Thanks to Jesus Politics, I found this piece by David
Gushee: “Opinion: Keeping complementarians true to Scripture.” This
egalitarian’s goal is to ask questions of complementarians, making sure their
stance remains biblical and their treatment of women fair. He recognizes that
egalitarians are not perfect, but uses this approach in the same way that
pacifist John Howard Yoder asked similar questions of just war proponents.
Gushee’s first question deals with the dignity of women. He
comments, “It has been my experience that a context of male leadership, and
steady teaching that reinforces it, can sometimes lead young men to a rather
boorish attitude toward the women in their midst.” Right on target—boorish is
such a perfect word, and unfortunately I’ve encountered that attitude in both
Southern Baptist and Wheaton contexts. Complementarians who are responsible for teaching the next generation
may not be getting their point across successfully; they may be careful to
point out that their view isn’t male chauvinist, but in practice, the attitudes
that result from these teachings may end up being sexist.
A couple of questions that Gushee poses have to do with
complementarians’ precisely defining which positions are barred, and also which
are permitted, to women in the church. He also questions whether women should
be completely disallowed from tasks—even the smallest ones:
“[S]ome complementarian settings seem to go out of their way
to present an entirely male face to the world, all the way down to the ushers
handing out the programs and the men taking up the offering. Is there really
biblical warrant for excluding women from these and other roles? Are you
aggressively looking for ways to affirm and make use of the gifts of women in
all roles not barred by your understanding of Scripture?”
I’ve wondered what the effects could be on young women in
the local churches I’ve been involved in that show solely a male face. Where
are women usually present in these types of churches? Behind the piano, as
Sunday school teachers (but only to all-female or younger classes), or as
nursery workers. What kind of message are we sending to females, in terms of
our worth? Not that it’s a negative thing to serve on the worship team or to
care for babies, but aren’t women also capable of being leaders or of wrestling
with theological issues as well? An all-male front, “all the way down to ushers”
and offering-takers, can speak volumes.
I think another issue—for those on all sides of the women’s
roles debate—is more subtle and pernicious. Earlier I linked to Jenell Paris’s
post about a Christianity Today article that she considered offensive. I read
the article, and agree that there are sexist elements. There are the obvious
ones since it deals with Mark Driscoll and his beliefs about women, but there
are other, more subtle elements that are sexist. Hardly anyone nowadays will
come out directly and say that the only place women belong are in the kitchen,
that they’re stupid, etc, etc. Instead, I think the damage is done in less
obvious ways.
For example, one woman in the article is described as
“attractive,” and another “shook with emotion.” Driscoll is even quoted as
calling a woman “honey.” In the church and in our culture at large I often
notice women being described in terms of their physical attributes, whereas
mentions of men’s physical features or attractiveness are often absent. If a
woman indeed does happen to be highly skilled or great at something (usually if
she is in academics or politics) it’s often pointed out that she’s
“articulate,” while descriptions of men usually do not have those adjectives.
It’s instead assumed that males are articulate. Think about how often you hear
“beautiful young woman” rather than “handsome young man.” How many comments do
you usually hear about a man’s eyes, hair, or clothing? I thing I’m beginning
to sound like a broken record, but I truly believe these little, subtle things
can be a barrier, in the same way that language/attitudes can be subtle when it
comes to race.
Recent Comments