Postmodern Words on Gender Relations in the Church

Some Postmodern Words for the Present State of Gender Relations in the Church Today
by David E. Fitch

In the church world where I come from, people still argue about the issue of women’s ordination and equal participation in the authority of the church. Conservative protestants have virtually beaten the issue to death yet still remain locked into the well worn polarity between the Complementarians, who view women in the church as determined by the NT role of husband ‘s headship over the wife, and the Egalitarians, who point to the plethora of NT evidence concerning women’s equal participation with men in the authority of the church. The “Biblical Equality” position views this newfound equal status for women as part of the redeemed structure of humanity in Christ and therefore it applies to Christian marriages as well. I too believe that woman have equal participation in the gifts of the Spirit given on Pentecost to the church (Acts 2:17-18). I am for the ordination of women in the church as well. I endorse and affirm women’s full participation in the authority/leadership of the church as part of the redeemed structure of humanity inaugurated in Christ. To many of us this seems all too obvious at this point. This last affirmation however is why I see a lack in the Egalitarian option (I see similar issues with the Complementarians). Both positions seem incapable of describing a justice born of the reconciliation God is working in the world through Christ (2 Cor 5:19). And I believe, oddly enough, that a few postmodern critical theorists help us understand this better. In what follows, I offer three insights from Critical theory that reveal the inadequacies of the “Biblical Equality” position and their cousins among the classic protestant modern feminists (as distinguished from the post-structuralist feminists). I concentrate on the Egalitarians because this position is most often assumed to be the position best aligned with gender relation justice. I realize I am characterizing their views in the short space that I have here. I can only hope to be more precise in future writings.

So here goes with three insights from postmodern critical theorists (and friends) that help us see the inadequacies of the so-called Egalitarian position as a way forward in establishing justice and reconciliation regarding gender relations in the church of Jesus Christ. 

First, the Egalitarian position (I believe) plays on a Western liberal form of politics, which achieves equality at the expense of difference. In so doing, women are not invited to participate in the authority of the church on the terms of being a woman. Instead they must leave behind any gender specific particularities in order to participate in a flattened structure of equality, which oddly enough, upon reflection, is a structure white men are already well ensconced in.

The classic western liberal version of equality is best known through the work of John Rawls. In my experience even the “Biblical egalitarians do exactly this. This version of justice usually recites John Rawls’ Political Liberalism (and before that A Theory of Justice) and his version of the “original position.” Here Rawls asserts that equality requires that everyone be stripped of all cultural and contingent differences upon entering into the arena of public discourse (or making policy decisions in public discourse). One must wear a “veil of ignorance” towards one’s own and anyone else’s ethnic, economic or historical advantages. The problem is that this so-called “position” dictates rules by which all must become same and in the process obliterates difference. Far from being liberating, it is (as Zizek would say) a “hegemonic configuration of the public discourse.” In order to be equal one must first be stripped of any particular identity including being a woman.

It should be no surprise then that many post-structuralist feminist writers do not see justice in this form of equality. Instead they see the means to sublimate gender into one homogenous looking gender. Or in the Hegelian sense viewed negatively, egalitarian justice is the means to sublate female gender to something useful for the furthering of a Western male democratic discourse. In the process, this discourse subverts all difference into the language of rights, equality, tolerance and respect and creates a politics that looks and sounds very much like a white male logic, disengaged, logical, right brained and bottom line. As such, this is really not a form of justice but a form of eliminating those who would not fit in to the ways of white maledom. To over-simplify, this is why the politics of identity/difference and theorists such as Judith Butler, Luce Iragaray, Julia Kristeva critical feminist have resisted these forms of discourse. Elaine Storky summarizes them well in her Origins of Difference. She says:

“An egalitarianism that rests on the abandonment of difference is the most subtle way yet of making women invisible, for tradition, language, and concepts have for too long all been formed within male dominant framework. Espousing “equality” while everything else stays the same is to give the appearance of empowering women while denying the reality of it. It is in fact to capitulate to the deeper structures of patriarchy in the name of reform. Egalitarianism in effect means the disappearance of women. They are admitted into the structures but only as token or lesser men. According to Iragaray, for a woman to abandon her own sexual identity “represents the greatest possible submission to masculine culture.” Women simply become absorbed within the male gender, into what Luce Iragaray calls the “masculine neutral.” (p.55)

This problem manifests itself in many of the ways egalitarian discourse dominates. American business. It produces women who have full access to the CEO suite but they look and act a lot like white men (see for example Carley Fiorina of Hewlett Packard fame). Likewise, Hilary Clinton is allowed to be a presidential candidate as long as she does not appear in any way too female. I see women pastors in the mega churches acting, dressing and even speaking in similar patterns to the male mega church founding pastor. Is this really full participation in the authority of the church we seek? I know that Biblical Egalitarians have no such intention. I know that gender sublation as I am arguing here is an unintended consequence of Biblical Egalitarianism. Nonetheless, I argue that borrowing the language of equality and rights from the politics of the United States may be dangerous to the justice we seek in the church.

For all of these reasons, we should probably be wary of egalitarian language when talking about justice in gender relations. We should work for a form of gender reconciliation/justice that maintains and respects gender difference. I believe this is one of the main points of the apostle Paul in1 Cor 11:10 where he commands the women who is preaching and prophesying in front of the whole congregation to “wear a head-covering as an authority unto her.” In that she is not recognizing her gender distinction (when she gets up to prophesy with her head uncovered) her authority is in doubt. She is in fact disregarding any gender difference for in the Mideast of that day, going with your head uncovered was the equivalent of a woman pastor getting up and preaching in a bikini. When, on the other hand, she maintains and inhabits her gender, honoring the relationship between herself and her husband, and wears a head covering being both modest and recognizing her marital status, she is given full authority to preach in the congregation. I think Egalitarianism fails in that it does not maintain difference in the congregation, in this case between genders. This then makes any equal participation dubious in term of its value to the Body of Christ because diversity is lost and the Body does not benefit from women in leadership and authority. 

Second, the Egalitarian position articulates gender relations as determined by (defaulting to) the individuating terms of liberal democratic forms of discourse. In so doing, the Egalitarian position does not bring the two genders into a unity and peace, it divides and separates male and female into individuals over against one another. Egalitarianism therefore does not aim or approximate the Oneness in Christ that lies at the core of Christian justice and reconciliation (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). As such, it is a justice that is alien to the reconciliation God is working in Christ.

