The CBE Scroll

Comment by Mary Ann

May 30, 2008 @ 12:44 am

I have totally been there — in a bookstore, surprised, aghast, puzzled and annoyed at the amount of books being published these days claiming the God-designed, God-ordained differences between men and women. That voice is so loud, that’s the only thing that most Christians are hearing and their believing to be the truth. It feels so frustrating to talk to young individuals who are so certain that they have certain ‘roles’ they must play out based on all of these books and authors that they have heard from. We need to get more Biblical Equality based books out there in the mainstream!

Comment by Loie

May 30, 2008 @ 7:04 am

There certainly are differences between men and women, ALL MEN AND WOMEN. I am astounded at the differences between my sister and myself, for example. In fact, I’m guessing there are more differences between us than between my husband and myself. And my kids are all sure different from each other and from both of us parents. For example, in spite of so many people telling me how their boys were reticent and not expressive of their feelings, but the girls were whinny, my son is the most verbal, the most expressive, of my children (two girls, one boy, all adults now.) My husband, on the other hand, is extremely articulate if he chooses to be, but he’d rather keep everything to himself.

My oldest is very analytical, like her dad. She is a pastor. My son is emotional like me. Due to adoption, these kids all have different biological parents, so any similarities between the kids isn’t due to biological heritage.

Comment by faith

May 30, 2008 @ 7:24 am

I always wonder why authors never write on what men and women share in common. the anxiety over difference seems to have an agenda for what people may do that lead from that difference.

I believe men and women are different. But I also believe that part of that difference is created (that’s obvious) and part of that difference is socialized. I believe we are formed and change in the context of our relations.

Attending seminary for example, changed me in the way I think, identify assumptions and notice arguments. I can’t undo that. My relation with educators had an impact. In the same way my relation with my children also impacted me as a person. I changed because of giving birth, raising and nurturing children. I cannot undo that either. In the same way I believe male brains also grow and become more nurturing when exposed to raising children.

I think that God designed the human brain to be flexible and able to change and adapt. He did not simple create a machine that once programed would not change. He created an incredible organ able to flex, adapt, change and develop in a wide range of capacities. Some of the lastest research on brains reveals this adaptability and flexibility.

Why wouldn’t men and women also grow and develop according to certain kinds of stimulus?

Furthermore, there are 16 different personality types on the meyers briggs test. limiting personality difference to 2 genders is kind of shallow.

Again, I am not denying God designed differences only saying that God’s design might be more amazing and inclusive of flexibility than some of the gender authors are suggesting.

I think the fixed gender identities reflect a clock-maker God who creates the clock and lets it run. That is deism.

Comment by reJoyce

May 30, 2008 @ 7:40 am

I’m currently reading a book called The Myth of Mars and Venus that is trying to dissect the currently prevalent ideas about how men and women communicate. It isn’t a Christian book, so doesn’t really address the “God made us this way” idea. But it’s been interesting to see how perception of each gender’s communication strengths and weaknesses has changed over the years.

Anyway. I’ve always thought it was odd to say “all men are this way, all women are that way”. Do the people who say this live in a box? If you get to know more than a couple of people you’re going to see that it isn’t true.

Comment by faith

May 30, 2008 @ 7:55 am

I think anthropologically, various cultures define gender differently and assign tasks accordingly.

Even in denominations. For example, in the Catholic church a woman is not barred from preaching or teaching. But she is barred from serving the Eucharist which in that context is the most Christ - like honorable position. In Evangelical circles women are barred from preaching, and in such circles, the proclamation of the Word is the most highly valued.

on another thought…
I think it interesting that plato and aristotle saw men as of the mind, rational and thinking and women of the flesh, emotional and seductive - only above the animals. That is substance dualism. The male substance and the female substance are opposite to one another. From each person’s substance comes their lot in life. Women are to be governed and ruled and men are to govern and rule. It is nature, natural based on their assumptions, which I believe are primitive and inaccurate.

