Monday, September 21, 2015

MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE "FEMINIZATION" OF THE THE CHURCH

"There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [Galatians 3:28 NIV]

Some people are asking the question, "Is the Church becoming too "feminized?" Whatever that means!

If by "feminized" is meant that you will find more women involved in Church life, when gathered, than you do men, I would have to agree. But I don't know that that is a problem. It seems to me that's been true of the church all along. Even in the NT the women were involved with the person of Jesus in many more ways than were men at times. The tomb situation, the Cross moment, the teaching and washing of Jesus feet are all illustrations of that fact. [Not many men mentioned in those moments.]

That, however, could be more a testimony to the courage of women as a gender and their ability to face the prospect of pain than anything else. Following Jesus often brought pain [and still may in many quarters] and women have shown their ability to endure pain quite well in child bearing. Men will never experience that, for obvious reasons, and will, if wise, concede the point that women may be stronger than are men where pain is concerned.

Some might mean by the "feminization of the Church" that men, as a gender, are less likely to be involved where relationships are concerned or small groups are being created because men don't talk or show emotions/feelings as much as do women. But, if that's what is meant, I'm wondering if that might not be an unhealthy generalization based on a completely unprovable premise. Much as I did above with the pain thing. frown emoticonI have to say, I've always been suspicious of categorizing men and women with certain assumed gender characteristics especially if those characteristics are viewed as ABSOLUTES. You've heard it said of women that they love to shop, but men hunt. The difference? Women "look and look and love the looking." With men it is,"I see._I shoot_[buy] I go home."

At the risk of destroying any perceptions about Mary and me, [those who know us well know this to be true] Mary is the one who sees, shoots, and go home, but she would rather see and shoot [buy] off the Internet] truth be known. I, on the other hand, love to look and look whether I buy or not, be it cars, clothes or__you get the idea. So, I'm thinking generalized gender characterizations MAY NOT be very helpful when speaking to this kind of question about the church at all.

Then there is the thought that by "feminization" of the Church is meant a diluting of the message of Christ into an "easy believism." In other words, the message of COMMITMENT and SACRIFICE is lost and a "feel good" message is being presented and accepted in our day and that turns men off. [Some say.] This is sometimes identified as "psycho-babble" which is, evidently, a Siamese twin to "feminization" in the minds of many. The assumption here is that women tend to fall for "easy believism." [As evidenced, I guess, by Eve's proneness to deception.] But men most likely won't be led astray. [Forgetting that Adam was EASILY led astray by the woman.]

I guess we COULD get men together, if we wanted to, [there is NOTHING wrong with having programs for men/women/children, just don't call those programs the "CHURCH."] by emphasizing real "manly things" like hunting, fishing, [though I know women who love those things and men who don't] and singing triumphant songs with soldier lyrics. But we could STILL wind up with a big, sometimes easy, sometimes feel good gathering that doesn't cost us a whole lot in terms of a sacrificial kind of thing at all. We will have just changed the content of the gathering.

But really, is the Church being feminized to the loss of attracting men? My personal opinion is it's impossible to do such a thing. My thought is to talk of programs that are male attractive OR female attractive as if those programs are the church is to miss the point of the REAL Church anyway. Biblically, the Church is genderless in nature and cannot be feminized. In Christ there is neither male nor female as stated in the opening text of this post. That statement is obviously NOT speaking of a physical fact of creation but of the spiritual nature of the Church or all the 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.

So the REAL problem with this "feminization of the Church" thing is perhaps far beyond any one of these ideas mentioned above.

Then what is the real problem?

One more time__I don't think we adequately__biblically__ understand in our day__what the Church REALLY IS.

At your leisure, check the scriptures and see how all the duties placed upon believers, any believer, whether it is to love one another, forgive one another, pray for one another, or whatever the Church is to be doing, are NEVER based upon which sex they are, whether 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 by programs, race, 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.

Add to that the BASIC issue about whether or not the goal of the "gathered church" is to be one of ATTRACTING outsiders anyway. [Non christians] That idea may be entirely non-scriptural, if not un-scriptural. Our concern about NOT being too feminine or about NOT being manly enough to attract certain people may show we've lost the battle already.

The New Testament identity of the nature of the church may have been lost in our zeal to be attractive to our culture, it seems to me. So, I don't think it's the way we are DOING things when gathered that is the issue at all. Remember, the point of the Great Commission is to GO and gossip the gospel to the lost. It is not to invite the lost to COME and hear my pastor preach.

Were NON-BELIEVERS to actually come to our gatherings and find us LOVING on them whether 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, to 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 might be willing to give the message of our Christ a hearing anyway. That, to me, makes any gender problems a moot issue totally.

As to the question, "Is the Church being feminized," my answer is obviously a resounding "No!"

[In my humble opinion of course.]

Paul B.

14 comments:

Steve Miller said...

Brother Paul,

Many apologies for not commenting on earlier posts but sometimes just accepting what you state in appreciation has been the appropriate response. On this recent post I give a hearty amen. Your post truly simplifies the message that I believe the church in Acts understood and lived out. Jesus was the center of the church; in worship, method and message. Your background, gender, or ethnicity was never the maine issue after Paul and the disiciples clarified the situation. The missionary message of our church is simply: make the Gospel visible. This is in word and deed. Too often we so complicate the matter. Thanks for a very simplified post. Blessings to you and Mary.

Steve

Aussie John said...

Paul,

Thanks again for an excellent word.

