My friend, Dave over at 42 has just pointed to a brilliant blog entitled Are Women Human? which, according to it's subtitle is dedicated to "Debunking complementarianism and other myths of gender"
For those who don't know what complementarianism is, it's the view that men and women are equal in the eyes of God except that God has reserved leadership for men and "followship" (my word) for women. Or to slightly misquote George Orwell's characters in Animal Farm it's the idea that all people are equal but some are more equal than others. I think that the sound-bite "Are Women Human?" captures this idea perfectly. Check out the blog.
Showing posts with label complimentarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complimentarianism. Show all posts
30 January 2011
13 May 2010
Women of the Kingdom
I was raised in a very conservative Protestant Christian tradition. A tradition that has a very high regard for the study of theology but which also views the bible as verbally inspired, inerrant and infallible in all matters, including matters of history and science. You'd probably not be surprised to learn that this tradition does not countenance the ordination of women on the ground Scripture teaches that men have headship over women and may therefore not be taught or led by women.
One of the joys and delights of being a Methodist is that women achieved full equality in the Church some decades ago. The US Methodist Church gave full clergy rights to women in 1956 (although some prior historic Methodist denominations had ordained women in the 19th century) and I believe that the British Methodist Church first ordained women to ministries of word and sacrament in the 1970s (although women had been admitted to the office of Local Preacher long before that).
It's also been my experience in British Methodism that men can often be quite fierce in their defending the equality of men and women before God and in our respective roles in the Kingdom. As a woman raised in a "headship" context, I know that I sometimes feel that I dare not get too worked up about the issue for the emotional toll it will take on me if I focus too much energy on the issue. I therefore appreciate men like my colleague, Dave Warnock who speak out forcefully on the subject of equality.
One of the frustrations of being a Methodist, however, is the often widespread view that the matter of women's equality and ministry has been "settled" long ago and that "no one" believes in headship any more and "no one" believes or acts as if women are inferior.
I invite those who think that this is a minor matter to read the following article: Women of the Kingdom by author and house-church promoter Felicity Dale. (Hat tip to Allan Bevere.)
Far from using language that suggests that these attitudes are in the past, Dale says that "the Holy Spirit is beginning to change sexist attitudes".
Which Methodist or other mainstream Protestant Christian would think that anyone in the 21st century would say something like
One of the joys and delights of being a Methodist is that women achieved full equality in the Church some decades ago. The US Methodist Church gave full clergy rights to women in 1956 (although some prior historic Methodist denominations had ordained women in the 19th century) and I believe that the British Methodist Church first ordained women to ministries of word and sacrament in the 1970s (although women had been admitted to the office of Local Preacher long before that).
It's also been my experience in British Methodism that men can often be quite fierce in their defending the equality of men and women before God and in our respective roles in the Kingdom. As a woman raised in a "headship" context, I know that I sometimes feel that I dare not get too worked up about the issue for the emotional toll it will take on me if I focus too much energy on the issue. I therefore appreciate men like my colleague, Dave Warnock who speak out forcefully on the subject of equality.
One of the frustrations of being a Methodist, however, is the often widespread view that the matter of women's equality and ministry has been "settled" long ago and that "no one" believes in headship any more and "no one" believes or acts as if women are inferior.
I invite those who think that this is a minor matter to read the following article: Women of the Kingdom by author and house-church promoter Felicity Dale. (Hat tip to Allan Bevere.)
Far from using language that suggests that these attitudes are in the past, Dale says that "the Holy Spirit is beginning to change sexist attitudes".
Which Methodist or other mainstream Protestant Christian would think that anyone in the 21st century would say something like
- “Of course, we’ll put both your names on the front cover. This book is far too important to have been written by a woman!”
- "God will use a woman—but only when there is no man available to do the job."
29 March 2009
It's My Husband's Fault
OK, here's a post that's got me so angry that it's managed to kick me out of my no-blogging funk.
Who would have credited it? A man who advocates male-headship who reckons that, if something goes wrong in a marriage, it's usually (not always, but usually) the husband's fault: Marriage Counseling: It's His Fault.
But wait. Perhaps there is a point here. The underlying thesis of the post seems to be that if a man sufficiently 'sacrificially loves' his wife, that the marriage will not have problems.
