Get E-Mail Updates

God's Politics Blog

Patriarchy in the Church and its Effects

by Sara VanScoy 06-30-2010 | 1:00pm
Print
283 Comments | Login or Register to post comments

In this month's issue of Sojourners, Anne Eggebroten's article "The Persistence of Patriarchy" takes on the new generation of male headship theology. Below, one of the women quoted in the article shares more of her first-hand experience of how that theology is harming women's lives.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

I have both an MD (psychiatrist) and master's degree in divinity; I grew up in a Southern Baptist church in Jonesboro, Arkansas. My congregation likes to think of itself as moderate -- and I guess that we are, in Baptist circles. But we don't ordain women, we don't have women deacons, and we will never call a woman "pastor." What we do have is women who do most of the grunt work, and women who teach and lead children and youth and a few adult Sunday school classes.

The prophet Joel said that when the Spirit comes, sons and daughters would prophesy (that is, preach). Peter proclaimed the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, once and for all abolishing any ordering with regard to gender. But I really think it starts much earlier -- Genesis records that God created men and women equally in God's trinitarian image. Any sort of gender ordering is the result of fallen humanity. When churches regard women as second-class citizens, they are espousing an ideology that is less than God's ideal!

Now for the psychology. As a board-certified psychiatrist, I have to say that there has been more harm done to women -- young women in particular -- in the name of "biblical manhood and womanhood" than anyone can possibly imagine. Clinically, I see time and time again that women stay in abusive marriages because "the church" says they must -- women who are little more than slaves for the men in their lives. And the daughters these couples raise fail to realize their God-given potential, all because a certain thing is "man's work" and others are "woman's work."

Has anyone who actually follows Mark Driscoll (or John Piper, or anyone else of their ilk) actually read his writing? These same people who cling to a literal interpretation of the pastoral epistles fail to use that same hermeneutic when reading Matthew 25 (whatever we do for the least of these), John 4 (the Samaritan woman at the well's encounter with Jesus and her subsequent evangelization of an entire village), or the prophet Joel and the apostle Peter (which tell us sons and daughters will prophesy). Why is it that only certain portions of Scripture are interpreted literally?

My dad was an enlightened man for his era; he raised me to believe that I could do anything or be anything I wanted if I worked hard enough to do it. Every young girl needs a dad like that. I am the mom of three amazing sons -- I truly hope each of them, in contrast to Driscoll's followers, and following the example of their dad, has enough respect for himself to marry a strong woman. Their dating habits suggest this will be true, and my husband and I are both very pleased.

Sara VanScoy, MD, MDiv, is a psychiatrist in Jonesboro, Arkansas. In this month's issue of Sojourners, Anne Eggebroten's article "The Persistence of Patriarchy" takes on the new generation of male headship theology.

283 Comments | Login or Register to post comments
Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: Patricia

07-03-2010 @ 4:11am

Actually, in the beginning of Ecclesia women had active leadership roles, so it was the males who removed them and have denied them since who got it all wrong. Jesus wasn't the ignorant one - it's the majority of his male followers who don't know what they're doing.

Not that many of them will admit it, mind you - it's kind of like asking for directions - they simply refuse to admit that they're lost, and, voila - problem solved :)!

God knows what God's doing, all right - a lot of men are just having a real hard time accepting it.

by: BlueDeacon

07-03-2010 @ 3:55am

It's not the lack of female leadership in and of itself. It's the lack of opportunity for women to take leadership positions solely because of their gender; they are specifically barred ONLY because of gender -- that is discrimination.

I ask again: What will be the consequences? Having seen them up-close and personal I can tell you what they probably will be, but instead people focus on only the issue of "power." That's a bad way of looking at it and, when it comes to spiritual matters, ultimately a fatal one.

At least I would read them with an open mind. As I recall (from an earlier thread), you don't even read citations given by those with whom you disagree; you just dismiss them without bothering to read them.

Oh, I usually do; however, I can tell within two or three sentences whether it would be worth my while to continue, as it takes only that long to determine just how one-sided those arguments are -- in other words, there's no new information that would contradict my argument. And concerning my other assertions, I've read them in so many places from numerous perspectives that it's almost common knowledge.

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 4:37pm

the passage i note in Ephesians begins with an exhortation to both husbands and wives to submit to one another out of reverence for the Lord... it's a mutual deal

True, but it has to be placed in context. When Paul told wives to submit to their husband, Roman law required them to do so; however, the early church operated under a culture of subversion of the law, essentially to turn it on its head to demonstrate just how far it deviated from the concept of justice.

Anyway, it's still my contention that, even in these post-feminist days, women primarily desire a man they can truly look up to. Of late I've done a lot of social dancing, and because I apparently do it pretty well a number of women enjoy doing that with me. But here's the thing: The roles are strictly defined and I as the male have the primary responsibility for their proper execution. This is also how I look at things in the church.

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 6:22pm

In fact, I believe that you are stealing something very valuable from the women of your church by not letting them share that burden. Responsibility for a thing gives you a stake in it that you do not have as a mere spectator.

In our case, the results speak for themselves. In the final analysis it still takes men to reach other men, who are the minority in most churches anyway for a number of reasons.

As for your beliefs that women want a man to look up to, only appreciate a bad boy or can't respect someone they don't find attractive: this is the same kind of sexism that let men rationalize denying women the vote, owning property and prosecuting their abusers and rapists.

I don't see the connection because those are complete injustices (and even crimes). What I'm saying is that even "egalitarian" women look up to strong men and overlook weak men, and if they're totally honest the women themselves will tell you the same. (Full disclosure: I didn't always believe this and originally considered it sexist.)

by: LadyJess78

07-01-2010 @ 5:43pm

I was once told, by a new pastor to our church, that women were prohibited from teaching in any way in church. I tried to open a discussion with him, but his heart was set. He truly believed that women should be silenced inside the walls of the church. I have since moved on to a new church, where I am "allowed" to serve as Sunday School Teacher and VBS Director. I am "allowed" to stand up at the front of the church every night of vacation Bible school and am "allowed" to teach children and adults in Sunday School and Bible Study as well as adults in Bible study. I serve on committees and come to church wide work days. I cook, clean and build for the church.

What I understand from your last comment, Blue Deacon, is that you believe yourself to be responsible for the success or failure of the church. What I don't think you understand is that so do I. When the children, not just mine but any I have taught, misbehave in church, I feel responsible. When the church is not as clean as it should be, when the decorations are old, when there is work to be done and none there to do it, I feel responsible. I bear the weight of that responsibility gladly and happily. I regard it as my duty as a member of the church community and God's kingdom.

Just because some men are willing to take on this responsibility so that the women won't have to worry their pretty little heads about it, does not lesson the load for women.

In fact, I believe that you are stealing something very valuable from the women of your church by not letting them share that burden. Responsibility for a thing gives you a stake in it that you do not have as a mere spectator.

As for your beliefs that women want a man to look up to, only appreciate a bad boy or can't respect someone they don't find attractive: this is the same kind of sexism that let men rationalize denying women the vote, owning property and prosecuting their abusers and rapists. I can't speak to your personal experiences, but I can speak to mine. What I cannot respect and will never idly accept is a man who believes that I should "look up" to him just because he is a man.

by: BBush

07-04-2010 @ 2:41pm

Reply To Patricia: I apologize. I somehow overlooked your response, otherwise I ould have responded much earlier. :)

I understand your concern about arcane terminology w/o context or explanation. But isn't that part of the reason for this forum, to give context to our terms. to explain ourselves, to help others to understand what we are saying? Isn't that the reason for questions, to bring out further elucidation?

I also understand about self defining. Please help me to understand if I'm taking you wrong, but I thought you were anything but conservative. How or why would you adopt and attitude and action such as self definition of terms, especially from conservatives?

As I said, I believe I understand the reasons for self definitions, but why, may I ask, would you depend upon your own understanding of a term or idea when the Holy Spirit is there for such a pursuit?

And why would you depend upon your own understanding when it comes to such and important task as rightly dividing the Word of God?

Generically? Did Jesus or the writers of Scripture use the term in that way. Or are there specifics that apply to all? Or is there such a thing as an Ecclesia that is not the Body of Christ? And where does Historical reality stand in relation to your understanding of this or any other issue?

You know, there are some who would consider your self definitions to be arcane, superior and available only to insiders, even if that insider is just you.:):)

by: WaveTossed

07-01-2010 @ 6:57pm

It's very interesting and quite ironic. I was gone for 2 weeks, participating in the 46th Memorial Service for Mississippi Civil Rights Martyrs (which I've attended for several years). I was in Mississippi, participating as a member of CORE (Congress Of Racial Equality) in voter registration and other actions against racial segregation.

I remember very well: Racial segregationists used the Bible to try and "prove" that there were "inherent" differences between Whites and Blacks. Segregation practices were based on this supposed "inherent" set of differences that they believed were present in Scripture. They also believed in social/anthropological theories about "inherent" biological and sociological differences between races, particularly Whites and Blacks. The entire segregationist creed is based upon religious and social assumptions of "inherent" racial differences. The segregationist creed is based upon "complementary" beliefs that Blacks and Whites have different roles that "complement" each other and thus must remain separate.

Fast-forward to the present time. There are still some people who believe in these inherent biological and socialogical differences between Blacks and Whites. Segregationist theory still lives, even though it has been mostly put into the background. However, now we have a different sort of "complementary" theology/sociology. This sort of theology/sociology is based upon gender rather than upon race. Segregationist "complementary" theory based upon gender posits that men and women are "inherently" different, not just in biological terms, but in sociological/religious terms as well.

I used to wonder where the opposition to same-gender relationships came from. I couldn't understand what I saw as a "body-parts" sort of theology/sociology came from. However, reading some material about "complementary theology," I realized that opposition to intimate same-gender relationships comes from beliefs that states that women and men are inherently different, not just in the body but in mind and spirit -- that they are supposed to "complement" each other. Just as in earlier decades, there were beliefs that Blacks and Whites were supposed to "complement" each other i.e. the White is supposed to be the boss and the Black is supposed to be the servant. So the belief came about that Blacks and Whites having intimate relationships with each other would upset these "complementary" roles between the races.

