Half the Church
From Carolyn Custis James’s Half the Church: Recapturing God’s Global Vision for Women
“What makes navigating life for women even more confusing is the fact that we don’t live in a patriarchal culture. The West is egalitarian. Women enjoy the same freedoms, education, career opportunities, and potential for success as men. Yet instead of wrestling with how to live out the gospel in the culture where God has stationed us, we’re supposed to wrestle with how to preserve at least some aspects of patriarchy at home and inside church doors although, for obvious reasons, only certain aspects of patriarchy are deemed worth preserving.
“We have thrown out polygamy and slavery. Fathers aren’t selling their daughters or arranging marriages. We’re as deliriously happy over the birth of a daughter as we are a son. . . . Christian women live a rather schizophrenic existence as we are constantly moving between two worlds, cultivating strengths, abilities, and experience we may need to set aside when we enter the church or head home. In one world our contributions and expertise are welcomed and valued. In the church we are a subject of debate, and our gifts can be problematic, unwelcome, or allowed only limited use.
Word of this ongoing battle (and other disputes in the church) is leaking out to a watching world. This makes an unappealing impression on women outside the church. Instead of being intrigued and drawn by a community where loving one another is the reigning distinctive, they are repelled by all the infighting and the expectation that the world will grow smaller for them when they step inside. The church seems out of touch and irrelevant at points to the normal lives of Western women. A Christian businessman felt the predicament when he was witnessing to a capable female executive at work and finding her remarkably open to the gospel. The dilemma weighing on his mind was, ‘When do I break the news to her about submission?’”
Taken from Half the Church by Carolyn Custis James. Copyright © 2010 by Carolyn Custis James. Used by permission of Zondervan, www.zondervan.com.
JTB and Q – are you really saying that the only significant differences between men and women are anatomical? Because I disagree. There are differences in the way the brains of the two sexes work which likely lead to some general differences in psychological outlook and viewpoint. It is – to me – the lack of these differences in leadership that ribs any organization of advantages it could have.
Individuals will be who we are, so there will always be variations from statistical averages in those qualities, but I don’t think churches and other organizations can count on getting those advantages by seeking out leaders from among only males who break those norms. (If that’s what you’re saying, I agree and apologize for being thick-headed in interpreting what you’ve said.)
Any NT relational reference to Adam and Eve has to do with the marriage context…it would be unfair to the text to apply this “family value” to the general public/larger community. There does appear to be some sort of “head priestly like” role for husbands, but not for men generally (1 Peter 3:1 Women be submissive “to your own husbands.”).
Love you all!
I am REALLY looking forward to QB’s reply to Q’s request for a definition of the
intrinsic/essential differences between the sexes. Of course, I’m so very happy I don’t have that assignment even though I tend to agree with QB that there are some – and No Way am I going to get specific.
In keeping with Keith’s comment, I am sure Q would not want to allow QB his +/- 84%, but perhaps she would tolerate something approximating normal bell curve theory. Just b/c something isn’t represented in 100% of all cases doesn’t mean there is no merit to the concept.
Cheers from the sidelines,
Geezer
Well, Q, yes and no. If, for example, you believe that there CAN be no essential difference between male and female other than biology or anatomy, then it doesn’t matter what my list looks like…none of the items on it would even be candidates for consideration. And that’s fine; it’s not difficult to see where the chess pieces move from there. Any list is plagued by contingencies, semantics, etc.; I prefer to play the game in the “thought experiment” domain before getting terribly specific.
What I am thinking of as “essential” or “intrinsic” in the spiritual dimension is a set of “trends” that, by virtue of being spiritual, can be overcome by any number or combination of spiritual forces…which means that even the strongest trends, characterized by an enormous separation between the two sexes’ central tendencies, still have their internal variances.
Analogously, I could by a concerted exertion of physical forces (either by myself, or by some external means) overcome my anatomical design and become, functionally, a woman. But that does not mean that my original maleness was not intrinsic or essential; it just means it is and remains vulnerable and mutable.
Not having read any of the relevant literature, of course, I may be violating any number of well established conventions in the discipline of sexual identity. Feel free to disabuse me of them, if you can!
qb
Ketih, I’m only asking that they be defined and be justified as being across-the-board. If they do not apply to all men and all women in all places in every case, they’re not really intrinsic. They are then shaped by something outward rather than via an internal process or hardwiring.
I haven’t actually stated my beliefs regarding whether there are or aren’t. I’m just asking those who have to define them.
Geezer, I don’t remember stating an explicit agreement or disagreement with the +/-84%, either. Feel free to ask me if you’d like to know, though. Your submission of “I know the answer, but I’m not gonna tell, unh uh,” is… less than helpful.
qb, thank you for your answer. I want to think about what I’d like to say before I reply, please. I think this discussion is finally moving away from well trod ruts in the comments over time and I don’t want to send it back through any sort of mis-statement.
