PART ONE
Churchianity
It was the early 90's. We belonged to and were active in a
lovely little fellowship. Potlucks, ice cream socials, Vacation
bible School and quaint women's singing clubs were the order of the
day. We camped together, celebrated Holidays together, played
softball in the park on lazy Sunday afternoons. Our children put on
charming Christmas pageants. We had a safe little niche. Being a part
of this group made it anesthetically easy to forget that we lived in
a world that desperately needed grace. Without a doubt, we certainly
had an affinity for one another. When someone inside the fellowship had a need, the members rallied around and did what they could to meet that need, whether it was, doing handy jobs or providing groceries. As insiders, we were well taken care of. We loved each other, as the Bible said we should.
The Religiously "Right"
But our
perspective on strangers, people different from us, was not quite as
hospitable. Judgment and American Nationalism were
forces which flavored our mission. One fellow member said that the
church was run by "rabid Republicans". Seemingly,
social justice, if done at all, was done for the reward of
self-satisfaction or recognition, rather than truly being motivated
by grace and mercy. Our church had a fortress mindset.
"We", (very much including "I,") tried earnestly to
fight immorality by judging it and "contending for the faith"
against it. Those of us who led adult studies, vigorously and
obsessively studied apologetics and how to answer the cults. We
wanted to defend the truth against all forms of relativism and
heresy. We had to be prepared for the attacks of secular
humanism and psychology as well as the false doctrines of the Latter
Day Saints and JWs. We led crusades of morality to prevent
questionable movies from being attended at our theaters or to prevent
worldly, fleshly businesses (bars, strip clubs, etc) from becoming
established in our town. No one ever suggested that we consider
moving out, into our community to actually engage people relationally
in dialogue about the ideas and services they were consuming. Our
social lives existed in the church and we were too busy with those
functions to be able to cultivate friendships with neighbors or
co-workers or classmates, let alone strangers. We were busy defending
our bubble from intrusion by the world. These conditions
created the perfect storm for people within to begin to experience a
sense of being constricted, judged and inferior. What we were
projecting outwardly was taking its toll inwardly. Despite all
of our opportunities to "fellowship,"
isolation rather than
community seemingly was becoming the prevailing experience.
Familiarity
I began to feel perplexed by our church's
lack of reach and influence or real care for the broken. Things
didn't match what I had come to believe church should be.
However, my staunch devotion to denomination, in this case Quakers,
didn't afford me enough perspective to adequately sort out my
misgivings. My husband and I were both raised within Quaker
circles, I in the Midwest and he in the Pacific Northwest. Quakers,
though they exhibit dissimilarities with one another according to
region, are a small and tight enough bunch that the networks therein
don't really have too many degrees of separation. Upon our
transplantation to Southern California, it was easy enough to settle
into a semi-familiar community of faith. As the case may be,
the pastor had been acquainted at different points in time with each
of our families. Given both their proximity to our residence and
their designation as a Friends, AKA Quaker meeting, we took it as
"given" that it was the "church home" for us.
Jesus Freaks
To some degree, I literally grew up in the Jesus movement of the 70s. When I was a little kid, I witnessed my parents' ministries as
Friends pastors doing
genuine outreach and hospitality to all kinds of people, but mostly
to the marginalized. Their home, my earliest childhood home, was a
frequent haven and stopping place for tentative young hippies
leaving behind their drug culture but searching out their place
within the faith in Jesus they were arriving at. They, the
hippies, came to our house for Dr Pepper, Doritos and Jesus Rock, as well as counsel and Bible Study.