I have a huge 'problem of justice' here. There are three underlying assumptions that I don't agree with. One, that the husband is most likely to be the selfish partner. Two, that the wife is most likely to be the unselfish partner. And the third: that even if the wife is the selfish (abusive, addicted) one, that it's somehow the man's job as head of the family to 'cure' her by his sacrificial love.
Trying to 'fix' other people by the force of our own will or behaviour is normally called co-dependency and anyone who has tried it will tell you that, not only doesn't it work, but trying this methodology as a way to maintaining a relationship with an addicted/abusive partner is simply a recipe for heartache.
If I were a Christian man whose wife was abusing him, I'd want to stay a hundred miles away from such counsel. My heart aches for the husbands who won't be heard because the nature of their concerns doesn't fit with their pastor's preconceived ideas. Just as my heart aches for all the Christian women who are told that if they are just more submissive, their husbands will stop abusing them.
Justice demands that the true nature of what is happening in any situation be discerned. Truth is not served by assuming that women are usually 'good' and men are usually 'bad'. I despair - in either a conservative or liberal ideology - when people make claims for female moral superiority. Each one of us - no matter what gender - is capable of the most dastardly evil and the most glorious good.
The last paragraph in this post sets out where I disagree with male-headship:
1) That, to quote: the husband gets commended when it is going well and he gets the heat when it is not.
Sorry, no. If a wife is mentally or emotionally unstable, the husband is not responsible. And if a marriage is going well, it's because both partners are playing their part.
2) A happy, holy wife is a wonderful endeavor for a husband.
So, the wife is, in some sense, the husband's 'project'? This reflects what I call the attitude of male headship that a woman is never quite a full adult.
3) A husband must learn to keep the pulse of how his wife is doing (spiritually, emotionally, physically)
Again, this assumes that a husband somehow 'has control' over his wife.
Both Christian egalitarians and advocates of male-headship often present themselves as believing that husbands and wives are called to put their spouse first. The difference in the two attitudes isn't really even about 'what women are permitted to do in Church'. The big difference is the attitude of male-headship that women and our lives can be controlled and led by men. That we are not and never will be full adults. And that co-dependent relationships - with the man responsible for controlling his wife's mental, emotional and spiritual responses - are What God Wants.
Who would have credited it? A man who advocates male-headship who reckons that, if something goes wrong in a marriage, it's usually (not always, but usually) the husband's fault: Marriage Counseling: It's His Fault.
But wait. Perhaps there is a point here. The underlying thesis of the post seems to be that if a man sufficiently 'sacrificially loves' his wife, that the marriage will not have problems.
I have a huge 'problem of justice' here. There are three underlying assumptions that I don't agree with. One, that the husband is most likely to be the selfish partner. Two, that the wife is most likely to be the unselfish partner. And the third: that even if the wife is the selfish (abusive, addicted) one, that it's somehow the man's job as head of the family to 'cure' her by his sacrificial love.
Trying to 'fix' other people by the force of our own will or behaviour is normally called co-dependency and anyone who has tried it will tell you that, not only doesn't it work, but trying this methodology as a way to maintaining a relationship with an addicted/abusive partner is simply a recipe for heartache.
If I were a Christian man whose wife was abusing him, I'd want to stay a hundred miles away from such counsel. My heart aches for the husbands who won't be heard because the nature of their concerns doesn't fit with their pastor's preconceived ideas. Just as my heart aches for all the Christian women who are told that if they are just more submissive, their husbands will stop abusing them.
Justice demands that the true nature of what is happening in any situation be discerned. Truth is not served by assuming that women are usually 'good' and men are usually 'bad'. I despair - in either a conservative or liberal ideology - when people make claims for female moral superiority. Each one of us - no matter what gender - is capable of the most dastardly evil and the most glorious good.
The last paragraph in this post sets out where I disagree with male-headship:
1) That, to quote: the husband gets commended when it is going well and he gets the heat when it is not.
Sorry, no. If a wife is mentally or emotionally unstable, the husband is not responsible. And if a marriage is going well, it's because both partners are playing their part.
2) A happy, holy wife is a wonderful endeavor for a husband.
