I grew up (for the most part) as one of three children, I and two brothers. In any band of three, it's not uncommon for alliances to form, 2-to-1. We were no different.
Often I as the oldest was the divisive one, as much as I hate to admit it. I and one brother would ally against the other and talk about "secret stuff you can't know about." The secret was normally that there was no secret.
I think what bothers me is that I see the same trend developing in churches today. In an attempt to regain "biblical manhood" and "biblical womanhood," we've subdivided the church in to gender-based clubs.
Before someone thinks I'm trying to do away with gender distinction, let me clarify: men and women are different, yes, and have different wants and needs, etc. Fine. But I think we've gone beyond the idea of meeting the needs of each and into the arena of division, and ill-fitting divisions at that.
This really isn't a focused line of thought, just something that's bothered me for a while. Not long ago, the women in the church had the opportunity to participate in a Beth Moore study. Had to be all women, of course, because the person on video was female.(Note that she wasn't present, simply recorded -- how is this different from a book written by a woman? But that's another discussion entirely.) There wasn't anything in it that was substantially "girls only," but that's the way the class was billed. Only a few weeks ago, the men took part in a class based on John Eldredge's book Wild at Heart.
I'm not here reviewing the books and/or studies themselves (which could take a while). Instead, I'm more concerned with the ways in which they are presented. The "boys only!" and "girls only!" attitudes sets up an exclusivistic dichotomy which I think is far from a biblical ideal.
And there's something else that bothers me. The image either of these sets up as the "ideal" man or woman of God is generally far from universal. The "ideal" woman of God is based largely on evangelical culture rather than the biblical picture. As is the man of God. Particularly Eldredge's take on it.
I have a friend whom I consider to be a great man of God who is also shy, quiet and far from the adventurous man Eldredge sets forth as the ideal. Is this man less in the image of God because he is not the adventerous type? And if God is this wild, risk-taking Person and the ideal man is to be like him instead of 'feminized,' what then does this say about the ideal woman?
I don't know. But it bugs the snot outta me. I want to has this out a little better later.
6 comments:
It bugs me too. The latest issue of Christianity Today had a cover story on Eldredge. I wasn't very impressed. He denied the "Are you making God into your own image?" criticism, but I think that is exactly what he is doing. Sure, there is a risk-taking, adventurous side to God, but that is not the only side of God. By painting God only in this light, you have isolated women and men who might be a little less adventurous. (or couldn't be adventurous if they wanted to because they are a little over weight and out of shape, but I'm speaking of no person in particular--*cough,* myself, *cough*.) When we say, "This is the way God is, always has been, and always will be," then we undermine the purpose of the incarnation. Even looking at the Gospels, you have three VASTLY different pictures of Jesus. One could write a book and make the case that Jesus was a bit of a pansy too and that men should seek to imitate him (but I don't think that would sell in our violence-driven culture).
I agree about John Eldredge's book Wild at Heart. Despite his denial I think he is making God into his own image. We all like to do that in some ways I guess.
My church does the same thing with the Beth Moore class but it is more because we break into disscussion groups with leaders and I would hate to have a man in a group led by a woman!!! //insert satirical grimace here// But having said that, it is nice and good for women and men to get together on their own because they can relate on so many different levels. Churches have to allow for that in some venue.
SG --
Yes, but there's a difference between allowing for it and mandating it.
Very true Miss Q! But like it or not, in some church leaderships, there are few distictions noted between allowing and mandating.
Hey -- I've been meaning to comment on this for some time. Eldredge is one of those guys that I can waffle about like a madman -- or perhaps a madman politician. Tell me he's the greatest thing ever and I'll tell you where he plays fast-and-loose with the Scriptures and reinforces cultural stereotypes. But I also think it's too easy to dismiss and minimize the value of his contributions. Naturally, though, I cannot speak from a woman's point of view. If I were a woman, he'd likely drive me nuts, and I have no problem with any woman who gets irritated with him.
But I think that too many men have become weak in this post-feminist era. Not weak MEN -- weak PEOPLE. Many of us need to hear the message that we can't live full lives simply by making money and going through the motions. All of our energies are going into our careers instead of into our families and our faith, and then we wonder why we're depressed, lonely and seeking pleasures outside our homes. That's what I gleaned from my reading of W.A.H. in 2002. Men (AND women) must be willing to take risks and toss way those golden handcuffs and step out in faith. Personally, reading W.A.H. motivated me to do something that I already knew I needed to do. I read the book in April of 2002. As a result, in July 2002, I gave notice to the Christian school where I was employed that the upcoming school year would be my last. I had no job lined up to take its place, but I needed to make that call and trust that God would take care of me and my family. Please understand that this was not as reckless as it sounds -- I still had 13 months of paychecks coming my way. But I needed to make a change for the good of my family, and John Eldredge provided me with much-needed motivation. That doesn't right every wrong-headed idea that Eldredge may have inadvertently perpetuated, but it's important to hear that he has been helpful to some of us.
To sum up, when people tell me that they're thinking of reading W.A.H., I tell them, "There's some great stuff in that book. Just take it with a grain of salt"
I could say that about most books I've read, by the way! Take him with a grain of salt, but I think Eldredge has his place.
So do you, Quiara! I love this blog.
Matt,
Well said. I guess I really need to read that book. My husband just started it because his men's class is studying it. One day, clear out of the blue, he just decided to stop shaving. Never in the nearly 30 years we have been married has he ever done that! I am not sure what it means, but my curiosity is piqued.
Post a Comment