These are the assumptions of the gender difference folks, the mars and venus folks.

While I would not, once again, disregard difference, there is much more to difference than substance. Because substance reacts to stimulus relationally.

Bottom line. Those who have the power to define, define what a woman is for their own benefit and purposes or because (charitably) of their own culture and assumptions about God.

It’s time for better research and more serious reflection on our assumptions.

My thoughts for the day.

Comment by faith

May 30, 2008 @ 8:05 am

“if these differences are so apparent and God-ordained, why didn’t God make separate statements and commands for women and men, girls and boys? I wonder how God feels about his name being put to human efforts to explain/excuse the behaviours of his creation.”

forgive my cynicism, it says in the Bible, “do not take the Lord your God’s name in vain.”

God’s name is about his character and reputation. I think this means do not use God’s name for your own purposes or attach God’s name to human things. Not merely using God as swear word.

Comment by charis

May 30, 2008 @ 9:11 am

Liz said:
“If these differences are so apparent and God-ordained, why didn’t God make separate statements and commands for women and men, girls and boys?”

I believe men and women are different- not by “command”, but by design. I have borne and nursed 8 children. My husband could not do that even if he wanted to.

I think levelling- whether done by men to women; or women to men- is fruitless. We are each precious, unique, and “one of a kind”. No one’s gifts and potential should be stifled by stereotyping them into a “gender box”.

Comment by faith

May 30, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

Charis, I’d go for the unique approach.

Comment by faith

May 30, 2008 @ 2:29 pm

Frank, I guess the devil has no new tactics other than to recycle all of the old arguments. Amazing how similar the arguments are to discussions of race-based slavery and subjection. Have you ever read the book, Slavery, Sabbath, Women and War…? same way of interpreting texts, same texts, same arguments. Chilling!

Comment by Lin

May 30, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

Books, sermons, conferences, etc., on marriage, children, roles of men and women are HUGE money makers. Since I was involved in the marketing of these ‘comp’ things a few years ago I became more and more aware what was really going on. People want pat answers. They want checklists. They LOVE formulas. And the issue of men and women (marriage, dating, roles) is a big draw.

Beyond the obvious physical differences, we have to ask ourselves how much of it is nature or nuture. Did Deborah put aside her tent wife duties to Judge Israel? Did she hand her baby over to her husband and lead Barak into Battle? We don’t know. The Bible is silent. Where do we see the ‘roles’ for women and men commanded in scripture beyond the obvious physical differences?

The more I saw the dollars flowing on marketing this issue in the way of books, conferences, literature, etc., the more I wondered if many are actually IMPLEMENTING Genesis 3:16 instead of sharing the Good News that we are Redeemed from it by our precious Savior.

Comment by Fern Winter

May 30, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

Well, this is another version of the complementarian “equal but different” mantra and, as with all the others, it conflates two quite different things.

To say that men and women’s brains work differently is a purely neutral statement. The complementarians, however, read their existing beliefs about gender and gender roles into such statements so that the way a man’s brain is deemed to work will always equip him for leadership and the way a women’s brain is deemed to work will always equip her for a subordinate role.

Taking the contested area of language - a complementarian, on learning that, generally, a woman has greater facility with language than a man, will assert that this shows women are ‘designed’ for their empathetic and caring roles whereas, of course, if women ARE much better with language and relationships than their male counterparts, then they should be the world’s most senior diplomats.

That there are differences between men and women is a given but it’s the complementarians who read the roles of leadership, authority and submission into such differences - they are not inherent.

Comment by Fern Winter

May 31, 2008 @ 6:05 am

Lin (comment 86571), I think you’ve really hit on something there - the sheer amount of money involved in the “equal but different” industry.

And the rewards are not just money - there’s the less-than-stellar academics who’re lionised, feted, celebrated and given endless platforms on which to promulgate their views. Without all of this, they’d simply be your average college or university lecturer, largely unknown outside the student body, publishing an occassional tome on theology.