To explain further, the Egalitarian position (I am suggesting) again plays on a politics of political liberalism described above. By using the words “egalitarian,” and “equality” the Egalitarians are in essence defining equality in terms of each individual’s rights. The rights of women in relation to men and vice versa are pitted against one another. It is a politics that sets one against the other in protecting their claims for individual rights. It is not a politics of reconciliation and peace but a politics of managing an underlying and ongoing violence. It therefore cannot approximate the reconciliation of Christ we follow after. This obviously echoes John Milbank and friends who argue that the modern politics of democracy exchanges voluntarist assumptions for a theology of participation (Theology and Social Theory, 11-15). Such a politics according to Milbank denies the peace and unity God seeks to restore by the assumption of all humanity into the Trinity. In short, I believe that Egalitarians, unbeknownst to themselves, create justice among men and women under the assumptions of an “ontology of violence.” And this is unacceptable for those who seek justice based upon the unity in Christ birthed around the mutual participation in the Eucharistic Table.

Having said all of this, I realize Milbank, Cavanagh and other RO folk’s assumptions and accounts of the “ontology of violence” are not accepted by everyone.  Their historical constructions of medieval theology are controversial to say the least. Nonetheless, in the local church, I have seen the inherent violence played out again and again in race relations, economic relations and gender relations. Church conflict resolution is turning into big business (which is another problem) among evangelical and conservative protestant churches. The politics upon which the Egalitarian position is built is a politics that divides and separates for the purpose of keeping people from violating each other. It creates a me versus you mentality, which cannot approximate the Oneness we seek in Christ. For this reason I view the Egalitarian position in severe need of revision if it is to become the basis for a politics of gender reconciliation both in the church and beyond.

Instead, I suggest we consider a politics formed around the Eucharist. Here we come together as members re-membered into the One Body. There can be no enmity. Instead we are joined together all participating in the One work of God for the furtherance of His Mission. We all have gifts, but are mutually dependent. Our oneness is a function of our mutual participation in the One Body (Here I recommend we read William Cavanagh among others). 

Third, and last, the Egalitarian position leaves us no script for gender performance. The hermeneutic of Biblical Egalitarianism often claims that a specific gender role (the husband as head of the wife for instance) is encrusted with cultural baggage from the first century culture and therefore must be compensated for hermeneutically. From there the Egalitarians often leave us with little to navigate what it means to be a woman and what it means to be a man. I have no problem with a well thought out hermeneutic that uncovers the cultural determinacy of particular texts and then includes that in the hermeneutical process (See William Webb’s excellent book Slaves, Women and Homosexuals). I would be a fool to discount that there are indeed many aspects of gender role that are culturally determined. But we must not let this important observation lead us to declare that all gender identity and role is basically a matter of personal choice or preference. For as Zizek has commented, too often sexual preference becomes another market niche for capitalism to exploit. Where then are we to go in order to define gender?

This is where I think Judith Butler might be able to help a conservative protestant pro-women’s ordination evangelical like me. For Butler refuses to ignore that we are all being shaped into some form of gender performance (some version of what it means to be male, female, gay etc.) whether we know it or not. Butler argues in her massive and brilliant work (Subjects of Desire, Gender Trouble, Bodies That Matter, Excitable Speech) that gender is a construct rather than a pre-discursive ontological essence. All gender/sex is a performativity narrated within a discourse. It is not that we can opt out for we are all being narrated. The subject is engendered AFTER rather than BEFORE the discursive act. All bodies are gendered by their social existence. She is so radical in her critical theory that “homosexual” for her must be rejected as a means to name gay sexuality for it depends upon the dominant categories of heterosexuality for its legitimacy. Gender and sex is an effect rather than the causes of discursive institutions.

Obviously Butler offers a virtual hornet’s nest of issues for conservative Protestants. And I have no desire to engage the issue of the ontology of gender here in this small paper. Yet I believe this is enough of Butler to force a different question upon Egalitarians. For after Butler, the question can no longer be whether my gender identity is being narrated and shaped. Rather the question is by which social construct (or discourse or narrative) of gender performance is my gender identity being determined. If Egalitarians wish to maintain a cultural fluidity to what it means to be male or female, I think it would therefore be a good exercise for them to answer this question for their own work: what discourse is narrating our understanding of gender difference? Will it be a form of Western democratic discourse? Will it be the discourse that has been given to us and narrated in the person, work and history of Jesus Christ? Will it be a combination or interrelationship between the two and if so please define that relationship? This to me seems to be where some major fruit can be born towards redeeming gender relations in the body of Christ. 

Of course I want to assert that Christians have no better place to go to narrate gender than the Story of Redemption in Jesus Christ given to us in Scriptures. For in the narrative of God in Christ (the Scriptures) we have been given 1.) A marvelous unfolding of salvation wherein women are redeemed over patriarchal history to fully reconciled status in the new Christian community birthed in Christ by the Spirit (Gal 3:28), 2.) The model of Christ giving himself up and dying for the church (Eph 5:25), a performance of the male gender role in marriage that might actually subvert patriarchy, and 3.) A basis for gender relations grounded in the interrelationship of the perichoresis within the Trinity that is simply astounding, mysterious and compelling. These sources for gender narration should not easily be given up for lesser and more parasitic models that expense our differences for a thin justice that is happy if we can just all get along.

In summary, this analysis of what lacks in the Egalitarian positions towards women is unfair because I have not the space to spell out just how egalitarians rely on the Western liberal discourse. You just have to trust me, wait until I write more extensively on this, or argue about it in the comments. I am pro women’s ordination, women’s full participation in the authority of the church and women’s teaching authority over the church including men. But I do believe there is a better and more faithful way for justice and reconciliation among the genders than the two options we have been given, Egalitarianism and Complementarianism. I hope to write about it in the future. Until then I am thankful that some of the Critical theorists mentioned above help illumine why we must look for more from the justice we seek in Christ Jesus.

___

1 The primary representative text being Wayne Grudem and John Piper, eds., Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton IL: Crossway Books, 1991).