And from long, involved conversations with people here on God's Politics (as well as in other places), I found that those who believe in racial or gender complementary beliefs just don't see their beliefs as being prejudiced or oppressive. If you confront their beliefs, stating a different sociology/theology that we are essentially human, based upon individual characteristics -- rather than broad categories based upon race or gender -- those who believe in complentarianism will emphatically deny that they are prejudiced or oppressive.

Not only as a human rights activist, but as a libertarian-leaning person, and also a Christian who believes in spiritual values rather than values based upon physical characteristics: I believe in differences based on individual human characteristics rather than any sort of broad-based complementarian system based upon race or gender. Which is why I find that racism or sexism -- assigning religious or sociological traits based upon physical race and/or physical gender -- is not a part of my Christian belief system. And also that it's not part of any Scripture that I know.

by: BBush

07-03-2010 @ 3:19pm

Reply to Patricia:

When you say "the beginning of the Ecclesia", I presume you are referring to the beginning of the Ecclesia supposedly founded by Christ. If my presumption is wrong, please let me know because my response is based on that.:)

The only problem with that beginning is that the Ecclesia began several hundred years before Christ. It was inherited by the Romans and was a part of the Roman legal system at the time of Christ. Christ didn't change anything about it. It remained the same. While women were allowed to be a member of the Ecclesia, only Males at least 20 years old were to exercise official leadership. The New Testament in Acts even refers back to the OT government system as being an Ecclesia.

The active leadership roles you refer to are presumptively the deaconnesses. It must be remembered that deacons of the 1st century church were not the official purveyors of power that they are today. They were simply servants carrying out the practical ministry commands from the leadership of the Ecclesia. As revealed in Acts when the first Deacons were chosen, these were ministry needs that the Ecclesia officials didn't have time to perform because their ministry concerns lay in different areas.

If you are also referring to different actions of females, teaching and preaching, the Scriptural examples lie outside the official meetings of the Ecclesia. And outside the Official meetings where all official concerns were addressed before the body, women were definitely allowed to minister their gifts, even preaching and teaching.

I agree that God's knows what He's doing! But to only include males as having problems with accepting His work is a bit presumptious, don't you think?:)

by: WaveTossed

07-06-2010 @ 9:47pm

Nicola wrote: "I would just like to note that the writer of the article broke the code of conduct badly. If we are going to heal some of the breach between the Complimentarian people and the egalitarian folks we are going to have to stop just infuriating our base."

I don't believe that Sara was intending to infuriate anyone. She simply expressed a view with which you disagree. It's too bad when some people become infuriated because someone expresses a view different from their own.

by: BBush

07-04-2010 @ 2:41pm

Reply To Patricia: I apologize. I somehow overlooked your response, otherwise I ould have responded much earlier. :)

I understand your concern about arcane terminology w/o context or explanation. But isn't that part of the reason for this forum, to give context to our terms. to explain ourselves, to help others to understand what we are saying? Isn't that the reason for questions, to bring out further elucidation?

I also understand about self defining. Please help me to understand if I'm taking you wrong, but I thought you were anything but conservative. How or why would you adopt and attitude and action such as self definition of terms, especially from conservatives?

As I said, I believe I understand the reasons for self definitions, but why, may I ask, would you depend upon your own understanding of a term or idea when the Holy Spirit is there for such a pursuit?

And why would you depend upon your own understanding when it comes to such and important task as rightly dividing the Word of God?

Generically? Did Jesus or the writers of Scripture use the term in that way. Or are there specifics that apply to all? Or is there such a thing as an Ecclesia that is not the Body of Christ? And where does Historical reality stand in relation to your understanding of this or any other issue?

You know, there are some who would consider your self definitions to be arcane, superior and available only to insiders, even if that insider is just you.:):)

by: Nicola Gibson

07-06-2010 @ 9:39pm

I would just like to note that the writer of the article broke the comment code of conduct badly. If we are going to heal some of the breach between the Complimentarian people and the egalitarian folks we are going to have to stop just infuriating our base. This article seems to be designed to shame people into becoming egalitarian. Best case scenario it would be the right thing for the wrong reason, and to use the kind of brutality you say in the article you hate on the people you are trying to win.

In my view this is a bad bad article. Extremely dismissive regarding theology/hermeneutics and very little attempt to humanize your opponents. If you would say you tried, I'd respond, "Try harder"- you may need to get to know some articulate complimentairians as close friends before you'll be able to do this.

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 2:23pm

Sara, your dad taught you you could do anything you want. Now I hope you will challenge your Baptist church in Jonesboro, and became a deacon there, or--gasp--pastor. You do have an MDIV!

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 8:25pm

And you know this "universally true" truth in what way? Can you cite a source, or is this just your generalizing?

I've read that in so many books and magazines and seen it on TV shows from all perspectives that I can't even remember them now.

by: WaveTossed

07-03-2010 @ 4:40pm

Reply feature not working...

BBush wrote: "I agree that God's knows what He's doing! But to only include males as having problems with accepting His work is a bit presumptious, don't you think?:)"

Actually God never included only males in His leadership. The decisions to include only males in leadership was humankind's doing, not God's doing. The fact that there have been many Christian churches with female leadership through the ages into the present day (including my own) shows that God is pleased with having males and females in leadership positions.

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 2:23pm

Sara, your dad taught you you could do anything you want. Now I hope you will challenge your Baptist church in Jonesboro, and became a deacon there, or--gasp--pastor. You do have an MDIV!

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 8:25pm

And you know this "universally true" truth in what way? Can you cite a source, or is this just your generalizing?

I've read that in so many books and magazines and seen it on TV shows from all perspectives that I can't even remember them now.

by: WaveTossed

07-03-2010 @ 4:35pm

Once more, reply feature isn't working...

Blue Deacon wrote: "I ask again: What will be the consequences? Having seen them up-close and personal I can tell you what they probably will be,"

I've seen the consequences of discrimination based upon gender close-up and I've seen the damage that this has done.

"'[WT]At least I would read [your citations] with an open mind. As I recall (from an earlier thread), you don't even read citations given by those with whom you disagree; you just dismiss them without bothering to read them.'

"[BD]Oh, I usually do; however, I can tell within two or three sentences whether it would be worth my while to continue, as it takes only that long to determine just how one-sided those arguments are -- in other words, there's no new information that would contradict my argument."

The signs of a closed mind -- you've made up your mind and your mind isn't open to discussion; it's only open to repeating your views over and over again.

"And concerning my other assertions, I've read them in so many places from numerous perspectives that it's almost common knowledge."

Really? I've read assertions the opposite of yours in so many places from numerous perspectives that it's almost common knowledge.

I'm afraid that continuing this conversation is useless. It's clear that -- from your own statements of only reading 2-3 sentences of any views different from yours -- that your mind is closed and made up. And I cannot have dialog with a closed mind.

Have a blessed Independence Day.

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 8:23pm

If it is okay to exclude women in church because they will only allow attractive men to participate, then it is okay to exclude them from voting because they will only vote for the most attractive candidate.

Apples and oranges. The key is to get everyone to contribute as much as possible -- which means those who have been pushed out as "undesirable." As much as people like to talk about "patriarchy," in reality the church has done more for women than any other organization in history until the last century or so.

I'm curious about this. I have noticed for years, even in my patriarchal church, that men are in the vast minority. It begs a couple of questions, though. How do we know that men are only reached by men? Since this decline in men in the church has taken place while men are still "in charge" of the church. Insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. How is keeping the current course going to increase the number of men in the pews?

I didn't exactly say "stay the course"; however, in your case I'd say that the leadership of your church needs to examine itself because it's obviously not doing something it should be (and if they're unresponsive it shouldn't be there in the first place). I mean, does it have a vested interest in reaching anyone, and what kind of strategies does it have to do so? (Keep in mind that I have a Protestant/evangelical bias.)

But this, at least to me, misses the point -- from people on this thread I keep hearing the word "power," with the unstated question "Why can't they give some of it up?" See, that's the issue that irritates me above all else, in no small part because it's part of the world's way of thinking, and we're supposed to be different from the world.

Why is it assumed that women can be reached, can be comforted, can be ministered to, can be taught by anyone, but a man can only be taught by a man.

One way in which we men are different from women is that we need to be challenged, which is why almost all of us are or have been involved with sports (and why PK rallies take place in stadiums or hockey halls). On the men's retreats my church used to have there was always some kind of sport being played, whether football, basketball (my senior pastor tore his Achilles during a game) or volleyball, during off-hours. On top of that, there's always a specific agenda involved.

As I said before, men tend to be task-oriented and need some specific duty to perform. The trouble is that for decades popular culture has told men, "Why can't you be more like women?", and nowhere has that been stronger than in the church. (Do you have plants in your sanctuary? Where do you think that came from?)

by: retiredpreacher

07-01-2010 @ 7:23pm

For just a little while this morning my reply opdtion worked, but no more--blankety blank disqus
In reply to Blue Deacon: ". . . and if they're totally honest women will tell you the same . . ." Blue, that is an extremely presumptive and offensive statement. You are arrogating to yourself the right to judge whether women are being honest or not.

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 8:23pm

If it is okay to exclude women in church because they will only allow attractive men to participate, then it is okay to exclude them from voting because they will only vote for the most attractive candidate.

Apples and oranges. The key is to get everyone to contribute as much as possible -- which means those who have been pushed out as "undesirable." As much as people like to talk about "patriarchy," in reality the church has done more for women than any other organization in history until the last century or so.

I'm curious about this. I have noticed for years, even in my patriarchal church, that men are in the vast minority. It begs a couple of questions, though. How do we know that men are only reached by men? Since this decline in men in the church has taken place while men are still "in charge" of the church. Insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. How is keeping the current course going to increase the number of men in the pews?

