Appeal to the Church of Jesus Christ: No more gender gospel, please

I stumbled upon this Catholic theology of masculinity explanation on my Facebook news feed this morning and thought it was a good example of the new gender gospel that seems to be sweeping through our churches like mad fire. Since it is pretty much based on the same tired assumptions about gender, I thought it would be worth picking through it all. Because frankly, I'm sick of it.

Where to even start? This is much too vague to make any earthly sense. It talks a lot about "leaving the feminine," but it never actually does define what is the feminine, does it? So "the feminine" is the standard (but we can't actually define what really that standard is), and masculinity then is defined in distinction to that.

Does anyone else echo my sentiments when I say...   Hu?

And I will say it again as I have before, becoming less like a woman is not the equivalent of acting more like a man. One can act less like a woman, for example, by acting like a pig.
But let's move on, shall we?

Does the feminine not sacrifice through blood and hardships? I think so...otherwise there would be no masculine in the first place. And seriously - if masculinity can be defined as the willingness to sacrifice for the other, then the inescapable implication of that statement is that femininity is the unwillingness to sacrifice for the other. (Remember? Masculinity can only be defined in distinction to femininity.)
Maybe it wasn't intended, and maybe it's not reflected in the hearts of the people who believe this ideology, but this is very demeaning to the feminine "kind."
And while we're on that note, I think it's also important to point out something else before we skip ahead to our next point.

Women, just as well as men, are intended to leave the safety of their homes and cleave to their spouses, to protect, fight for, and defend their old and new families and communities. Women aren't intended to be passive about their families, communities, or their faith any more than men are. 
Now, to our next point.

What is this about Christianity appealing more to women than to men? What church pew have you hit your head on? What Bible have you been reading?




Let's do a very quick re-cap on Christianity.

1. God identifies himself using male terms (Father, Son)
2. All the writers of the Bible were male
3. Virtually all the canonized prophecies were prophesied by males
4. All of Jesus' inner-circle of disciples were male
5. Jesus is male
6. There seem to be tasks within the church that only men can fill - and these happen to be the tasks that involve leadership and real tangible influence over the church.

Overall, I think it's fair to say the religion of Christianity is actually more appealing to the masculine since it has a history and tendency to exalt men over women.

Moving on...

Are we seriously considering "masculinizing" the church to manipulate more men in, or worse, to keep them in? Do we really have to resort to this in church to make men feel strong and "manly?" If we do, this is not because the church has been feminized, it is because these men are not being caught up in the very real spiritual battle that they are, incidentally, goofing off right smack in the middle of. But instead of looking at things through spiritual eyes that the Holy Spirit gives us, these men are too busy fooling around like children to get out there and wage war against the enemy. These kinds of movements in the church are merely compensations for a lack of spiritual war.

That is not the fault of the church...and it is definitely not the fault of the women who are engaging in the real battles that actually change things that matter.

The reality is that both men and women enter a spiritual war zone upon conversion. And both men and women are commanded to be armed and suited up with our Armour so we can fight the powers that come against us, so we can defend and protect all those who the Lord sees fit to place in our circle of influence. If men are bored with Christianity it is only because they are not engaged in the battle with the rest of the men who are fighting alongside those women prayer-warriors, justice seekers, and evangelists and missionaries.

Lastly but definitely not the least, the only reason many men associate Christianity with femininity is b/c they have a warped conception of what masculinity actually is since the only models they have are these hyper-masculinized (violent, aggressive) examples of 'men' through the media. So we work to change that and expose boys and girls to healthier, more balanced men who are not so insecure in their own masculinity that they can't be dependent on others (even God), or cry, or feel, or show weakness, or ask another for help (ie pray). Jesus did every one of these things. But we are not told as Christians to be conformed to the pattern of this world, we are told to be transformed by the renewing of our minds - and we do this not by setting up these little systems and pressing people into them, but we do this by seeking the face of God - the God who has created both masculinity and femininity (these are creation of God, not attributes of God Himself) in His own image to reflect something of His own nature. God is not masculine because "masculinity" is a human attribute. We cannot and should not minimize God in this way.

I believe that if a person focuses on seeking the face of God and becoming more Christ-like, his masculinity, or her femininity, respectively, will flow naturally from that. Constructing these artificial sex-roles is, on the other hand, hypocrisy and an unhealthy distortion of gender. Why do I say this? Well, throughout the entire Bible we see no evidence of the Lord ascribing any gender-specific roles or any other kind of roles to Christ-indewelled believers. In fact, the closest biblical reference to "role" that we can find is the Greek 'hupokritēs', which translates into the English "an actor, stage player, pretender, hypocrite."
Jesus never used this word in a positive light, for sure. He doesn't want his people to "act" in a "role" at all. He is not glorified when we are disingenuous in the ministries we undertake in His name. He made us exactly the way we are so these ministries will flow naturally from a regenerate person who is walking closely with the Lord. He gave us gifts and personalities so that we will have a genuine desire to fulfill whatever particular task we have been called to.