Bearded young men and women in wooden butterfly chignon
holders, embroidered blue jeans, fringed leather jackets, and bare
feet converged on our house to read the Bible, talk about
Jesus and sing their style of music. Occasionally, we'd go "on
the road" with some of the musicians, as my dad perfomed concerts and introduced people to the Jesus they sang about. In those days I witnessed a lot of conversions. That was my earliest culture of faith. I have only come to learn in my
mid-life that those people, who so represented people of faith to me
when I was a child, had had a difficult time with assimilation into
predominant church culture. I had always assumed that their sold-out
ways were the ways of Jesus' people universally. They were outsiders
to traditional church, but I grew up on the inside of their culture
as a child sitting around campfires, listening to testimonies of
teens and young adults, watching my dad and other young men reach
"kids" with Jesus-Haleluia-Praise music.
Is "emergent" a bad word?
As I emerged into my teen years my summer camp experiences in the
80's were not only influenced but directed personally by the likes of
Rich Mullins and Tony Campolo. Rich was a singer songwriter
who's compositions have been made famous by Michael W. Smith -
"Awesome God" and Amy Grant - "Doubly Good".
As I read through much of the emerging literature on Christian
Spirituality, I am frequently tickled to find mention of Rich and his
compassionate/passionate devotion to Jesus. He is recognized as
a great and humble man of faith, with passionate devotion to
Christian social justice. Frankly, as a teen under his
leadership, I found him to be blunt and condescending at times.
During a talk he gave at one of our camps a friend and I were
exchanging words, and he called us out, "Hey you, in the pink
shirt and matching lipstick!" He wanted us to pay
attention, and he wasn't nice about it. I must have
simultaneously resented that and paid closer attention to what he
said because on at least one other occasion I can remember publicly debating his ideas about self-image and worth. He was
anti-consumerist when consumerism was a hallmark of virtue. Again this was the eighties. During a period of "me-ism" in our culture, he suggested that youth should be humble. That we should promote the worth of people otherwise deemed worthless and therefore disposable by the world. I didn't get it at the time. He wasn't saying we were worthless but rather that our worth was infinitely deeper than how well we conformed to commodification. He wanted us to be concerned with deeper meaning than whether our lipstick matched our shirts. He wanted us to question the nonsense L'oreal was trying to sell us about "I'm worth it." Rich
purposefully lived a life of voluntary poverty in our faces to cause us to reflect on the poor and broken who weren't volunteering to be so.
Profanity - more than words
Likewise, Tony Campolo addressed my Friends peers and I in a
conference in Oaxtepec Mexico in 1986 about things like poverty,
slavery, human rights violations that break the heart of God.
He challenged us about petty churchianity, being too vigilant about
carnal things like the use of profane words while our behavior and
attitudes profaned and blasphemed God in a deeper way. He's famous
for saying the following, and I will verify the persuasive impact it
had on me , "I have three things I'd like to say today. First,
while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or
diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a
shit. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I
said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night." Such
in your face challenges were what I appreciated and came to expect of
the faith community as I grew into young adulthood.
A Mighty Fortress is our way of life
By comparison, our present fellowship in the 90s seemed
self-absorbed and paranoid. It was like we thought our way of
life was both precious and endangered. We had a brand of faith, which rather than being multiplied, required a staunch preservationist
dedication. There was some of the typical emphasis on outward
appearances and quite a bit less on having our hearts broken by the
things that break the heart of God.
Girls club
Though we were newlyweds
Roger's and my relationship was in trouble. Part of me just
knew that it was out of place that I, rather than my husband, was the one serving on the board
of elders. It wasn't that I believed
women ought not to serve. I had always been a proponent of women's rights and place of leadership. Rather, his opinion was seemingly
less sought by the fellowship as well as by me. His voice was unheard. I was trying to "run the show" both
publicly and at home. Nonetheless, we belonged to a body where this type of arrangement
was pretty normal. That is women, due to being outspoken or
more conforming to church standards, sat in leadership while the men
were in many regards ignored, dismissed unsought.