So, the wife is, in some sense, the husband's 'project'? This reflects what I call the attitude of male headship that a woman is never quite a full adult.
3) A husband must learn to keep the pulse of how his wife is doing (spiritually, emotionally, physically)
Again, this assumes that a husband somehow 'has control' over his wife.
Both Christian egalitarians and advocates of male-headship often present themselves as believing that husbands and wives are called to put their spouse first. The difference in the two attitudes isn't really even about 'what women are permitted to do in Church'. The big difference is the attitude of male-headship that women and our lives can be controlled and led by men. That we are not and never will be full adults. And that co-dependent relationships - with the man responsible for controlling his wife's mental, emotional and spiritual responses - are What God Wants.
24 July 2008
Marriage
I blame it on Dave's 20th Wedding Anniversary but I'm going to go where angels fear to tread and dare to offer just a few thoughts on marriage. Not a treatise, mind. And not a worked-out systematic theology. Just a few thoughts.
Why am I doing this? Well the post that Dave links to, Will Positive Examples be Taken Seriously? throws out the thought that Christians don't offer many 'positive' thoughts on 'how to have a good marriage'.
So, as an egalitarian - someone who believes men and women are equal - I have a few simple but related thoughts:
1) Never take your spouse for granted.
Why am I doing this? Well the post that Dave links to, Will Positive Examples be Taken Seriously? throws out the thought that Christians don't offer many 'positive' thoughts on 'how to have a good marriage'.
So, as an egalitarian - someone who believes men and women are equal - I have a few simple but related thoughts:
1) Never take your spouse for granted.
2) Ask yourself every day 'What can I do to make my spouse's life easier today?' Or 'What can I do to bring joy to my spouse?'
3) Never forget to say 'Thank you'. Say 'thank you' when she takes out the rubbish and say 'thank you' when he does the washing-up. You may think that s/he 'should' do these things, but say 'thank you' anyway.
What's my theological basis for this? Agape love. A love that looks first outside oneself and asks the question 'How can I serve another'? Or as the old-fashioned language used to say 'Self-sacrificial love'. This is not only the basis for marriage, it's the basis for Christian discipleship.
Many Christians say that these ideas are unbiblical and that husbands have authority over wives. I'm still trying to understand how agape love is unbiblical. I know from experience that this sort of attitude does work as a path to a loving marriage. I also know that I'd be very wary of marrying any man who insisted on retaining the option of always having 'final authority' over me.
What's my theological basis for this? Agape love. A love that looks first outside oneself and asks the question 'How can I serve another'? Or as the old-fashioned language used to say 'Self-sacrificial love'. This is not only the basis for marriage, it's the basis for Christian discipleship.
Many Christians say that these ideas are unbiblical and that husbands have authority over wives. I'm still trying to understand how agape love is unbiblical. I know from experience that this sort of attitude does work as a path to a loving marriage. I also know that I'd be very wary of marrying any man who insisted on retaining the option of always having 'final authority' over me.
03 November 2007
Women leaders don't have what it takes
This article in yesterday's New York Times (hat tip to Cecilia) informs us that that women simply don't have what it takes to be leaders. So says research by Catalyst, an organisation that that studies women in the workplace.
But hold on a minute, what is this 'it' that we women don't have? Well, in the US and the UK, 'it' is the ability to inspire other people. And American and British respondents don't think that women have the ability to inspire people.
Norwegian women, on the other hand, apparently have no problem inspiring people. Except that the Norwegian respondents value delegating ability in their leaders and Norwegian women, apparently, can't delegate.
Hmm, so Norwegian women can inspire and American and British Women can delegate, but all women are missing that 'it factor' that it takes to be a good leader. Just so I understand that correctly; being a woman, it takes me a bit longer to understand things.
And I doubt this will come as a surprise to any of my sisters:
But hold on a minute, what is this 'it' that we women don't have? Well, in the US and the UK, 'it' is the ability to inspire other people. And American and British respondents don't think that women have the ability to inspire people.
Norwegian women, on the other hand, apparently have no problem inspiring people. Except that the Norwegian respondents value delegating ability in their leaders and Norwegian women, apparently, can't delegate.