I didn't exactly say "stay the course"; however, in your case I'd say that the leadership of your church needs to examine itself because it's obviously not doing something it should be (and if they're unresponsive it shouldn't be there in the first place). I mean, does it have a vested interest in reaching anyone, and what kind of strategies does it have to do so? (Keep in mind that I have a Protestant/evangelical bias.)

But this, at least to me, misses the point -- from people on this thread I keep hearing the word "power," with the unstated question "Why can't they give some of it up?" See, that's the issue that irritates me above all else, in no small part because it's part of the world's way of thinking, and we're supposed to be different from the world.

Why is it assumed that women can be reached, can be comforted, can be ministered to, can be taught by anyone, but a man can only be taught by a man.

One way in which we men are different from women is that we need to be challenged, which is why almost all of us are or have been involved with sports (and why PK rallies take place in stadiums or hockey halls). On the men's retreats my church used to have there was always some kind of sport being played, whether football, basketball (my senior pastor tore his Achilles during a game) or volleyball, during off-hours. On top of that, there's always a specific agenda involved.

As I said before, men tend to be task-oriented and need some specific duty to perform. The trouble is that for decades popular culture has told men, "Why can't you be more like women?", and nowhere has that been stronger than in the church. (Do you have plants in your sanctuary? Where do you think that came from?)

by: squeaky

07-01-2010 @ 7:56pm

AAAAAA-Men!!

Or, in context of this blog post:

AAAAAA-WOmen!

by: squeaky

07-01-2010 @ 7:56pm

AAAAAA-Men!!

Or, in context of this blog post:

AAAAAA-WOmen!

by: outragex

07-07-2010 @ 6:46pm

I have two daughters whom I pray will choose Christianity throughout their lives. I am so thankful that in our church my kids have seen amazing women in every form of leadership working alongside amazing men in similar roles. Our church would be diminisheed if women and girls did not have the full ability to exercise their gifts and potential (ditto for men and boys). We proudly attend a mainline church with many friends who come from diverse denominational, political, and theological backgrounds.

I believe the "headship Christians" are confusing a traditional cultural idea (women as secondary to men) with correct theology (all are equally loved and therefore gifted by God.

It is pretty common for us Christians to assume our cultural standards are also God's standards. The Bible (OT and NT) seems to endorse many culutral practices that we no longer accept: slavery, multiple wives, hair-style/makeup/jewelry for women, absitnence from sex during menstruation, men marrying widowed sisters-in-law, etc.

When I was a child growing up in the Bible Belt the conservative Christians told us many cultural trends were unChristian: desegregation, long hair on boys, facial hair, short skirts on women, two peice bathing suits, coed swimming pools, rock and roll (esp. in a church service!), card playing, opposition to the Vietnam war, moderate alcohol use, dancing, etc. Today would anyone seriously argue that a man with a goatee can't be a good Christian?

by: WaveTossed

07-01-2010 @ 7:53pm

The "reply" feature isn't working. So I'll reply here to Blue Deacon:

Blue Deacon wrote: "It's still universally true that women still gravitate toward men who are "above them" regardless of how much "equality" supposedly exists,"

And you know this "universally true" truth in what way? Can you cite a source, or is this just your generalizing?

by: outragex

07-07-2010 @ 6:46pm

I have two daughters whom I pray will choose Christianity throughout their lives. I am so thankful that in our church my kids have seen amazing women in every form of leadership working alongside amazing men in similar roles. Our church would be diminisheed if women and girls did not have the full ability to exercise their gifts and potential (ditto for men and boys). We proudly attend a mainline church with many friends who come from diverse denominational, political, and theological backgrounds.

I believe the "headship Christians" are confusing a traditional cultural idea (women as secondary to men) with correct theology (all are equally loved and therefore gifted by God.

It is pretty common for us Christians to assume our cultural standards are also God's standards. The Bible (OT and NT) seems to endorse many culutral practices that we no longer accept: slavery, multiple wives, hair-style/makeup/jewelry for women, absitnence from sex during menstruation, men marrying widowed sisters-in-law, etc.

When I was a child growing up in the Bible Belt the conservative Christians told us many cultural trends were unChristian: desegregation, long hair on boys, facial hair, short skirts on women, two peice bathing suits, coed swimming pools, rock and roll (esp. in a church service!), card playing, opposition to the Vietnam war, moderate alcohol use, dancing, etc. Today would anyone seriously argue that a man with a goatee can't be a good Christian?

by: WaveTossed

07-01-2010 @ 7:53pm

The "reply" feature isn't working. So I'll reply here to Blue Deacon:

Blue Deacon wrote: "It's still universally true that women still gravitate toward men who are "above them" regardless of how much "equality" supposedly exists,"

And you know this "universally true" truth in what way? Can you cite a source, or is this just your generalizing?

by: histrogeek

06-30-2010 @ 2:55pm

Bravo Sara!
I pray for the day when men can stop worrying about women in leadership. At the moment though, I am waiting for the defenders of patriarchy to come thumping their proof texts at us as they have in the last two gender-inclusive essays.

by: LadyJess78

07-01-2010 @ 7:40pm

There is an always has been a strong connection between the "complete injustices" I mentioned and the smaller injustices we are talking about. And that is philosophy. If it is okay to exclude women in church because they will only allow attractive men to participate, then it is okay to exclude them from voting because they will only vote for the most attractive candidate. If we can assume that women can't handle the responsibility of the church, then we can assume they can't handle the responsibility of ownership. And if we assume that women are somehow less that they need to look up to men, then we can assume that they are property and that rape and abuse are therefore myths. Not all will make these leaps, but many will.

"In the final analysis it still takes men to reach other men, who are the minority in most churches anyway for a number of reasons."

I'm curious about this. I have noticed for years, even in my patriarchal church, that men are in the vast minority. It begs a couple of questions, though. How do we know that men are only reached by men? Since this decline in men in the church has taken place while men are still "in charge" of the church. Insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. How is keeping the current course going to increase the number of men in the pews?

Secondly, if men can only be reached by men, can we assume that women can only be reached by women? If this is true, then aren't we damning all the women who we insist cannot be reached by a woman pastor? Why is it assumed that women can be reached, can be comforted, can be ministered to, can be taught by anyone, but a man can only be taught by a man. I have seen no evidence to support that assumption. And in fact, it is an assumption only present in the church, since the majority of teachers, social workers and therapists are women.

by: histrogeek

06-30-2010 @ 2:55pm

Bravo Sara!
I pray for the day when men can stop worrying about women in leadership. At the moment though, I am waiting for the defenders of patriarchy to come thumping their proof texts at us as they have in the last two gender-inclusive essays.

by: LadyJess78

07-01-2010 @ 7:40pm

There is an always has been a strong connection between the "complete injustices" I mentioned and the smaller injustices we are talking about. And that is philosophy. If it is okay to exclude women in church because they will only allow attractive men to participate, then it is okay to exclude them from voting because they will only vote for the most attractive candidate. If we can assume that women can't handle the responsibility of the church, then we can assume they can't handle the responsibility of ownership. And if we assume that women are somehow less that they need to look up to men, then we can assume that they are property and that rape and abuse are therefore myths. Not all will make these leaps, but many will.

"In the final analysis it still takes men to reach other men, who are the minority in most churches anyway for a number of reasons."

I'm curious about this. I have noticed for years, even in my patriarchal church, that men are in the vast minority. It begs a couple of questions, though. How do we know that men are only reached by men? Since this decline in men in the church has taken place while men are still "in charge" of the church. Insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. How is keeping the current course going to increase the number of men in the pews?

Secondly, if men can only be reached by men, can we assume that women can only be reached by women? If this is true, then aren't we damning all the women who we insist cannot be reached by a woman pastor? Why is it assumed that women can be reached, can be comforted, can be ministered to, can be taught by anyone, but a man can only be taught by a man. I have seen no evidence to support that assumption. And in fact, it is an assumption only present in the church, since the majority of teachers, social workers and therapists are women.

by: LadyJess78

06-30-2010 @ 2:53pm

I, too, am a Southern Baptist woman and am amazed at the disconnect between the great influence our women have on the church (planners, workers, teachers, VBS coordinators, etc.) and what they are "allowed" to do. And I, too, have seen the horrors of what this kind of theology does to women in bad marriages. I have also witnessed little girls doubt their own strength, gifts and abilities because they are "only girls."

Thank you for speaking out.

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 7:37pm

". . . and if they're totally honest women will tell you the same . . ." Blue, that is an extremely presumptive and offensive statement. You are arrogating to yourself the right to judge whether women are being honest or not.

Sorry, but I've heard it too many times from multiple sources to discount it.

by: LadyJess78

06-30-2010 @ 2:53pm

I, too, am a Southern Baptist woman and am amazed at the disconnect between the great influence our women have on the church (planners, workers, teachers, VBS coordinators, etc.) and what they are "allowed" to do. And I, too, have seen the horrors of what this kind of theology does to women in bad marriages. I have also witnessed little girls doubt their own strength, gifts and abilities because they are "only girls."

Thank you for speaking out.

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 7:37pm

". . . and if they're totally honest women will tell you the same . . ." Blue, that is an extremely presumptive and offensive statement. You are arrogating to yourself the right to judge whether women are being honest or not.

Sorry, but I've heard it too many times from multiple sources to discount it.

by: Patricia

07-04-2010 @ 6:14pm

You're making a lot of assumptions about me...like assuming that I depend upon my own understanding INSTEAD of the Holy Spirit. And assuming that I do not seek understanding of the Word of God through prayer and study. You got all that out of one comment? You are mistaken in your assumptions.

Which of my self definitions are you talking about? Give me an example of a word that I have used that a regular person would not understand - a word that compares with "ecclesia" - a word that's outside common understanding, use, or meaning that I have just tossed out without providing context and definition for.

I am a writer. I communicate through the "written" word. I have a lot of flaws, but I make darn sure my words are understandable and understood. THAT is the crux of my response to you - your use of terminology - "ecclesia" - without context or definition.

