A new book belongs on your shelf next to Kristin Kobes Du Mez and Beth Allison Barr. Like those two authors, Lisa Weaver Swartz takes on the masculinist, complementarian culture of America’s evangelicalism. Her book is called Stained Glass Ceilings: How Evangelicals Do Gender and Practice Power.
“Narcissistic-male production” is a perfect description, Scot. It is an utter shame what the Conservative Resurgence did to Southern Seminary and the SBC in general. My dad had Dr. Molly Marshall as a professor at Southern Seminary back before the conservative takeover, and learned a great deal from her. I had her mentee Dr. Penny Marler as a Sociology professor at Samford University in the early '90's. It's a shame how women have been erased, faded out, and forcefully removed in some cases. I am glad this book is highlighting how these thoughts have permeated over this generation into what I experienced over my 20 years as an IMB (SBC) missionary- a slow fade into a silencing of women. It's why I left the SBC. When you silence women, you silence them in violence as well. Now, the Department of Justice will have to invite those voices to speak because the SBC isn't. Al Mohler's declaration this week that women can't serve as pastors is, in my opinion, not something he gets to declare. God chooses whom God gifts. It's not for man to decide.
Along with the erasure of Molly et al was the erasure of the impact of those women in the history of the SBC. Kate Bowler shows that the gifts will emerge, either in the church or outside the church, but one can't simply silence the voices. Something there is that doesn't love the silence!
Was Molly completely "erased" because of her gender or because of her theology? I don't doubt gender was a part of it, but considering the trajectory of her career is it possible that theologically she just wasn't compatible with the theological trajectory of Southern after Mohler became president, irrespective of her gender?
Listening to a Homebrewed Christianity podcast with Tripp Fuuler, Brian McLaren, and Chandrika Pheasant, Chandrika made a statement: “When God is male, male is “God.” I capitalized and italicized the second “God.”
I was mowing the lawn when I was listening to the podcast. When I heard her say that, I said “wow!”, stopped the lawnmower, and thought about how revealingly true her statement is.
Over 33+ years of pastoring: 1) I have never told any person that the man is the head and the woman and everyone else are subservient. 2) I have dealt with many circumstances in which the was acting like God, and the relationship was lost, because the “godman” (don’t say that too fast too many times, or it becomes too realistic!) wouldn’t even listen to me. I have helped only by pointing the way toward the better way of true equality through mutual love.
I see the writing in this book happening in life, in many ways. One more reason to keep reading! Thank you!
I was asked this week what I thought of when I heard “communion of saints”. Into my head popped “brotherhood of believers “ I stopped and changed it to “Fellowship of the family of God”. But now I see that “fellowship” is gendered at its roots. It’s hard to escape patriarchy.
My understanding is that "communion" is actually a better translation of the word "koinonea". It also depends less on faith in Christ being "all in the head".
Makes my heart sad that these ideals are so entrenched. I cannot recommend enough Amy Peeler’s book, Women and the Gender of God for a solid refutation to much of this coming out of Southern. See my remarks at https://open.substack.com/pub/inchristus/p/women-and-the-gender-of-god
Scot, bloggers I read regularly have been quoting a lot of lately from the work of Iain McGilchrist. His writing on how the brain works seems fascinating, particularly how it has changed with the rise of a less earth-based society (as in the actual ground we till, etc) and a more idea-based society - not simply more technological, but the thought processes that go into supporting that techne. He writes about how the left brain is good at working out particulars, and the right brain at seeing wholeness and meaning, and that modernity has skewed way left-brain.
I would like to propose that the whole complementarian thing has arisen in schools and religious milieus in this country that are focused on a more left-brain consciousness: very literalistic reading of Scripture, focusing on the details, during a time where thought in general is much more focused on the same, with the peripheral vision socially of males losing heart about their place in the meaning of social life, but everyone trying to force meaning from a way of thinking that isn't very amenable to meaning-making. This is why the complementarians keep hammering on "...but the Bible says..." This is where the Enlightenment way of trying to find meaning has led us (but not that alone) - and churches that arose at the same time the Enlightenment did. We need both ways that our brain works, but the left brain stuff makes us more money...
Anyhow, that's what I think when I hear about this. And also that a theology short on Trinitarian focus, devoid of an understanding of the ramifications of the Incarnation, and eschewing typology and symbolism yields these results, among others.