Peace at any cost
During this same period of time I was earning my Master's
degree in clinical psychology. (It's important to note that
within Christian fundamentalism psychology is a discipline not to be
trusted.) I received an assignment in an interdisciplinary theology
course entitled "Integrative therapy, clinical process and moral
maturity." The assignment was to write a research paper on
the moral virtue of an emotion. I chose to write about
righteous anger. In that paper I challenged the pervasive
attitude-turned-mandate that anger must always be avoided at all
costs and that we must always be "nice". It was a
lengthy discourse that explored anger, wrath, vindication,
righteousness and forgiveness. Quakers, as a peace church, have in
some cases forgotten precisely how to engage in spiritual warfare. As pacifists, they just don't cultivate a language of militarism. It is to their detriment that they don't have a reference point for rules of engagement.
From what I could see some Quaker leaders began to abandon justice
when to stand for it would not appear to be "nice".
Of course, they still verbally and intellectually affirmed justice
but in practice, - at least amongst our group – there was little
outward lifestyle support of it. Our efforts in that fellowship at
transforming the world in Jesus' name were about what we opposed, aka retributive justice. They should have been about who Jesus loved, restorative justice.
"Sweetie, in Jesus name, you need to shut the hell up!!!"
During my period of growing dissatisfaction and disturbance with
things about this little church, we had a little women's retreat at a
nearby mountain town (April 1999). I was the only member of
Ministry and Counsel in attendance. Just prior to the event, I
had provided a copy of my treatise to the pastor's wife who had
arranged the weekend. Other than acknowledging receipt of it,
she never commented about it to me.
I don't remember the official theme of the weekend. In some
manner, the attendees were encouraged to share with the group what
their experience within our church was. Ostensibly, this exercise
could have been intended to open up avenues for reconciliation.
I doubt that such had been given any real mindfulness. The pastor's
wife shared with the gathered group that she and her husband had
identified a spirit of constraint in our congregation. Perhaps the need
to overcome our collective spirit of constraint was the basis for the
women's sharing? I really don't recall exactly how this was
supposed to happen or what the stated intent of the leader was. The
universal theme, revealed by all attendees who spoke up that weekend,
was that each one believed she was inferior to or unacceptable to all
the others.
There was an air of psuedo-intimacy in that the women were sharing
this gut wrenching stuff and managing a lot of sentimentality i.e.
crying and hugging and apparently looking for intimacy or
consolation. Yet at the same time they were fearing rejection or
being shamed by the group. The meeting stalled. So the
women were sent to the 4 quarters of the lodge
so that we could journal and pray (?!).
One of our leader's distinguishing habits was praying in
tongues very loudly and angrily, particularly at these retreats.
There was never an interpretation. Ever. As we were
attending to our assignments to journal and pray, the pastor's wife
went to her room and was making loud birthing like sounds and praying
loudly angrily - in an unfamiliar language- and generally making a
show for all to hear. Her antics were very intrusive and it was
next to impossible to pray or hear the still small voice. In
the moment, I vainly imagined I had a connection to her and that as I
prayed she was being mystically responsive to what I was praying
about. I was very impressed upon that something, I don't know
what, needed to be released or perhaps unleashed. As I prayed, I
assumed that she was travailing hard to release whatever this thing
was.
Consequently, what began to rise in me was an urgent sense that
I needed to throw off all constraint and run out of that place.
It was
nearly overwhelming. Rather than doing so,
I restrained the urge and submitted that it must've been something
that needed to be confessed or deliberated. So I found, of all
people, the pastors' young adult daughter to confide in. When I
shared with the daughter my sensation/pressing urge to run from that
place, her first response was to elicit my trust, “Do you trust
me?”. Pursuant to that, she proceeded to announce to the the
group that I had a spirit of anger that needed “to come out right
now!” (What?!) I screamed "Noooooo!" and
collapsed in despair to the floor while I felt hands closing in from
all over the room to touch me. My vocalization was not due to
demonic possession but due to a deep sense of betrayal. I felt
an immediate and acute violation which wasn't about to come to an
appropriate closure. What happened next served to compound the
aforementioned confusion and sense of intrusive judgment. The
pastor's wife bounded up the stairs from her room, shooed all the
women who were "laying hands" on me and walked me into an
adjoining room. All the while she was asking me if I needed to
burp or vomit and other questions which clearly indicated her
assumption that my reaction was demonic rather than holy. I
felt trapped. To actually say something angry would "confirm"
that I had a demonic spirit of anger. I just stared at her fearing
that she was in that moment desiring to perform a deliverance
ministry on me with no regard for my role in Ministry and
Counsel and to do so without any other core leadership present.