2 Here some representatives with various nuances would be Craig Keener, Paul, Women and Wives (Peabody MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992); Gilbert Bilizikien, Beyond Sex Roles (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1985); William Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 2001); John Stackhouse, Finally Feminist (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005)

3 And before someone says it is an internal self-contradiction to suggest that both one’s gender is narrated and can be chosen, this is not exactly what I mean although Butler does seem to allow for a moment of agency within the contours of social formation. This too is a topic beyond this paper

Comments

[Makeesha]

I find it fascinating hearing other's pov on issues like this. I often wonder if people who write these things are writing from an outdated perspective or if I'm just living in a different dimension. All of the Biblical Equality and gender justice material I read that has been written in the past few years addresses these concerns. Much of the material on the CBE international site speaks to these "issues" that Fitch has with egalitarianism in Christianity. If his concerns are truly valid in a gender justice context within progressive and post modern Christianity then they need to be addressed for sure. I just don't see it. I feel like he's not giving due course to all the voices out there who have been addressing these issues for years.

I don't see ANY of the issues he talks about actually at work in my sphere of egalitarians. I see them at work with complementarians trying to be "equal:. But not with TRUE egalitarians which to me smacks of stereotype.

It's an interesting if not overly verbose piece that uses examples and terminology not terribly relevant to the issue making it sound "smarter" than it is but an interesting conversation piece. I'll have to bring it up to our community and see if they agree or not.

I like Fitch's writings most of the time but I feel that this is an outdated argument seeking to pick apart something that needs to be built up and encouraged not torn down by politically charged language. The issues at hand here are actually the fault of patriarchists and complementarians not egalitarians in or out of the Christian sphere.

and while I agree with the proposition of the Eucharist being central to addressing gender justice issues - it feels a bit trite in this context.

[fitz]

Thank you. I very much enjoyed this piece. In a recent conversation I had with a friend, a complimentarian, over the course of an 18 hour car ride, the one piece of my perspective on gender relations in the church that was not coming out lucidly was the way in which men and women maintain their distinctiveness while having access to the same positions of authority within the church. As it does here, the conversations moved quickly to marriage roles as well. In many ways it came down to distinguishing between the terms role and rank. Wherein roles may remain in tact (and thank you for pointing out that we all subscribe to some narrative that tells us what these roles are, a good reminder to model my own marriage after the right narrative) but rank is eliminated.

Anyway, thank you for this piece. I look forward to returning to my friend with some new insight.

[David Fitch]

Makeesha…

Thank-you for the comments. I must admit some fear in posting this sketch of an essay because I feared it might make sense only to those who come from a evangelical protestant tradition (if we can call it a tradition). What church tradition are you out of? I also feared that undoing and flipping the arguments so as to uncover gender injustice in egalitarian approaches to gender relations might be interpreted in terms that I am somehow against women’s ordination (which could not be further from the truth). I do most of my work in relation to the evangelical church and its theology. I love casting reflections from Continental, postmodern, and post liberal thinkers upon the problems of evangelicalism. We all come from contexts and speak out of some cultural determinacy. I make no bones that I remain an evangelical and do most of my theological work for the renewal of evangelicalism (as embarrassing as this can be at times). I tried to give a heads up to this in the opening line.
It is from this context that I experience regularly the things I have addressed in this post. In my experience of the women’s issue and Biblical equality in the evangelical church, I have never seen the issues of sameness, difference, the critique of Western liberal democratic theory or gender "performitivity" addressed by either egalitarians or complementarians. Yet I admit, this may be more prevalent in the evangelical church where the women in ministry issue is still an issue. Perhaps I need to reserve some of my writing to that context explicitly. I will say, however, that I have had a class and direct interaction on a doctoral committee with Rosemary Ruether, to me a classic mainline egalitarian feminist writer, and in my opinion, I would say she is blind to the above issues. So to put it mildly, I would greatly appreciate anyone including Makeesha giving me a heads up on writings from Biblical egalitarians who address these issues. It is entirely possible I am behind on this.

I of course agree with you Makeesha on the complementarians, because frankly I see them determined by the same ultimate political categories as the Egalitarians. I must also apologize for the language. I was doing my best to not use too many of the specialist terms that some of these writers use.

All this to say to Makeesha and others, I feared I would be misunderstood. As a white male I feel it is a risk to even broach this issue. But I am pro women’s ordination, pro- women’s ministry, pro-women’s authority in the church. I believe it is a crucial issue if conservative evangelicals are to display a witness of Christ’s justice and reconciliation to the rest of the world. Unfortunately I have seen all of the above issues in plain sight yet to this day among the egalitarian evangelical churches that affirm women's ordination. Ironically, I cannot be as point blank about some of the holiness churches that affirm women in ministry for other reasons. I think mainline protestants and of course catholics need to rethink this as well for different reasons obviously. I am seeking a way toward Scriptural faithfulness that avoids the inherent problems within the two most prevalent options for evangelicals at least. I admit I didn’t have time to flesh out what an alternative approach would like. It is a blog post afterall. But my reference to the politics of the Eucharist is anything but trite to me. One read of William Cavanagh's "Torture and the Eucharist" challenged my imagination in regard to the possibilities of for a new politics shaped by the Lord's Table.

So please, to any readers, I need feedback on whether any of my accusations (and the accusations of post structuralists) about the Egalitarian position make sense and have been experienced in the church world you have experienced. Also any sources on where Egalitarians have engaged these topics would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your feedback, Makeesha…

[Jason Hesiak]

D.F.,

"Unfortunately I have seen all of the above issues in plain sight yet to this day among the egalitarian evangelical churches that affirm women's ordination. Ironically, I cannot be as point blank about some of the holiness churches that affirm women in ministry for other reasons."

For the sake of clarity in this young head...what "other reasons" are you referring to?

Blessings,

Jason

[Makeesha]

David - I appreciate your response. It does help to know your context (although, I DID know that before, I've read many of your writings, your blog and some of your book).

I guess what I got a bit prickly about was laying the "error" at the feet of "egalitarianism". While I can agree with your criticism of SOME feminism and SOME egalitarianism, on the whole, I don't see egalitarianism to be at fault.