So I'm asking this of the church of Jesus Christ: Please. Just stop.

We are turning aside from the path of freedom and life. We are taking our eyes off Jesus in order to focus on gender-roles. This is a perversion. This is not the Gospel. This is not from God. This is hurting people and crippling them. This is hurting the church and our testimony. 

When we all come to the unity of the faith - when we all fix our eyes on Jesus Christ alone - women will submit to their husbands. Husbands will also submit to their wives. Both men and women will take care of their homes, children, and one another. Both men and women will respect one another. Both husbands and wives will love one another with self-sacrificial love, just like Jesus, since it is the character of Jesus that is being cultivated in each of us. There is no female version Jesus as head for us women to all grow up into - so our duties, and how we live out our faith, is not any different than those of the men.

Stop perverting the simplicity and freedom that is in Christ. No more gender gospel. The world needs the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church needs the Lord Jesus Christ.

Your “WOMAN” not every woman…

I found the choice of title for Antonia Zerbisias’ article quite interesting: “Tory legacy leaves little to attract women voters.” 
I would like to ask why it is she thinks she has a monopoly on the desires and aspirations of women. Right off the bat, I must say that I get quite annoyed with the SOW for doing this very thing. They aren’t interested in representing all women; they speak and advocate only for those particular women whose ideologies align with their own. Any women who disagree are ostracised, defamed, belittled, and have their motives impugned. Suddenly, being a woman matters very little to them.
The truth is, they do not speak for all women; they speak only for women like them. So why should the government fund their special interests?

I think the reason (at least in part) that women still trail behind their male counterparts economically is simply because working mothers usually can't climb the corporate ladder unless they are willing to sacrifice the time with their children for their jobs the way men so often do. Employers usually prefer people who can work late hours with no distractions, and, unfortunately, who will "be one of the guys." It has much to do with the fact that working mothers, statistically speaking, shoulder the brunt of the practical and emotional work associated with family life, as W.Bradford Wilcox notes in his book "Soft Patriarchs, New Men”: Though society has taken an egalitarian trajectory in the public worlds of law, education, work, politics, and the cultural understanding of gender, the private institution of the family has not changed as quickly, largely because men have failed to take on an equal portion of the responsibility for family life. Men’s behaviour in this regard has two important consequences: first, it contributes to gender inequality in public and private life as women’s domestic responsibilities limit their public opportunities; and second, it places tremendous practical and psychological pressure on women, especially mothers who work outside the home. Thus, as Frances Goldscheider and Linda Waite have observed, the way to an egalitarian “new family” order “will lead through men.” 
Married men with children seem to be the primary obstacle to the complete triumph of the gender revolution, not a lack of daycare. I am not saying daycare isn’t important; I am just saying daycare will not change the male chauvinism that is standing in the way of an economic gender-equality, and you cannot honestly attribute a lack of daycare to this imbalance.
Something else worthy of noting is that owing to this pressure that has been put on mothers who work outside the home, there seems to be more of a trend among young Generation Y women who have watched their "superwoman" mothers struggle and would prefer themselves to stay home with their young children. Dual-parent, single income homes are on the rise. Several other working mothers would prefer to quit working to raise their young children, but they can't afford to. So it could be that the Tories are tapping into the desires of this quite notable group of women.


The private member bills invoked here that were purportedly "aimed at curtailing abortion rights" were:
1) a bill that would make it an offense to kill a woman's baby against her will.
Currently, you can kill a woman's unborn baby in Canada, leave the mother to bury her dead child, and then be charged not with murder, but merely with assault of the woman. The unborn child is a non-existent entity in this country. That means you can do whatever you want to that child throughout the duration of the nine months (with or without the mother's consent) and walk away unscathed; And
2) a bill that would make it an offense to coerce a woman into getting an abortion against her will.
Coerced abortion has been proven to be psychologically, spiritually, and mentally devastating for women.
These bills were both consistent with the “choices” of women; both very pro-woman. But it seems that because these particular women’s desires aren't compatible with the ideology held to by the SOW, they are not considered important Women’s issues.


I am a woman, and I don’t approve of the gun registry. In fact, the registry does very little to protect women from abusive spouses. Being shot with a registered gun makes very little difference when you have a bullet in your head.


