The CBE Scroll

I haven’t thought much about Gary Chapman’s The Five Love Languages in a long time, but recently my Family Life Education class did a presentation on this subject.  I tend to see most evangelical book empires of that sort as an attempt by publishers to cash in on an author’s popularity, and I am not a big fan of Christian pop psychology to begin with.  Still, I am reasonable enough to acknowledge that there is something to the five love languages.  I’m not crazy about limiting ourselves to a magical five, but the general principle that different forms of expression mean more to different people is hard to argue with.

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.

A local Bible camp recently announced its schedule for the summer.  “Headlining” the programming for girls camp is a tea party.  You know, frilly hats, dainty gloves.  Extended pinky fingers grasping sweet little tea cups.

I have nothing against tea parties per se, but as the centerpiece, the highlight of a girls camp?

Is this the best camp leadership can do for innovative, creative  programming – or is it the best they can come up with for girls?   Would the all-male board consider including rock climbing, archery, or white-water rafting as well, or do those and similar “active” sports/endeavors fall outside their gender views?  What about girls who aren’t interested in frilly hats, dainty gloves and extended pinkies?

Programming decisions aside, what kind of thinking related to gender roles and models is in evidence here?  What kinds of values and views do camp leadership intend to impart to young girls about who they are in Christ and what they might accomplish for His kingdom?  What are the chances these girls will hear about Junia or Phoebe or other female members of Paul’s apostolic team and strong Christian females when they’re focused on Early Grey and Emily Post?

Why not focus on these young ladies’ identity in Christ and how they can use their gifts and calling for ministry and service in building the Kingdom of God?  Is this the best we can do for the next generation of Christian women?

Author’s note:

Lean and lanky, the thirty-something teacher probed the congregation with a practiced eye as he wound down his presentation.  Ezekiel “Zeke” (pseudonym) teaches at a secondary school in another country.  Backed up by a carefully constructed PowerPoint presentation, Ezekiel shared his passion for sensitively pouring truth and grace into the lives of his students, particularly the girls.  His blue eyes blazed as he asked if a woman in the Community Christian Church (not its real name) congregation would be willing to come forward and pray for the women of his host country.

No one moved.

Thinking his request was muddled or unheard, Zeke repeated it.  He was met with crossed arms, averted eyes, and the creaks of bodies shifting uneasily in the pews.  Silence wrapped the Northwest church like a pea-soup fog.

“Sorry brother,” Elder Darrell strode to the platform and stood next to Ezekiel behind the podium.  Smiling, he clapped Zeke on the shoulder and explained, “We don’t allow that sort of thing here.”

“What thing?”

“The Bible is clear when it tells us that women are not to usurp authority over men,” explained Elder Darrell.  The members of Community Christian believe that includes pulpit ministry, any form of church leadership, and public prayer, particularly prayer that takes place under its roof.  “Corporate” prayer meetings are divided along gender lines: women and girls pray in one room, men and boys in another.

Zeke felt like a country fair snow cone on a sweltering August afternoon.  A porcupine silence ensued until “Brother Franklin” came forward and prayed for the women of Zeke’s host country.

“What did he pray?” I asked Zeke as he unrolled his story over lunch a few days later.

“Franklin prayed that God would teach the women of that country to submit to the men.”

I swallowed.  Hard.  ”Aside from the fact that ‘women submitting to men’ is a pseudo-biblical view,” I probed, “what else did Darrell say?”

Zeke sighed as he raked a sun-bronzed hand through his sandy hair.  “It’s like Community Christian’s view of ‘biblical womanhood’ is ‘clipped wings’ and ‘seen but not heard.’   I don’t get it,” Zeke dabbed a French fry into a pool of ketchup.  “That’s the kind of thing that goes on in my host county.”  He cited instances of female subservience, male dominance, and gender discrimination in education, work, worship, and the legal system.

“Didn’t the Lord Jesus come to set the captives free?  Is that just spiritual, or is it something more?” my young friend wondered between bites of his cheeseburger.  “How come some Christians refuse to see women as full partners in kingdom work, as equal joint-heirs in Jesus?”  Zeke sipped his lemonade while I listened.  “What’s with the top-down totem pole view of gender roles?  How is that different from the country where I work?”

“I don’t get it,” Zeke reiterated, shaking his head. “Why would an ‘evangelical, Bible-believing church’ treat women just like some of those who are outside Christendom?”

Why, indeed?

There are some philosophical words which can appear scary until we understand them – here’s a few…..

ONTOLOGY: The study of the fundamental nature of being, what makes something what it is. (Ontology is also a word used in Information Science in another way not related to our issues, in case any of you are in I.S.)

ESSENCE and ACCIDENT: Similar to Ontology, Essence means that some quality or attribute is necessary for something to be what it is. Accident does not mean “accidental” in this case, it means something that a thing is that is not necessary to the essence of what it is.