The rewards for those who labour in the “equal but different” industry are very wordly - money, career success, publicity and so on. Hey, what’s not to like?

Comment by Liz

May 31, 2008 @ 7:39 am

Sarcasm aside….it is a million dollar business whatever the motives and certainly ‘worldly’ in so many ways that sometimes you can hardly tell the difference between a Christian seminar/book/lecture and one without biblical reference.

Comment by Lin

May 31, 2008 @ 1:50 pm

“think you’ve really hit on something there - the sheer amount of money involved in the “equal but different” industry.”

I saw it up close and personal. You would not believe the amount of time spent by our celebrity pastors on coming up with new ideas for this market in terms of books and conferences.

I don’t know if any of you have noticed but this issue evolved over the last 30 years and now we are seeing sermons, books and conferences about having a ‘Christian’ sex life. And they are selling out.

I am sure that is a pressing concern for the persecuted Christians around the world. (sarcasm intended)

Comment by faith

May 31, 2008 @ 2:37 pm

Re: People want pat answers. They want checklists. They LOVE formulas. And the issue of men and women (marriage, dating, roles) is a big draw.

I heard from someone that the idea of the husband having the final say would make so many decisions easier. It’s a simplistic appeal to conflict reduction, an easy formula.

Comment by Watcher

May 31, 2008 @ 3:00 pm

Faith. (comment # 86581)

It would be conflict reduction for men.

Many women, on the other hand, would remain greatly conflicted on the inside having to always bow to another man’s flesh.

With their renewed spirits longing to spread their wings in the freedom Jesus bought for us all with His blood, they will either die (spiritually) of utter frustration, numbing boredom, or just leave the church and go elsewhere to use the gifts and talents God has freely given them.

Wait, that is what is happening to so many. I meet these women all the time.

Comment by faith

May 31, 2008 @ 5:44 pm

Watcher, I agree. It is wisdom that appears wise but is really not all that wise.

Comment by jlp

May 31, 2008 @ 6:08 pm

Right at a time that current brain research is proving that much of the supposed differences between men and women are not accurate, Christians are publishing literature that says these differences are supposedly God ordained. It’s time for women in the Christian community to start doing research on the brain and using it to refute the conservative Christian’s community’s teaching on gender differences.

Comment by LMcC

May 31, 2008 @ 6:32 pm

Research? Just come hang out with my husband and me for a while. While there’s no mistaking who’s the man and who’s the woman (muscles and/or curves in the right places will do that), there is nothing in either of our brains that lines up perfectly with any theory that our minds are naturally so radically different. (We’re also cheap entertainment, but that’s for another post ;) )

Come to think of it, unless the couple is really committed to preserving hierarchy, I don’t know any couple that lines up that way, either. Even among those couples who are committed to hierarchy (oh, why?), it’s not hard to figure out when the wife is having to squelch one of her native abilities or when the husband is having to fake it.

Comment by faith

May 31, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

i don’t completely line up either and feel frustrated when the stereotype is imposed. i just want to be me and not be forced into another person’s definition.

Comment by jlp

May 31, 2008 @ 9:25 pm

I hate automatically being defined as being “emotional” because I’m a woman. Only Christians cast this definition on women anymore. The secular world accepts that there are both emotional men and women, and logical men and women, and combinations of both.

I have been in leadership positions and done well in them. I hate being defined automatically as a “follower” because I’m a woman. I really think everyone is a combination of leader and follower, both men and women.

And I hate being defined as a woman as being one who would rather defer decisions to others, and feels relieved in doing doing so. I love the challenge of making decisions, as do many men and women.

I’m tired of the same old unbiblical definitions being made of women, with no evidence given to support that these definitions are true in fact.

Comment by Sue

May 31, 2008 @ 9:50 pm

I just spent the week helping lead a class field trip. The fathers who came along were great but … they had no idea of how to herd 38 kids across the highway. Was I supposed to wait until later in the day to explain in a way that would respect the fathers’ fragile masculinity that children need to be directed safely across a highway, or simply do what I am paid to do, lead?