I miss the opportunity of talking about this over coffee with you, my friend.
“Narcissistic-male production” is a perfect description, Scot. It is an utter shame what the Conservative Resurgence did to Southern Seminary and the SBC in general. My dad had Dr. Molly Marshall as a professor at Southern Seminary back before the conservative takeover, and learned a great deal from her. I had her mentee Dr. Penny Marler as a Sociology professor at Samford University in the early '90's. It's a shame how women have been erased, faded out, and forcefully removed in some cases. I am glad this book is highlighting how these thoughts have permeated over this generation into what I experienced over my 20 years as an IMB (SBC) missionary- a slow fade into a silencing of women. It's why I left the SBC. When you silence women, you silence them in violence as well. Now, the Department of Justice will have to invite those voices to speak because the SBC isn't. Al Mohler's declaration this week that women can't serve as pastors is, in my opinion, not something he gets to declare. God chooses whom God gifts. It's not for man to decide.
Along with the erasure of Molly et al was the erasure of the impact of those women in the history of the SBC. Kate Bowler shows that the gifts will emerge, either in the church or outside the church, but one can't simply silence the voices. Something there is that doesn't love the silence!
Was Molly completely "erased" because of her gender or because of her theology? I don't doubt gender was a part of it, but considering the trajectory of her career is it possible that theologically she just wasn't compatible with the theological trajectory of Southern after Mohler became president, irrespective of her gender?
Very interesting and important.
Listening to a Homebrewed Christianity podcast with Tripp Fuuler, Brian McLaren, and Chandrika Pheasant, Chandrika made a statement: “When God is male, male is “God.” I capitalized and italicized the second “God.”
I was mowing the lawn when I was listening to the podcast. When I heard her say that, I said “wow!”, stopped the lawnmower, and thought about how revealingly true her statement is.
Over 33+ years of pastoring: 1) I have never told any person that the man is the head and the woman and everyone else are subservient. 2) I have dealt with many circumstances in which the was acting like God, and the relationship was lost, because the “godman” (don’t say that too fast too many times, or it becomes too realistic!) wouldn’t even listen to me. I have helped only by pointing the way toward the better way of true equality through mutual love.
I see the writing in this book happening in life, in many ways. One more reason to keep reading! Thank you!
I was asked this week what I thought of when I heard “communion of saints”. Into my head popped “brotherhood of believers “ I stopped and changed it to “Fellowship of the family of God”. But now I see that “fellowship” is gendered at its roots. It’s hard to escape patriarchy.
My understanding is that "communion" is actually a better translation of the word "koinonea". It also depends less on faith in Christ being "all in the head".
Dana
Makes my heart sad that these ideals are so entrenched. I cannot recommend enough Amy Peeler’s book, Women and the Gender of God for a solid refutation to much of this coming out of Southern. See my remarks at https://open.substack.com/pub/inchristus/p/women-and-the-gender-of-god
Scot, bloggers I read regularly have been quoting a lot of lately from the work of Iain McGilchrist. His writing on how the brain works seems fascinating, particularly how it has changed with the rise of a less earth-based society (as in the actual ground we till, etc) and a more idea-based society - not simply more technological, but the thought processes that go into supporting that techne. He writes about how the left brain is good at working out particulars, and the right brain at seeing wholeness and meaning, and that modernity has skewed way left-brain.
I would like to propose that the whole complementarian thing has arisen in schools and religious milieus in this country that are focused on a more left-brain consciousness: very literalistic reading of Scripture, focusing on the details, during a time where thought in general is much more focused on the same, with the peripheral vision socially of males losing heart about their place in the meaning of social life, but everyone trying to force meaning from a way of thinking that isn't very amenable to meaning-making. This is why the complementarians keep hammering on "...but the Bible says..." This is where the Enlightenment way of trying to find meaning has led us (but not that alone) - and churches that arose at the same time the Enlightenment did. We need both ways that our brain works, but the left brain stuff makes us more money...
Anyhow, that's what I think when I hear about this. And also that a theology short on Trinitarian focus, devoid of an understanding of the ramifications of the Incarnation, and eschewing typology and symbolism yields these results, among others.
I miss the opportunity of talking about this over coffee with you, my friend.
Dana