Hmm, so Norwegian women can inspire and American and British Women can delegate, but all women are missing that 'it factor' that it takes to be a good leader. Just so I understand that correctly; being a woman, it takes me a bit longer to understand things.
And I doubt this will come as a surprise to any of my sisters:
They [women] are expected to be nurturing, but seen as ineffective if they are too feminine.... They are expected to be strong, but tend to be labeled as strident or abrasive when acting as leaders.
25 August 2007
Sexism and the British Methodist Church
The British Methodist Church is currently asking members and churches to contribute to a consultation on sexism and racism.
After reading a couple of blogs lately, one thought has occured to me with regard to sexism and I offer it as a point of discussion.
I'm not sure that the British Methodist Church takes the theology of 'complimentarianism' seriously. This is a theology that says that men and women are ontologically equal before God but that God requires 'functional subordination' of women to men.
We don't take this theology seriously because we don't hold it. However, 'complimentarianism' is held by many Christians in the United Kingdom including the growing 'New Frontiers' denomination. Complimentarianism is 'preached' by the Calvinist theologian John Piper who seems to be increasingly popular with many younger Christians in the UK as well as in the US.
I think that we need to vigorously refute the theology of complimentarianism and we must not stick our heads in the sand and write it off as a theology that is only held by those on the fringe of Christianity. We need to know why it is that we believe in the equality of men and women before God and we need to be able to articulate good biblical and theological arguments. If we cannot articulate why it is that we believe in biblical equality, then we are vulnerable to the charge that we are just following secular thought. (The organisation Christians for Biblical Equality can provide guidance and reading.)
After reading a couple of blogs lately, one thought has occured to me with regard to sexism and I offer it as a point of discussion.
I'm not sure that the British Methodist Church takes the theology of 'complimentarianism' seriously. This is a theology that says that men and women are ontologically equal before God but that God requires 'functional subordination' of women to men.
We don't take this theology seriously because we don't hold it. However, 'complimentarianism' is held by many Christians in the United Kingdom including the growing 'New Frontiers' denomination. Complimentarianism is 'preached' by the Calvinist theologian John Piper who seems to be increasingly popular with many younger Christians in the UK as well as in the US.
I think that we need to vigorously refute the theology of complimentarianism and we must not stick our heads in the sand and write it off as a theology that is only held by those on the fringe of Christianity. We need to know why it is that we believe in the equality of men and women before God and we need to be able to articulate good biblical and theological arguments. If we cannot articulate why it is that we believe in biblical equality, then we are vulnerable to the charge that we are just following secular thought. (The organisation Christians for Biblical Equality can provide guidance and reading.)
09 May 2007
Egalitarianism and Ecumenism
About a week ago, I blogged about an internationally known Christian mission which wrote to me as a Methodist minister asking to recommend to them local business men who might potentially want to join in their work. It's since been confirmed to me by a female clergy colleague that this group does not admit women to membership although member's wives are allowed and encouraged to participate in the society's work.
Since becoming a minister this past September, I've become aware that there are a number of Christian groups that are eager to be in contact with "Revd P G*****" provided that the "P" stands for something like Paul or Philip and not Pam or Paula. One group sent me an invitation to hear an American Christian speaker who I love; but it became clear that the offer to support clergy in the challenges of doing God's work didn't apply to female clergy.
Yes, it hurts. But I honestly believe that complimentarianism and male-headship are wrong; I honestly believe that it is as wrong as saying that God doesn't want non-white people to be ministers.
So how does an egalitarian, female minister engage with these sorts of Christians in terms of ecumenism? I know that many of my egaliatarian colleagues would say to ignore them but I do not believe this is right either. The question is rather like 'How do you work with a group of people who would prefer to ignore you?'
Since becoming a minister this past September, I've become aware that there are a number of Christian groups that are eager to be in contact with "Revd P G*****" provided that the "P" stands for something like Paul or Philip and not Pam or Paula. One group sent me an invitation to hear an American Christian speaker who I love; but it became clear that the offer to support clergy in the challenges of doing God's work didn't apply to female clergy.
Yes, it hurts. But I honestly believe that complimentarianism and male-headship are wrong; I honestly believe that it is as wrong as saying that God doesn't want non-white people to be ministers.