Were I or anyone to righteously confront the situation at hand would
not have been "nice."
As I've previously described, the ladies in attendance were
sufficiently isolated and constrained within their own shame which
dis-empowered them to discern or even suggest a holy pause.
That weekend was very distressing for me and for at least one other
woman who also told me that she had wanted to leave that night.
Subsequent to the retreat out of respect for the pastor, I
arranged a meeting with just him, his wife, Roger and I. My
concerns about the pastor's wife's misuse of her authority and
unbiblical show of the "gift of tongues" was curtly
dismissed and attacked by her and her husband. They were
staunchly defensive of their position. I was effectively
prevented from taking it to the board due to the pastor adeptly
"politicking" and doing "damage control" through
back channels. I was devastated and nearly paralyzed to begin
to unwind the mess that was done to myself or others at that event.
I had enjoyed significant status within the fellowship as a teacher
and as an elder up to this time. I had been on the
Christian Education committee, taught adult classes, and been
appointed to the board. However all of that was perfunctorily
yanked out from under me as a consequence of the aforementioned
events. I lost my voice, my status, my passion and
confidence to lead all in one fell swoop. It would have been
pointless to remain and try to function within the capacity of elder,
or teacher or even catalyst via my writing. I was as swiftly
discredited as I had been credited. People within the church
began to treat me with suspicion and even avoidance (Shunning?).
I later learned that they were advised not to speak with me.
Possibly, this is what happens when women are unaccountable and when
men are disempowered within a body/organization. Maybe it has
something to do with extremes of feminism. I'm not really sure.
(Coinciding with all the above, the pastor's wife was going through a
period of preparation and evaluation. She had been nominated to
be "recorded." That is how Quakers recognize God's
ordination of pastors or persons who have a gift of spoken ministry.
The pair was fairly well liked by the Yearly meeting Superintendent
who dismissed the concerns of the pastor's wife's mentor. The
mentor had also been at the retreat and reported to the Yearly
Meeting superintendent that her observation that there was a great
deal of spiritual confusion amongst the women under the pastors
wife's leadership.)
Over a decade of silence
Roger and I both felt like we had lost our voice. We didn't feel
“worthy” to pursue leadership roles in any church for a long
time. I ceased writing, though up to that point I was a
prolific writer and consistently received positive feedback on my
writing. Documents I had written up to that point, despite raising
some controversy, had been well received. It is not all
bad that I became convicted to stop writing. Sometimes, it is
too easy to be anonymous and say things thuggishly or forcefully
without having to face the recipient of one's words. I believe
not writing criticisms - or at least taking greater pains to be
considerate of and compassionate toward my audience's humanity is one
positive outcome of my
not writing for a time. What I
lost in my dozen or so years of quietism though, was the ability to
articulate a thought well or to instruct others. I have missed
countless opportunities for discourse with others in leadership due
to my strict reservations. Truth be told, I took a decade long detour into Christian fundamentalism that had the
appearance of Godliness but denied the power thereof.
Until stepping out to lead/facilitate discussion in women's bible
studies around 2010, I didn't teach or consistently
challenge anyone in their spiritual growth. Praise God! I
have been able to lead a couple training sessions to equip lay
counselors for missional and incarnational work in recent years.
Roger has been able to bless our fellowships with his gifts of music
and film production.