For the record, I’m believe there are differing trends between the sexes, but I don’t believe that they are intrinsic or even the essence of the being inhabiting the body. But I agree that those trends that often manifest along gendered lines do make for a more diverse pool of gifts and talents from which a congregation may pull strength.
I would welcome the more specific examples as well; I’d be interested to know what you believe them to be. I would be interested to know what anyone contributing to this discussion believes them to be.
I don’t pretend to know everything and especially not about this. That’s why I’ve asked the questions I have. Sometimes a question really is a quest for information.
Q ,
I am sure and apologize to you that my responses must be just too simple. Not a fine mind but will try. My overall point is that God has decided in His word that men should be the leaders. Iam not convinced anyone is born into leadership, it is developed. It just seems to me in my small understanding that God said because the man was created first and woman was deceived first ( and it was not me that gave that revelation , and I do not know how to read Paul or Moses – the Holy Spirit – about what happened at creation and the fall than how it all happened ; some say it was a myth, I say it is as written , God created man and then woman and then she was deceived first -that is how I read it;others may not ). Men were the human authors of scripture. Jesus had12 apostles , all men . They provided the doctrinal foundation of the church . Jesus was a man in the incarnation. He is the Son of God . There is our Father in heaven , no not mother God . Yes , the apostles were told about Jesus being raised by women. Wonderful . Praise God ! But it was the apostles that preached throughout Acts. Paul mentioned many women who were important to the work of the church. There is the mentionof Priscilla with her husband teaching in a home. And yes , Deborah keeps being mentioned , and what she did was also great. But that what she did has no bearing , again in my mind on our current discussion. Scriptures mention many women who were considered examples of faith. But now in this time of the new coveneant , God has so commanded it for the men to provide the leadership and in the assembly of the church to preach.
And Q , numerous times I have mentioned the absolute importance of women in the church; several times in several posts. And not one time have I mentioned submission as meaning oppression. Actually , submission for all of us can be very liberating, or let me say for me it is , when I do submit and not live in stubborn resistance to His will .
No , I am not in a leadership position in the church. I submit to the leadership. Some here fight against it . I think they are wrong and I know leaders can lord it over the flock but sometimes I know the membership has to be careful about trying to lord it over the elders. There are times when I think some want the leaders to be yes men ;” as long as you men do what I want , then yes I will gladly submit to your leadership as elders, pastors and overseers but if you decide to do something I do not agree with , then l will pull out the lord it over the flock card “. Seen it and heard it many times.
Those are some of my simple views. Thanks for answering. At least you have answered what I was asking. Jesus Christ and Him crucified is at the center of all we believe. Keep the discussion going.
Q,
I’m sorry if I spoke for you when I indicated you would not be satisfied with a reply that allowed for plus or minus close to two standard deviations. Please forgive me; and allow me to restate that I doubt I would be satisfied with a reply that allowed for so much wiggle room, especially if my request had indicated these differences must apply to ALL men and women.
Please note that I did not say “I know the answer, but I’m not gonna tell, unh uh.” It is to nice to complain that someone put words into your mouth and then put words into their mouth. I believe you misunderstood not only my words but my intent. I indicated that I did (and do) think there are some differences, but it is far too difficult and thorny for me to take on the task of the scope and definition of those differences. I had hoped that would be apparent from my comment that I was happy I did not have that assignment. I believe that psychologists, anthropologists and others have struggled to address this issue. I am not aware that the scientific community has reached even a general consensus.
Cheers from the sidelines,
Geezer
Geezer, I owe you an apology then. That was how it appeared to me when I read it, but I will happily rescind my criticism and extend to you the grace I hope you’ll extend to me.
Quite honestly, I’m just pleased that this discussion has deviated from the path we’ve all taken so many times before in this same discussion. I mean that sincerely. It may surprise some people, but I don’t even stand exactly where I did when this discussion began in this format (though I know I must have many times seemed immobile).
So please do accept my sincere apology for having misunderstood and mischaracterized your stance. Mine is much the same. I think we take some things for default that may not be and that we think some things are random that also may not be. But like you, I cannot see proven consensus in any of the fields of experts who’ve devoted years and lifetimes to the pursuit of exactly that.
Ray, you are historically and textually off on several of your points — including, but not limited to the authors of scripture, the person of God as father as opposed to mother, the identity of all preachers/apostles and many more. If you’d like, I will be happy to take these on tonight when I’m home from work. But if you don’t intend to hear or read any of them with an open mind, please alert me ahead of time so that I do not waste my time and yours with words that would be better spent elsewhere.
Q, I’m in the same boat, just at the stern rather than the bow where you’re sitting. I can probably be a bit more specific, but not terribly much more because I just haven’t read the applicable literature on sexual identity.