May God preserve us all from the notion that a woman should not lead.

Comment by Liz

June 1, 2008 @ 4:21 am

An excellent book on the research re genders is by the egalitarian author Mary Stewart VanLeeuwen who I think is a speaker at this year’s CBE conference. I’m not at home so may have spelt her name wrongly. The title of the book is “My Brother’s Keeper” and can be obtained through the CBE bookshop EQuality depot. Sorry I can’t give the link for this info. This writer has other equally important works too which a google search would show.

Comment by Fern Winter

June 1, 2008 @ 7:20 am

Sue (86590), well, the ‘recovering biblical manhood and womanhood’ folk spend time discussing how a woman, asked for directions by a man, should respond in such a way that it is clear she is not undermining his God-given authority and leadership. So, gee, I guess they’d dedicate several chapters to the dilemma you and the various dads faced!

In the UK we have a TV programme called something like “Islam Uncovered” where muslims ask a panel of Islamic jurists questions, mainly on how they, as muslims, should respond to certain situations such as should they buy a particular newspaper well known for the number of scantily clad women it scatters throughout its pages. It’s very interesting to listen to because there are often rules and guidelines for every situation and I’m often struck by the similarities with the gurus of complementarianism.

I think one of the unsung ‘achievements’ of these gurus is that they have, for some people, actually changed the nature of Christianity and made it a much more legalistic faith, rather like Islam. On a previous thread, ‘Women in Ministry: Why Ask?’, Suzanne reproduced John Piper’s list of appropriate ministries for women. This is a remarkable piece of work wherein Piper tries to define what is a godly life for women. Instead of being rebuked for his hubris, he’s actually feted and celebrated. The consequences of such lists for women (and men) are that they become hugely self-conscious; women are forced to police every action and thought to ensure they’ve hit the right subordinated note.

In Matthew’s gospel, at the end of the Sermon on the Mount, it says ‘the people’ were astonished at Jesus’s doctrine because he taught “as one having authority and not like the scribes”. There’s no suggestion that ‘the people’ were exclusively persons of the male gender so Jesus’ teaching must have been heard by men and women and what they heard was not gender based. There are not separate Beatitudes for men and women - the phrase is ‘blessed are…the pure in heart, the peacemakers etc’ not ‘blessed are the women who carry out appropriate ministries to the afflicted’. Jesus’ message was pretty simple and we should never lose sight of that despite the best efforts of the so-called ‘leaders’ of complementarianism.

Comment by faith

June 2, 2008 @ 6:28 am

Grrrrrrrrrrr. I too get so tired of the legalism and prescriptions of appropriate behavior and the stereotypes of women as emotional.

I read a book entitled Everyman’s Marriage by Aterburn and while there are good things in the book, the author had to empahsize how women are more emotional and men are more logical and how this affects marriage. Further, the author stated that wives will not respect their husbands if they do not “know” more than they about scripture. (it assumes women do not attend seminary or learn Greek - that the man is the spiritual leader–maybe Jesus should be the spiritual leader)

I found these statements so absurd and out of line. Indeed as someone above said, no where does scripture define the emotional and personality make up of men and women as different. These are all leaps and impositions in interpretation.

BTW I read My Brother’s Keeper and found it wonderfully refreshing.

Comment by faith

June 2, 2008 @ 6:30 am

It’s funny, Plato and Aristole define men and women more similarly as do complimentarians. It is less biblical and more greco-roman thought.

Comment by LMcC

June 2, 2008 @ 10:36 am

So I’m not the only one tired of the business about men allegedly being the logical ones and women being the emotional ones. Good.

If people watch my husband and I together, it would seem that I am both the more logical one *and* the more emotional one. In reality, my husband is far more emotional than I am. I’m just more demonstrative. My husband gets very tied up emotionally, and his emotions and logic skills both suffer as a result.

