absolute requirement or duty to become married. The ‘marriage mandate’ group suggests that the main aim for singles should be marriage (without much delay), unless you have exceptional circumstances such as a low desire for sex or a situation of crisis. Both positions also tend to imply that it is primarily men who need to step up and perform, to lead and get their act together. They seem popular with and advocated by women, particularly older singles.

Obviously, this irks some complementarian men, if the blogs are any indication. They believe that single women have misconstrued the situation and generally believe that women have become demanding and unfair these days instead of being submissive and whatnot. Hence, some men don’t see the point of having relationships or getting married at all. A good example of the dynamic is here.

Anyways, I hope that fleshes it out a bit. For more on the ‘gift of singleness,’ consult either Carolyn McCulley at her blog Solo Femininity (solofemininity.blogs.com) or her book Did I Kiss Marriage Goodbye: Trusting God with a Hope Deferred. For more on the ‘marriage mandate,’ consult either Debbie Maken at her blog Debbie Maken (debbiemaken.blogspot.com) or her book Getting Serious about Getting Married: Rethinking the Gift of Singleness.

For some of the male reaction, see Singleness Is a Gift (singlenessisagift.blogspot.com) and Scriptually Single (scriptuallysingle.blogspot.com).

Comment by Liz

September 23, 2007 @ 10:37 pm

I just had a quick look at the Singleness Is a Gift blog site and I’m amazed that this guy calls himself a Christian with his self-opinionated, worldly attitudes to marriage, sex, women, etc. It just proves the points which I imagine the authors are making in their books (Debbie and Carolyn) I shouldn’t look at sites like this as it can make a person overwhelmed with all the misinformation out there. We just have to quietly get on with what we perceive to be right and trust that others are watching and will like what they see enough to ask questions.

Comment by Jackie

September 24, 2007 @ 4:24 am

How eye-opening. My first impression was that ‘Captain Singleness’’ posts might have been written as entertaining satire, but upon continued reading, I realized they were actual serious thoughts. So much bitterness and complaining! Unfortunately, this is a real person with very narrow attitudes and apparent deep unhappiness, contrary to his claims of happiness. I doubt too many take him seriously, as evidenced by the scarcity of replies to his posts.

Comment by Jadon

September 24, 2007 @ 2:20 pm

Liz (see comment 68697) and Jackie (see comment 68720), I do admit that Captain Singleness from Singleness Is a Gift can be quite strident and anti-egalitarian, but he (like other guys) is dealing with genuine frustration with the state things are. Some single women are confronting this situation also, but sometimes both sexes aren’t making it easier for each other. That seems to be the problem, and in my humble opinion, a complementarian stance from them isn’t helping anyone very much. I agree, Liz, that setting an example will help, but I think we need more than married folk for this to work better.

A fair assessment of the challenge faced by single Christians by a single Christian (Reformed) man, reviewing Debbie Maken’s book, may be found here.

I’m an unmarried egalitarian man, but the shift toward an egalitarian approach does not make circumstances for singles any simpler. I can understand why anyone, including complementarian singles of any gender, could get critical or apathetic about things.

Comment by Captain Singleness

September 25, 2007 @ 2:47 pm

Thanks for the mention. I’m getting hits from this blog and just wanted to drop by and check it out. My blog is a mix of satire, over-the-top stuff, and general commentary. It isn’t billed as the final word on the marriage mandate debate.

I think the Maken and McCulley perspectives are both wrong, and both of these women have no business giving advice. As for me, I don’t speak for the ‘male’ point of view - I’m just having fun. For the record, my girlfriend Lauren helps out with some of the posts. Sometimes you have to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.

I do get a lot of comments, but I don’t publish all of them. Many of them are from ministers, so I communicate with them but don’t post our discussions. I do post Ted Slater when he visits because he is such a perfect example of what is wrong with churches. Cheers.

Comment by Jon

September 29, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

What fun.

1. How can egalitarian role models help people transition from gender-based roles to biblical equality?

As a kid, I understood the concept of a hammer driving nails. But it took watching my dad do it - including watching him smash his thumb once! - before I felt really good about trying it myself. And yes, I too had an encounter or two with hammer to thumb. But, I also became fairly decent at driving nails. I mention my father because he also, despite a few lapses into male-centric behavior (not unlike my own!), lived love towards my mother. And, that love was wisely, explicitly egalitarian.

2. Give an example of how a role model has made a difference in your understanding of biblical equality.

The economy of heaven is upside down. And, paradoxically, women who served (my wife, my pastors Dawn Mortimer and Tina Herrin, my mother) impacted me deeply with a sense that male hierarchy was not only bad theology, it was also shallow and stupid. But, more than anything is experiencing how personhood trumps gender. Watching leaders, both female and male, it is obviously a mixture of gifting and a pastoral heart, along with a sharp mind. Too many anecdotes to pick one!

