The CBE Scroll

A prominent sociologist on evangelicals, Sally Gallagher, has much to say to egalitarians in her article, The Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism. She questions, when 56% of evangelical women are employed outside the home and when many evangelical marriages are egalitarian in practice, why evangelicals as a whole have still rejected mutuality and partnership between the genders.

One important point she makes is that well-known evangelical leaders have effectively linked evangelical feminism with androgyny. I have personally seen this many times from complementarian writing—statements like “evangelical feminists and their efforts to blur the genders that God made so beautifully distinct.” Complementarians have had definite success in convincing many people both that androgyny will be the awful result if we embrace gift-based leadership and that secularization of the church is the purpose behind egalitarianism.

In light of this, I can’t help but believe there is a huge issue of fear in the evangelical church. It seems to me that much of what we do in the church is more of an effort to preserve our way of thinking (because our interpretation must be correct) rather than actually critically thinking and dealing with Scripture and culture (of both the past and the present). This is particularly fascinating to me since evangelicals distinguish themselves from fundamentalists in their insistence that culture should be engaged.

How do we combat fear in the evangelical church?

Evangelicals talk a lot about being “set apart” from the world. But that distinction often seems to be based in fear—a strict definition of what we are not rather than what we are. When discussing the evangelical identity as set apart from the broader culture, Sally Gallagher suggests that evangelicals could accept mutuality and still be distinguished from the “secular” world if:

“…they were demonstratively more egalitarian than the broader culture in sharing responsibility for, and not just helping each other with, paid and unpaid family labor.”

What if the church was about radical equality—where Christians practice mutual submission characterized by love, humility, and selflessness, where Christians’ gifts are used for the glory of God, and where gender is neither blurred or stereotyped, but celebrated? This sounds like the example of the early church. It also sounds like a way that evangelicals can set themselves apart from the rest of society—a way that evangelicals can still be evangelicals.

Salon has an article on Mark Driscoll’s Mars Hill Church. I was so sad after reading this article. In short they’ve taken the post-WW2 culture, and they are trying to make it biblical.

Following Driscoll’s biblical reading of prescribed gender roles, women quit their jobs and try to have as many babies as possible. And these are no mere women who fear independence, who are looking to live by the simple tenets of fundamentalist credo, enforced by a commanding husband: many of the women of Mars Hill reluctantly abandon successful lives lived on their own terms to serve their husbands and their Lord.

So if Deborah went to Mars Hill, she would have had to resign from being a prophet and judge, and who would have led Israelite troops to victory over Sisera? I guess Isreal would not have had that 40 years of peace under her rule. I guess Phoebe would not have been a deacon in the church at Cenchreae (Romans 16:1). The word that describes Phoebe as a “deacon” is the same word Paul uses when speaking of Timothy and Titus in their pastoral duties. At Mars Hill Phoebe would not have been allowed to pastor the church at Cenchreae, and she sure wouldn’t have been allowed to take Paul’s letter to Rome. Priscilla would not have been a tentmaker and copastor with her husband. Junia would not have been an apostle (Romans 16:7).

The online screening process that is used in Driscoll’s Acts 29 church planting application “begins with a lengthy doctrinal assertion that every word of the Bible is literal truth; the application plucks out the examples of creationism and male headship of home and church to clarify this doctrine.”

I have dealt with biblical literalism in Truth vs. Fact. In Does It Really Mean Helpmate? I looked at the creation account and showed that the Hebrew phrase ezer cenedgo means a help or power equal to, and that there is nothing submissive about the term. Woman was created equal with man to be partners with him in life, marriage, and ministry.

In other conversations I have pointed out that I am from rural Oklahoma. On the farm or ranch—everyone worked. There was no man’s work and woman’s work—husband, wife, children, and who ever else lived there worked to bring in the crop and cows. If they didn’t they starved. The division of the family between separate jobs and home is a fairly new phenomenon within human history. I also come from a poor, working class family—my mom worked; she had to. I have always looked at the stay-at-home mother as a middle class luxury. In many places around the world both men and women work hard to keep their families from starving. Not everyone has the luxury of one person staying home. In fact, few people do. That’s why I call this the post-WW2 mentality—society has to be at a certain economic level within an industrialized or technological society to afford the luxury of the stay at home mom.

The bottom line is it’s not biblical. God called women to be prophets, judges, and other leaders to obey him and lead his people. Women have the right to work: in Genesis 1:26 care and dominion of creation is given to both man and woman before the command to procreate in verse 28. Women are called to work in the world, work in ministry, and be ordained as pastors and ministers, because God has called us as the full witness of the Bible affirms.

Things like this used to make me mad. Now I grieve. I grieve over the bondage that this lie puts on both men and women, and it is not God’s will.