I’m glad to see two more people acknowledge the complementarian contradiction of men being the God-ordained strong leaders, yet too fragile to handle instruction from a woman. How on Earth is a woman supposed to have any respect for such a fragile “leader”, especially when she herself has no time or place for such nonsense in her own life? I’d think that problem alone would be sending their leaders scurrying back to the drawing boards.

Comment by Frank

June 2, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

Faith, I think I need to repeat my comment, since I posted it to the wrong site. Regarding these books on the different sizes and shapes of the male and female brain, it reminds me of me of the perinotological psychology of the early 19th century, based on cranial shape and size, which certain anthropologists had developed to show that the Negroid race was less intelligent and socially developed than the Caucasian race. Amd so there were those who used this “scientific” knowledge that Negroes could not advance to a higher intellectual and social level and so should remain content to stay “in their proper place.” Thankfully, this racist psychology was soon discredited and so could no longer be used to support slavery and racism. And yes, Faith, Satan always recycles the same heresies in attractive packages to catch the unwary.

Comment by Liz

June 2, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

It’s just such a tragedy that so many Christians have been ‘hoodwinked’ by the misinterpretations re gender roles and the status of women and men generally.
Thank God that light is greater than darkness and that we can shine our light for all to see so that they might have the opportunity to see the whole glory of the gospel of liberation and forgiveness.

Comment by faith

June 2, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

Frank, I know. sad isn’t it. Even if the brains are different, it does not mean incapable.

Comment by Light

June 4, 2008 @ 4:10 pm

To say that men and women’s brains work differently is a purely neutral statement. The complementarians, however, read their existing beliefs about gender and gender roles into such statements so that the way a man’s brain is deemed to work will always equip him for leadership and the way a women’s brain is deemed to work will always equip her for a subordinate role.
I believe it’s Wayne Grudem in RBMW who says that since women’s brains have been proven to be better at multi-tasking, clearly that means women should be the ones at home with small children. I think it means we should have more women heading up the trauma team in the Emergency Room, directing emergency operations during an earthquake, or heck, even leading the nation.

Comment by faith

June 4, 2008 @ 8:25 pm

Funny, I am not a great multi-tasker. and a woman. nothing but stereotypes

Comment by Lin

June 6, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

I have NEVER been able to multi-task. I hate it. Nothing gets done WELL and with excellence. And one cannot multi-task people be they children or employees.

Are we sure that women are not being convinced that they must be able to multi-task? It is amazing how repeating something long enough and loud enough makes people think it is truth or science.

Comment by Karen Walling

June 7, 2008 @ 1:10 am

I recently finished reading “In the Spirit We’re Equal: The Spirit, The Bible, and Women: A Revival Perspective” by Susan C. Hyatt, 1998. I recommend it highly. This is one of the books, that will help Christians to be able to witness to feminists and other professional women, with answers to the challenges, such as “Why would I want to become a Christian and go to a Christian church with all the sexism involved?

Comment by leigh

June 7, 2008 @ 9:29 am

I appreciate your book recommendation (“In the Spirit We’re Equal: The Spirit, The Bible, and Women: A Revival Perspective” by Susan C. Hyatt, 1998).

My response not so long ago would more likely have been, at the time, “Why should I consider Christianity? Christians are sexist people: self-righteous, and hypocritical — they talk the talk but don’t walk the walk.”

;-)

There was some stereotyping there, yes. To be sure, though, the sexism I saw in church culture acted as a barrier to Christ for some time (until Christ apparently decided he wasn’t having any more of that, and brought me to him, despite myself and the sexism that did actually exist around me, in the church).

Be careful: Some may ask why they should worship such a sexist god (intentionally small “g”, there). Which I don’t think is an unreasonable question, coming from the outside, looking into patriarchal Christianity, not knowing that there are Christians who don’t believe that Christianity is meant to be practiced in that way.

And when I first became a Christian, the ONLY books I saw aimed at women in the few Christian bookstores I visited were about the traditional roles. It’s a miracle (I do think it is, in a few ways) that I am a Christian at this point.