3. What do you look for in a role model? How can you discern if someone is a bad role model?

Well, sometimes I look in the mirror at a bad role model and a hypocrite. Owe my wife an apology as I type, in fact! But as for persistently bad role models, a few issues come to mind. Almost all are fixable, if there’s a will to submit to someone other than self. (I would note it is possible for women not to be egalitarian, but do think in our society and churches the problem is overall more male.)

The minute someone uses one of the following phrases, they’re suspect: ‘women’s biblical roles,’ ‘men’s biblical roles,’ ‘clearly delineated gender roles in Scripture,’ and so on.

Husband/wife - man continually directing, silencing, and correcting his wife. We all need correction and/or direction sometimes, and as friends (‘faithful are the wounds of a friend’) should sometimes do that correcting as well as receive it. But, when all the correcting is from male to female… this is obviously a bad role model. Hey, ‘role’ model! Get it?

Church - where no females preach, teach, or lead (other than the obligatory Sunday school ‘roles’), this is not a balanced fellowship and is a bad role model. (I wouldn’t go to church there.)

Home or church - leader/spouse who demands ‘submission’ but is himself (or herself) submitted/accountable to no one. Scariest words I ever heard: Jimmy Swaggart, being interviewed by a journalist after his second major moral failure responded to a question about accountability. ‘I’m accountable only to God!’ Brrr. On one level, he is right, and I wouldn’t want to be in that place! On another level, of course, the biblical model is all about mutuality in submission. Leadership begins with transparent humility and by listening to others. True leaders are easily led!

4. How can you be a role model for someone else?

Live it. Preach it. Hand out lots of CBE materials and/or website references!

Comment by JLP

September 30, 2007 @ 2:10 am

My father was a role model. He didn’t use any form of pornography. He didn’t look at other women. He always put his family first.

I feel like his influence helped protect me from getting involved with men who would have hurt me.

Comment by JLP

October 1, 2007 @ 3:43 pm

Both my parents were role models in that they saw women as being as competent to make decisions and be leaders as men were. I didn’t learn about society’s negative views of women’s intelligence until I started attending more conservative churches.

Comment by Chelsea

October 2, 2007 @ 8:59 am

Thanks for these great comments everyone! The ‘role models’ issue of Mutuality is nearly complete, and we hope to weave some of your insights into it.

Any last comments?

Comment by Mary

October 2, 2007 @ 9:36 am

Since I haven’t seen much mentioned here about role models for church leadership, I thought I’d tell about two of my role models.

One of my role models was a former pastor of mine, when I served on staff at the church where he was ‘soloing’ as pastor. He was unashamedly egalitarian, in a part of the country where the Christian culture expects patriarchy as the model. He desperately needed an associate. He also recognized, before I did, that I had gifts suitable for pastoral ministry. He insisted that I use them and gave me many opportunities to do so. He saw his role as one of mentor and I will always be grateful to him for trusting me to serve the congregation he loved so deeply.

My next church staff position was as youth minister and lay associate pastor for an even larger church. Here again, the pastor was an egalitarian, though he came to that position concerning women in ministry later in life than my other mentor. What turned him around, he said, was listening to the stories his female colleagues told about their calls to ordained ministry. He said, ‘They sounded just like mine.’ He had served as my assigned formal mentor in a call discernment process and later, after working for a few months with a female intern on staff when he was newly appointed, he knew I would fit well with that church’s needs when her internship ended. So I was hired. He told me once, ‘E. (his ten-year-old daughter) is seeing that there’s nothing she can’t do just because she’s a girl. You have taught her that just by being here, doing what you do.’ As a result of a hospital visit, waiting while a member’s husband had surgery, his wife and I got to know each other better. She credits that visit with her ‘waking up’ to God’s calling in her own life; she now serves that church as associate pastor and will be ordained elder (full clergy ordination in our denomination) this year or next.

‘Being there, doing what you do’ is the key, I think. Whether we realize it or not, we are role models of some kind to whoever is watching us, no matter what we’re doing.

Comment by Liz

October 4, 2007 @ 2:13 am

Hi Jon (see comment 69545) - loved your comments - very encouraging.

One more thought from my own experience with my father. Even though I was an only child and a girl, I was never restrained from doing things with him which would have been traditionally those of a son. I grew up loving to be in the shed, puttering around with tools, chopping wood for the fires, etc. as well as learning to sew and cook from my mother. I always knew I was a person and could pretty much do what I wanted as long as I thought about other people first.