I grew up in the conservative evangelical charismatic tradition and served in leadership in that context as an adult until about 5 years ago. I have seen what you're talking about but I would have never said that egalitarian ideas were to blame...it has been the egalitarians who have been fighting against those behaviors. it's the fault of people who still maintain complementarian ideas trying to give the illusion that they are giving women an "equal shot". It's also the fault of our society as a whole which still cannot handle women being fully women and fully equal.

Thank you for clarifying, I can see that we are on the same page regarding the issue and the problems I think though that we might be in disagreement about the role that egalitarian ideas play in the problem.

[Makeesha]

oh and in response to your question cbeinternational.org is a great resource for articles and dialog about gender justice and I have read several articles that address your concerns specifically.

CBE also has a blog that is not very active right now but has had great stuff in the past.

[Cynthia R. Nielsen]

Dear David,

First of all, I want to applaud your courage and willingness to address gender issues, which in my opinion is an exceedingly important topic and one that is rarely openly brought to the table in evangelical circles. I also want to share some insights from a recent article that I think harmonize with some of the points that you want to emphasize (e.g., difference-in-unity). The article, “Balthasar’s Theology of the Sexes,” is by Corinne Crammer and is fairly critical of Balthasar’s views on gender. Though I am a big fan of Balthasar, my leanings at this time are with Crammer. As Crammer points out, Balthasar wants a two sex/two gender model (in the terminology of Laqueur) in which we have genuine difference yet equality; however, despite his intentions, he ends up with a one sex/two gender model in which the Woman is defined by the Male and hence Woman lacks subjectivity and a voice of her own. E.g., for Balthasar, the feminine is characterized by receptivity and obedience; whereas the masculine is characterized by action, initiative, and leadership—all highly problematic claims in my opinion and do not correspond with my own experience as a woman or with other women. For Balthasar, Man is question, and Woman is Answer; hence, Woman is not an actor but a reactor, not an initiator but a responder. Balthasar also uses the metaphor of Woman as reflecting gaze or mirror in which her gaze is fixed on Man, whereas, in contrast, Man's gaze is able to look around and is not fixed on Woman. Both metaphors seem to make Balthasar's Woman both overdetermined and underdetermined. Crammer then employs Marilyn Frye’s Venn diagrams to help further illustrate her point. “Rather than constructing a model of human sexual difference as a truly dualistic schema [here meaning a true dyad, wherein genuine difference exists] of A/B [and hence allowing for genuine difference], I believe that Balthasar constructs a fundamentally monistic A/not A model […]. As Frye points out, to be an A (or B) is to be something or someone, whereas not A is not something anyone can be. Using the image of Venn circles, she describes A/not A as a single circle: everything inside that circle is A, everything outside the circle is not A--a cateogory or space she describes as ‘the infinitation of the negative’. A/not A splits the world, but not into two, since not A is an infinite undifferentiated plenum, unstructured and formless, a chaos without internal boundaries. A/not A is therefore a dualism and cannot construct two things—there are no ‘somethings’ outside the circle drawn around A. Using this diagram, Woman provides the line that creates the circle defining Man. In this ‘positive-negative mirror-logic’, everything that man is, Woman is not; everything that Woman must be, man cannot have been’” (pp. 102-103, Cambridge Companion to Hans Urs von Balthasar. I wonder if we couldn’t say that characteristics such as passive/active, obedient/initiating, etc. have more of a continuum feel and are not essentially masculine or feminine and that the genuine difference between male and female, as you point out, might be better based in the interrelations of perichoresis within the Trinity—given that one can’t really say where eternal self-giving and self-receiving begins and ends, perhaps genuine female/male differences are a creaturely reflection of this mystery and we should avoid excessive parsing out of stereotypical characteristics. Christ, after all, was obedient to the Father, which on Balthasar’s model is an essentially feminine characteristic; yet, he also exhibited clear leadership qualities (supposedly essentially masculine).

Best wishes,
Cynthia

p.s. I've actually been discussing gender-related issues on my blog and would love interaction from this group.

http://percaritatem.com/2007/08/02/aristotle-and-st-paul-on-women-take-two/

[Makeesha]

wow cynthia, I'm sure that made sense to David and other really smart academic types but I have no idea what you just said hehe.

David, by the by, I'm not disagreeing that the issues you bring up need addressing...just to be clear. And they ARE indeed present in and outside the Christian sphere, I just don't think egalitarianism is to blame.

I also think it's ironic that you refuse to call yourself egalitarian (which you are) when you call yourself evangelical (which you're not) ;)

[Jason Hesiak]

Cynthia...you know much more about all this than I...and you are a woman to boot. I don't, then, want to come off as a prick...but what about the physique of the reproductive organs? Does that not "say" anything (speaking of narratives).

I mean...understand that I liked your comment. I've been immersed in certain contexts (probably more often than I choose to be be aware of, to be honest) where your/the message is probably very needed. I guess, then, my only question or issue that I mean to bring up is...where and how IS there any essential difference? Does the physical makeup of man/woman actually "say" anything about how God essentially made the cosmos (heaven/earth, God/man...as you suggested in some way, without mentioning physique/biology)?

For example, the earth is on the "recieving" end of the the production of life that occurs in the relationship between heaven and earth, but earth is not just "not heaven," but "mother earth," with extraordinarily profound (in my mind) symbolism and also with very high value in ancient societies. To me this is related to where Rilke discusses in "Letters To a Young Poet" how women actually have much more of a sense of presence than us flighty men, because they carry and bear LIFE (and there are other more sexual "biological" facts regarding difference in the "presence"/number of nerve endings in men and women that I will not mention). To boot...lets be honest...the women usually "weart the pants" in the family :) Although maybe not in "society," true. I'll admit, I don't really understand that family/society dynamic in that regard.

But my point is, I wonder if your "A/not-A" construction relies on a relatively contemporary metaphysic, which to me is an issue that extends beyond gender issues, and thus maybe EFFECTS your/many of our views on gender? On the flip side, I'm certain that I could use more of an awareness of how women are marginalized by male-centered narratives. But then I don't really understand well enough, I feel, the relationship BETWEEN the two sides of that coin. I'm sure, though, that there is one.