Based on my own, limited observation, I would be inclined to posit a significant trend – significant enough to be a candidate for “intrinsic”-ness – along the “patience” axis, especially with respect to the behaviors and tendencies of the very young. Lest I create more questions than I answer, let my lay all my cards on the table, and then let me note I don’t have a flush in any suit here.
1. I presuppose that reality has both material and spiritual dimensions, and that if the two domains are properly defined, there is no way to reduce any truly spiritual phenomenon to a purely material causation.
2. I affirm (without a very rigorous test) that there are differences between men and womyn in both dimensions, not just the material. This is the domain of our discussion, as I see it, and I would identify a subset of those differences as essential or intrinsic, subject to affirmation #3.
3. I also affirm that [what I am calling] the sex-dependent attributes are vulnerable and mutable.
4. I would hate the discussion to reduce to semantics, so I hope anyone who is monitoring this channel and who detects qb flopping over into semantic games would call him on it immediately.
More later…after some supper and family time. qb
Q,
Ok . I think I have been open all along. May not agree but willing to discuss. I may not be able to get back online today.
Good grief, cant a girl go to her midwife appt in deference to some demonstrable anatomical differences without sitting out a whole round?!
There is no way I can put together a comprehensive comment via phone, but as a promissory note till I can get home and get daughter #1 in bed:
If a difference is mutable, I think by definition it’s not “essential.” hope to make good on this later.
qb, I would be most interested in learning what the spiritual dimensions you perceive between the sexes are. This is intriguing to me because it’s something I’ve pondered, but found few people willing to genuinely discuss exactly that with any degree of certitude. There are no people of my acquaintance who have been willing to advance conversation of their understanding of specific gender-dependent differences at the spiritual level, but I think that that really is the heart of this discussion. What is it, beyond what gender we are observed to be in the physical realm, that is a part of the essence of being male or female? Because those things that are incorporated in the very essence of the thing are the only things that can be deemed essential.
Jen, you should have known better than to let us hang out in the playpen unsupervised….
Folks, those who are interested in pursuing this further are hereby invited to my blog at http://qbsblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/relieving-preachermike-of-a-hosting-burden/.
BTW, qb affirms for the record that this is not a cheap stunt to direct more traffic to my blog…which is pretty dry for the most part. Beware, and click over to my blog at your own risk.
qb
qb, I appreciate your invitation to host, but I worry that some of the momentum and exposure to the comments herein may be lost — and the continuity will no doubt be disrupted. Isn’t it better to contain these aspects at least to this sphere?
(Also, I have to note that my work’s filtering doesn’t exclude Mike’s blog but does exclude yours; I’m attributing this to the different metadata and specifically to wordpress’ immediate tagging of any WP-hosted blog as a blog.)
I should also note that given the impending water-based apocalypse descending on my geographical area, if I am somehow drowned in the flood, it will negate any promises I have made to return to this discussion.
I guess that’s up to Mike, Q. If he’s OK with keeping it here, then I’m good with it too.
BTW, I have no idea what blog “metadata” are or what to do with them if I did. But I’m willing to learn, if only to ensure I can pad my Google Analytics numbers at http://qbsblog.wordpress.com. (Shameless, too.)
tenacious Luddite qb
Just in case Mike isn’t paying attention, here’s qb’s latest post. It is LOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGG.
qb
—–
Q, I’ll try to unpack a little more. But I want to stay in the thought-experiment or conceptual domain for a little while longer to get some things nailed down before proceeding, in the interest of avoiding a barren argument.
I should say right away that this tete-a-tete has already helped me clarify my own thinking, and I see at least a few of the exposed vitals: things that I supposed were self-evident are in question. So that’s a salutary effect already.
—–
Some thoughts, off the cuff:
Biologists often enjoy the luxury of dealing with discrete variables, variables that have either THIS value or THAT value (or perhaps THAT value over there). In the case of what I am calling material sexuality, the options tend to be either XX or XY, with the occasional excursions to the triploid permutations of X and Y; maybe there are other possibilities of which qb is not aware. In any case, the possibilities are constrained by discrete mathematics, and the difference between rejecting and not rejecting the null hypothesis in the discrete domain can often be boiled down to a statement like, “either THIS or THAT, but not somewhere in between.” That is a very convenient domain in which to define essences; we can call an attribute essential if there is precisely zero chance of finding its alternative in a population of beings, and any attribute whose probability of occurring is nonzero is therefore deemed non-essential. (I am using “essential” in a pretty strict sense, I think, that coincides with the way JTB has been using it: not the moral sense of “must have it,” but in the more neutral sense of “doesn’t make sense without it.”)