You say you believe the purpose of this forum is to give definition and context to terminology, but you did not provide any context to your terminology. You did not explain yourself. You did not enlighten anyone.

My comment about self defining was an admittedly snarky response to the use of what I considered jargon - it's a pet peeve of mine. And I assumed that my conservative friends here would point out to me that I was making up my own definition, and have a problem with me doing that, so I was merely pointing out to them in advance that they self define, unencumbered by the truth or the commonly understood meaning all the time. "Socialism" is one of their prime examples.

I apologize for the snark. I should have just turned the other cheek instead of trying to return to the gander a little of what he normally believes is good for the goose.

by: BlueDeacon

07-03-2010 @ 5:25pm

I've seen the consequences of discrimination based upon gender close-up and I've seen the damage that this has done.

You're still dodging my question -- were women to gain positions of leadership, what would be the ramifications? Based on what I've seen already, I have an idea.

The signs of a closed mind -- you've made up your mind and your mind isn't open to discussion; it's only open to repeating your views over and over again.

I'm in the field of media, which means I do a lot of reading -- including a lot of stuff that's so predictable and clearly biased that some things are not worth the effort to continue. In other words, I've heard all this before and am not at all impressed.

I've read assertions the opposite of yours in so many places from numerous perspectives that it's almost common knowledge.

They're in denial.

by: Patricia

07-04-2010 @ 6:14pm

You're making a lot of assumptions about me...like assuming that I depend upon my own understanding INSTEAD of the Holy Spirit. And assuming that I do not seek understanding of the Word of God through prayer and study. You got all that out of one comment? You are mistaken in your assumptions.

Which of my self definitions are you talking about? Give me an example of a word that I have used that a regular person would not understand - a word that compares with "ecclesia" - a word that's outside common understanding, use, or meaning that I have just tossed out without providing context and definition for.

I am a writer. I communicate through the "written" word. I have a lot of flaws, but I make darn sure my words are understandable and understood. THAT is the crux of my response to you - your use of terminology - "ecclesia" - without context or definition.

You say you believe the purpose of this forum is to give definition and context to terminology, but you did not provide any context to your terminology. You did not explain yourself. You did not enlighten anyone.

My comment about self defining was an admittedly snarky response to the use of what I considered jargon - it's a pet peeve of mine. And I assumed that my conservative friends here would point out to me that I was making up my own definition, and have a problem with me doing that, so I was merely pointing out to them in advance that they self define, unencumbered by the truth or the commonly understood meaning all the time. "Socialism" is one of their prime examples.

I apologize for the snark. I should have just turned the other cheek instead of trying to return to the gander a little of what he normally believes is good for the goose.

by: Patricia

07-03-2010 @ 4:46pm

"I agree that God's knows what He's doing! But to only include males as having problems with accepting His work is a bit presumptious, don't you think?:)"

On this issue, no, I don't.

by: BBush

07-03-2010 @ 7:44pm

Patricia..........take it easy on BD! A man digging as you say he is has got to take a rest after awhile. Maybe then he will listen.

Maybe what he needs is not perspective, but Truth. I believe BD is serious enough to give Truth the proper attention and scrutiny it deserves. The less rhetoric, the better.

And that goes for all of us! :)

by: Patricia

07-03-2010 @ 7:21pm

BlueDeacon, you were absolutely correct in your very first comment here. Some of us...I would say a LOT of us, ARE, in fact, sick of hearing from you on this.

The more of your comments I read, the more I am convinced that you are an arrogant, closed-minded sexist.

EVERYONE, and EVERYONE ELSE'S perspectives who contradict or differ from yours are in denial? That's more than an overreach - that's just blatant prideful arrogance, in my book.

I think it's time to put down that shovel and stop digging that hole you've gotten yourself into. Every spade-full you toss out here causes me to take you less and less seriously.

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 4:03pm

Some of you may be sick of hearing from me on this issue, but ...

I attend a large, increasingly-diverse evangelical church located in an inner-city neighborhood. It does more neighborhood outreach than most, spending much of its resources on the poor, even buying a nuisance bar last year to shut it down. We as a church do not get into the "culture wars." Two-thirds of the people who attend are involved in ministry. A woman whom my sister-in-law brought to Christ heads a support group for victims of domestic violence. My senior pastor would welcome Jim Wallis but not James Dobson into our pulpit.

And yet my church would be considered "patriarchal" because the denomination with which it is affiliated does not ordain women as pastors or select them elders (although women have preached occasionally). Furthermore, our church restricts ushering, taking the collection or serving communion during the service to men.

Now, many would see all that as "oppressive"; I doubt, however, that most of the women in the church feel that way. See, the focus in our church is on service and responsibility, not power -- and when the focus is right the church runs well.

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 4:03pm

Some of you may be sick of hearing from me on this issue, but ...

I attend a large, increasingly-diverse evangelical church located in an inner-city neighborhood. It does more neighborhood outreach than most, spending much of its resources on the poor, even buying a nuisance bar last year to shut it down. We as a church do not get into the "culture wars." Two-thirds of the people who attend are involved in ministry. A woman whom my sister-in-law brought to Christ heads a support group for victims of domestic violence. My senior pastor would welcome Jim Wallis but not James Dobson into our pulpit.

And yet my church would be considered "patriarchal" because the denomination with which it is affiliated does not ordain women as pastors or select them elders (although women have preached occasionally). Furthermore, our church restricts ushering, taking the collection or serving communion during the service to men.

Now, many would see all that as "oppressive"; I doubt, however, that most of the women in the church feel that way. See, the focus in our church is on service and responsibility, not power -- and when the focus is right the church runs well.

by: BBush

07-04-2010 @ 6:53pm

Patricia,

I humbly accept your apology, though I must admit, I wasn't offended in the least or even perturbed.

I thought I recognized your snarkiness, but I don't mind it a bit. In fact, I prefer to know that a person is alive by demonstrating certain characteristics. If one charactristic happens to be snarkiness, I should be mature enough to handle it. Though I must admit that I am perfectly capable of my own snarkiness!:)

Assumptions and presumptions are an interesting world. They breed confusion and tend to separate people if clarification is not sought. So, I have no problem answering your questions.

First of all, I didn't presume anything. You used the word phrase "self Definition". By common definition, that would mean that the definitions you use originate with yourself. And if they orignate with yourself, then outside sources, including the Holy Spirit are, at best, superfluous.

Buuuut, since the self definition term and comment were said in snarkiness, I understand.

So, terms are not always as common as one believes. We are not familiar with one another, so our understanding and definition of Ecclesia may have points in common, but are not necessarily the same.

As far as clarification, what is there about my earlier comment concerning the Ecclesia do you need me to clarify? I have no problem doing so. Just ask with specificity.:)

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 4:32pm

Blue Deacon: the confounded disqus reply still doesn't work for me.

I congratulate your church on its outreach and its ministries. But I'm sorry your denomination does not allow full participation by all. I think your successes are in spite of your denomination's gender policies, not because of them. I know all the arguments for gender restriction, and I'm sure you know all the arguments for gender inclusiveness, so arguing between us, and others on either side is pointless.

Shalom, brother

by: BBush

07-04-2010 @ 6:53pm

Patricia,

I humbly accept your apology, though I must admit, I wasn't offended in the least or even perturbed.

I thought I recognized your snarkiness, but I don't mind it a bit. In fact, I prefer to know that a person is alive by demonstrating certain characteristics. If one charactristic happens to be snarkiness, I should be mature enough to handle it. Though I must admit that I am perfectly capable of my own snarkiness!:)

Assumptions and presumptions are an interesting world. They breed confusion and tend to separate people if clarification is not sought. So, I have no problem answering your questions.

First of all, I didn't presume anything. You used the word phrase "self Definition". By common definition, that would mean that the definitions you use originate with yourself. And if they orignate with yourself, then outside sources, including the Holy Spirit are, at best, superfluous.

Buuuut, since the self definition term and comment were said in snarkiness, I understand.

So, terms are not always as common as one believes. We are not familiar with one another, so our understanding and definition of Ecclesia may have points in common, but are not necessarily the same.

As far as clarification, what is there about my earlier comment concerning the Ecclesia do you need me to clarify? I have no problem doing so. Just ask with specificity.:)

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 4:32pm

Blue Deacon: the confounded disqus reply still doesn't work for me.

I congratulate your church on its outreach and its ministries. But I'm sorry your denomination does not allow full participation by all. I think your successes are in spite of your denomination's gender policies, not because of them. I know all the arguments for gender restriction, and I'm sure you know all the arguments for gender inclusiveness, so arguing between us, and others on either side is pointless.

Shalom, brother

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 4:59pm

I'm just going to say this, Blue Deacon -

How fortunate that women in your church so sanguinely accept being nearly invisible in positions of service and responsibility in leadership and during your formal worship. No pastoring, no eldering, no ushering, no taking up the collection or serving communion - only preaching occasionally (only when invited by a male?). For the life of me, I cannot figure out what, particularly, in a woman's gender could possibly disqualify her from showing people where to sit or passing a collection basket among the pews during worship, or serving the bread and wine of communion. Is there some inherent inability to spot empty seats, or some inherent upper body weakness which makes it impossible for women to serve communion hosts and wine, or extend a collection basket handle, or some inherent urge to filch pennies that women supposedly posses that automatically prevent them from being fit for these areas of service and responsibility?

Thank goodness they are permitted to sit in the pews and contribute their resources during the collection! I also assume they are permitted to sing in the choir? Only visible, individual roles are apparently off-limits for women in leadership and formal worship in your church - how fortunate women members are!

Yes, I am being snarky.

Organizations nearly always "run well" when the second-class members keep their mouths shut and concentrate on the services and responsibilities "allowed" them by those who possess the power.

It's easy for men to tell women to concentrate on service and responsibility, not power, when men are the ones who always have had, and always will have, all the power.