Finally, the Maternal Health Initiative: How can you call abortion uniformly pro-woman? How many little girls are killed through abortions? In several developing and third-world countries (even in Canada!), there is a huge problem with sex-selective abortions: little girls are unwanted by virtue of their femaleness. The problem for women snowballs from there, as there is a marked ratio imbalance between men and women. Women and female children from neighbouring countries are later abducted to be brides, or trafficked into prostitution to meet the sexual appetites of a population of unmarried men. The reason there are these 70,000 women dying from illegal abortions every year (if this number is accurate), is because so many women in developing countries do not have access to antibiotics or adequate health care. It is not because illegal abortions are more dangerous. (In fact, even in countries like the US where abortion is legal, abortion clinics are private, unregulated, and their cleanliness often leaves much to be desired. The same doctors that perform illegal abortions are the ones performing legal ones.) The real problem is that abortions are known for causing severe infections and other events that require immediate surgery….not to mention the psychological risks associated with abortion often propels women into suicide. At first glance, you’d think providing safer abortion services would make be better for these women, but if you really think about it, bringing abortion into some of these countries (especially where women cannot easily travel to get to the doctor in the likely event something goes awry) would be extremely reckless. It is much safer to deliver a baby (which is a natural process), then to abort it (which requires an invasive and dangerous procedure that obstructs a natural process).
Furthermore, Harper’s initiative was a “Maternal Health Care” initiative; it was not a reproductive health care initiative. Therefore, it covered maternal health and not reproductive health.
The majority of these women would prefer not to have their children aborted, but the opportunity to carry them to term, deliver them safely, and be able to provide for their needs. (Why are his efforts to help impoverished women deliver safely not being applauded by these women's agencies - why do they advocate strictly for women who choose abortion?)
Offering abortion to impoverished women instead of working to make proper maternal health care accessible is a cop-out at best, and at worst, a deceptive strategy used to target the poor in a pursuit of population control.

Now the 500 missing Native women, I have a HUGE problem with. That said, I don’t see any other party real passionate about justice for aboriginal women….though I desperately wish they were. It actually took a woman Conservative MP (Joy Smith) to come up with a bill that would establish mandatory minimum sentencing for the sex trafficking of children. This is a real issue in the aboriginal population. Native women make up the majority of women who are sexually exploited through prostitution in this country….and most of those entered “the trade” in their early adolescence (average 13 years-old). It's the generational fall-out of the residential school systems that leaves these young girls vulenerable to trafficking. The theory of many aboriginal women's associations is that the sex-trafficking of aboriginal women in this country has something to do with the 500 missing aboriginal women.

My point is that we don’t need more Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP’s; we need more women in parliament.

Hanging Tough

So I'm listening to this pastor teaching fathers how to raise masculine sons and feminine daughters and he explains how fathers need to push their sons farther than what the sons think is their potential. (We want them to accept challenges and not be afraid of getting hurt or or failure, right?)

So, to wrap it up with a final application, he exhorts the people not to overprotect their sons for this very reason.

He then proceeds to teach fathers how to raise feminine daughters and begins by making a marked distinction: "For girls," says he, "it's just different."

Apparently fathers should only "connect" with their daughters by taking time with their daughters, and making them feel special and interesting for who they are rather than "what they could give (if you know what I mean.)"

(Sons? Is this not true of both genders? It's about character, and in my estimation, it is not specific to any one gender. This is what Kyle D. Pruett explains in his book Fatherneed  regarding the reasons father care is as essential as mother care for children of both sexes:  that fathers instill in both their sons and daughters problem solving skills, perserverence, confidence to approach new people and situations, belief that hard work and diligence is rewarded, and things like that. It is the reason why fatherless girls usually struggle with math in school--a striking majority of them are inept at mastering frustration and problem solving skills.)

I don't think this kind of sexist stereotyping is really conducive to raising healthy, balanced children. Boys need to be built up and made to feel special  for who they are and not what they can give just as girls do. And girls need to be encouraged to push through obstacles and realize being a coward is really a waste of the life God gave the same way boys do.

Perseverance, risk, and a positive aggression are traits instilled most generally by fathers.  Mothers, as natural nurturers and comforters have a more difficult time holding back when their children are in pain or discomfort. But children need both mothers *and* fathers for a very good reason. Developing into a healthy, balanced adult requires being shaped by both the masculinity of a father and the femininity of a mother.

The Bible says that God is the Father to the fatherless, and He means it.There is a very special way He fathers the fatherless. He comes in and takes the role the earthly father was intended to take on. As embarrassing and annoying as it is now in my thirties, I am only now being parented by a father and having to learn all the things fathers typically teach and instill in their children.