If we focus our attention, now, on the question of certain organs, which has been a rhetorical tactic here (and an effective one, at that), pretty clearly we can establish that having a [organ] is essential to being a [sex], and if that [organ] is replaced by its alternative, the value of [sex] toggles accordingly. It is in the nature of some biological variables to yield to this analytical framework. And any attribute variable [X] that, when toggled, does not toggle the classification variable [a] is deemed a non-essential attribute to class [a]. The underlying science may be unbelievably difficult, but the framework for defining essentiality is pretty simple; either it is, or it is not, and one occurrence of “not” is enough to force us to abandon essentiality.
In my work, I seldom if ever have the luxury of working with discrete variables like that. More often, I am working with continua, or at least with discrete variables that have so many possible values they might as well be continua. (Anywhere there’s an analog-to-digital converter, the latter is the case; with a dial thermometer, the former is the case.) I take it that what Q and JTB have labeled “trends” are the statistically significant differences between central tendencies of these continua or quasi-continua…but with the caveat that no such variable can ever be thought of as essential, precisely because it involves a variance of some kind. That is the idealized domain that I simply cannot grasp, and of course it means that, strictly speaking, wherever an attribute variable lies on a [quasi-]continuum, we cannot by definition speak of essentiality.
(By now it’s probably apparent that I think that is far too high a bar to be meaningful for this set of questions.)
In the spiritual domain, which you will recall I have presupposed as a domain that (properly defined) is orthogonal to the material domain, our attribute variables are almost NEVER discrete. That means, of course, that we have defined away any practical use of the concept of essentiality; we showed that in the previous paragraph. I take that to be the conceptual unpacking of JTB’s critique of trans-anatomical “essence.”
—–
“Spiritual” attributes: what are they? It is here that qb begins to appeal to scripture for help. Given the rather privileged position I have assigned (!) to the spiritual domain – it is on hierarchical par with the material and interacts with it, but cannot be reduced to it – I look to ethical codes for some guidance, and further, I permit considerations of “holy” spirit to enter into the picture. The language I find has to do with matters of character: patience, loyalty, self-control, and the like. And having adopted the further presupposition that we are created beings in some meaningful sense (that is, whether we emerged from the primordial soup over epochs upon epochs of evolutionary design or were cobbled together in a nanosecond from celestial dust, we are the purposeful project of a creator God), I naturally suppose that God’s purposes are served by granting us attributes, even an array of attributes, that are in the service of those purposes. Thus, testosterone and progesterone in the material domain, and…well, what? Character-like attributes in the spiritual?
But these spiritual attributes are, as we saw, variables that cannot be well quantified in discrete terms. The whole notion of spiritual growth, as in Peter’s epistles, presupposes that the variables lie on a [quasi-]continuum. So if we are forced to adopt a strictly discrete standard for essentiality, it clearly follows that none of these attributes can be deemed “essential.”
I also think it’s possible that God pursues his purposes by granting an arrangement of material attributes that roughly coincide with an arrangement of spiritual attributes such that they reinforce one another in matters that he deems critical, primarily those matters that contribute to what Dallas Willard and Richard Foster have framed as our irreducibly aesthetic _telos_: “an all-inclusive community of loving persons, with God at the heart of this community as its prime sustainer and most glorious inhabitant.” We were created for good, and his purpose is to refashion us into the good. In creating us, then, I suppose that God has stacked the odds in his own favor. (No time or inclination to chase the rabbit into the brambles of theodicy.)
I do not know what to make of individuality in this regard except to note that, contra Richard Beck, an individual is at least in part definable in terms of his or her capacity to exert an independent will, no less than having possession of an independent body. I take “will” to reside primarily in the spiritual domain, interacting with the material and capable of succumbing to it, but not reducible to it. Perhaps it’s fairer to say that Dr. Beck, as a self-proclaimed “weak volitionist,” at least permits this much latitude into freedom, and I’m happy to work with whatever crumbs of moral liberty he allows to float off the table.
Returning now to the [quasi-]continua of the spiritual domain…it seems to me that if we recognize that not all variables of interest are discrete like those biological ones, we have to speak of essentiality in terms of approximations and thresholds. Obviously, we are going to be arbitrary to some degree. But it seems that the kinds of variables we’re dealing with simply defy any discrete tests that could be applied to, say, the presence or absence of a [organ].
By now, it should be clear that we are doomed either to (a) a semantic argument about what constitutes essentiality or (b) a trivial argument about presuppositions that we don’t share. Or maybe not. I certainly don’t say that in a desire to cut things off; but, like JTB and Q, it’s probably better not to waste time on pursuits that are highly likely to be barren.
Affectionately,
qb
qb, I don’t think that the defining of essential has negated its value in this conversation. I stop short of Jen’s position that mere mutability is a barrier to a trait being essential. I just think that an essential trait must be present — though even in varying degrees and levels — in all persons of gender [A] and must be unique to gender [A], not also found in gender [B]. Otherwise they cease to be differences and then we must ask what then is the point of them and relevance of them to this discussion?