I suspect if you spoke to most of the women in your church about this particular issue, you would find far fewer than you believe are satisfied with this arrangement.

I am committed to service and responsibility in my church, as are most women. I am absolutely opposed, however, to one group in my church (males) artificially limiting the avenues of service and responsibility for which I am considered "fit".

I know you understand the damage that forced second-class status inflicts in the areas of race and class - I have to say that I'm very surprised that when the issue turns to gender, you seem to have no understanding of the damage the patriarchal church's forcing second-class status upon women is inflicting, and seem to be telling women who are troubled or damaged by it to just change their focus. I don't think you'd say that to someone who is denied participation based on race or class, but that's what it sounds like you're saying to women denied participation in church because of gender. I don't understand how you can fight traditional role assignment based on race or class, and yet defend it in the church based on gender.

Sorry, that advice isn't going to work for me. My focus is just fine thanks - it's the focus of the male heirarchy that is in serious need of "righting", as far as I'm concerned.

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 4:59pm

I'm just going to say this, Blue Deacon -

How fortunate that women in your church so sanguinely accept being nearly invisible in positions of service and responsibility in leadership and during your formal worship. No pastoring, no eldering, no ushering, no taking up the collection or serving communion - only preaching occasionally (only when invited by a male?). For the life of me, I cannot figure out what, particularly, in a woman's gender could possibly disqualify her from showing people where to sit or passing a collection basket among the pews during worship, or serving the bread and wine of communion. Is there some inherent inability to spot empty seats, or some inherent upper body weakness which makes it impossible for women to serve communion hosts and wine, or extend a collection basket handle, or some inherent urge to filch pennies that women supposedly posses that automatically prevent them from being fit for these areas of service and responsibility?

Thank goodness they are permitted to sit in the pews and contribute their resources during the collection! I also assume they are permitted to sing in the choir? Only visible, individual roles are apparently off-limits for women in leadership and formal worship in your church - how fortunate women members are!

Yes, I am being snarky.

Organizations nearly always "run well" when the second-class members keep their mouths shut and concentrate on the services and responsibilities "allowed" them by those who possess the power.

It's easy for men to tell women to concentrate on service and responsibility, not power, when men are the ones who always have had, and always will have, all the power.

I suspect if you spoke to most of the women in your church about this particular issue, you would find far fewer than you believe are satisfied with this arrangement.

I am committed to service and responsibility in my church, as are most women. I am absolutely opposed, however, to one group in my church (males) artificially limiting the avenues of service and responsibility for which I am considered "fit".

I know you understand the damage that forced second-class status inflicts in the areas of race and class - I have to say that I'm very surprised that when the issue turns to gender, you seem to have no understanding of the damage the patriarchal church's forcing second-class status upon women is inflicting, and seem to be telling women who are troubled or damaged by it to just change their focus. I don't think you'd say that to someone who is denied participation based on race or class, but that's what it sounds like you're saying to women denied participation in church because of gender. I don't understand how you can fight traditional role assignment based on race or class, and yet defend it in the church based on gender.

Sorry, that advice isn't going to work for me. My focus is just fine thanks - it's the focus of the male heirarchy that is in serious need of "righting", as far as I'm concerned.

by: BlueDeacon

07-03-2010 @ 8:15pm

We'll see down the road who's really digging into a deeper and deeper hole here. I'm no sexist, but I -- and even many feminists I know -- understand that men and women are actually quite different, despite what you may want to believe; that's really the issue I'm addressing, not so much "power" in the church. And the question that I have still applies: If women were to get that power, what kind of change should we look forward to in the church, and whom will it benefit? Before I reconvert to a more egalitarian position the way you would like me to, those questions must be addressed and answered.

If you want to find an analogy, I got into it with a number of African-American student activists in the 1990s who honestly believed -- wrongly, as it turned out -- that having more power in the greater society would grant them more respect (in fact, their pursuit of such turned much of the rest of the campus against them). Indeed, part of the anti-black backlash that began in the 1970s was a direct result of militant rhetoric that often rejected MLK Jr.'s nonviolent approach.

My point: Folks have it backwards -- and that includes Jesus' disciples, who asked, "Which will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 6:00pm

I'm going to have to take the retiredpreacher route and just agree to disagree with you.

I understand your experience and desire to provide positive male role models. I don't believe your experience can be generalized to the church overall, and I don't accept your judgment regarding the consequences of egalitarian leadership, and I have a problem with the idea that holding women down is justified in order to lift men up, but I understand how your particular experience formed your view - as mine has mine.

Your "man" experience leads you to justify men reserving church leadership roles to men. My "woman" experience calls me to advocate for the end of church patriarchy and the establishment of the very egalitarian leadership you are opposed to. So, that's the end of that dialogue :).

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 2:23pm

Sara, your dad taught you you could do anything you want. Now I hope you will challenge your Baptist church in Jonesboro, and became a deacon there, or--gasp--pastor. You do have an MDIV!

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 2:23pm

Sara, your dad taught you you could do anything you want. Now I hope you will challenge your Baptist church in Jonesboro, and became a deacon there, or--gasp--pastor. You do have an MDIV!

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 2:23pm

Sara, your dad taught you you could do anything you want. Now I hope you will challenge your Baptist church in Jonesboro, and became a deacon there, or--gasp--pastor. You do have an MDIV!

by: LadyJess78

06-30-2010 @ 2:53pm

I, too, am a Southern Baptist woman and am amazed at the disconnect between the great influence our women have on the church (planners, workers, teachers, VBS coordinators, etc.) and what they are "allowed" to do. And I, too, have seen the horrors of what this kind of theology does to women in bad marriages. I have also witnessed little girls doubt their own strength, gifts and abilities because they are "only girls."

Thank you for speaking out.

by: LadyJess78

06-30-2010 @ 2:53pm

I, too, am a Southern Baptist woman and am amazed at the disconnect between the great influence our women have on the church (planners, workers, teachers, VBS coordinators, etc.) and what they are "allowed" to do. And I, too, have seen the horrors of what this kind of theology does to women in bad marriages. I have also witnessed little girls doubt their own strength, gifts and abilities because they are "only girls."

Thank you for speaking out.

by: LadyJess78

06-30-2010 @ 2:53pm

I, too, am a Southern Baptist woman and am amazed at the disconnect between the great influence our women have on the church (planners, workers, teachers, VBS coordinators, etc.) and what they are "allowed" to do. And I, too, have seen the horrors of what this kind of theology does to women in bad marriages. I have also witnessed little girls doubt their own strength, gifts and abilities because they are "only girls."

Thank you for speaking out.

by: histrogeek

06-30-2010 @ 2:55pm

Bravo Sara!
I pray for the day when men can stop worrying about women in leadership. At the moment though, I am waiting for the defenders of patriarchy to come thumping their proof texts at us as they have in the last two gender-inclusive essays.

by: histrogeek

06-30-2010 @ 2:55pm

Bravo Sara!
I pray for the day when men can stop worrying about women in leadership. At the moment though, I am waiting for the defenders of patriarchy to come thumping their proof texts at us as they have in the last two gender-inclusive essays.

by: histrogeek

06-30-2010 @ 2:55pm

Bravo Sara!
I pray for the day when men can stop worrying about women in leadership. At the moment though, I am waiting for the defenders of patriarchy to come thumping their proof texts at us as they have in the last two gender-inclusive essays.

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 4:03pm

Some of you may be sick of hearing from me on this issue, but ...

I attend a large, increasingly-diverse evangelical church located in an inner-city neighborhood. It does more neighborhood outreach than most, spending much of its resources on the poor, even buying a nuisance bar last year to shut it down. We as a church do not get into the "culture wars." Two-thirds of the people who attend are involved in ministry. A woman whom my sister-in-law brought to Christ heads a support group for victims of domestic violence. My senior pastor would welcome Jim Wallis but not James Dobson into our pulpit.

And yet my church would be considered "patriarchal" because the denomination with which it is affiliated does not ordain women as pastors or select them elders (although women have preached occasionally). Furthermore, our church restricts ushering, taking the collection or serving communion during the service to men.

Now, many would see all that as "oppressive"; I doubt, however, that most of the women in the church feel that way. See, the focus in our church is on service and responsibility, not power -- and when the focus is right the church runs well.

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 4:03pm

Some of you may be sick of hearing from me on this issue, but ...

I attend a large, increasingly-diverse evangelical church located in an inner-city neighborhood. It does more neighborhood outreach than most, spending much of its resources on the poor, even buying a nuisance bar last year to shut it down. We as a church do not get into the "culture wars." Two-thirds of the people who attend are involved in ministry. A woman whom my sister-in-law brought to Christ heads a support group for victims of domestic violence. My senior pastor would welcome Jim Wallis but not James Dobson into our pulpit.

And yet my church would be considered "patriarchal" because the denomination with which it is affiliated does not ordain women as pastors or select them elders (although women have preached occasionally). Furthermore, our church restricts ushering, taking the collection or serving communion during the service to men.

Now, many would see all that as "oppressive"; I doubt, however, that most of the women in the church feel that way. See, the focus in our church is on service and responsibility, not power -- and when the focus is right the church runs well.

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 4:03pm

Some of you may be sick of hearing from me on this issue, but ...

I attend a large, increasingly-diverse evangelical church located in an inner-city neighborhood. It does more neighborhood outreach than most, spending much of its resources on the poor, even buying a nuisance bar last year to shut it down. We as a church do not get into the "culture wars." Two-thirds of the people who attend are involved in ministry. A woman whom my sister-in-law brought to Christ heads a support group for victims of domestic violence. My senior pastor would welcome Jim Wallis but not James Dobson into our pulpit.

And yet my church would be considered "patriarchal" because the denomination with which it is affiliated does not ordain women as pastors or select them elders (although women have preached occasionally). Furthermore, our church restricts ushering, taking the collection or serving communion during the service to men.

Now, many would see all that as "oppressive"; I doubt, however, that most of the women in the church feel that way. See, the focus in our church is on service and responsibility, not power -- and when the focus is right the church runs well.

