I could argue, however, with the gender stereotypes I saw in our class’s brief discussion of the love languages.  Skits tended to put women in traditional roles (whether the homemaker or the career woman with a second-shift), and the sorts of ideas thrown out by the class were also discussed in a stereotypical manner.  For example, a wife putting on sexy lingerie and having some fun with her husband somehow got put under “acts of service,” rather than more appropriate categories like “physical touch,” or even “quality time.”  Inspired by my frustration, I decided to survey the online love language quizzes for husbands and wives to see to what extent gender stereotypes just come with the territory.  When we think of caring for one another through words of affirmation, physical touch, gifts, quality time, and acts of service, do we need to make intentional efforts to avoid unhelpful assumptions about gender?

Between my class experience (at a moderate seminary!) and my perusal of the online quizzes, I think so.  It seems Chapman—in the quizzes, if not also in his books or various teaching materials—thinks certain love languages express themselves differently along gender lines, something that should be known by those potentially using his work in their churches or recommending it to friends.  As innocuous as we might assume the five love languages to be based on their decidedly less-than-revolutionary level of helpfulness, we must be aware that along with the good, the decent, and the obvious lurks a potentially more damaging element.

“I propose there’s been one significant change in the value system of the male culture. What entered the system between 1970 and 2000? Try ESPN and round-the-clock sports.” (pg. xxii)

“The boy who only sees his father focusing on athletics, who lives in a home or culture where it’s all sports all the time, will allot far less value and time to school than to athletics. The end result has been higher sports scores, lower school scores.” (pg. xxiii)

Taking Trelease’s proposal another step further, I believe that it is the polarizing of what is considered masculine behavior versus feminine behavior that may have branded reading as a feminine activity. Boys seem to be receiving the message that “reading is for girls.” And if boys have been taught not to “run like a girl,” “throw like a girl,” or “cry like a girl,” why would they want to read like a girl? Using the phrase “like a girl” as an insult teaches boys to make negative associations with anything relating to females. The flinging of these types of phrases may well be boomeranging back to hurt males in unintended ways.

Any activity that becomes viewed as girlish, or unmanly, stigmatizes it for many boys. So instead of a feminizing of our schools hurting boys academically, I submit that creating negative associations for boys with anything perceived as being feminine may be a large part of the problem. In recent decades, a shift has occurred in American schools. For a long time, prescribed gender roles hurt many girls academically. Now societal gender confinements may be limiting the academic success of boys who try to fit inside these boundaries.

While this is a complex issue with many factors contributing to these trends, I believe that eliminating gender stereotypes and expectations can help to even out the academic achievement of both sexes. When girls were told that boys naturally did better in math than girls, this often became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why try hard when it isn’t in your genes? Parents and teachers who reinforced these messages often helped to increase this cause and effect relationship. Several times I have heard the message that boys’ brains are wired better for math while girls’ brains are wired better for reading taught at church as well as in Christian books. According to a 2008 study, the gender gap has closed for math scores on standardized tests in the United States.^[2] Apparently there never was an innate difference in math aptitude between the sexes. So perhaps another detrimental effect of gender stereotyping may be that boys are receiving the message that girls are intrinsically better in verbal skills than boys. If boys are hearing these messages from parents, teachers, and pastors, they might be acting upon these beliefs.

As Christians we should be promoting the intrinsic worth and value of all people. We have all been created in God’s image.

“So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27 TNIV)

“Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves.”  (Romans 12:10 TNIV)

Both genders can reap rewards if we will teach and practice equal levels of honor and respect for males and females and by eliminating negative stereotyping.

1. Trelease, Jim. The Read-Aloud Handbook. New York: Penguin Books, 2001.
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/education/25math.html?_r=2

The remarkable thing about Scot’s book is that it’s not really about women in ministry or anything else relating to gender–it is, as the title, suggests, about how to read the Bible.  The first section of the book is about reading the Bible as a larger narrative (similar to how N. T. Wright suggests we read it in books of his like The Last Word), the middle sections are about ways to interpret the Bible, and the final section applies these principles to the issue of women in ministry.  The genius of the book is twofold:

(1) Those that have no interest in gender issues may end up thinking about them because they wanted to read this book about interpreting Scripture.