I wanted someone to see what was in me, but I have been fearful
to step out and articulate it or ask for it. I hoped that
God would cause someone to notice me and encourage me out of my
broken place of former ministry and to restore me. I had sort of
hoped that members of the organization (whatever organization) would
recognize my gifts, ask about why I wasn't using them, and help me
find my place of leadership within the organization. But I
hoped that while continuing to distrust the organization. I
hoped that while
not writing and while
not speaking
publicly.
God seems to be inspiring me to write again and develop thoughts,
but to consider doing it somewhat independently. I now want to
lead but increasingly relationally. I still want to compose
challenging thoughts and to have people wrestle with ideas. I
have finally begun to really grapple with
my role as a leader again.
PART TWO
(The blog and small accountability group of women represent my intentionality in following God's call back to activism. Part two is actually a revamped version of my first several posts - since deleted, consolidated, and re-posted here.)
None of us are meant to walk this
alone
Isolation is a sickness in our culture.
We all suffer from it, don't we? Let's endeavor to find community
here, in our group. Truly it is God who is putting together this
group. He has laid a few specific women on my heart with whom to
begin and has provided confirmation of his direction in a multitude
of ways.
We are a discussion group
Please don't ever call this a "women's
group." It would be contrary to the vision God has given me if
this venture were to become subsumed under "women's ministries"
of any institution. Although I can only glimpse an obscured peek at
the work he is doing God has given me a growing burden to encourage
men and to do so in partnership and mutual accountability with
their wives, daughters, sisters, mothers.
To that end I believe that a resurgence
in masculine faith in Jesus may involve a new paradigm other than
institutional/organizational religion. The new paradigm is
organic, decentralized, holistic in its approach to
masculine/feminine expressions of faith and derived from
naturally-occurring communities and relational networks.
While there is a legitimate place for
exclusive ministries to gender and other subgroups, typical
church-institutional emphasis on "women's ministry,"
"men's ministry" and "couples' ministry" strikes
me as too compartmentalized or niche-focused to adequately meet
plethora needs of either men or women. Holistic ministry to
women accounts for and accommodates multiple roles women fulfill.
A ministry that focuses on a single role, for example "motherhood"
while eschewing the masculine relationship that literally helped
inseminate that role may very well help and encourage moms in certain
pragmatic areas of child-rearing. However, in its inadvertent
dismissal of the masculine, such a ministry may leave that mom
challenged to affirm the complementarity of the masculine role which
was intended for her and for her children's enrichment.
Holistic ministry necessarily equips women to have healthy
Christ-centered relationships with men and boys as well as with other
women and girls in their life. Effective ministry to men
champions their God-honoring involvement with the women and
girls as well as males in their sphere.
Why now?
Over the last year I have read Francis Chan's "Crazy Love",
David Platt's "Radical Together", David Murrow's "Why
Men Hate Going to Church" and a few Christian classics. God has
used those, along with a sometimes contentious debate with a couple
of brothers to till the soil in my heart. Lately, my counseling
practice has been populated with men for various reasons. Surely,
that's no coincidence. My husband, Roger has told me, "You have
a way with men." I'm not sure exactly what he means but Roger is
a man of few words. I take it that was his affirmation/confirmation
of God's purpose assignment for this time. While doing this
type of work, I am challenged to remain highly accountable both to my
Christ-following girlfriends as well as to Roger. Actually, I see plenty of women and lots of couples in my practice too. Every one of them is looking to revive something that has become deadened. Frequently, the very thing they need is to re-prioritize "good" and "just" over "safe" and "nice."
Why not just form an approved home group?
I am finding myself increasingly
questioning the philosophy and dependence on organizational
structure and sensing God calling me to a different way of being the
church. Consider whether we "go to church", "do
church", "play church" or "are the
church." I mentally resist a lot of the implied
hierarchical authority in institutional church. I still actively
promote programs outwardly, inviting others to join, while internally
wrestling with the thought that there might be a better way. I
surmise there is something larger to be grasped. Scriptural authority
is recognized by the mature and discerning disciple as wisdom to be
obeyed. False authority is derived from notions of status
within human constructs such as corporations, organizations or human
programming. It is not always safe to assume that status within the
organization automatically equates with having scriptural authority,
though ideally that is the case.