So how does an egalitarian, female minister engage with these sorts of Christians in terms of ecumenism? I know that many of my egaliatarian colleagues would say to ignore them but I do not believe this is right either. The question is rather like 'How do you work with a group of people who would prefer to ignore you?'
21 February 2007
Perspective
Just a musing after having looked at a blog of someone who has been to a theology conference. The blog is filled with photo after photo of the speakers at that conference. All male. The pictures of all male speakers made me depressed and even angry (even though I know that in my egalitarian branch of Christianity that there are in fact very few female theologians).
Reflecting on it, I think that the reason I had those feelings was because it seemed like a pictoral collage of what it means to be a female Christian in such an environment: it means literally having no voice. It means censoring the voices of any human being who shares one of the most important things about my humanity: my gender. "Male only" Christianity is depressing not because men are awful or because they are depressing, but because it means that there is something "not quite 100%" about being female. Whatever is said about "all are equal", not allowing one category of person to speak makes that category of person unequal - whether the reason be gender, race, class or sexual orientation.
I honestly believe that there is a connection between silencing a category of person and violence. It probably would not be accurate to call this way of thinking "violent", but in Girardian theory, violence begins when individuals strive for (what I'd call) radical individuality at any cost. I must be an individual; I must not be like you and I must not believe that I am imitating you. At the extreme end of this behaviour, I will make a scape-goat of you and I will murder you. Less dramatically, I might bully you. Less dramatically than bullying, I construct a theory that you are not to speak and I get you to agree with my theory; if I do not have to hear your perspective, then I do not have any worry about being like you.
Just a theory. I wonder what others think?
Reflecting on it, I think that the reason I had those feelings was because it seemed like a pictoral collage of what it means to be a female Christian in such an environment: it means literally having no voice. It means censoring the voices of any human being who shares one of the most important things about my humanity: my gender. "Male only" Christianity is depressing not because men are awful or because they are depressing, but because it means that there is something "not quite 100%" about being female. Whatever is said about "all are equal", not allowing one category of person to speak makes that category of person unequal - whether the reason be gender, race, class or sexual orientation.
I honestly believe that there is a connection between silencing a category of person and violence. It probably would not be accurate to call this way of thinking "violent", but in Girardian theory, violence begins when individuals strive for (what I'd call) radical individuality at any cost. I must be an individual; I must not be like you and I must not believe that I am imitating you. At the extreme end of this behaviour, I will make a scape-goat of you and I will murder you. Less dramatically, I might bully you. Less dramatically than bullying, I construct a theory that you are not to speak and I get you to agree with my theory; if I do not have to hear your perspective, then I do not have any worry about being like you.
Just a theory. I wonder what others think?
27 January 2007
Warning: For Women Only! Men May Be Led Astray
In his post 10 Questions for Complimentarians, Internet Monk asks some entertaining questions as well as one I've actually been wondering about.
The context of the post is the dismissal of Dr. Sheri Klouda, assistant professor of Old Testament languages, from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on the grounds of being female.
According to Internet Monk, the President of Southwestern Seminary, Paige Patterson, not only believes in male headship (AKA complimentarianism) but a rather extreme form of it. According to Patterson, 1 Timothy 2:12 does not only apply to relationships between Christian men and women in church and family, but to all of their relationships, everywhere.
This causes Internet Monk to ask entertaining questions like:
The context of the post is the dismissal of Dr. Sheri Klouda, assistant professor of Old Testament languages, from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on the grounds of being female.
According to Internet Monk, the President of Southwestern Seminary, Paige Patterson, not only believes in male headship (AKA complimentarianism) but a rather extreme form of it. According to Patterson, 1 Timothy 2:12 does not only apply to relationships between Christian men and women in church and family, but to all of their relationships, everywhere.
This causes Internet Monk to ask entertaining questions like:
If you are pulled over by a female police officer whom you know to be a Christian, how do you make her understand that she has no authority over you (assuming you are male)?But one question that I've been wondering about (as someone raised in a male-headship church) is:
Should Christian women refrain from writing books, or papers, or internet articles, lest a Christian man should read them and accidentally learn from them? Or should such books and articles come with a warning label -For Women Only!-?To me, the latter is an interesting question. I don't see the difference between teaching and the written word. If it is somehow anathama for a woman to teach a man by speaking to him, it doesn't make sense that it should be permitted for a woman to teach a man through the written word. I view both this blog and my sermon blog as a form of preaching. So, this post carries a health warning: For Women Only. Men should not read anything on this blog lest they be led astray.