(2) Those that are interested in gender issues can read this book and focus a lot less on the back-and-forth between egalitarians and complementarians (which has its place) to, instead, consider this much broader and–in many ways–more important issue of how to read the Bible.  Once their way of reading the Bible is different, it’s unlikely they can return to their same old views of gender nearly as easily.

Admittedly, there were aspects of the book I wasn’t completely enthused by, and you may wish to read a more complete review of the book on Amazon or Christianity Today before giving it to a friend.  However, solely considering its merit as a resource with the potential to improve the status of women in Western evangelical churches, I am quite impressed.

What I most admire about the book is its ability to see the big picture.  While many of us are so passionate about gender issues that we could spend all day discussing the related Bible passages, Scot realizes the interpretation of these passages is not his top priority.  Seeing the many academics that debate women’s roles, I think we often forget the place most lay people are in: it’s not just that they don’t know the Greek and Hebrew to solve this gender mystery themselves.  Rather, if we are to ever move forward on this, or many other issues in the church, we’re going to have to study–and dialog about–how to read the Bible to begin with.   After all, few of our churches really teach us to handle this seemingly basic task.

Scot’s book may not please everyone in the sophistication of his argument for women’s equality, nor the depth of its coverage of this larger question about Scripture, but I think we could learn a lot from his humble willingness to let the specific issues of women in ministry take a backseat while we work tirelessly to improve general interpretive skills.  Each emphasis has its place in our writing and teaching, of course, but The Blue Parakeet fills a gap few seem to have noticed.  While it’s crucial to continue our study of the specific issue of women in ministry, let’s not forget the foundational questions we must help people answer in order for them to mature in their faith.  We may be surprised just how well more specific issues like gender equality can be connected to these larger questions and how much more open people are to new ideas when approached from that broader and potentially less threatening angle.

The Jesus Film Project website describes the film this way:

One woman caught in the scandalous act of adultery; another, rejected and ignored because of her promiscuous lifestyle; another, shunned for 12 years because of a shameful condition; a widow, cast out from society, mourning the loss of her only son. An ugly thread of shame, sorrow and hopelessness painfully weaves its way through the lives of each of these women.

After following Jesus for three years, Mary Magdalene observed all these things and more. She also witnessed changed lives, miracles, and the results of restored hope. Watching with amazement, Mary learned from Jesus a new way to look at people. He also radically transformed her life by healing her from demon possession—releasing her from shame.

The film’s action is narrated by the Mary Magdalene character, played by Rebecca Ritz (of Minority Report), presenting Jesus’ life through the eyes of one of his female disciples. According to Christianity Today, “After a recent showing in Israel, one viewer emotionally expressed her appreciation for the way Jesus ‘dealt with women in respect’ and ‘released them from fear.’ In every culture, in every language, that’s a story women need to hear.” Amen!

Sneak previews are available on the film’s gorgeous interactive website, www.magdalenamovie.com, and DVDs can be purchased at The Jesus Film Store.

The original post, with contact information, may be found here.

The results of her survey will provide her with a critical piece of research and will help her on her way to the completion of her dissertation, and so if you can help in any way, please do!

She is looking for people to help contribute to and edit/critique the summary. If you would be interested in helping with this, please get in contact with her by using the contact form on her blog, www.fether.net.

Barb is looking for both those who have experienced emotional and spiritual distress within a church setting and pastors/ministers who have been able to provide comfort and spiritual guidance to those who have experienced emotional and spiritual distress within a church setting. If either of these criteria describe you, your participation in the survey is welcomed.

If interested, Barb may be contacted at churchexitersq@telus.net. Comments and questions are welcomed. All responses will be anonymous and yet may be kept for further use after the completion of the study. If you do contact Barb, per her request, please let her know that you were told of her survey at The CBE Scroll.

Fiske was said to be a precocious young girl, reading Cotton Mather’s Magnali Christi Americana and Timothy Dwight’s Theology by age eight. She came to Mount Holyoke in 1839, but her education was interrupted when she contracted typhoid fever. Forty students contracted typhoid fever at the same time and nine died. It was thought that she, as one not known for good health, would be on that list. Her father, sister, and mother helped her pull through, though her father and sister also picked up typhoid fever and died in the process. Her mother, Hannah, did not want her to drift too far away after her near-death experience, so for a short while Fidelia taught at the local schools. Once she had recovered, her mentor and good friend, Mary Lyon, encouraged her to return to school and finish her education. After completing her degree, she was overwhelmingly approved by the trustees to be a full time instructor at Mount Holyoke.