If I offended anyone, feel free to smack me. I'm sure I deseve it. Maybe the whole thing is less of an issue of (a narrative of) metaphysics/essences and more of an issue of (a narrative of) just relations; and maybe that's the whole point. My comment actually has much more of the thrust of a question than an assertion, despite (what I'm afraid is) its tone/sound.

[Cynthia R. Nielsen]

Hi Jason,

I don’t think that I said that the differences between female/male bodies should be overlooked or elided in my suggestion that the A/B model be preferred over the A/non A model. Couldn’t one agree that one aspect of the various ways in which the differences between the female and male manifest is in their anatomical structure and this reveals something about God. I think that the problems arise in the interpretation of the ways that those different anatomies are to be taken—should we read them only literally, only symbolically, or a mixture of both etc.? E.g., to say (and some have) that a women is essentially passive because of her anatomy, whereas as a man is essentially active for the same reason strikes me (1) as untrue to experience, (2) a gross oversimplification of the complexity of being a real live male or female, both of whom are image bearers of an incomprehensible God—if that is the kind of God that we both image, why should we think that we can fit male and female characteristics into nice systematized compartments? And lastly, (3) it seems potentially motivated by an already formed view of what roles males and females should and should not engage in. E.g., a certain “logic” might run as follows: an essentially passive leader would not be a very good leader. Women are essentially passive, which is clear from their anatomy. Therefore, women cannot make good leaders.

Best wishes,
Cynthia

[David Fitch]

Cynthia,
Thanks for the interesting take on von Balthasar. I'll have to look that up. It seems to me - how we define the relationship between the genders must avoid the same problems historic Christianity has sought to avoid in describing the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. And to make one gender's role and identity a derivative of the other risks a form of Sabellianism... rather it is in the relations in the Trinity that we understand the persons (Gunton), that emerges based in the activity of God in the Election for the Salvation of the world.
An interesting read on the problems inherent in binary oppositions is Zizek's stuff about "woman being the symptom of the man" and Judith Butler's violent rejection of Zizek on this score for some of the reasons you hint at here. Zizek is not in fact making man determinative of woman but perhaps the opposite, that woman reveals the lack inherent in man ... I do think that either way, both woman and man in relationship reveals much about the other in the narration of Christian marriage. Of course, it is after Christ that the fullness of life is possible as celibate, eunich's for the Kingdom, indeed a renouncement of the defining roles of man and woman. For the Kingdom anticipates a time when there wil be no "marriage nor giving in marraige" Mark 12.25.
Thanks Cyntheia ...
and Makeesha ... I nearly fell off my chair when you revealed I am not an evangelical, even tho I acclaim my allegience, and I am an egalitarian even tho I reject that. Can I at least renounce being an United States citizen despite the fact I have to live here?

Peace ...

[Makeesha]

David - LOL - apparently, in this wonderful post modern age, you can do whatever you want ;) I think I'll choose to change my species to human becoming and refuse to be called an American no matter what my birth certificate and passport say and call myself and emergent Christ follower instead of Christian and refuse the term charismatic even though I believe in full manifestations of the Spirit...or maybe I'll just be an anarchist and refuse to be labeled at all..except to be called an anarchist ;) obviously all that was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

good conversation. most of it is over my head but it's a good challenge to think harder even though it's already way too hot in here. I still disagree with your conclusion but I think agreeing with you on some of the problems is probably sufficient enough to claim common ground.

Since the academics have entered the room, I'll bow out. thanks for the stimulating engagement.

[remylow]

this is a good post that addresses some of the discomfort i've had with the egalitarian rhetoric (despite my deepest sympathies). there is a persistence of western-liberal notions of 'freedom' or 'equality' in these debates that exist as 'self-evident' principles abstracted from historical location. there is every danger, as foucault rightly point out i think, of reconstituting the existing power relations by leaving such notions unopposed. in taking the oppositional position, egalitarians sometimes (though not always) still trade in the system of cultural representations of what are desirable outcomes of equality (e.g. currenly male-dominated positions, the existence of which i don't necessarily agree with in the first place). perhaps what is needed is an unlearning of the rawlsian-liberal mindset toward a space where value is distributed in difference. i agree that the eucharist is key in doing this.

[Jason Hesiak]

Hey...I'm not an academic! I just read too much academy-minded stuff :) I'm just a poor architect.

And Cynthia...thanks for the response. I see your point. I like your point. I'd have to agree, I think. I think maybe I just had to air my questions. Once I did, the very thoughts that you put in your response were soon rummaging in my head. Except not so clearly as how you said it, of course :)

[Makeesha]

ok all you big worded high minded confusing people - - bring this down to the common person for a few minutes if you can. What do you propose be done about it? How do you propose we create a redeemed position in gender and sexuality? what do all your words actually MEAN in the real world? cuz that's where I live. And that's the world that refuses to listen to me or give me a voice because I have a uterus. And that's the world where our faith community functions. Because you all sound really smart and all but it doesn't really serve any practical purpose to those of us who do claim to be egalitarians and feminists and are trying our best in a real life cultural context.

[Makeesha]

oh and by the way, not to sound totally difficult or anything, but it's hard to hear men saying egalitarians have it wrong.

[remylow]

hi makeesha. i understand what you mean and while not having a uterus myself, i am married to someone who does. i struggle with the complementarian/egalitarian position also as someone who is between cultures and seen the way the western mindset belittles the activities of others (women, indigenous peoples). on a concrete level, say craft or knitting: always been looked down upon as 'cutesie' or 'old lady', a peripheral act designated to women in the church to keep them 'out of trouble' while the men do the 'real ministry' of preaching or whatever.

now by rejecting craft/knitting for 'real ministry', this reinforces the valuing of "male" defined ministry over and above what many women are doing at the grassroots level.

this is true of society in general (see the wages for so-called "caring professions", or how we treat indigenous perspectives as "interesting and exotic" but ultimately not serious enough as compared to statistics or science - so we should get more indigenous people into the serious work of being like everyone else who wears a suit).

by getting into our trenches we end up propping up the old value system.

perhaps we should restructure what we value in churches, think more like one body. that's what i think the eucharist does: brings ppl together who are truly different in Christ. people who hurt others in the body by exclusion and oppression desecrate the Lord's table (1COR11).

[Makeesha]

I still don't get it.