I might also posit that the triploids you mention are not so rare as one might think. Nor are those with “injured” haploids – a “weak” x, for instance or a “weak” y. If one’s gender is so important in the kingdom of God, then we need to figure out what these other instances that conform neither to standards of male nor to female in a biological sense and address what this means as well.
I think we can treat essential, innate, intrinsic, universal as synonymous here. If a difference between genders is to count as essential (etc.), then Q’s right–it needs to be something present by definition in all instances. We can label that Woman with a capital W. If Woman=a certain characteristic or set of characteristics, then all women share in that characteristic or that set. Otherwise, it’s not essential, because then one could be a woman without being Woman. That just doesn’t make sense. For that same reason, it can’t really be something mutable, because again, you would then be a member of a category without possessing the defining characteristic(s) of that category.
So Q’s challenge is, what is/are the characteristic(s) that describe all women, without exception? To which I add, and which cannot be changed?
qb’s instinct to go for something like universal nurturing has precedent. And, it has the virtue of being somewhat logically tied to biological differences. But is every woman a metaphorical mother simply because she has a womb? Are all women better nurturers than all men? Surely we know instances of people who defy type. So sure, we can explain that away as individual variation–but then the question is, how many “outliers” to accept before beginning to question the type itself. (Classic Kuhnian paradigm shift territory, here, right?) And if the essence of being a woman is being nurturing, then what we’re telling women who deviate from this essential norm is that they’re somehow deficient as women–also a problem (at least IMO).
So: either women who don’t fit the categorical Woman are somehow bad women, or, the fact that there are lots of women who don’t fit the category in lots of different ways ought to tip us off that our category is deficient.
The problem is, in a religious context, it’s very easy to stamp the category Woman with the God’s Housekeeping Seal of Approval, and then any women who deviates from it really is, then, deficient as a woman (that is, sinful). And that’s pretty much where we’re at.
Another way to get at this is through the Nature/Nurture debate. If a difference is due to “Nature,” then it’s just a given–essential, not learned, not mutable. If a difference is due to “Nurture,” then it’s contingent. The problem is that the Nature/Nurture distinction is not an easy one to maintain clearly. Keith’s example of neurological differences which result in psychological differences is a great case in point. The brain is a very plastic organ; our actual neurological structures are formed and re-formed in response to environmental stimuli–this starts in an infant but continues in some ways into adulthood. So yes, there are lots of studies out there are “brain differences” between the genders (some of them highly questionable, I might add) but they tell us nothing about whether these differences are essential and universal between the genders, or the result of the way our brains respond to the cultural encoding of gender which surrounds us from the day we’re born. Human beings are social creatures, and we are formed as much by our relationships and our surrounding culture as we are by our biology–and our biology is, itself, formed by our social relationships and environment.
So all this means, yes, of course there are observable differences between genders–and some of these differences might be good and some not, but none of them deserve the tag “essential,” as if they come solely internally, fully formed, and unaffected by human decisions, social formation and larger cultural expectations.
Think about it: how does a girl know she’s a girl? How does she know what it means to “be a girl?” We teach her. Clare’s super-into gender identification right now, and while she knows (believe me!) that what makes her female is her anatomy, she’s still trying to figure out what being a girl means. Do girls like pink and boys not like pink? Are there boy colors and girl colors? Can girls have short hair? Does wearing pants make you a boy? This morning she asked me if a boy could wear his hair in a braid. (FTR, my answer: let me tell you about this old guy named Willie Nelson…) I’m super-careful, as you might imagine, about the way I handle these questions–and still, Clare’s firmly under the impression that there are “girl colors,” that there are “girl toys” and “boy toys,” that girls always wear dresses, and on and on. And what she’s learning, that I’m trying to steadily subvert, is that these things signal essential differences between boys and girls. This comes from everywhere. Somehow, being born with a vagina equals being born with a predisposition to prefer pink. Never mind that every toy and item of clothing from day 1 is gender-color-coded; we’re not “teaching” this, it’s “innate.” (I’m thinking right now of a 3-6 M onesie in the nursery right now with “”I’m a little princess!” embroidered on it, which will never be placed upon Baby Z’s body, not even if she has to go naked first.)
Okay, end of rant. Back to the serious comment.