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 4:32pm

Blue Deacon: the confounded disqus reply still doesn't work for me.

I congratulate your church on its outreach and its ministries. But I'm sorry your denomination does not allow full participation by all. I think your successes are in spite of your denomination's gender policies, not because of them. I know all the arguments for gender restriction, and I'm sure you know all the arguments for gender inclusiveness, so arguing between us, and others on either side is pointless.

Shalom, brother

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 4:32pm

Blue Deacon: the confounded disqus reply still doesn't work for me.

I congratulate your church on its outreach and its ministries. But I'm sorry your denomination does not allow full participation by all. I think your successes are in spite of your denomination's gender policies, not because of them. I know all the arguments for gender restriction, and I'm sure you know all the arguments for gender inclusiveness, so arguing between us, and others on either side is pointless.

Shalom, brother

by: retiredpreacher

06-30-2010 @ 4:32pm

Blue Deacon: the confounded disqus reply still doesn't work for me.

I congratulate your church on its outreach and its ministries. But I'm sorry your denomination does not allow full participation by all. I think your successes are in spite of your denomination's gender policies, not because of them. I know all the arguments for gender restriction, and I'm sure you know all the arguments for gender inclusiveness, so arguing between us, and others on either side is pointless.

Shalom, brother

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 4:59pm

I'm just going to say this, Blue Deacon -

How fortunate that women in your church so sanguinely accept being nearly invisible in positions of service and responsibility in leadership and during your formal worship. No pastoring, no eldering, no ushering, no taking up the collection or serving communion - only preaching occasionally (only when invited by a male?). For the life of me, I cannot figure out what, particularly, in a woman's gender could possibly disqualify her from showing people where to sit or passing a collection basket among the pews during worship, or serving the bread and wine of communion. Is there some inherent inability to spot empty seats, or some inherent upper body weakness which makes it impossible for women to serve communion hosts and wine, or extend a collection basket handle, or some inherent urge to filch pennies that women supposedly posses that automatically prevent them from being fit for these areas of service and responsibility?

Thank goodness they are permitted to sit in the pews and contribute their resources during the collection! I also assume they are permitted to sing in the choir? Only visible, individual roles are apparently off-limits for women in leadership and formal worship in your church - how fortunate women members are!

Yes, I am being snarky.

Organizations nearly always "run well" when the second-class members keep their mouths shut and concentrate on the services and responsibilities "allowed" them by those who possess the power.

It's easy for men to tell women to concentrate on service and responsibility, not power, when men are the ones who always have had, and always will have, all the power.

I suspect if you spoke to most of the women in your church about this particular issue, you would find far fewer than you believe are satisfied with this arrangement.

I am committed to service and responsibility in my church, as are most women. I am absolutely opposed, however, to one group in my church (males) artificially limiting the avenues of service and responsibility for which I am considered "fit".

I know you understand the damage that forced second-class status inflicts in the areas of race and class - I have to say that I'm very surprised that when the issue turns to gender, you seem to have no understanding of the damage the patriarchal church's forcing second-class status upon women is inflicting, and seem to be telling women who are troubled or damaged by it to just change their focus. I don't think you'd say that to someone who is denied participation based on race or class, but that's what it sounds like you're saying to women denied participation in church because of gender. I don't understand how you can fight traditional role assignment based on race or class, and yet defend it in the church based on gender.

Sorry, that advice isn't going to work for me. My focus is just fine thanks - it's the focus of the male heirarchy that is in serious need of "righting", as far as I'm concerned.

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 4:59pm

I'm just going to say this, Blue Deacon -

How fortunate that women in your church so sanguinely accept being nearly invisible in positions of service and responsibility in leadership and during your formal worship. No pastoring, no eldering, no ushering, no taking up the collection or serving communion - only preaching occasionally (only when invited by a male?). For the life of me, I cannot figure out what, particularly, in a woman's gender could possibly disqualify her from showing people where to sit or passing a collection basket among the pews during worship, or serving the bread and wine of communion. Is there some inherent inability to spot empty seats, or some inherent upper body weakness which makes it impossible for women to serve communion hosts and wine, or extend a collection basket handle, or some inherent urge to filch pennies that women supposedly posses that automatically prevent them from being fit for these areas of service and responsibility?

Thank goodness they are permitted to sit in the pews and contribute their resources during the collection! I also assume they are permitted to sing in the choir? Only visible, individual roles are apparently off-limits for women in leadership and formal worship in your church - how fortunate women members are!

Yes, I am being snarky.

Organizations nearly always "run well" when the second-class members keep their mouths shut and concentrate on the services and responsibilities "allowed" them by those who possess the power.

It's easy for men to tell women to concentrate on service and responsibility, not power, when men are the ones who always have had, and always will have, all the power.

I suspect if you spoke to most of the women in your church about this particular issue, you would find far fewer than you believe are satisfied with this arrangement.

I am committed to service and responsibility in my church, as are most women. I am absolutely opposed, however, to one group in my church (males) artificially limiting the avenues of service and responsibility for which I am considered "fit".

I know you understand the damage that forced second-class status inflicts in the areas of race and class - I have to say that I'm very surprised that when the issue turns to gender, you seem to have no understanding of the damage the patriarchal church's forcing second-class status upon women is inflicting, and seem to be telling women who are troubled or damaged by it to just change their focus. I don't think you'd say that to someone who is denied participation based on race or class, but that's what it sounds like you're saying to women denied participation in church because of gender. I don't understand how you can fight traditional role assignment based on race or class, and yet defend it in the church based on gender.

Sorry, that advice isn't going to work for me. My focus is just fine thanks - it's the focus of the male heirarchy that is in serious need of "righting", as far as I'm concerned.

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 4:59pm

I'm just going to say this, Blue Deacon -

How fortunate that women in your church so sanguinely accept being nearly invisible in positions of service and responsibility in leadership and during your formal worship. No pastoring, no eldering, no ushering, no taking up the collection or serving communion - only preaching occasionally (only when invited by a male?). For the life of me, I cannot figure out what, particularly, in a woman's gender could possibly disqualify her from showing people where to sit or passing a collection basket among the pews during worship, or serving the bread and wine of communion. Is there some inherent inability to spot empty seats, or some inherent upper body weakness which makes it impossible for women to serve communion hosts and wine, or extend a collection basket handle, or some inherent urge to filch pennies that women supposedly posses that automatically prevent them from being fit for these areas of service and responsibility?

Thank goodness they are permitted to sit in the pews and contribute their resources during the collection! I also assume they are permitted to sing in the choir? Only visible, individual roles are apparently off-limits for women in leadership and formal worship in your church - how fortunate women members are!

Yes, I am being snarky.

Organizations nearly always "run well" when the second-class members keep their mouths shut and concentrate on the services and responsibilities "allowed" them by those who possess the power.

It's easy for men to tell women to concentrate on service and responsibility, not power, when men are the ones who always have had, and always will have, all the power.

I suspect if you spoke to most of the women in your church about this particular issue, you would find far fewer than you believe are satisfied with this arrangement.

I am committed to service and responsibility in my church, as are most women. I am absolutely opposed, however, to one group in my church (males) artificially limiting the avenues of service and responsibility for which I am considered "fit".

I know you understand the damage that forced second-class status inflicts in the areas of race and class - I have to say that I'm very surprised that when the issue turns to gender, you seem to have no understanding of the damage the patriarchal church's forcing second-class status upon women is inflicting, and seem to be telling women who are troubled or damaged by it to just change their focus. I don't think you'd say that to someone who is denied participation based on race or class, but that's what it sounds like you're saying to women denied participation in church because of gender. I don't understand how you can fight traditional role assignment based on race or class, and yet defend it in the church based on gender.

Sorry, that advice isn't going to work for me. My focus is just fine thanks - it's the focus of the male heirarchy that is in serious need of "righting", as far as I'm concerned.

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 5:13pm

My "complementarian" thinking is not so much theological but sociological. You see, we understand that, in order to attract and keep men, they must be given specific things to do. This is especially important in our case because we have many, many African-Americans in the congregation who would be otherwise "idled"; boys and younger men especially need someone to look up to and something to aspire to. (They will not get this in most African-American churches precisely because they're usually dominated by women.)

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 5:13pm

My "complementarian" thinking is not so much theological but sociological. You see, we understand that, in order to attract and keep men, they must be given specific things to do. This is especially important in our case because we have many, many African-Americans in the congregation who would be otherwise "idled"; boys and younger men especially need someone to look up to and something to aspire to. (They will not get this in most African-American churches precisely because they're usually dominated by women.)

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 5:13pm

My "complementarian" thinking is not so much theological but sociological. You see, we understand that, in order to attract and keep men, they must be given specific things to do. This is especially important in our case because we have many, many African-Americans in the congregation who would be otherwise "idled"; boys and younger men especially need someone to look up to and something to aspire to. (They will not get this in most African-American churches precisely because they're usually dominated by women.)

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 5:31pm

When we discussed this on another thread, you had mentioned that you were Roman Catholic. I get that, but IMHO the problem is the very structure of the church, not the gender of the leadership.

I suspect if you spoke to most of the women in your church about this particular issue, you would find far fewer than you believe are satisfied with this arrangement.

I beg to differ -- because I live in a major metro area with lots of good churches (even many of the "mainline" assemblies are Biblically solid), they wouldn't even be there if that were the case. On the contrary, in the 1990s the singles ministry was probably the most active in the entire church; women actually flocked to it because they knew that a lot of good men attended.

I have to say that I'm very surprised that when the issue turns to gender, you seem to have no understanding of the damage the patriarchal church's forcing second-class status upon women is inflicting, and seem to be telling women who are troubled or damaged by it to just change their focus.

I've also shared that it's been my experience that, when you have egalitarian leadership, more men are shut out -- it becomes less about "qualifications" and more about image, personality and popularity. In fact, in some cases I was even pushed aside altogether despite my extensive knowledge of the Bible and theology, which I've demonstrated on this blog, because I wasn't considered "cute" or an otherwise "desirable" male. (That's the part that the "egalitarians" don't consider.)