It is so important to remember that the church is wherever we are, not just when we meet as a congregation of believers, so, whenever we come in contact with unbelievers, to use your words, "NON-BELIEVERS (will) find us LOVING on them whether 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, to NOT..."defiling the Temple of God, which you are," [1 Corinthians 3:17]

By the way I like the Americanism "LOVING on them". We lazy Australians would simply say,"loving them". :)

Paul Burleson said...

Steve,

Your comments are, as also, deeply appreciated.



Aussie J,

I'm chuckling as I type. I'm guessing we Americans mean by "Loving on them" that we're somehow bestowing a gift upon people. I'm not sure that would stand the test of "making sense" but there it is. :)

Rex Ray said...

Since there’s “neither male nor female” why did the SBC’s BF&M 2000 limit the office of pastor to men only?

Does that imply women pastors of Methodist and other denominations are living in sin? Also the many women pastors in Korea, China, Japan, etc.

Paul Burleson said...

Rex,

I'm sure you are aware of the fact that it's impossible for me to know the motive of someone else, since I cannot know their heart, so my honest answer is, I simply don't know.

That said, I can assume by the actions/teachings/decisions of those in charge of drawing up the statement of faith in 2000 that they desired to take the SBC a different/certain direction. They would also, I can assume they would disagree with my interpretations of certain passages of scripture regarding women. I DON'T believe the text teaches/supports a hierarchal system in the church or family, for example. But as to their TRUE, you're guess is as good as mine.

Thank God, however, that, as Baptists, we can choose to follow none, part or all of that particular statement of faith. I've chosen what I will do and I'm happy with my choice.

I might also say that I DON'T use ANY belief system as the basis of my fellowship with other believers. Our ground of fellowship as the Body of Christ [Church[ is the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE! All the non-salvific issues/doctrines are important to have personal positions on, generally speaking, but they NEVER should be the ground of fellowship among believers IMHO.

Rex Ray said...

Paul,

You said, “…those in charge of drawing up the statement…” I’d like to identify “those”.

At the time, Paige Patterson was President of the SBC. He hand picked 15 of his friends to write the BF&M 2000. They wrote in secret behind ‘closed doors’. They announce: “We can’t tell what it is but you’re going to like it.” None of the churches or their messengers knew until it was ‘pushed through’ at the next SBC.

In contrast the BF&M 1963 was written by ALL the State Convention presidents; with open doors to anyone with suggestions. The churches and messengers had plenty of time to study it BEFORE the next CBC. The old conventions of Texas and Virginia do NOT accept the 2000, but hold dearly to the 1963 which our church does.

What’s the difference in ‘knowing someone’s heart’ and “You can identify them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:16 Holman)
The same chapter that says “do not judge others” says “what you say flows from what is in your heart.” (Luke 6:37 & 45 Holman)

What flows from Paige Patterson’s heart is shown by your son’s post of: 9-18-15 with the title: “Paige Patterson Attacks the IMB” and its 88 comments.

Paul Burleson said...

Rex,

I'm aware that some people say because of that Jeremiah verse that the heart is deceitful and wicked so who can know it. I'm thinking that verse, when properly translated MAY be more accurately seen as saying, “The heart is complex and fragile, who can know it?” But that's NOT my reason for believing we can't know another person's heart.

My believing it best leaving motives and the inner heart to be judged and made clear on THAT DAY is based on 1 Corinthians 4:5 and the surrounding passage. It says, "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God." [1 Corinthians 4:5 NIV]

Whatever "by their fruits you shall know them" means, it DOESN'T mean you can know their motives. Paul the Apostle was pretty clear about that to the Corinthians.

Steve Miller said...

Amen Paul. This reminds me of the good dialogue days at Southcliff in Ft Worth with me asking the questions. Great memories; truth is truth no matter the year.

Steve

Rex Ray said...

Paul,
If 1 Corinthians 4:5 ruled the world, there would be no judges, no juries, and evil would never be questioned.

Paul Burleson said...

Rex,

Bingo!!

1 Corinthians 4:5 was/is never intended to "rule the world" since His Kingdom/Church is not of this world. But when 1 Corinthians is lived out in Kingdom living there WOULD BE NO judges and juries, just ministers and congregations showing love, grace and mercy, and evil found in the Kingdom would be dealt with redemptively rather than punitively, while waiting for the King to come to establish His Eternal Kingdom.

Until then Judges/juries/penal systems will handle societal evil with the established legal system whose guide IS NOT 1 Corinthians 4:5 but the Constitution of the good old US of A. Those legal systems have been allowed of God for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty ones.

Aussie John said...

Paul,

Loved your replies in the dialogue.

The issues remind me of the problems facing immigrants who don't understand the language, the customs and conventions of the new country.

Trying to live under the Old Covenant is as different to living under the New Covenant inaugurated in Christ's finished work, as walking through knee deep mud is to walking in knee deep fresh water.

Paul Burleson said...

Aussie J,

What an apt analogy. Well said AND illustrated. Thanks!!

Rex Ray said...

Paul,

OK…”Calf rope!”
(Requirement to admit you were down when wrestling my father.)

Aussie John, “…walking through knee deep mud…”

Reminds me of my father, brother, cousin and me doing that when the tide went out on the Bering Sea;leaving our boat 100 yards from shore. During the night the tide returned, and my cousin fired his rifle in vain to wake me up in the boat. My father said, “Shoot closer.”

Paul Burleson said...

Rex,

I like your spirit!