So really, what we ought to be doing is paying more attention to differences–not trying to minimize them in pursuit of some sort of falsely liberatory “unisex” ideal that doesn’t exist. If Woman isn’t real, neither is Man, and certainly some universally descriptive unisex Human doesn’t exist. Instead, what we’ve got is just a bunch of different people–whom we keep trying to squash into two categories that don’t fit reality very well. And yet, because we’re social creatures who live through our relationships, we try our best to fit them even when it means in some instances drastic denials of who we actually are and what we might actually do. This is true for men and for women. And what’s so frustrating to me is that the church seems to me to be one place where this definitely ought not to be true–where we really ought to be free of the kind of oppressive cultural constructs that are so operative in other contexts (the workplace, or hypersexualized media, for instance). And pragmatically, the way to work through this is exactly what Keith suggests: get as many different people around the table as possible, and listen to as many voices as possible. But there are more differences between us than just the gender line, and in many instances, gender is not the most significant dividing line. It is, possibly, the easiest one to immediately address. Our churches are often racially and economically homogeneous–another inscription of this problem–and while it might be pragmatically difficult to address this, all churches have members of both genders. It’s as simple as it can be to get women’s voices into the conversation–as simple as an invitation to the table. But what we need is women’s voices (plural)–because there’s no such thing as the universal Woman’s point of view…just like there’s no universal Male point of view.
Apologies for such an undisciplined and ridiculously long commentary. I would make it more organized and professional-ish, but I’ve had a rotten day, it’s kinda late, and late-pregnancy-chronic-heartburn and constant fatigue is taking its toll. So I’m just going to hit “submit comment” and walk away from that 5-minutes-to-edit thing…
also, during the intermittent composition of the above, I missed some important stuff. So it goes…
Ahhhhhhhhh! Brilliantly written, especially off the cuff.
Basking in the afterglow of an Aggie win over favored Baylor in one of the NCAA basketball tourneys, qb ought by all rights simply to go to bed and give JTB the last word. It would be the chivalrous thing to do…
…But alas, I cannot. (Please understand that qb is now in a fabulous mood, and no offense should be taken in anything that follows. All in good fun.)
What we can at least conclude at this piont is that “essence” is a semantic entity in its own right. It cannot exist, we are to believe, without variables that are binary, exclusive, and without exception. If that is the semantic standard, then qb has no choice but to put his/her tail between his/her legs and resign.
But I note with some amusement how JTB has, in her gestational/preparturitional pique, superimposed a social artifact (systemic ridicule) on an empirical reality (the existence of outliers), conflating the two as if they were of a piece. qb has already conceded that outliers are a convenient pretext for exploitative derision by those (men!) who enjoy the social upper hand; but is that a *necessary* linkage, or a socially contingent one? And if it is contingent, what can it possibly add to an argument that asserts an absolute like, “there is no essentiality to sexual identity beyond pure anatomy (if even that)?”
Where, fundamentally, does the idea arise that a woman-who-does-not-bear-children is somehow of lesser intrinsic value? And where is such an idea implied by the simple assertion that there is an essence of woman that is distinct from the essence of man? From a patriarchal social order, of course! True feminism (I speak as if a madman) ought to spurn any suggestion that social norms like this one have any validity at all. One could say, instead: yes, there is a constitutive central tendency to the category, “woman;” but excursions from that essential attributes of that category are of no less value than those who occupy the inner sigmas. In a truly liberated environment, ontology trumps sociology, does it not? I mean, we do recognize a lesbian as a woman, don’t we? Of course we do, and for good reason: she is one, and we know her when we see him.
Methinks we have exposed the ideological bias of the oppressed class. (Not that such a bias is a bad thing, mind you. Androgynes of the world, unite!) If the ubiquitous social artifact can be plausibly linked with an absurdly high semantic standard, then the standard is vindicated? Heaven forbid! The justification for this move must needs be found in that “important stuff” that JTB “missed” during those hot flashes or Braxton-Hicks contractions. (Wimp.)
In the meantime, qb cannot possibly appeal to the same preparturitional pique. The irony slays.
amused qb
P. S. Because qb does not belong to any recognizable, oppressed class, he can safely affirm the following: even allowing for the scorn that is heaped upon him as a pop-culture outlier, qb maintains that he is no less a male of the species despite his deep affinity for Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts movies. There is an essential maleness, but qb has it only approximately. *scratch* *ptui* *ting*
qb, I think what you’ve done is given reason why this fails as a thought experiment. What we need to do — and must, honestly, and soon — is to take this out of the clouds of academia and semantics and cut through it to the heart. What is it that makes males Male, especially in the spiritual sense? What is it that makes women Women, particularly in the spiritual sense?
I’m not laying traps; I’m asking questions. What are they, from your perspective? Biology has an answer that is “good enough” for many people as to what the physical distinctions are. We’re still wrestling with the social, intellectual, anthropological and cultural distinctions are. But we’ve not even begun wrestling with the spiritual and can’t until we move from your favoured thought experiment into concrete discussion.
I’ve been on this earth just over 31 years. I’ve been a rigorous student of the Bible most of my life. I’ve been an academic for perhaps a third of my life — would that that third had cleared up all questions! Instead I find myself with more. But what we need isn’t really more academics. What we need is something concrete that gives us a place to discuss where to go from here. But we need to take it out of the realm of “what if” and bring it into the realm of “because, therefore.”