I guess all I mean is, I don’t want you to be surprised if some folks are incredibly blunt and believe that God is sexist, and so all Christians are sexist. Please be compassionate.

Comment by molly

June 7, 2008 @ 8:40 pm

My father is the most emotional person I’ve ever known. He is also 6′4 and about as “manly man” as it gets. Growing up, he was exceptionally emotional——raged at the drop of a hat, passion leading his decision-making skills, and that passion could change direction at any given time.

My mother, on the other hand, was a woman, and as such would have been considered more “emotional,” because, yes, she did cry a lot easier than he did. But she is the highly logical one of the two and an excellent level-headed decision maker.

I think it’s awful interesting that we don’t, generally, count “anger/rage/outbursts” as *emotional* if they’re experienced in a “manly” way.

Watch the male portion of the crowd at a football game and see a bunch of men get HIGHLY emotional. But do we think of that as “emotional” behaviour? No. Because we’ve got “emotional” defined as the stereotypical FEMALE-produced emotions, like, say, crying easily when pregnant, etc.

This is what I think is funny: If a woman gets upset, she’s emotional. If a man gets upset, well, he’s, um, angry (likely for a very, ahem, logical reason).

We don’t count HIS reaction in our definition of what “emotional” looks like because we’ve been taught to differentiate the behaviour of the genders.

In other words, because of the way we’ve been taught to view things, it truly *does* appear as if Mars and Venus, et all, are perfectly right. Men are more logical, women more emotional. Because we’re trained to see them that way.

Comment by Watcher

June 7, 2008 @ 9:44 pm

Leigh,
Something you said in comment 86623 reminded me of an experience I had a long time ago.

I was a Christian at the time. But I watched a “Christian” man be abrupt, harsh, and demanding with his wife.
Then later he turned to me (believe me, I don’t even remember how this ever came up) and he said something about how beautiful Ephesians 5 was and that if feminists really understood how it worked with men loving their wives and wives submitting to their loving husbands, they might not want to be feminist anymore (or something like that).

All I could think was, ‘If I were a feminist* and saw the way you treated your wife and thought that was the way God wanted it, believe me, I would remain a feminist*.’

I was really glad I already was a Christian and that my decision to become one didn’t rely on his example.

*feminist, of course, meaning a baby-aborting, man-hating, militant, secular feminist.

Comment by Frank

June 9, 2008 @ 12:21 pm

I wonder if Wayne Grudem ever watches PBS? Lately, they have had a science series on brain therapy, where even aging people can increase their thinking capacities and motor skills. Maybe if we men took this therapy, we could catch up with the women and really partner with them in doing multi-tasking in the home and society. Wonder if Grudem would consider that possibility? But on a more serious note, it is sad that whenever some real difference between men and women is suggested, the complementarians turn that into a further argument for hierarchy rather than accepting as evidence for a complementary partnership that both parties can agree on.

Comment by Liz

June 9, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

Good point Frank and a reminder that sometimes the same facts can be used to back up entirely opposite theories. So we have a task on our hands to demonstrate that biblical equality is appealing, workable and extremely biblical.

Comment by faith

June 10, 2008 @ 7:41 am

Frank, Liz, good points… about brain research and how it is applied to support hierarchy. Even the whole brain has connective parts, dendrites grow and make new connections. Healthy parts of brains can take over for parts that have been damaged and died. The brain is a muscle and can grow and flex and develop according to how it is used.

That supports my theory of relationality. Our relations, how we engage with the world and with whom changes our brains in certain ways. Certainly, hormones would affect brain development and child bearing but so would fighting bears and going to war. Those actions involve physical changes that affect brains etc. My guess is that women who went to war were changed as well as the dads who remained home to care for kids. (not that I am supporting the whole idea of war). A relation with war changes the brain; a relation with children changes the brain; a relation with a spouse changes the brain.

A relation with God changes the brain…. think about it.

