Asbury’s “Equal but Different” Story A new book belongs 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
Okay. What I believe is missing in this entire discussion is the following. I'm a woman who has fought for equality since the 1980s. I know the battle-lines in my bones. But I have since come to believe that God created the two sexes to be complementary: women and men ARE different in some important ways and God's call is to respect and cherish one another for those differences. But for most folks the issues aren't clear-cut and genuine humility has to be part of the equation. There's entirely too much one-upmanship in the whole complementarian/egalitarian war. Both men and women must acknowledge that in a sense in ministry it really does take two (one of each) to tango. God had a great idea, but we continue to miss the central point.
I just finished reading Swartz's book. The main problem with genderblindness isn't so much that egalitarians don't have a clear vision of male & female differences while insisting on those differences to uphold heterosexual marriage (although that does come up), but rather, that genderblindness effectively squashes the differences in male & female experiences within Christian communities (including social pressures, ministry, institutional power and decision-making, Bible interpretation, theology, use of time, etc.).
Highlighting these differences in Christian egalitarian communities is thought to be an affront to Christian unity. Female seminarians and pastors are expected to not have a problem with taking on the "second shift" (household labor) that disadvantages their opportunities to pursue their studies & vocation. They're constantly scrutinized for their clothing, their motives for pursuing ministry, their attitudes and affect, all while they're far less likely to receive mentoring and encouragement to pursue ministry in the first place. The burden of "unity" essentially falls on the women to not bring up such disparities, lest it make the men uncomfortable that their theologically egalitarian seminary still revolves around men, in many subtle ways.
FWIW, I think male + female co-leadership at every level in the church (pastor, elder, biblical scholarship, theological teaching, etc.) is necessary, BECAUSE of women's different experiences.
It would have been interesting have had at least one additional chapter on how male experience has been allowed to interpret (and distort) Scriptural narratives. If the Bible is the Spirit-inspired account of God's dealings with humanity--both male & female, who are equally filled with the Spirit--then how can we interpret male & female stories accurately while entirely missing a female lens?
Stories like David-Bathsheba, Tamar, the Samaritan woman at the well, Joseph & Potiphar's wife, etc. etc.
FWIW, I believe that men and women are different, but once you get past the biology in order to try to make definitive statements about what men & women are really like (such as: men are competitive; women are nurturing, etc.), you'll likely sound pretty foolish before long.
It's ok to say that men & women do have different tendencies, but there's a lot of overlap between tendencies. Also, a lot of these gender tendencies are impossible to distinguish from cultural expression and/or socialization.
(For example: the stereotype that women are nurturing winds up in the tacit expectation that women will take on the admin labor & managing others' emotions in workplace and family life, in order to keep things running smoothly.)
What I see is people define "complementary" different. I didn't see anything wrong with husband and wife complementing each other until I saw how it was applied so damagingly by comps. That was actually one of the main reasons I bought into it, because I didn't interpret it like they did. I don't believe comps definition is God's definition and they think my conclusions don't count and are wrong because I am a female.
Okay. What I believe is missing in this entire discussion is the following. I'm a woman who has fought for equality since the 1980s. I know the battle-lines in my bones. But I have since come to believe that God created the two sexes to be complementary: women and men ARE different in some important ways and God's call is to respect and cherish one another for those differences. But for most folks the issues aren't clear-cut and genuine humility has to be part of the equation. There's entirely too much one-upmanship in the whole complementarian/egalitarian war. Both men and women must acknowledge that in a sense in ministry it really does take two (one of each) to tango. God had a great idea, but we continue to miss the central point.
Thanks Alice. Wise words.
I just finished reading Swartz's book. The main problem with genderblindness isn't so much that egalitarians don't have a clear vision of male & female differences while insisting on those differences to uphold heterosexual marriage (although that does come up), but rather, that genderblindness effectively squashes the differences in male & female experiences within Christian communities (including social pressures, ministry, institutional power and decision-making, Bible interpretation, theology, use of time, etc.).
Highlighting these differences in Christian egalitarian communities is thought to be an affront to Christian unity. Female seminarians and pastors are expected to not have a problem with taking on the "second shift" (household labor) that disadvantages their opportunities to pursue their studies & vocation. They're constantly scrutinized for their clothing, their motives for pursuing ministry, their attitudes and affect, all while they're far less likely to receive mentoring and encouragement to pursue ministry in the first place. The burden of "unity" essentially falls on the women to not bring up such disparities, lest it make the men uncomfortable that their theologically egalitarian seminary still revolves around men, in many subtle ways.
FWIW, I think male + female co-leadership at every level in the church (pastor, elder, biblical scholarship, theological teaching, etc.) is necessary, BECAUSE of women's different experiences.
It would have been interesting have had at least one additional chapter on how male experience has been allowed to interpret (and distort) Scriptural narratives. If the Bible is the Spirit-inspired account of God's dealings with humanity--both male & female, who are equally filled with the Spirit--then how can we interpret male & female stories accurately while entirely missing a female lens?
Stories like David-Bathsheba, Tamar, the Samaritan woman at the well, Joseph & Potiphar's wife, etc. etc.
Wonderful comment! Thank you.
FWIW, I believe that men and women are different, but once you get past the biology in order to try to make definitive statements about what men & women are really like (such as: men are competitive; women are nurturing, etc.), you'll likely sound pretty foolish before long.
It's ok to say that men & women do have different tendencies, but there's a lot of overlap between tendencies. Also, a lot of these gender tendencies are impossible to distinguish from cultural expression and/or socialization.
(For example: the stereotype that women are nurturing winds up in the tacit expectation that women will take on the admin labor & managing others' emotions in workplace and family life, in order to keep things running smoothly.)
What I see is people define "complementary" different. I didn't see anything wrong with husband and wife complementing each other until I saw how it was applied so damagingly by comps. That was actually one of the main reasons I bought into it, because I didn't interpret it like they did. I don't believe comps definition is God's definition and they think my conclusions don't count and are wrong because I am a female.
You are right here, Connie. The emphasis with too many comps is hierarchical roles instead of meshing together.