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 5:31pm

When we discussed this on another thread, you had mentioned that you were Roman Catholic. I get that, but IMHO the problem is the very structure of the church, not the gender of the leadership.

I suspect if you spoke to most of the women in your church about this particular issue, you would find far fewer than you believe are satisfied with this arrangement.

I beg to differ -- because I live in a major metro area with lots of good churches (even many of the "mainline" assemblies are Biblically solid), they wouldn't even be there if that were the case. On the contrary, in the 1990s the singles ministry was probably the most active in the entire church; women actually flocked to it because they knew that a lot of good men attended.

I have to say that I'm very surprised that when the issue turns to gender, you seem to have no understanding of the damage the patriarchal church's forcing second-class status upon women is inflicting, and seem to be telling women who are troubled or damaged by it to just change their focus.

I've also shared that it's been my experience that, when you have egalitarian leadership, more men are shut out -- it becomes less about "qualifications" and more about image, personality and popularity. In fact, in some cases I was even pushed aside altogether despite my extensive knowledge of the Bible and theology, which I've demonstrated on this blog, because I wasn't considered "cute" or an otherwise "desirable" male. (That's the part that the "egalitarians" don't consider.)

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 5:31pm

When we discussed this on another thread, you had mentioned that you were Roman Catholic. I get that, but IMHO the problem is the very structure of the church, not the gender of the leadership.

I suspect if you spoke to most of the women in your church about this particular issue, you would find far fewer than you believe are satisfied with this arrangement.

I beg to differ -- because I live in a major metro area with lots of good churches (even many of the "mainline" assemblies are Biblically solid), they wouldn't even be there if that were the case. On the contrary, in the 1990s the singles ministry was probably the most active in the entire church; women actually flocked to it because they knew that a lot of good men attended.

I have to say that I'm very surprised that when the issue turns to gender, you seem to have no understanding of the damage the patriarchal church's forcing second-class status upon women is inflicting, and seem to be telling women who are troubled or damaged by it to just change their focus.

I've also shared that it's been my experience that, when you have egalitarian leadership, more men are shut out -- it becomes less about "qualifications" and more about image, personality and popularity. In fact, in some cases I was even pushed aside altogether despite my extensive knowledge of the Bible and theology, which I've demonstrated on this blog, because I wasn't considered "cute" or an otherwise "desirable" male. (That's the part that the "egalitarians" don't consider.)

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 6:00pm

I'm going to have to take the retiredpreacher route and just agree to disagree with you.

I understand your experience and desire to provide positive male role models. I don't believe your experience can be generalized to the church overall, and I don't accept your judgment regarding the consequences of egalitarian leadership, and I have a problem with the idea that holding women down is justified in order to lift men up, but I understand how your particular experience formed your view - as mine has mine.

Your "man" experience leads you to justify men reserving church leadership roles to men. My "woman" experience calls me to advocate for the end of church patriarchy and the establishment of the very egalitarian leadership you are opposed to. So, that's the end of that dialogue :).

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 6:00pm

I'm going to have to take the retiredpreacher route and just agree to disagree with you.

I understand your experience and desire to provide positive male role models. I don't believe your experience can be generalized to the church overall, and I don't accept your judgment regarding the consequences of egalitarian leadership, and I have a problem with the idea that holding women down is justified in order to lift men up, but I understand how your particular experience formed your view - as mine has mine.

Your "man" experience leads you to justify men reserving church leadership roles to men. My "woman" experience calls me to advocate for the end of church patriarchy and the establishment of the very egalitarian leadership you are opposed to. So, that's the end of that dialogue :).

by: Patricia

06-30-2010 @ 6:00pm

I'm going to have to take the retiredpreacher route and just agree to disagree with you.

I understand your experience and desire to provide positive male role models. I don't believe your experience can be generalized to the church overall, and I don't accept your judgment regarding the consequences of egalitarian leadership, and I have a problem with the idea that holding women down is justified in order to lift men up, but I understand how your particular experience formed your view - as mine has mine.

Your "man" experience leads you to justify men reserving church leadership roles to men. My "woman" experience calls me to advocate for the end of church patriarchy and the establishment of the very egalitarian leadership you are opposed to. So, that's the end of that dialogue :).

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 6:38pm

I don't believe your experience can be generalized to the church overall, and I don't accept your judgment regarding the consequences of egalitarian leadership, and I have a problem with the idea that holding women down is justified in order to lift men up,...

Actually, I think it does apply across-the-board because what's not being addressed in any of these posts on Sojourners are the dynamics between men and women in a general sense. It's still universally true that women still gravitate toward men who are "above them" regardless of how much "equality" supposedly exist, and the church is no different. I submit that the problem is harsh, insensitive leadership, not merely male leadership; it's been my experience that when the men who are in leadership exercise their duties with fairness and true Godly concern the women will gladly follow them. After all, that's the goal of the Promise Keepers movement, which at the start was maligned as sexist.

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 6:38pm

I don't believe your experience can be generalized to the church overall, and I don't accept your judgment regarding the consequences of egalitarian leadership, and I have a problem with the idea that holding women down is justified in order to lift men up,...

Actually, I think it does apply across-the-board because what's not being addressed in any of these posts on Sojourners are the dynamics between men and women in a general sense. It's still universally true that women still gravitate toward men who are "above them" regardless of how much "equality" supposedly exist, and the church is no different. I submit that the problem is harsh, insensitive leadership, not merely male leadership; it's been my experience that when the men who are in leadership exercise their duties with fairness and true Godly concern the women will gladly follow them. After all, that's the goal of the Promise Keepers movement, which at the start was maligned as sexist.

by: BlueDeacon

06-30-2010 @ 6:38pm

I don't believe your experience can be generalized to the church overall, and I don't accept your judgment regarding the consequences of egalitarian leadership, and I have a problem with the idea that holding women down is justified in order to lift men up,...

Actually, I think it does apply across-the-board because what's not being addressed in any of these posts on Sojourners are the dynamics between men and women in a general sense. It's still universally true that women still gravitate toward men who are "above them" regardless of how much "equality" supposedly exist, and the church is no different. I submit that the problem is harsh, insensitive leadership, not merely male leadership; it's been my experience that when the men who are in leadership exercise their duties with fairness and true Godly concern the women will gladly follow them. After all, that's the goal of the Promise Keepers movement, which at the start was maligned as sexist.

by: jesse3

06-30-2010 @ 8:38pm

"Has anyone who actually follows Mark Driscoll (or John Piper, or anyone else of their ilk) actually read his writing? These same people who cling to a literal interpretation of the pastoral epistles fail to use that same hermeneutic when reading Matthew 25 (whatever we do for the least of these)"

--Are you seriously arguing that Driscoll and John Piper don't believe we should look after the 'least of these'? A better question would be whether you have ever read or heard Driscoll preach and whether you know any of his followers. I have and do...one of my best friends attends his church, is married, and she is one of the happiest people I know.

Sorry, but this is a shoddy essay...

by: jesse3

06-30-2010 @ 8:38pm

"Has anyone who actually follows Mark Driscoll (or John Piper, or anyone else of their ilk) actually read his writing? These same people who cling to a literal interpretation of the pastoral epistles fail to use that same hermeneutic when reading Matthew 25 (whatever we do for the least of these)"

--Are you seriously arguing that Driscoll and John Piper don't believe we should look after the 'least of these'? A better question would be whether you have ever read or heard Driscoll preach and whether you know any of his followers. I have and do...one of my best friends attends his church, is married, and she is one of the happiest people I know.

Sorry, but this is a shoddy essay...

by: jesse3

06-30-2010 @ 8:38pm

"Has anyone who actually follows Mark Driscoll (or John Piper, or anyone else of their ilk) actually read his writing? These same people who cling to a literal interpretation of the pastoral epistles fail to use that same hermeneutic when reading Matthew 25 (whatever we do for the least of these)"

--Are you seriously arguing that Driscoll and John Piper don't believe we should look after the 'least of these'? A better question would be whether you have ever read or heard Driscoll preach and whether you know any of his followers. I have and do...one of my best friends attends his church, is married, and she is one of the happiest people I know.

Sorry, but this is a shoddy essay...

by: segv

06-30-2010 @ 9:02pm

Jesse - not an essay - a blog post - and yes, have read Driscoll and Piper and heard both of them preach. Piper routinely tries to block the ordination of women in the Baptist General Convention - i know this to be true because i have friends affected by this.

I do not think that either of these men believe that caring for the least of these should be our primary mission, as i believe that it should. I do know that Piper interprets that passage to apply only to fellow believers - and he interprets brothers to mean literally men.

Sorry you didn't enjoy my post - it's a blog - it's raw - it's unpolished - that's what was requested and that's what i wrote. It's a statement about my feelings as a highly educated and capable woman in a male dominated church. My quote in the article sums it up... i am tired of being a second class citizen...

Sara VanScoy, MD, MDiv

by: segv

06-30-2010 @ 9:02pm

Jesse - not an essay - a blog post - and yes, have read Driscoll and Piper and heard both of them preach. Piper routinely tries to block the ordination of women in the Baptist General Convention - i know this to be true because i have friends affected by this.

I do not think that either of these men believe that caring for the least of these should be our primary mission, as i believe that it should. I do know that Piper interprets that passage to apply only to fellow believers - and he interprets brothers to mean literally men.

Sorry you didn't enjoy my post - it's a blog - it's raw - it's unpolished - that's what was requested and that's what i wrote. It's a statement about my feelings as a highly educated and capable woman in a male dominated church. My quote in the article sums it up... i am tired of being a second class citizen...

Sara VanScoy, MD, MDiv

by: segv

06-30-2010 @ 9:02pm

Jesse - not an essay - a blog post - and yes, have read Driscoll and Piper and heard both of them preach. Piper routinely tries to block the ordination of women in the Baptist General Convention - i know this to be true because i have friends affected by this.