Without my dad, I never learned perseverance. I dropped out of school when things got tough. I ran from discomfort. I had very little self-discipline. No self-confidence and so when things got hard, I gave up. After coming into a relationship with my heavenly Father, after a short time of really building up my knowledge of Him and His character, one of the first things He did was make me walk on my own. Not that He wasn't there. He was there, but He wouldn't let me 'feel' His presence there with me. For two years I allowed myself to be overcome with frustration, dismay, fear, anger, helplessness, feelings of betrayal and rejection. Finally--just as He knew I had the endurance and strength to do even if I didn't--I got to the point when I  aggressively exerted every last ounce of strength I had in prayer to push through that obstacle that was in my way.

God fathered me this way to take me out of my comfort zone and teach me to walk by faith and not by sight. To teach me how to be more bold, and how to take risks. To build my spiritual stamina and begin the training of perseverance. I'm sure it wasn't exactly fun for Him to watch me in such discomfort and fear, but He believed in me enough to let me struggle through it. He did not come running to sweep me out of the situation as soon as I wanted Him to. He knew I would overcome and be victorious and all would be well in the end, but I needed to learn that.

My point? Well, there's two:

#1.These qualities ought not be attributed to masculinity. Where they may come more naturally to men, it is imperative that we cultivate these qualities into both our sons and daughters.

 Biblical femininity depends on it. And

#2. If this is the way God fathers His daughters, why should we be any different?

Women, just like men, need to start trusting in God and exercising more self-confidence by stepping out of our comfort zones, taking more risks, allowing ourselves to try new things with the potential of falling or failure. Otherwise, how will we ever know the fullest potential God has built in us? How will we ever begin to conceive of and experience the heights of the things God has for us women who love Him? There are no limits in Him, only we limit ourselves.

Going back to the pastor and his message, he relays the story of his daughter who was "thinking of her husband at five years old," implicitly making the claim that femininity is rooted in being a wife, and then declares that men should father their daughters with the focus of grooming them for this identity.

But I humbly (yet passionately) disagree.

Our identity as women is not tied up in with being a submissive wife and good mother. These may or may not be specific tasks within our callings that we are responsible for, yes, but our identity is wrapped up in Christ alone. "Submission" is not an identity and is not tied to femininity in any way. It is an attitude. (And one, I might add, that both men and women in Christ are commissioned to).

The more general calling on our lives, the ministry of reconciliation, requires us women to be fighters, strong, valiant, courageous, initiators, leaders.

As Beth Moore pointed out in So Long Insecurity, the legendary Proverbs 31 woman was characterized by the Bible translators as being 'virtuous,' however, the original Hebrew word 'chayil' that was translated "virtuous" really is defined in Strongs dictionary as "an army, wealth, virtue, valor, strength, forces, might, power, valiant, worthy."  This same word was translated "army' in Jeremiah 39:5, and "mighty warrior" in Judges 6:12.

We women are not called to be the wimpy little coquettes, never speaking up or fighting for right and truth. There is a battle going on out there and we are called to fight it along side our brothers in Christ. Women, as well as men, have been equipped to fight it. We just need the permission to stand up strong and be the women we are called to be.

Our place is NOT hiding behind our men. We fight beside them.

Our calling is NOT to hide behind aprons or piles of laundry (although these are things we must do.) We get out there and engage in the battle.

Don't cripple us women. We are capable of more. We are called to be mighty warriors. To take risks. To walk by faith. To persevere. To try new things. To be leaders.

We women have far more potential in us than what some credit to us. This potential is not attributed to gender or any human relationships, it's attributed to Who is living in and through us - Jesus Christ.

If we are willing to go out on a limb and believe, accepting the risk of being wrong, getting hurt or failing, nothing is impossible for us. Indeed, all things are possible for us.

Shut Up!

Here we go again. Desley's complaining over gender issue again. Ah... well... what can you do with these complementarian Christian women who still ferverently cling to the protection the original feminist movement offers?

Will and I had a conversation the other day about feminism and how so many Christians are ragging on it. Too many Christian men and women bash feminists and sincerely believe that the responsiblity for all of the chaos in culture these days can be laid solely on feminism.

I disagree.

If you want my two sense -and I'll give it even if you don't- feminism itself was not and is not the problem. The problem was men who twisted the Scriptures to usurp an unbiblical authority over women. What's worse, even the church was doing it. Who was defending the women who were being victimized by their husbands and were then being beaten over their heads with their Bibles to stop their "whining"? The fact remains, feminism was and is fueled by the lack of true biblical men, not vice versa.
I, for one, am grateful for the original feminist movement that rightly rebelled against such horrendous injustices. They saved an incalculable number of lives by protecting women from beatings, rape, and forced abortions.