Church-as-usual doesn't "do it" for scads of
families/marriages that otherwise have a true desire to be
Christ-centered. One doesn't have to look far to see articles about
record numbers of people leaving the institutional church - for
good. Lest you see that as problematic, let me remind you that
church is not coming to an end. Matthew 16:18 offers assurance
of that. Rather, the
form of church is undergoing a change.
Traditional church organization is about programming and safe
predictability. Based on church-business model ideology of the last
several decades, some "visionary" church leaders have
measured success in numbers. But does large attendance necessarily
translate into large impact, transformation? What about the
assumption that a big turnout indicates success? That emphasis on
numbers might be the god of the age and not the Holy Spirit. Such a
possibility disturbs me.
Deep theology
Consider the Once-ler character in Dr Suess's book "The
Lorax." The Once-ler is so narrowly focused on the success of
his programs, his product the thneed, his mass appeal that he can't
see, let alone respond appropriately to the suffering, starving,
crippled creatures around him nor the encroaching darkness within his
environment. Furthermore, he justifies his own polluting
actions by rationalizing that he's creating the one thing that
everyone,
everyone, EVERYONE needs. Therefore, he goes
on, as he says, biggering and biggering and biggering and biggering.
Given that marketing is what makes our world go round, we may
be so inured by our culture that we don't even stop to wonder if
marketing ought or ought-not be a part of what we do in the name of
Jesus. We go on biggering programs because we believe it's what
everyone needs. In actuality, evidence suggests that people
jaded by institutionalism and tired of religio-judgmental attitudes
don't seem any longer to be attracted to our buildings or programs.
Maybe for far too long they've breathed in a cultural smog - one that
we had part in creating. Nevetheless, and this is good,
nevertheless, there is a growing openness within our culture to
spirituality. Christians concerned about personally responding
to the great commission may want to consider how to be salt and light
for people long since jaded by the org. Maybe we could re-think
our perspectives on what everyone needs, focus less on biggering and
concentrate more on deepening.
Incarnation
Churchgoing people don't really always
"get" what I do as a professional counselor. If
people knew what I hear and often how I handle it, many would
question my faith or at least my witness. I use curse words. I
was chided recently that to do so is "unChristian" and very
possibly a stumbling block to weak believers or non believers.
(I like to think of them as pre-believers.) The scolding
was a valid reminder to be sensitive to what may beckon people to
Jesus; that the life I lead and choices I make must as much as
possible be an open invitation into a friendship with God. My
behavior had better serve His purposes. Nonetheless, the
blanket proscription against profanity and the accompanying
contextual prohibition against drinking of alcohol left me feeling
not convicted, but judged as inferior.
Like those who seek faith, those who
seek counseling are looking for freedom. Or healing. Or hope.
More often than not their stories are rife with stomach-turning
atrocities most aptly labeled "damned." What speaks
to Jesus' leading in my practice is my willingness to descend
with them into the narrative as one who will face the horrors
alongside them. What is healing to most is that I mirror their
emotions and language rather than judge them for being in the pit.
They realize that they can ascend out of the pit for having an ally
to share at least part of the burden. They appreciate my
ability to "get into it" with them rather than merely
advising on moralistic codes of behavior. Healing and
transformation come about because of the incarnational nature of
counseling. It is the same way with Christian fellowship.
People are not drawn to Jesus through our prohibitions but rather
through our vulnerabilities.
Peacemaking?
I have been called an agitator.