Comment by Robin

October 15, 2007 @ 12:48 pm

I wanted to respond to question two, because a particular Christian couple were my role models and greatly influenced my ideas about couples in ministry.

Audrey Mieir (she wrote the worship hymn ‘His Name Is Wonderful’) was married at an early age to Charles Mieir. Both went to Bible college. Both graduated. Both were ordained. But it was obvious early on that the Lord had called Audrey to be involved in a very special way in church ministry. She began as the choir director for the Phil Kerr ‘sings’ in Southern California, left to work with Evangelist Willetts (a woman evangelist), came back to California to work with her brother-in-law at a local church, left to work with Rex Humbard. Well, you get the picture. Their lives were ones of going wherever the Lord called.

Obviously, that meant that the family commitment was to go where Audrey was ministering and that precluded Charles from working a job. He realized (wisely and early on) that his God-appointed job was taking care of Audrey and this he did until the day he died… driving her to meetings, taking care of all the little details, making sure she had a home and transportation and food. Hers was never the typical ‘wife’ job of cooking, cleaning, and kids (though they raised three children). And his was never the typical ‘husband’ job of providing the livelihood.

And yet, never have I met two people who were happier in their marriage or happier in the Lord. The key for them wasn’t that they broke out of the mold of the traditional family model, but that they never broke out of the mold of doing what the Lord had called them to do.

Comment by Michael

December 19, 2007 @ 11:35 am

As for the wife taking the husband’s last name, I look at it this way:

In Genesis 5:2, I think in the original Hebrew it says that in the day he made them and called them Adam! So Eve had three names - first ‘woman,’ second ‘Adam,’ and third ‘Eve’ (after the fall), meaning ‘life!’ Adam didn’t have a last name, he only had one name! If I ever get married I will look at my wife taking my last name or name (stated above) as a sign of oneness, equality, or equal! So I do believe the wife taking the last name of her husband is biblical, but if the only person (the man) thinks taking one’s last name means to rule over… don’t marry that person! They have a warped view of marriage!

I look at it as a sign of biblical equality (oneness)!

Comment by jlp

December 19, 2007 @ 6:53 pm

Michael, I believe you are teasing us!

Comment by Dene

March 17, 2008 @ 6:11 pm

Sally asked what is meant by “gift of singleness” vs. “marriage mandate”, to which Jadon replied:

“Essentially, these positions are trying to deal with extended singleness for Christians. The ‘gift of singleness’ group suggests that this is not a big deal because there is no absolute requirement or duty to become married. The ‘marriage mandate’ group suggests that the main aim for singles should be marriage (without much delay), unless you have exceptional circumstances such as a low desire for sex or a situation of crisis.”

I would not characterize the “gift of singleness” crowd as thinking that extended singleness is no big deal “because there’s no absolute requirement or duty to become married”. Because of the misinterpretations of 1 Cor 7 (thanks to the Living Bible and later, The Message), the “GoS” crowd believes that singleness and marriage are gifts of equal value (as if it’s not supposed to matter to you which one you get) given to the individual by God. So you must become married if God, by his sovereignty, requires you to (and, among many teachers, such as Don Raunikar, ONLY if God communicates this requirement to you).

This kind of teaching leaves marriage-desiring singles very confused about whether or not actively seeking marriage is a sin, and if you’re supported to just “wait on the Lord” to “exchange” your gift of singleness with the gift of marriage (and if so, to whom? As in, “is this THE ONE God wants me to marry?).

Also misinterpreted from the Living Bible’s version of 1 Cor 7:8 is the verse “it’s better to remain single” (whereas, in the original greek, the word is “good” not “better”). The problem is with the notion that you should make your decision to marry or not based not on your own personal, practical needs for marriage (and sex, despite the pragmatic teachings of Paul in 1 Cor 7:2), but on “what best serves God” (or what “God wants you to do”). And so a lot of singles feel unnecessarily guilty that they would rather get married than serve God as a single — even though Christ makes it clear TWICE that celibate service is voluntary (”MADE THEMSELVES eunuchs” Matt 19:12).

The “marriage mandate” crowd has responded to these problematic teachings by essentially saying, not only CAN you seek marriage, but that you SHOULD seek marriage, based on the creation mandate in Genesis and “wife of your youth” examples.

But just because you criticize the problematic GoS teachings, doesn’t mean that you automatically assume that marriage is mandatory. It seems like a rather abrupt shift for evangelicals to go from “better not to marry” to “you should marry”, but then, going from one extreme to another seems to be the evangelical way.