(And, my dear qb, is it really unfair to saddle a word with its definition when you yourself brought that word to the table?
)
Q, I have never, not once, not at any time, thought you were laying traps. Not the slightest hint of disingenuity rises from any of your posts or JTB’s. This has been a lot of fun, and as I hope I’ve made clear, on the central issue of patriarchy vs. egalitarianism qb has already landed squarely in your camp.
No doubt the discussion has to get concrete and specific at some piont. But why consider any specific attributes if the way the battlefield of ideas has been prepared excludes, by definition, the very kinds of variables that the attributes in question represent? It’s not a trap; but the moment qb offers a specific attribute for consideration (actually, he already has: patience, especially with the young), qb is bound to concede that the attribute is not exclusive to one of the sexes, that it varies in intensity among individuals of that sex, that its pervasiveness within that sex is not 100%, and therefore that it cannot meet the impossibly high standard that I think has been set for essentiality. (By that semantic standard, the notion of essentiality itself becomes an academic sideshow. Is there an essence to anything?)
More later…after work.
qb
Ha! So, before making productive use of the gift that is my husband taking over the task of parental chauffeur this morning, that is, doing the work I’m supposed to be doing…
My basic stance is just that there are multiple ways of being woman, just like there are multiple ways of being man. (Watch those Julia Roberts movies! My husband’s a total sucker for romantic comedy…which I can’t stand. Go figure.) What generalizing to Woman/Man means is compressing those differences into a type. It is, perhaps, a further move to essentialize that type and make it the standard of what counts as a woman or a man and then a further move still to use that as a moral and social standard for enforcing conformity.
I will readily concede–even actively argue, because I think embodiment is so important–that gender is tied up in biology, while insisting that biology does not come in a deterministic package that dictates who/what a person will be. The old feminist slogan was “biology is not destiny” but in a religious context, I think it’s better to tweak it into “Biology is not Nature.” Nature (and Nurture) are socially constructed concepts mediated by culture–and for this reason, I wouldn’t want to say “ontology trumps sociology” but that we can’t actually tease these things apart in reality: we construct ontologies socially. And this is not necessarily problematic–this is just part of being human. What becomes problematic is when we construct our ontologies badly (as I would argue we do in the case of gender), or when we neglect to realize our part in constructing them (as we also do in this case).
If we think about biology and determinism in other contexts, like, say, criminal behavior, we reject the notion of genetic/biological determinism. We hold people morally accountable because regardless of having gene W (W for “whatever”), we know people are more than biological machinery but social/moral/spiritual creatures as well (this most often gets unpacked as “free will,” right.) Or, to take a more relevant but also more sensitive case, homosexuality: genetic predisposition or no, we don’t typically accept “God made me this way” but insist on a dimension of choice regarding sexual behavior. In these cases, we set ourselves firmly against the notion that Biology is Destiny, and that having certain genes or a certain kind of embodiment determines who/what a person will be. But in the case of gender, we do a complete reversal and claim that female anatomy somehow automatically and solely determines basic character and therefore justifies subsequent restrictions on behavior.
It’s easier, of course, to query the category when you’re someone who already knows you don’t fit into it well. That is a certain epistemic advantage. But one of the mistakes that does get made here (IMO) is that this standpoint becomes absolute in itself–and then denials of the sorts of observable general differences we do see between genders are denied as real. What needs to happen instead is that we recognize these patterns, not deny them, and really ask, where do we think these come from? Is it just innate that women tend to speak more tentatively and end statements with a rising inflection that indicates uncertainty? Is it just innate that women don’t seek high-level exec gigs and leave the big $$ and high-pressure jobs to the men, because in truth, even career women want to have babies more than they want awesome careers? Or is that these things are taught and enforced in our culture, in ways that we haven’t done the work to identify yet? (As in, the workaholic expectations and the lack of the sort of basic provisions for family obligations are a huge factor in pushing women away from high pressure, big $$ gigs, but instead of looking at ways to ameliorate this that would benefit both men and women, we assume the full explanation is, all women want to have babies. Sloppy. Another version of “vaginas like pink.” Men don’t have to choose between having kids and careers; women do. We could change that, if we recognized that we were causing that. )
This is why the protest that “I know lots of women who are perfectly happy to leave the leadership to the men” doesn’t have any force for me. Fine. I know lots of these women too. I also know lots of women who feel otherwise. So what? This just tells us, again, that there is no Woman’s point of view here, and people feel differently and interpret differently. The question we ought to be addressing is why! Why are some women content to be silent, and others are not? And when you get right down to it, women who are content with the silent status quo are content because they believe what they’ve been taught, think that it’s right, and have invested their lives in its rightness. That’s not a slam; that’s just a description of the church doing its job, in teaching and spiritual formation, and doing it rather thoroughly! But it ought also point out to us, as the church, that we have responsibility in this teaching–and this brings us back to the hermeneutical stuff, wherein is exposed the bottom line divergence: on the one side, little ol’ me insisting that this gender stuff is humanly, socially, culturally constructed, and on the other, mainstream CofC doctrine/practice insisting that it comes by divine design, via the text, bypassing the human element entirely. It’s a big divergence, and the best we ever manage to do in these discussions is pull back the curtain and reveal it. I’d like to see us build a golden bridge over it…but…sigh.