Sometimes the simplest conversations can turn out to be the most complicated. Take for example, the insistence of a relative of mine that a woman should accept her husband’s last name in deference to his headship. Even though I pointed out that the idea of a surname is a relatively recent invention in human history—not even addressed by Scripture—the conversation meandered into several uncomfortable moments leaving him to resolve it by admitting he just preferred it. There was a certain quaintness and comfort in the tradition from which he wasn’t yet ready to part. Admittedly, I understood, even if I disagreed.

While egalitarians are often accused by patriarchalists of capitulating to culture and its demands, there is no doubt in my mind that this is a trap from which the patriarchal side cannot boast freedom. For example, after coming across a website that sold “modest clothing”—which as it turns out requires Victorian clothing patterns—I found that “virtuous” women wear bonnets or that godly women prefer floral prints. Of course, if one prefers ruffles and lace, then by all means, fill the dresser drawers. That is not a problem. The problem I found was an idolizing of a culture of the past, an infusion of the days-gone-by with images of virtue and the insinuation that only the clothing of a particular era or only those who looked a certain way were truly godly.

I was then reminded of a full-page ad I once saw for a conservative Christian boarding school in a leading conservative evangelical magazine. The image used stock photography of a smiling and pleasant looking blond-haired woman, sporting some smart black glasses and a black business suit. The tag line for the school was something like, “Do you want this woman to be your child’s advisor?” What seemed to be implied was that the kind of woman who wears a business suit and takes her career seriously is probably in some way evil, corrupted, or a feminist seeking to destroy your children’s morals.

There is a serious danger when one invests virtue in mere appearance. Whether it is long hair and dresses or power suits, virtue is not in the packaging. That is why I cringe when a perfume labeled “Virtuous Woman” is being sold at the Christian Retail Show. How can virtue be captured in a scent?

I’m reminded of Flannery O’ Connor’s classic short story, Good Country People, in which Manley Pointer, a used Bible salesman from “Willohobie, not even from a place, just near a place,” came knocking on Joy-Hulga Hopewell’s door selling Bibles. Joy-Hulga lost her leg in a hunting accident and spent her life mourning her displacement from society by burying herself in her schooling and earning her Ph.D. A Bible salesman didn’t really impress her, she long lost her belief in God and boasted a new “born-again” freedom in nihilism.

As a “good country” person, Pointer won the trust of Joy-Hulga’s mother, and found himself a guest at their dinner table for the evening. He also managed to win a taste of Joy-Hulga’s lips and maneuver her into a date in a hayloft. After his incessant begging, she gave in to Pointer’s request to see how her wooden leg attached. She took it off and put it back on. Then he took it off and put it back on. This happened repeatedly until he removed it and pushed it away from her.

Now somewhat frightened, Joy-Hulga watched as Manley pulled his Bible out of his briefcase. To her surprise it was hollow, containing a flask, a deck of playing cards, and an assortment of unsavory items. And then it hit her, “aren’t you just good country people?” she asked in shock.

“Come on now,” said Manley avoiding the question and moving uncomfortably closer, “we ain’t got to know one another good yet.” Joy-Hulga tried pushing away and demanding her leg back, but Manley thought she protested too much for a woman who “didn’t believe in nothing.”

“You’re a Christian!” she hissed. “You’re a fine Christian! You’re just like them all—say one thing and do another. You’re a perfect Christian, you’re…”

Manley tossed his Bible and her wooden leg back in the briefcase, and climbed out of the loft. “I’ve gotten a lot of interesting things,” he bragged, “one time I got a woman’s glass eye this way.”

O’Connor’s point is ultimately about Hulga’s nihilism and the wooden leg is an example of her usual literary tool representing the human condition known as “the grotesque.” With the theft of her leg, came the theft of her belief in nothing, for only something could hurt like that. Even more, as he disappeared for the last time, the Bible salesman turned to Joy-Hulga and said smirkingly, “you ain’t so smart. I been believing in nothing ever since I was born.” Her lesson came at the hands of one who looked and talked like “good country people” but on the inside his heart was as wooden as the leg.

Try as we may to define persons by our standards, the human heart is where we find the real person and it is a treacherous place. Christ came to save sinners, we would do well to remember that no amount of window dressing, whether by clothing or perfume, can do what only he can accomplish.

We aren’t always able to separate what we believe culturally from the actual truth. And at times, people intentionally use cultural identifiers to make a statement. But don’t be fooled, while the devil may have the blue dress on, there are both floral dresses and power suits in his closet as well.

—-
Flannery O’Connor, “Good Country People,” in Heritage of American Literature: Civil War to the Present, Vol. 2, ed. By James E. Miller, Jr. and Kathleen Farley (New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1991), 1917-1929. All quotations are to this edition.

