THE FEMINIZATION OF THE CHURCH----PART TWO

 Last time I attempted to define the word "feminization" so we could honestly investigate to see if the Church is indeed being feminized. But the question itself was left unanswered, so I will attempt to give a somewhat definitive one now as I understand things. My answer is some may say "Yes," some "Maybe," but I really believe NO." 

Now, before you accuse me of coping out...hear me out. [It may be a bit lengthy.] 


I admitted last time that there is no simple answer if you'll recall, especially in light of so many working definitions in the minds of people. Permit me to walk through my answer with you and then make your judgment as to what I'm saying.

 No... the Church is not being feminized. It's impossible to do such a thing. Biblically, the Church is genderless in nature and cannot be feminized. In Christ there is neither male nor female as stated in Galatians 3:28. That statement is obviously NOT speaking of a physical fact of creation but of the spiritual nature of the Church or all people "in Christ." The Church is a living, breathing, genderless organism that is to be seen as spiritual in nature and cannot be masculine OR feminine. 

We use gender language on occasion to convey thoughts, as does the scriptures themselves, but that verse is showing that NO gender language should be used when describing Her [there it is] nature. To use feminine OR masculine language as an adjective when speaking of the nature of the Church would be a GREAT disservice to the true Ekklesia. This is because the Church is an ORGANISM and not an ORGANIZATION that such language fails. 


This is why common language like "attending church," "going to church" and "how many came to church," may only exacerbate the problem. Someone might say..."Yes, but we're just using cultural language to communicate." No problem there...unless that kind of cultural language destroys or dismisses the true biblical nature of a topic and here, IMHO, it does. 


To illustrate this point, I heard about a deacon who admonished a young man who was wearing his baseball cap on a Sunday morning this way, "Son, take your cap off while you are at church. Remember, you're in the House of God." To which the young man responded, "Sir, this cap is ON the house of God. I AM the church." Manners and cultural niceties notwithstanding, the boy was correct biblically while the deacon missed what the church is really all about.

In the same way, to even use language that says the Church is being feminized is to miss the biblical understanding of what the Church is all about as much as did that deacon.

It may be that someone objects by saying that the statements about feminization are referencing the methodologies and practices of the gathered church. I think that is true. But that is precisely my point. I wish we would NOT identify methods and practices as the "Church." 


The "Church" is PEOPLE whether gathered, scattered, failing, succeeding or just generally one way or the other and cannot correctly be addressed as one gender or the other, one race or the other or one ethnic group or the other. Do you see what would happen if all who are "in Christ" accepted this kind of biblical concept?  It would change our perception and acceptance of one another radically?

Paul addressed himself to the "Church of God in Corinth." It is evident he was speaking to all the people who belonged to God ["of God" is possessive] who were living in Corinth gathered or scattered at the moment. But for him to have said to that group of people, "You are being feminized" or even masculinized [made up word] would have been unthinkable. 


He certainly did say when they were gathered they were acting childish and selfish, but they were Saints acting that way. They were not becoming something other than Saints because of their behavior at all. 

In like manner, the Church is not being feminized and it isn't helpful to use that language. For the world to do that is understandable and forgivable. But for believers to use such language is totally inappropriate given the nature of the Church. The Ekklesia [Church] is the Ekklesia by His Grace and will not change in nature regardless of behavior good or bad and is genderless in emphasis.

In anticipating the charge, "Are you not making a mountain out of a molehill here? I would simply say that, quite to the contrary, this is foundational to the Church being the Church, in a biblical way, in any given culture. 


At your leisure, check and see how all the duties enjoined upon a believer in scripture, whether it is to love one another, forgive one another, pray for one another, or whatever, are NEVER because one is a member of a denomination OR even a local church, much less whether they are male or female, but only on the basis of being "in Christ."


That's the nature of the Church. That's what binds us together. That's why the nature of the true Church must never be defined with denominational, racial, cultural, or gender characteristics. The Ekklesia is being built without reference to race, gender or any such thing and no cultural idea or even hell itself can change that reality in this world.

Now as to the Church gathered and performing certain things like study, sharing, praise, preaching, someone might raise questions about gender issues that they think would make us more effective in reaching men and not just women. But even there I would argue that the basis for that conversation must not be out of FEAR or PREJUDICE which I hear a lot of in the discussion of this topic. 


It reminds me of the story of a little kid saying to one of his friends,"you're just acting like a girl" with a smirk on his face as if he's just rendered an adolescent cuss word. That kind of thinking isn't necessary and isn't helpful to the Body being the Body and it certainly isn't Christian. 


The basic issue I have with all the conversation about "the church gathered" may be whether or not the point or goal of the gathered church IS TO BE one of attracting outsiders [non christians] anyway. If our concern is to NOT BE too feminine or about NOT being MANLY ENOUGH to attract certain people we may have already lost the battle. 


The utter difference of the nature of the church can be lost in our zeal to be attractive to our culture, it seems to me, and I don't think it's the way we are DOING things when gathered that is the issue at all.


Were NON-BELIEVERS to come to our gatherings and find us BEING committed to loving them whether or not they are male or female, anglo or otherwise, moral in their behavior or not, and were they to see our ability for experiencing shared lives based on grace and acceptance, while all the time EXPERIENCING the real presence of God, we would be going far, as Paul put it,  in NOT..."defiling the Temple of God, which you are," [1 Corinthians 3:17]  


With that happening, non-believers visiting our gathered group might not understand us, but they might be strangely drawn to us  so that they would be willing to give the message of our Christ a hearing anyway. That, to me, makes any gender problems a moot issue totally.

That's my bottom line answer, lengthy as promised, to the question of the Church being feminized. "No!" [In my humble opinion.]

Paul B.