As such, I'm not much of a stand-out candidate for positions in
typical women's ministries. I understand that when my name has
been mentioned, in a handful of circles, that there has
been some adverse reaction. I don't know. Maybe Jesus'
design is for my rejection so that he can put me in those
situations more well-matched to his purpose for me. I have done
my best with God's help to resolve feelings of rejection and
loneliness that come with being me. Still, I grieve the missed
opportunity of relationship and intimacy that both I and the others
could have experienced had we all been courageous enough to confront
the discomfort and disagreement between us. Could God have used even
debate to bring transformation and freedom? It is especially
sad that the tendency to avoid what is slightly uncomfortable is the
same that leads to the total dissolution of many marriages.
Regarding intimacy, Ladies pay
attention: If you really want to experience closeness, don't
expect your relationship to be kept tidy and manageable. Seeking
safety/comfort/warmth over really knowing and "getting into the
dirt" with your man will stand in the way of real
intimacy. The last thing your marriage needs for its health is for
you to domesticate/tame your husband. He might be looking for
you to 'have his back' and get into the fight alongside him as his
ally, not his critic.
Romans 12:18
demands that Jesus' followers will live at peace with one another.
But real peace and pretense of peace are derived by
very different means. Pretense of peace is always only a
pretense. It confronts nothing. It avoids wrestling. It
dismisses a challenge. Real peace involves fighting the forces
and powers of evil. It confronts injustice, wrestles with difficult
questions and takes on a challenge with spiritual armor and
authority.
Confronting
culture and other norms - the invitation
Obviously, I'm not
in all ways a "girlie-girl." It's not that I go around
looking for trouble, but I don't necessarily mind a good fight.
That's part of my masculine side that a number of other "strong
women" can identify with. But it is something that is
too outside the norms of typical women's (or even men's?) ministry to
be assimilated with any amount of ease. What I have experienced
in varying degrees as a participant in more than one women's ministry
can be likened in a metaphorical sense, to castration. Too often,
participation within the organizational structure requires dedication
to the virtue of "nice" as evidenced by complete
truncation of anything that could make the ladies
uncomfortable.
No challenges.
No wrestling.
No confrontation or
other such "masculine" behavior.
Actually, the cult
of nice is not restricted to the church. Part of what I'm
trying to draw awareness to is that, to a great extent, 1.)American
organizational church structure and 2.) expressions of culture
within church are a mirror of the dominant culture, which also tends
to be dismissive of uncomfortable "not nice".
Recently, in a
year-end gathering of MOPs I heard several women, a number of whom
are in leadership, publicly say: "I really don't like women. .
." "Women's groups always scared me . ." "The
first time I attended this group, I tried to leave, because I'm more
of a tomboy . .."
Ironically, that same group of women has
jointly shared members' dismay that some of their husbands won't try
coming to church with them. Perhaps we are missing the
point: that some men have an aversion to church that in various respects reflects some women's reticence to join an all
girls' club. Just a thought.
Within this blog and accountability group, I'd like to examine cultural forces,
including consumerism and secular feminism (as opposed to Biblical feminism), that are effectively castrating
within society generally and within the church specifically. I
find it intriguing that there is a correlation
with decline in masculine church involvement and growing feminine
leadership in the church. As feminism has gained ground in our
culture it has established itself as a shaping force in church
culture, frequently in toxic and non-biblical ways. 40 years ago or
so, it was counter cultural to be a feminist, but today, it appears more
revolutionary to affirm the masculine.
Actually, we need to affirm
expression of both genders. We need to cease attempts, including
inadvertent, of annihilation or domination of one gender by the
other. We, the church, need to be about upholding the value of
masculine
and feminine in ways that are not contrived
organizational constructs. Maybe we should reconsider
ways to encourage positive faith expressions of both genders without
institutional proscriptions?
Consider this an invitation to the discussion - and maybe to
the debate, if you dare.
God saw all that he had made. It was good. But it was not good for man to be alone. And creation isn't finished until Jesus and the church become one, "that they may be one as I and the Father are one."