[Jason Hesiak]

Makeesha. I too am uterusless. Not even married to anyone with one. Just have a mom and a sister. And good close friends. And thanks for being pushy. My guess is it'll help us actually get somewhere. Anyway, may I take a small shot? Feel free to tell me if it was a lame one.

The "real world"? In line with this post? I think the obvious place to start is a church with ordinated folk with a uterus :) But then my guess is that the next place you go would be soemthing like the following. Does what you would hear from that uterus-having preacher sound like someone who genuinely has a uterus or rather someone with a uterus who is supposed to sound like someone with testacles? And I think you (the perverbial you) can tell the difference, too. Its kind of annoying to - me, personally - when I can just hear it in the air, like a spirit dripping heavy off the walls or something, that a woman is either trying to sound like a man because she wants to (prove she can "do what the men do") or because there are some men who are "acutally above" her hierarchically who, in her mind or theirs, are dictating what (or whom or which gender) she should sound like. For God sakes, just speak the way God gave you to speak, woman! Jeez. And men who are "supposedly above" - shut up. Let her actually BE a freakin' woman!

Deborah wasn't required to go out on the battlefield and act like a man (I don't think). She just said, "You do realize, you numbskull, that a WOMAN will be LEADING you, right?" Answer returned was actually, "yes."

How's that? Sound like real world stuff? Or is that too obvious, and are you thinking of other "real world" contexts to which I did not refer and of which you must hear examples in order to feel satisfied in your aching heart?

Like how when I went to the movies tonight and the women and men employees were dressed the same. Or how if I would have gone and they would have been dressed differenly then people would have the perception that the women are somehow "lesser."

Or how even women nurses dress like men, sort of. Or they dress up in some alien generlessness.

Or how sometimes it seems like just about the only time when a woman isn't SUPPOSED to be LIKE men but actually has a measure of power is when it is a SEXUAL power? Like at the gym. Or on MTV. Or other less-mentionable places. B.S. - maybe? Does a woman "serve any purpose" other than what the dumb jock in some dumb high school movie says, "to get y'er R@#%$ off"?

I'm going with "yes." But how many of them even feel comfortable OFFERING their gifts - ANYWHERE - EVER!? Its like it takes a miracle of God or something for a woman to open her wings. BTW when I refer hear to "wings", I am referring to the kinds of wings that aren't in a flying competition with men, but a flight of reconciliation, so to speak (as D.F. mentioned).

Make sense? Am I off here?

As far as this post goes - I think D.F.'s point is that the reason why the uterus-having preacher would have some sort of requirement to sound like a man is the PLACE where that requirement would be coming from. What he is referring to as a male-dominated political "narrative." Where Hilliary "wears the pants in the family." Not an authoritative skirt, but "the pants."

My points above, though, are I think what D.F. meant by saying that "deconstructing the complimentarian position" is "too easy." I just gave those examples to give an idea of what - I think (?) - D.F. means by questioning the narrative that determines how we view the very notions of sex and gender. The example of Hilliary's "pants" is one of a "political narrative" determining Hilliary's not wearing a darn skirt.

So on the other side of the coin from this post - lets pretend that Hilliary DID wear a skirt. Would she even BE a Senator? Much less running for President (maybe)? The answer is a good and resounding (and "easy") "no." The "political narrative" of our male-dominated political world "dictates" that politicians wear pants - precisely because MEN wear pants.

Or...I just saw "Bourne Ultimatum." The compassionate character who helps Bourne out in the film (and is in a position of power to do so) is, of course, a woman. But she is, of course, wearing pants (and not a skirt) the whole time. We are made to feel comforted that the screen is helping the cause of women by portraying a powerful woman using her compassionate womanly gifts...but is that REALLY the thrust of what's happening? Are the "pants" a subtle little inevitable message slipped in there that say that she got into that position in the first place by acting like a man?

D.F. (or anyone) - am I off?

[Makeesha]

thanks Jason, that all makes sense.

I agree that we can't JUST deconstruct complementarianism but this isn't the fault of egalitarians or feminists. The fault still goes back to patriarchy and complementarianism.

The reactions of feminism and egalitarianism in some cases may have been "off" but the process you're working through Jason is happening in the egalitarian community, we've been having these types of conversations for ages and part of encouraging equality within Christianity has always been to maintain uniqueness and accept the distinct beauty of each gender, recognizing that without it, we are not truly equal.

as for things like pants and knitting? you boys are treading on thin ice there - - and for the record, I knit, bake, keep my home, nurture my children, preach and lead along side my husband and we have an egalitarian marriage so I'm just not resonating here.

A woman doesn't HAVE to be in leadership to be equal to a man and she shouldn't have to in order to be taken seriously but I don't hear anyone in egalitarianism saying that...what we're saying is that men and women were created equal and if Christianity is going to be a force of redemptive work on the earth, we have to move gender issues toward a redeemed perspective which acknowledges complete uniqueness and complete equality. By refusing to allow women a voice unless they change into men OR conform to some outdated barbaric "receptors" or objects OR play the door mat is the work of patriarchy and complementarian views, it's not the work of egalitarianism.

oh, and when you talk about the women you know, that's like saying you understand gay people because you had a gay friend once. I'm not saying men can't speak on these issues - - we need as many men advocating for justice as possible - - but I'm just letting you know that it makes many women a bit prickly when men start taking shots at the egalitarian pov and then saying they understand...and I don't care if you have 20 sisters ;)

[Jason Hesiak]

Thanks Mekeesha.

"the process you're working through Jason is happening in the egalitarian community, we've been having these types of conversations for ages and part of encouraging equality within Christianity has always been to maintain uniqueness and accept the distinct beauty of each gender, recognizing that without it, we are not truly equal."

I think you and D.F. had already been through that. Sorry for getting all repetitive on you (folks).

As for the pants thing. I understand that there's nothing that says women can't wear pants. I'm just referring to a message that does come across, whether intentionally or for any good reason or not. I think maybe that was sort of what set Cynthia off too (?).