Often the gender debate focuses narrowly on leadership and marriage, at the expense of many. But leadership and marriage are two of the highest ideals in Christian culture, right? Why would this debate be at anyone’s expense? As we live as Christians, what is the normative metaphor for relationships between men and women?

Growing up in the church and then attending a Christian college taught me that marriage is a Christian “virtue.” The vast majority of my peers desired to be married and would date according to the various trends for Christian dating. In order to ensure that this virtue be at the center of their futures, my friends “courted,” they “kissed dating goodbye,” they practiced “righteous dating,” they dated with “agape love” (and no “eros”), they “dated with a purpose” or “with passion and purity” and of course never “dated just to date.” Friendship was always a springboard to something more. Friendship between women and men was not satisfactory, and often true friendship ceased once the woman or man found the *significant other* they longed for so deeply.

The church certainly encourages marriage; most Christian singles ministries are designed for match-making, so that singles can begin to experience the joy of Christian marriage. Ministry becomes a dating service. Still other churches neglect or don’t know how to approach singles ministries. I recently heard about a church in my area that needed someone to oversee the singles ministry, but no one wanted to take it up even though 40% of all adults in their congregation were single (which is true for the general population of this country as well)! Consider that these singles are probably the most mobile and available “workers” in the church, with the biggest ministry potential. Singles are the ones that can donate more of their time and money to church ministries. How long can this continue to be neglected? Paul was aware of such wisdom as well:

An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:32-34)

Here’s another statistic you might not expect: about 25% of Americans never marry or cohabitate! And I found this next one particularly astonishing:

Duration of a marriage is linked to the woman’s age at her first marriage; the older a woman is at the first marriage, the longer that marriage is likely to last. For example, 59 percent of marriages of brides under 18 end in separation or divorce within 15 years, compared with 36 percent of those married at age 20 or older.

More interesting and possibly surprising statistics along these lines can be found here: http://www.gendercenter.org/mdr.htm (although the data is from the 1990s).

Marriage is indeed important, and my point here isn’t to trivialize it. I’m not condemning Christian marriage any more than Paul is, who continues in v. 35: I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. Paul knew something that our singles ministries often miss, that Christian singleness is more than a waiting period for marriage.

But is marriage the biblical ideal for *all* gender relationships among Christians? Should marriage be our highest aim? Paul seems to be saying that the ideal is to be fully devoted to the Lord, and somehow marriage “divides” devotion. The Bible teaches us about the nature of the relationship between husbands and wives, but this topic is limited compared to all the other texts on how to treat one another as fellow Christians. The Bible uses familial metaphors: we are God’s “children,” God is our “Father,” Jesus is the “Son,” etc. Therefore, I think that the metaphor that best describes Christian relationships is indeed a familial metaphor, but the spouse isn’t the source (or ideal) for that metaphor.

It is important to know what a Christian marriage should look like, and CBE is clear that mutuality is the governing principle as taught by Eph. 5:21. But for other relationships in the church, Christians should treat one another as siblings in Christ—caring for each other’s needs and loving them because they are bound by adoption to a common family. Such a metaphor is less exclusive because there is no prerequisite or exclusion, as there is with marriage. Therefore, the metaphor for understanding gender relationships, and indeed all relationships for Christians should be that of “sibling.” And there is no place for inequality among siblings before our Creator.

A missionary friend spoke with me this last week about beauty and the cosmetic industry. While on sabbatical at the University in Winnipeg, he wrote about this topic for one of his courses. I was intrigued and quite provoked to think about this a lot more. He spoke with me about various psychological and emotional phenomena that often accompany various aspects of cosmetic surgery [specifically breast enhancement, tummy tucks, facial uplifts, botox injections etc.] I moved from thinking about psychology and emotions to thinking about the Scriptures.

Another missionary friend from Asia was in on the discussion. He mentioned that people in Asia are now doing many breast enhancements and they are having surgery on their eyelids so their eyes look bigger.

I came away thinking that we have discussed this cosmetic phenomenon very little in either scholarly Christian or popular Christian literature in the last ten or fifteen years. My missionary friend confirmed this by stating that secular literature addresses this much more than we do. Ask yourself a few questions: 1. When was the last time I heard a popular radio preacher focus on this topic-really focus on it? My answer was “never” [and I listen to a few good radio preachers]. 2. When was the last time you saw something about this in a good Christian magazine? 3. When was the last time you heard your own pastor preach about this? The answer for me for all three of these questions is “Never”. I think we, Christians, need to have a voice here.

Our conversation stimulated a lot of discussion and thoughts. I’m not really sure what to think.