I do not think that either of these men believe that caring for the least of these should be our primary mission, as i believe that it should. I do know that Piper interprets that passage to apply only to fellow believers - and he interprets brothers to mean literally men.

Sorry you didn't enjoy my post - it's a blog - it's raw - it's unpolished - that's what was requested and that's what i wrote. It's a statement about my feelings as a highly educated and capable woman in a male dominated church. My quote in the article sums it up... i am tired of being a second class citizen...

Sara VanScoy, MD, MDiv

by: Ed Backell

06-30-2010 @ 11:17pm

Sara -

WONDERFUL post. Gosh, I miss having classes with you at Bethel. And (I know you've heard this from me before) there are plenty of other faith groups in Christendom who would welcome you and your leadership gifts with open arms.In the meantime, you certainly have my full support in keeping some men's feet to the fire!

KFJ - Ed Backell

by: Ed Backell

06-30-2010 @ 11:17pm

Sara -

WONDERFUL post. Gosh, I miss having classes with you at Bethel. And (I know you've heard this from me before) there are plenty of other faith groups in Christendom who would welcome you and your leadership gifts with open arms.In the meantime, you certainly have my full support in keeping some men's feet to the fire!

KFJ - Ed Backell

by: Ed Backell

06-30-2010 @ 11:17pm

Sara -

WONDERFUL post. Gosh, I miss having classes with you at Bethel. And (I know you've heard this from me before) there are plenty of other faith groups in Christendom who would welcome you and your leadership gifts with open arms.In the meantime, you certainly have my full support in keeping some men's feet to the fire!

KFJ - Ed Backell

by: segv

07-01-2010 @ 1:39am

Thanks Ed... good to hear from you... was laughing out loud remembering the Monty Python renditions of Scripture....:-)

by: segv

07-01-2010 @ 1:39am

Thanks Ed... good to hear from you... was laughing out loud remembering the Monty Python renditions of Scripture....:-)

by: segv

07-01-2010 @ 1:39am

Thanks Ed... good to hear from you... was laughing out loud remembering the Monty Python renditions of Scripture....:-)

by: squeaky

07-01-2010 @ 3:32am

See the thing is...if white people won't attend or participate in a church where black people are in leadership roles, is the response to keep black people out of leadership roles?

wrt your other post:

"You see, we understand that, in order to attract and keep men, they must be given specific things to do. "

I would imagine that can be done without barring women from certain roles...if it is just about giving them something, anything, to do.

Maybe the better lesson that the men in your church need to learn is that God shows no favoritism based on gender. It's easier not to have age-old attitudes challenged, though.

In some sense I can understand where you are coming from--I think I am hearing you say it is a self-esteem issue amongst African American males. And, in fact, it is starting to be shown that boys of all races are routinely being outperformed by girls in school. I understand the concern of this latest trend. But the answer isn't to push girls down to raise boys up. No one's self-esteem is bolstered at the expense of another's.

by: squeaky

07-01-2010 @ 3:32am

See the thing is...if white people won't attend or participate in a church where black people are in leadership roles, is the response to keep black people out of leadership roles?

wrt your other post:

"You see, we understand that, in order to attract and keep men, they must be given specific things to do. "

I would imagine that can be done without barring women from certain roles...if it is just about giving them something, anything, to do.

Maybe the better lesson that the men in your church need to learn is that God shows no favoritism based on gender. It's easier not to have age-old attitudes challenged, though.

In some sense I can understand where you are coming from--I think I am hearing you say it is a self-esteem issue amongst African American males. And, in fact, it is starting to be shown that boys of all races are routinely being outperformed by girls in school. I understand the concern of this latest trend. But the answer isn't to push girls down to raise boys up. No one's self-esteem is bolstered at the expense of another's.

by: squeaky

07-01-2010 @ 3:32am

See the thing is...if white people won't attend or participate in a church where black people are in leadership roles, is the response to keep black people out of leadership roles?

wrt your other post:

"You see, we understand that, in order to attract and keep men, they must be given specific things to do. "

I would imagine that can be done without barring women from certain roles...if it is just about giving them something, anything, to do.

Maybe the better lesson that the men in your church need to learn is that God shows no favoritism based on gender. It's easier not to have age-old attitudes challenged, though.

In some sense I can understand where you are coming from--I think I am hearing you say it is a self-esteem issue amongst African American males. And, in fact, it is starting to be shown that boys of all races are routinely being outperformed by girls in school. I understand the concern of this latest trend. But the answer isn't to push girls down to raise boys up. No one's self-esteem is bolstered at the expense of another's.

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 4:03am

See the thing is...if white people won't attend or participate in a church where black people are in leadership roles, is the response to keep black people out of leadership roles?

Apples and oranges -- the reality is that constitutionally I have far more in common with any man of any race than with any woman. You also missed what I actually said -- men who are not considered "up to snuff" will almost always be pushed to the margins to, if not completely out of, an "egalitarian" evangelical fellowship; I took part in three during my 20s and only once was I ever asked to do music (and I play professionally today). Why was that? Because I wasn't the "right" kind of person!

Maybe the better lesson that the men in your church need to learn is that God shows no favoritism based on gender. It's easier not to have age-old attitudes challenged, though.

Here's the thing: The men in my church know to take their responsibilities seriously; as a result, people trust them to do what's right (and isn't that the real issue, anyway?). I've been involved in some capacity since 1986, attending there since 1998 and joining in 2000, and absolutely never seen the kind of "patriarchal" attitude you assume exists there (and no one's complained about it, either). In fact, a woman friend with whom I serve at the church's welcome center didn't even notice that until I brought it up; during our last service I'm often asked to help take the collection.

BTW, it's a self-esteem issue amongst all males, just more obvious with African-Americans. And the reality still exists that, despite gender "equity," much more is still demanded of men than women, especially in relationships (including the church).

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 4:03am

See the thing is...if white people won't attend or participate in a church where black people are in leadership roles, is the response to keep black people out of leadership roles?

Apples and oranges -- the reality is that constitutionally I have far more in common with any man of any race than with any woman. You also missed what I actually said -- men who are not considered "up to snuff" will almost always be pushed to the margins to, if not completely out of, an "egalitarian" evangelical fellowship; I took part in three during my 20s and only once was I ever asked to do music (and I play professionally today). Why was that? Because I wasn't the "right" kind of person!

Maybe the better lesson that the men in your church need to learn is that God shows no favoritism based on gender. It's easier not to have age-old attitudes challenged, though.

Here's the thing: The men in my church know to take their responsibilities seriously; as a result, people trust them to do what's right (and isn't that the real issue, anyway?). I've been involved in some capacity since 1986, attending there since 1998 and joining in 2000, and absolutely never seen the kind of "patriarchal" attitude you assume exists there (and no one's complained about it, either). In fact, a woman friend with whom I serve at the church's welcome center didn't even notice that until I brought it up; during our last service I'm often asked to help take the collection.

BTW, it's a self-esteem issue amongst all males, just more obvious with African-Americans. And the reality still exists that, despite gender "equity," much more is still demanded of men than women, especially in relationships (including the church).

by: BlueDeacon

07-01-2010 @ 4:03am

See the thing is...if white people won't attend or participate in a church where black people are in leadership roles, is the response to keep black people out of leadership roles?

Apples and oranges -- the reality is that constitutionally I have far more in common with any man of any race than with any woman. You also missed what I actually said -- men who are not considered "up to snuff" will almost always be pushed to the margins to, if not completely out of, an "egalitarian" evangelical fellowship; I took part in three during my 20s and only once was I ever asked to do music (and I play professionally today). Why was that? Because I wasn't the "right" kind of person!

Maybe the better lesson that the men in your church need to learn is that God shows no favoritism based on gender. It's easier not to have age-old attitudes challenged, though.

Here's the thing: The men in my church know to take their responsibilities seriously; as a result, people trust them to do what's right (and isn't that the real issue, anyway?). I've been involved in some capacity since 1986, attending there since 1998 and joining in 2000, and absolutely never seen the kind of "patriarchal" attitude you assume exists there (and no one's complained about it, either). In fact, a woman friend with whom I serve at the church's welcome center didn't even notice that until I brought it up; during our last service I'm often asked to help take the collection.

BTW, it's a self-esteem issue amongst all males, just more obvious with African-Americans. And the reality still exists that, despite gender "equity," much more is still demanded of men than women, especially in relationships (including the church).

by: jesse3

07-01-2010 @ 8:32am

"I do not think that either of these men believe that caring for the least of these should be our primary mission, as i believe that it should."

--Though their churches are still very actively involved in caring for the poor. Whatever...this piece is full of cheap shots and, yes, it certainly comes across as something that was written on the fly. You can and should do better--especially when speaking of people who are your brothers in Christ.

Keep in mind that the entire Catholic church shares their views on ordination. Are you intent on treating such a large segment of Christians with such hostility and lack of charity?

Lastly, the issues you bring up regarding the mental health of evangelical women are open to empirical investigation. Your practice is irrelevant here, since you can find any case to support any position. Show me data that indicate that women from patriarchal churches are less well off emotionally than those who come from egalitarian churches. Large, population-based studies, please.

by: jesse3

07-01-2010 @ 8:32am

"I do not think that either of these men believe that caring for the least of these should be our primary mission, as i believe that it should."

--Though their churches are still very actively involved in caring for the poor. Whatever...this piece is full of cheap shots and, yes, it certainly comes across as something that was written on the fly. You can and should do better--especially when speaking of people who are your brothers in Christ.

Keep in mind that the entire Catholic church shares their views on ordination. Are you intent on treating such a large segment of Christians with such hostility and lack of charity?

Lastly, the issues you bring up regarding the mental health of evangelical women are open to empirical investigation. Your practice is irrelevant here, since you can find any case to support any position. Show me data that indicate that women from patriarchal churches are less well off emotionally than those who come from egalitarian churches. Large, population-based studies, please.