Comment by faith

June 10, 2008 @ 10:41 am

did Gary Smalley change his view on gender stereotypes?

http://www.smalleyonline.com/articles/m_genderfallacy.html

Anyone know?

Comment by Maureen

June 10, 2008 @ 9:21 pm

Hello everyone,

This is my first time posting on this board, so please bear with me. I have wanted to enter in the discussion on several occasions, but have been too busy with uni work and other stuff to take the time. Not to mention, I’m a little bit nervous because my knowledge is limited compared to most of you on here. Anyway, now that my degree is all finished, I thought I would pluck up the courage and give it a go.

I am so glad to have found CBE and people like you, who share my feelings on the issue of gender. For years I thought I was the only one who would bristle at being told that females were this particular way or that particular way because they were all ‘wired’ the same, and that they were specifically designed for the subordinate roles in life - i.e. supporters and nurturers. I particularly didn’t like hearing this sort of stereotyping being so strongly advocated by the church. I just don’t know how people can believe, and adhere to, such sweeping generalizations!

I can understand sexism and gender stereotyping (even if I still don’t like it) being in the world - after all that’s where the devil has run rampant for centuries, but the church? Christianity should really be the antithesis of the world’s ideology and the church should be leading the way in promoting gender equality, unity and mutual respect, but unfortunately, it is not.

Years ago I used to sit in large Amway seminars where many of the speakers would go on and on forever about the so called inherent differences between men and women. ‘Humourous’ anecdotes conveyed to us all just how diverse the genders were, how men and women each had roles for which they were designed and, once we learned and accepted these roles, we would complement each other in life and work and everything would be ‘fine and dandy’. Of course, everyone would be laughing uproariously - everyone except for me that is. I was too busy trying to figure out why I thought and acted more like the men in these stories and couldn’t relate to being told I was designed for a specific purpose that related to my gender. In more recent times, I have heard the exact same ‘tripe’ being rolled out by world reknowned preachers in church meetings. It’s really so very sad.

I agree with everything that has been said on this topic so far. You have all brought up some very interesting points and have helped me to realize that I am not alone in my despair of the insidious sexism and promotion of gender polarization that pervades the world, and the church, everyday.

In relation to the topic, one thing that I cannot understand is when strong female leaders, such as Joyce Meyer for instance, always have to bring up wives’ submission and the gendered stereotypes when they are preaching. Joyce (who I love to listen to heaps, by the way) often talks about the differences between the female and male brain and how women are emotional and and men are rational etc, etc. I mean, here is a woman whose God-given character and personality is actually totally outside of the tradtitional female stereotype we’ve all been led to believe exists, yet she still openly endorses this stereotype as being intrinsic of all womankind! I don’t get that at all.

Anyway, I had better stop waffling on now, otherwise you might all think you are reading a book! Just wanted to thank you all again for your great insights and I’m so happy to know that there is a community of Godly people out there who think and feel the same way I do about gender issues. I live a long way away from most of you and, unfortunately, there is nothing like CBE in my country, but at least there is the internet - sure has brought the world a whole lot closer together.

Comment by faith

June 10, 2008 @ 9:48 pm

hi Maureen, you are very articulate and have much to say. keep sharing your thoughts.

Comment by Liz

June 11, 2008 @ 5:30 pm

Welcome Maureen. So glad you venture out to write and please continue. It is so helpful to us all as well as yourself to express these truths and experiences. We live in Australia where the traditional roles are very much taught and practised in most bible believing/conservative churches and we have felt so alone at times but the CBE community is a wonderful fellowship which transcends all cultures as true fellowship in Christ should do.

Interesting comment about Amway which from our understanding was from Mormon roots (correct me if I’m wrong) We find most of these groups still promote the gender stereotypes. In Australia, Amway is now known as ‘the business’ by adherants and their huge meetings are similar to church services and have Christian pastors addressing them…what a mixture! The’ business’ promotes certain books among their clientele and these include gender biased ones among the self-help ones.