As for undertanding either gay people or women, trust me, I'm a long ways from it in both cases :)

[len]

I found this discussion quite helpful, even where I couldn't completely track it. One of the influences that will have to be surfaced as we work thru the issue is the secular anthropologies that lie behind so many assumptions: particularly those espoused by Freud and Jung. To me this is part of the blurring of difference we see, and it works at us theologically as well as practically. I never quite bought that I have a feminine side, or that my wife has to discover her masculine side. I see my love of cooking as irrelevant to gender, just as my sister's love of carpentry has nothing to do with gender. Similarly, my friend's love of conversation and emotional fluency doesn't make him more feminine - it makes him more complete as a male. This is probably now drifting away from the topic.

[Makeesha]

len - you might be closer to the topic than you think. good comments.

I hope I'm not sounding to bitchy, I'm not trying to be difficult for the sake of it, I'm just not willing to let this one go (most things I read and disagree with aren't worth my energy to engage so you should feel special David ;) )

I agree that there is a problem in our anthropological narrative of assigning gender roles and behaviors in a way that is not part of God's design. And I agree that there is a problem with our society in the west failing to embrace women as fully woman and fully capable of whatever roles or responsibilities without denying her the femininity she was created with.

But again, this is not a problem caused by egalitarians, it's a problem we are seeking to rectify - - and in the process, yes, we do need to be sure to avoid the she vs. he approach or the blurring of the distinctive qualities of the genders but it doesn't mean there's an inherent and irreconcilable flaw in the egalitarian view or in feminism for that matter.

and our solutions need to think deeper than encouraging women not to dress "like men" (which is a manufactured social construct by the way - as are skirts, bras, pantaloons, pajamas and well, clothes) because that's just insulting. It also needs to get beyond telling women "oh honey, you're just as important as your pastor even though you knit baby hats and he runs a church" - please, that's pitiful.

[remylow]

that's well said actually. i'd run with what you just posted makeesha.

western feminism (for all its complicity with imperialism in the past - hence my initial aversion to it) has spawned good+fresh expressions of womanism in many parts of the world: and i'm thankful for how it's brought redress to women suffering, say in the 2/3 world.

thanks for sticking it out for our sakes.

[Jenny]

Hi guys. To find some fresh perspectives on this you might be interested in reading some of Lilian Calles Barger's writing. I'm thinking specifically of "Eve's Revenge" as I haven't gotten to read "Chasing Sophia" yet.

[Jenny]

Below is a link to her website. Something I have appreciate about her writing is that she has done her homework and she's not trying to follow any of the already established 'paths' for women but is seeking to offer a fresh paradigm.
Lilian Calles Barger Books

[Chris]

I've always liked this blog, but this post and the subsequent comments has been one of the best yet. I'll keep my comments to a minimum since I have too much to think about before posting anything.

Sarah Sumner has an interesting work that attempts to create a theology of gender that is neither complementarian nor 'classic' egalitarian. It is a good read regardless of what word you ultimately choose to label yourself with.

[tom]

Very stimulating indeed!

I have just been reading Derrida's "A Word of Welcome" (in the book Adieu: To Emmanuel Levinas), and find (to my surprise) it offers another angle on the gender-justice issues...and as often the case with those guys (Derrida/Levinas), for some it can be quite refresing. But it is rather "academic" (so to speak), so i'll just refer to it here. And I can't say I've yet come to an understanding worth sharing beyond being stirred up to look at things differently.

As I read thru the postings, I was asking myself, what kind of hospitality, love, grace, response, etc., a complementarian would find on this site? I wonder if any such might dare to join.

[Makeesha]

none from me ;) no I'm kidding. But I find the debate with complementarians exhausting and pointless so I avoid the gender issue with them for the most part. I've been there, lived there, got the complexes from that world, don't need to revisit it.

[Helen]

Hi David,

It was a pleasure to meet you at the Midwest Emergent Gathering, by the way. It meant a lot to me when you actually liked one of my ideas!

About what you wrote here: I like that as best I can tell from inappropriately skimming your piece, you seem to be taking a thoughtful approach to womens' involvement. You've dared to venture into the sensitive area that men and women ARE different (hence the different names). You're rejecting approaches which pay the too high-price of dismissing or negating those differences as not what God intends. You've noticed that offering this compromise to women "if you act like male leaders you can be a leader too" is not an excellent solution. And I hope women will see that in saying this you are their advocate, not their enemy.

This statement of yours makes your position pretty clear to me:

"I am pro women’s ordination, women’s full participation in the authority of the church and women’s teaching authority over the church including men."

I like your vision - if I have correctly picked up on it - of having men and women fully participate yet men are still all God intended men to be and women are all God intended women to be. Neither trying to be what they aren't.

At the same time I would always want to be careful in assessing what the differences between men and women are. I say this as a woman who often feels not much like one, who on the whole, given how things are at present, would prefer being expected to behave like a man rather than being expected to behave like a woman, because the stereotypes are so problematic. (Except for being interested in stocks and sports - oops, there I go, stereotypes ;-))

In other words, to feel *safe* with your approach I would want to hear what you think the specific differences between men and women are. I would want permission to say "ah but that's not me, actually". Because trying to fit someone's stereotype of what a woman is, as I already alluded to, might be harder for me than trying to fit someone's stereotype of what a man is - and rather than either of those I'd prefer to be the PERSON God intended me to be (if he exists). Period. Which, yes, is influenced by my being a woman. Of course.

(Disclaimer: please don't anyone hassle me privately or publically because I don't go to church and don't necessarily believe in God. I can still have opinions - I did go for almost 20 years. To complementarian churches as it happened - I went with the flow because I liked other aspects of them)

[Makeesha]

I like what you said Helen, good stuff. (I don't think you need to disclaimer your comments just because some people got frustrated with you on another discussion) :)

Thanks Makeesha :)

[Jennifer]

David,

In point #1, it seems like you are reacting to 1970's feminism, more than egalitarianism in the 2000's. You describe it very well, I just don’t think anyone who calls themselves an egalitarian (or a feminist) is asking women to veil their femininity. There ARE some who do this, but I’m just not sure they would label themselves as egalitarians.

I like what you’re saying in #2 (and I lovvvve this “Instead, I suggest we consider a politics formed around the Eucharist.”) But I do get a little suspicious when a person who has lots of power (from gender, position, race, education, even physical size) suggests that those without power are too hung up on power. This gets thrown at women, especially Christian women, all the time. They’re “grabbing for power”. You can see the problem with this.