And I'll add this just for shock value...

I'm grateful still for even the radical feminist movement that so influences our culture. I have a gut feeling that if we didn't have these people prying into our churches and forcing us to continuously examine what the Scriptures actually say about men and women, we would start getting loose with the Scriptures regarding gender, and then men would default right back to oppressing and abusing the weaker sex.
Name one male-dominated culture where female circumcision, prostitution, and polygamy isn't rampant. Good luck.

By closely scrutinizing our beliefs, our Bibles, and our behaviours, they force us to a higher standard of biblical understanding and adherence than what we'd do left to ourselves.

So shoot me.

Be Courageous, President Obama!

Someone Gets It

"I would like to begin by stating one huge assumption that I bring to this task tonight. I mention it partly because it may give you an emotional sense of what I hope you become because of this conference. And I mention it partly because it explains why I minister the way I do and why this message sounds the way it does.

My assumption is that wimpy theology makes wimpy women. And I don’t like wimpy women. I didn’t marry a wimpy woman. And with Noël, I am trying to raise my daughter Talitha, who turns 13 on Saturday, not to be a wimpy woman.

Marie Durant
The opposite of a wimpy woman is not a brash, pushy, loud, controlling, sassy, uppity, arrogant Amazon. The opposite of a wimpy woman is 14-year-old Marie Durant, a French Christian in the 17th century who was arrested for being a Protestant and told she could be released if she said one phrase: “I abjure.” Instead, wrote on the wall of her cell, “Resist,” and stayed there 38 years until she died, doing just that (Karl Olsson, Passion, [New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963], 116-117).

Gladys and Esther Staines
The opposite of a wimpy woman is Gladys Staines who in 1999, after serving with her husband Graham in India for three decades learned that he and their two sons, Phillip (10) and Timothy (6), had been set on fire and burned alive by the very people they had served for 34 years, said, “I have only one message for the people of India. I’m not bitter. Neither am I angry. Let us burn hatred and spread the flame of Christ’s love.”

The opposite of a wimpy woman is her 13-year-old daughter Esther (rightly named!) who said, when asked how she felt about her father’s murder, “I praise the Lord that He found my father worthy to die for Him.”

Krista and Vicki
The opposite of a wimpy woman is Krista and Vicki who between them have had over 65 surgeries because of so-called birth defects, Apert Syndrome and Hypertelorism, and who testify today through huge challenges, “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well”; and this: “Even though my life has been difficult, I know that God loves me and created me just the way I am. He has taught me to persevere and to trust Him more than anything.”

Joni Eareckson TadaThe opposite of a wimpy woman is Joni Eareckson Tada who has spent the last 41 years in a wheel chair, and prays, “Oh, thank you, thank you for this wheel chair! By tasting hell in this life, I’ve been driven to think seriously about what faces me in the next. This paralysis is my greatest mercy” (Christianity Today, January, 2004, 50).

Suzie
The opposite of a wimpy woman is Suzie who lost her husband four years ago at age 59, found breast cancer three months later, then lost her mom and writes, “Now I see that I have been crying for the wrong kind of help. I now see, that my worst suffering is my sin—my sin of self-centeredness and self-pity. . . . I know that with His grace, his lovingkindess, and his merciful help, my thoughts can be reformed and my life conformed to be more like His Son.”

Way to go, John Piper! Speaking on The Ultimate Meaning of True Womanhood at the 2008 True Woman conference, he gave this incredibly beautiful list of strong godly women and what they did.

This is what we women need to hear. We don't need simply to be told to and how to submit so we can "help" our husbands in their spiritual walks. We need to hear about good Christian women who've come before us so those women who don't have godly mothers to look up to will have a woman role model, not just men to try and emulate.

Let's face it. It's a very confusing time to be a woman too.

I know we have older women in the church to be examples to the younger women, but it's not very common to see this taken very seriously.The mentoree needs to see how that person handles situations and conflict. How she treats others regularly. The way she conducts herself outside of church and during her daily routines. It takes more than seeing her an hour each week at church, and it's a big job to take someone under your wing and mentor that person. Because we do lack in this area, these kind of topics are so important. Women are hungry for it. They're yearning to know that they too can be valuable tools for God to use. We have a lot of work to do to erase the stigma we've placed on women just because they're women.

Praise God for giving men like this the wisdom and courage to go there!