Comment by Maureen

June 11, 2008 @ 9:22 pm

Thank you Faith and Liz for your kind welcomes. I certainly will continue to share.

Not sure whether the Amway founders’ background was Mormon or not, Liz. Some of the books I read and tapes I listened to seemed to endorse Christianity and Mormonism as though they were one in the same, so you could be right. There was certainly a lot of Christians in the business and I actually came to the Lord, myself, during the time I was involved.

You are right about their meetings being similar to many church services. After I got saved, my ‘upline’ as they are known, took us along to Hills Christian Life Centre (now Hillsong) in Sydney and I remember thinking, at the time, just how much like an Amway seminar the church was!

I ended up worshipping and serving in this church for many years and eventually extricated myself from Amway altogether, but unfortunately, this particular church promoted many of the same gender stereotypes and sold similar gender biased self help books just like you said. One good thing about this church though was that they were all for women pastors and women in leadership - unfortunately, you just had to look like a Revlon advertisement doing it!

Comment by Liz

June 12, 2008 @ 12:21 am

Yes, we visited Hillsong some years back so understand what you mean. They have a program which airs on national TV and only recently someone noticed that Brian Houston invited Bobbie to tell everyone what their stance was on the place of women and she outlined the usual ‘headship’ teaching. This is hearsay but from everything we’ve read or heard from Hillsong it doesn’t surprise me.

We have friends who still attend this church in spite of all the hype and upmarket presentation. Seems God works in spite of it all.

There is a CBE chapter in Melbourne and I will email a contact person for you.

Comment by faith

June 12, 2008 @ 1:32 pm

liz and maureen, have you ever heard of a revivalist by the name of doug stanton? he has been teaching in my location, Minnesota, for many years. he is heavy on headship teachings. he is the source of much grief for women who seek to be pastors. They can preach but only under their husbands authority.

Comment by faith

June 12, 2008 @ 1:33 pm

oh, byt the way, the revivalist, is from australia.

Comment by Trevor

June 12, 2008 @ 3:59 pm

Faith that Australian revivalist you are talking about may well be Don Stanton. If it is the same fellow he specialized in end time, prophetic insights into current events. We had no idea though that he may have been conducting ministry in the U.S. He was very popular (in Australia) in conservative circles and produced a topical booklet on various prophetic teachings that was printed in India. I think that he was a former missionary in India. He’d be quite old now I would think and definately hierarchical and outspoken in his male/female views of the church and home. He would link ‘feminism’ of any description with prophetic issues and sound dire warnings to the church to avoid any such leanings. If it is the same person, or a relative of the same persuasion (son maybe?) then I can understand how grievous such strong teaching would be to women who were sensing a call to Christian ministry.

Comment by Maureen

June 12, 2008 @ 9:58 pm

I did a quick seach on google, Faith, and it looks like the Australian revivalist you are referring to is Don Stanton, Director of Maranatha Revival Crusade, as Trevor has indicated. I can’t recall ever having heard any of his teachings, myself, and thankfully not, by the sound of it.

Comment by Frank

June 13, 2008 @ 12:01 pm

Hello, once again, everyone. I’ve been busy working on article that responds to Gary Crampton’s “The Bible and Women Teachers,” which has required careful research and thought before I get it published. And hello to you, Maureen, from Colorado. Some years ago, I was involved, twice, in trying to start an Amway business, but failed. For a man, I just didn’t “have a head” for business. Though I realize a large number of Christian were involved in Amway, I never knew before now that it had Mormon origins. Interesting. Anyway, having studied philosophy, I was thinking on a little ditty that addressed the mind/brain issue: “What is mind? Never matter. What is matter? Oh, never mind!” And it brought to mind what Paul said in Phil. 2:5-11 about all Christians having “the mind of Christ” in all their dealings with one another. This directive negates, in an important way, I think, this nonsense some Christians have promoted about different kinds of brains and minds men and women are supposed to have; we’re to have a common mind–the mind of Christ.