As is often the case, life changes quickly. A missionary on furlough named Justin Perkins wrote a book called Eight Year’s Residence in Persia. Fidelia read it with eagerness. The book described the world of Persia (modern day Iran) and the needs of the people in such detail (including full color artwork) that she wondered if she would be better serving Christ in that world.

Within little time, word came that Perkins was nearing the end of his stay in America and had not located someone to replace Judith Grant, a missionary in Persia who had started a day school for girls, but passed away a few years earlier. Mary Lyon called all the instructors and students of Mount Holyoke together for an emergency meeting, informing them of the need. Those interested were told to drop a note in a box. While Fidelia and others were certainly academically qualified, it was later recalled by Perkins that Fidelia’s note was the only one that said, ‘If I am found worthy, I would like to go.’ The others regaled the missionary with their curriculum vitas, but because Fiske saw it as a spiritual engagement, she became their first and natural choice.

With little time to work, she immediately sent out a letter to her mother asking for her blessing. She also sent out letters to other family members, asking for their opinions. All of them told her that she was not healthy enough to enter into a mission field. Some pointed out that she could be leaving her family for good if she did such a thing. With good intentions, they reminded her that she was not the type of person to go off on adventures (clearly ignoring the fact that her interest seemed to indicate otherwise). There was also the added point, being a single missionary woman in the field was nearly scandalous – a sentiment still living on in some circles today.

Heeding their concerns, Fidelia turned down the offer and tried to move on. The position was offered to another woman, whose family told her the same thing. It was then that Mary Lyon came back to Fidelia and asked her to reconsider. Fidelia asked to sleep on it – something she was not able to do easily. Very early in the morning she knocked on Lyon’s door. She was willing to go to Persia, but on one condition: Lyon had to help her convince her mother. On that snowy winter day, she took a sled ride with Lyon to her mother’s home and spent the weekend discussing the issue. By Sunday evening, her mother gave her blessing.

It was a decision that changed her life. She boarded a ship with Perkins and his family and journeyed off to Oroomiah, arriving in June of 1843. There she made the school of Grant into an effective boarding school modeled after Mount Holyoke. She entered into a hostile culture that found no value in women and saw no reason to educate their daughters. Given such a world, one of the first phrases she learned in their language was ‘give me your daughters.’

Fidelia spent fifteen years in Persia declaring the value of women. She convinced families to let her educate their young daughters instead of abandoning them or selling them into slavery. She became a mother and a teacher to these girls.

By 1858, her struggle with sickness got the better of her and she returned to America. During that time she toured New England, raising awareness of the work still needed to be done in international missions. She returned to teaching at Mount Holyoke for a while and later published several books, including a biography on Mary Lyon. She died in 1864.

Under the guidance of Mary Lyon, Fidelia was encouraged to get a quality education and had her individual gifts nurtured. She did not allow herself (or the girls she ministered to in Iran) to be pigeonholed based solely on their gender. Each of us could serve as a Mary Lyon to someone who needs nurturing. Organizations like CBE and its members call Christians to minister by giftedness, not by gender.

How do you do the same in your local congregation?

For more information on Fidelia Fiske, see Faith Working by Love here.

This fall, Southwestern Baptist will be offering a new academic program in homemaking, a bachelor of arts in humanities degree with a 23-hour concentration including such classes as ‘Clothing Construction’ and ‘Meal Preparation.’ Such classes, Southwestern Baptist must believe, are in keeping with their stated goal of letting a woman (and I mean woman, as no men are to be admitted to the program) ‘choose from a variety of programs what is appropriate for [her] own diverse interests and unique giftedness within the boundaries of biblical priorities.’

Southwestern’s dean of women’s programs stated for the Associated Press that the program was instituted in order to strengthen families, as a woman’s ‘first priority is her family and home.’ In the words of president Paige Patterson, ‘If we do not do something to salvage the future of the home, both our denomination and our nation will be destroyed.’

National destruction? Quite a price to pay for a lack of homemakers.