26 January 2007
Just Common Sense?
A day or two ago, I picked up a book on a book stall written by a Christian woman who was advocating that women should obey their husbands (AKA "complimentarianism", AKA "male-headship").
Now, I confess to only reading two pages, but this is what I read.
The author talked about how, marriage certificate in hand, she set out at the beginning of her marriage to change her husband into what she wanted him to be. She recounted how their marriage became more and more difficult for both of them as she set her sights on her own objectives of the sort of person her husband should be and tried with increasing lack of success to change him.
The bit where I finished reading said something like "Too many women train their husbands and obey their children when they should be obeying their husbands and training their children."
Well, guess what? This egalitarian agrees with all of those sentiments. It seems to me that this is just common sense.
Children should be lovingly and gently trained and certainly not obeyed; children need adults to establish boundaries at a young age and then to help them learn to establish their own boundaries as they get older.
And no-one in their right mind should ever marry a person with the thought that their spouse could be perfect if only this and that and that were changed. Assuming that a person has wisely chosen a spouse, the key to spiritual growth is in learning to love the person as they are rather than in trying to change them. The sooner anyone learns this in a marriage, the better for both parties. This is just total common sense.
My only point would be that this goes for both parties. Men should not expect to marry a woman so as to change her into My Ideal Wife any more than a woman should try to change a man into My Ideal Husband.
The Apostle Paul had a lot to say about law and grace; including the fact that grace does not mean that we should abandon ourselves to sinful behaviour. But I think that Paul's insight was that legal solutions to peace on earth don't work. If God actually did legislate that women must strive to change themselves according to their husband's command, this legislation isn't going to result in a loving, peaceful marriage. However, if both parties sincerely believe that they are to love the other and to do everything in their power to serve the other, then love will prevail. (This is actually a tautology because Christian love is, by definition, serving another.)
The Law fears freedom and sees the freedom of love and grace as potentially chaotic, therefore Law strives to control Other People. Ironically, it is only the very freedom that Law fears that will result in the peace and harmony that Law wants.
Now, I confess to only reading two pages, but this is what I read.
The author talked about how, marriage certificate in hand, she set out at the beginning of her marriage to change her husband into what she wanted him to be. She recounted how their marriage became more and more difficult for both of them as she set her sights on her own objectives of the sort of person her husband should be and tried with increasing lack of success to change him.
The bit where I finished reading said something like "Too many women train their husbands and obey their children when they should be obeying their husbands and training their children."
Well, guess what? This egalitarian agrees with all of those sentiments. It seems to me that this is just common sense.
Children should be lovingly and gently trained and certainly not obeyed; children need adults to establish boundaries at a young age and then to help them learn to establish their own boundaries as they get older.
And no-one in their right mind should ever marry a person with the thought that their spouse could be perfect if only this and that and that were changed. Assuming that a person has wisely chosen a spouse, the key to spiritual growth is in learning to love the person as they are rather than in trying to change them. The sooner anyone learns this in a marriage, the better for both parties. This is just total common sense.
My only point would be that this goes for both parties. Men should not expect to marry a woman so as to change her into My Ideal Wife any more than a woman should try to change a man into My Ideal Husband.
The Apostle Paul had a lot to say about law and grace; including the fact that grace does not mean that we should abandon ourselves to sinful behaviour. But I think that Paul's insight was that legal solutions to peace on earth don't work. If God actually did legislate that women must strive to change themselves according to their husband's command, this legislation isn't going to result in a loving, peaceful marriage. However, if both parties sincerely believe that they are to love the other and to do everything in their power to serve the other, then love will prevail. (This is actually a tautology because Christian love is, by definition, serving another.)
The Law fears freedom and sees the freedom of love and grace as potentially chaotic, therefore Law strives to control Other People. Ironically, it is only the very freedom that Law fears that will result in the peace and harmony that Law wants.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