NECESSARY and SUFFICIENT: These terms mean pretty much what you’d expect. Is this attribute of something necessary to it being what it is?   Is it sufficient to make something what it is?

In my reading, I usually hear ontology used for all of the functions of the words above. There are two areas in the egalitarian/complementarian debate where these come up: The gender of God and how humans are made in the image of God.

Complementarians often argue that God is ontologically male. That is, maleness is an essence of God’s being. Maleness is necessary for God to be God. Christians believe humans are made in the image of God. If God’s essence is male, then only men are complete images of God. Complementarians use this to establish a hierarchy of men over women in the church and in marriage.

Egalitarians refute this, saying that the Genesis account clearly treats the creation of humanity in God’s image, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” Gen. 1:27 and “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.” Gen. 5:2  (KJV) So, while Jesus was born a human male, God is not in His essence, male In fact, it is only the body of Jesus that is male. The God side of the Son’s dual nature is not male at all. God is supra-gender. So, any human hierarchy based on God’s maleness has a fatal flaw in its logic. Both male and female words used to describe God in the Bible are images, not ontological statements.

God’s “maleness” being essential, according to complementarians, for God to be God, means that it becomes  necessary for God to be male. So, the question becomes whether a person’s gender makes them essentially different from humans who are of the other gender. Neither side argues that a person’s gender does not impact them. The question is how necessary that impact is to his/her being in the image of God. Complementarians argue it is necessary for an image of God to be male. This convinces them as to why God has only men in leadership positions: males have leadership built into them by reason of their being God’s exact, necessary image, and women do not. Complementarians apply this both in marriage and in the church. Egalitarians argue that God is God, and God is supragender, so it is neither necessary or sufficient to be male to be in the image of God. So, all of us being in essence human and humans are made in the image of God, we are all necessarily in the image of God and we can act and interact as equals.

Let me toss in one more term, this one a logic term: STRAWMAN. A strawman is an argument written in such a way that the writer can tear it down. I have tried to avoid building strawmen in my discussion above, but I want to encourage you to seek out original sources for both complementarian and egalitarian reasoning in these matters.

Any questions? Any comments?

P.S.: I’d like to make a note of thanks to my nephew, Harvey, who’s a Ph.D. in philosophy, for helping me with this blog.

“He didn’t protect me,” Nan said of her husband, Blaine (not their real names).  Eyes clouding, Nan related how an “insensitive” male supervisor engaged in “ungracious” behavior and the effect it had on her emotionally. I sipped my raspberry iced tea and listened, asking questions here and there in an attempt to ascertain some salient facts.

“So, did Jerry (pseudonym) come on to you?” I asked.  “Did he make sexually suggestive comments?  Harass you?  Was he abusive?  Did Jerry harm or threaten you physically?  Create a hostile work environment?”

Nan answered negative to all of the above.  “Okay girlfriend,” I set my glass down and leaned back in the wicker chair on Nan’s wrap-around porch.  Twin almond eyes peered at me over Nan’s tea cup.  “Then what exactly did your husband not protect you from?”

It seems that Jerry was “harsh” and “overly critical” and “rude.”

I couldn’t argue.  I know Jerry.  What struck me about Nan’s pronouncement wasn’t the fact that she’d had one too many run-ins with Jerry – and eventually quit – but her assumption that Blaine was somehow not performing his husbandly duties by not “protecting” her.  I wordlessly wondered, “Why is it Blaine’s job to protect you?  Why don’t you learn how to protect yourself?  How can your husband be everywhere, all the time, running to your rescue?  Where does his responsibility end and yours begin?”

I know Blaine. He’s kind, thoughtful, generous and attentive.  But he doesn’t have that omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent thing down quite yet, and I wonder if it’s reasonable for Nan to expect otherwise.  And by the way, who protects Blaine?

Before anyone clucks their tongue too loudly, let me point out that Nan’s “his and her” views of gender roles are based on what she perceives to be the “biblical model for marriage.”  The husband is leader, provider and protector; she’s subordinate, passive and…. helpless?  The picture is that of a damsel in distress, fluttering her hankie at passersby while hoping Prince Charming rides to her rescue on a white charger and sweeps her off into the sunset.

What about popping the hood, checking the oil, or phoning AAA yourself?  What about a marriage based on mutuality, where he watches your back and you watch his?  What about a partnership between equals?  What about Nan developing her own coping mechanisms (and some thicker skin?) instead of expecting Blaine to rush in where angels fear to tread, and then shellacking him when he doesn’t?

A fading sun poured ginger, cinnamon and tangerine over the Olympic foothills as I wondered, “Is Nan’s ‘he didn’t protect me’ a valid complaint, or is it means of manipulating Blaine into fighting her battles for her so she doesn’t have to learn to do so herself?  And is that really The Biblical Model?”