qb: you got me! I don’t think there is such a thing as “essences.”
Lance:
Your comment regarding Adam and Eve and the marriage context misses the message of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Indeed, most egalitarians have concluded (correctly) that Paul is talking about Christian assemblies in the text, but is either dealing with a unique situation, not applying the teachings of Jesus fully in the first century, or confused in his own teaching (e.g. see Discovering Biblical Equality, InterVarsity Press, 2005).
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Ok , does I Tim . 3 include women being elders ? If so , then from the text …..how ?
Ray, I just don’t see any evidence of women elders either. Those verses are hard for me to get around. That and Jesus didn’t appoint any women apostles.
I’ve heard talents and experiences used quite frequently in discussing this matter of gender roles in the church. That makes me just a little nervous. I have my own experiences. Subjective feelings and experiences can slant one a certain way or another and that doesn’t make for good “doctrine”. I myself years ago had some of the same feelings and ideas that many of these women have made of why should I be treated as a second class citizen? Now years later because of my experiences and observations I no longer feel that way. Instead of feeling imprisoned I feel free and that God loves me as equally as a man. I believe that God set in motion from creation a certain order and that it is ingrained in us and that certain roles do not make for one to be greater than another.
and Linda I haven’t forgotten about your questions that you asked on this site I’m searching for my answers to some of those also and have a few more to add. I just haven’t had the time.
JTB,
I have been away for a few days and just read your comment from 30 March. Thanks very much. It was interesting, informative and contained a good bit of stuff for me contemplate. Although some of it has come up over the years it is good to be reminded of it again. I hope you’ll understand if I let it distill and age. Even good whisky isn’t made or appreciated until it has aged. God, human behavior and theology are certainly more complex than whisky, or whiskey for the bourbon devotees. Oops, forgot this was a mostly a teetotalers blog.
Hesed,
Geezer
Geezer–haven’t checked the thread again till now (I sort of assumed that last bit was The Conversation Stopper, oops). So thanks for your response! I wish I could have been a bit more organized in my thoughts but oh well.
I wanted to post a link to a friend-of-a-friend’s review of the James book, which raises a very interesting critique regarding the way the book shys away from the topic of “ordination of women” (what the rest of the world calls what we label “women’s roles”). Here it is: http://www.jrdkirk.com/2011/04/05/half-the-church-for-the-23-world-part-2/ (This link is for part 2, which links back to part 1, FYI).
Dr. Kirk points out that the book is written as a response to Kristof & WuDunn’s Half the Sky (which I heartily recommend), and therefore is contextualized very deliberately as part of a larger conversation about global gender injustice. This is wonderful–and I would particularly love to see CofCs begin to take notice of this–but the problem comes when, as Dr. Kirk puts it, you encourage the people in the pew to confront injustice elsewhere but not to address it within their own churches.
money quote from the blog review: “Here is where James and I disagree: for her, ordination is a distraction to the message that we need a theology and praxis within which all women and girls are valued and celebrated as necessary workers in God’s kingdom. For me, the failure to ordain women is the manifestation of the very problem she’s fighting.”
Now, that’s not to equate the practice of silencing women in our churches with, say, burkas and restricted mobility and denial of education, etc. But how do we meaningfully articulate what’s wrong with silencing women in other contexts if we claim it’s okay, even mandated, within our churches? So the problem is deeper than the anecdote recounted in Mike’s excerpt in the blog post–it’s not just that it’s awkward to break the news of “submission” to professional women who might otherwise be longing for a spiritual community…it’s that we’re failing a whole world full of women, whose oppressions daily cry out to God. We can’t have the ears to hear those cries while we’re content to silence the women in our own pews.
My spouse and i ended up being very contented when Peter managed to round up his survey through your precious recommendations he acquired from your own web site. It is now and again perplexing just to always be offering points that others could have been selling. And we all grasp we now have the blog owner to give thanks to for that. The specific illustrations you’ve made, the simple web site menu, the friendships your site give support to instill – it’s mostly amazing, and it is assisting our son in addition to the family consider that this subject matter is excellent, which is certainly exceptionally important. Many thanks for the whole lot!