At the end, when you say, “I am pro women’s ordination, women’s full participation in the authority of the church and women’s teaching authority over the church including men” it seems like you are standing as an egalitarian – and you are simply reacting to the caricature of what it means to be an egalitarian. And if being an egalitarian was actually about obliterating the differences between men and women, and about power-grabbing women, you’d be right to react against it. But, it’s not. At least I don’t think so. It’s about being pro women’s ordination, and believing women have something to teach, and that they are full human beings. So, I’m not so sure that you are not, in fact, an egalitarian :-)

[Makeesha]

Jennifer - excellent all the way around. I esp. nodded passionately about this:

I like what you’re saying in #2 (and I lovvvve this “Instead, I suggest we consider a politics formed around the Eucharist.”) But I do get a little suspicious when a person who has lots of power (from gender, position, race, education, even physical size) suggests that those without power are too hung up on power. This gets thrown at women, especially Christian women, all the time. They’re “grabbing for power”. You can see the problem with this.

[remylow]

good comments here. i think i see where this is going, and i agree with redressing the imbalances of power, as well as challenging the "gender traits" that go for both women and men.

i apologise if i've inaccurately conflated western liberal feminism with 'egalitarianism' (having become a christian only few years ago via neo-marxist/strongly anti-imperialist uni days) i had mostly that form of feminism in mind.

oppresive patriarchy - with its representations of men and women- has to be challenged by both while allowing for difference. its persuasive power should not be left intact (in our schools, churches...etc). black feminist bell hooks' position resonates with me...

"To me, a woman can’t be a feminist just because she is a woman. She is a feminist because she begins to divest herself of sexist ways of thinking and revolutionizes her consciousness. The same is true for the male comrade in struggle.

One would think, as in the case of racism, that it’s more in the interest of the woman to develop a feminist consciousness, but that’s the only way in which I think that women have a greater claim to feminism than men.

I feel sad that we have allowed these knee-jerk feminists who want to act like it’s a struggle against men…but again that’s the least politically developed strand of feminism. That is the strand of feminism that people most hear about, not the kind of revolutionary feminism that says, patriarchy is life threatening to Black men.

When we look at the Black men who are killing each other--who think that their dick is a gun, and a gun is a dick--those men need a critique of that notion of patriarchal masculinity to save their lives. Feminism as a political movement has to specifically address the needs of men in their struggle to revolutionize their consciousness."

... and how much more so as renewed ppls in christ.

[Paul]

interesting stuff - i can see how the points raised in the article can be to subvert the literally meaning of equality - we can claim a position and then project our own understanding of it on there - so it becomes about a homegenous grey [male tinged?] idea of gender... or about my rights vs your rights... or even all are equal but some are still more equal than others...

I'm with Mak on looking at the reality of how this plays out in our lives - so for instance i would say that my understanding of equality means that i try and serve my wife in helping her experience the fullness of her humanity/identity and in doing so discover a lot about my humanity and the need for our union to be in Christ. On form though my wife promised to submit in our weedding vows and in practice has deferred to be twice in our marriage in making some very hard decisions - interestingly enough in making those decisions i saw it as an act of service, the incredible responsibility which made me want to chose something for the best of us rather than an opportunity to do what i wanted.

Then again as Paul reminds us in Philipians, Christ although equal to the Father saw equality something not to be used for his own advantage but to submit as an act of other centred service - is that the kind of practically definition of equality we should be using/practicing?

[tony jones]

Nothing substantive to add, other than to say, thanks, David. Thanks. This is thoughtful and courageous.

[Julie Clawson]

Thank you Makeesha and Jennifer for your thoughts here.

David - although I agree with a few of your points (no women should not have to become men to be respected), speaking as a women, your piece comes across very patronizing and condescending. It's the type attitude I encounter over and over again amongst men in the emerging church conversation. The idea that we are so above equality that we can reach for ideals that sounds really great for women, but in all practical terms have the same results as complementarianism. That it's not worth bothering treating women with equal respect, or work to include them in the conversation because that just continues to hurt them, tokonizes them, and forces them to become something they are not. That we just need to encourage them to live fully within their gender roles God has blessed them with. In essence not have to bother wasting the time to hear from them and learn from them.

Perhaps it would be really great if one day women didn't have to play the alpha male game and act like men in order to have a voice and be respected. And it would be even greater if men were open to learning from women about leadership and both were open to respecting all types of leadership no matter which gender was employing it. Or than the women whose nature is more stereotypically male or the men who act stereotypically female were allowed to be who they are as well. Someday perhaps

But I am sick and tired of being told I can't play because the game needs to change. The game hasn't changed yet and women are not going to just sit on the sidelines and wait for the men to get around to changing it. We are going to jump in and expect to be respected for who we are in the world as it is right now. And maybe, just maybe that will end up making things better, but I'm not giving up on wanting a voice, and respect for myself and all women (label and dismiss it as power if you must) just because the world isn't perfect yet.

[Jason Hesiak]

Maybe this is preverse...but as controversial as D.F. is...I don't think I've ever seen anyone that angry at him...and I think that's kinda funny (cause I'm pretty sure he can take it). Not to take away from Julie's point, though.

[Makeesha]

Julie - thank you, very well put.

Jason - hehe...I've actually never heard much from DF (which is just weird to type because my husband's name is David and last name is Fisher so I can't really get away from it sounding like I'm talking about him unless I type Fitch) that I find all that controversial...to me anyway...but I'm sure it is to mainstream conservative evangelicals.

and for the record, I don't think Julie, myself or anyone else who has posted here is actually "mad" at David.

[Helen]

Julie, like you, I want things to keep moving forward. I think David has made good points but I wouldn't want them to result in putting full participation of women on hold while we wait for something to be sorted out. Why not let women participate and sort out the other stuff as we go along? Hey, then women will get to help in the process of sorting it out! Which I suspect is the only way likely to achieve an end result which works right for women anyway. If women aren't fully participating in the process of achieving freedom for men to be men and women to be women, both permitted as much authority as appropriate, isn't the process going to need redoing once women do get the voice they should have?

[Paul]

Julie,thank you for your voice, it sounds a perfectly reasonable request to be respected and listened to.

Whilst i can understand your strident tone and your passion for equality I don't think anyone here as said women shouldn't be fully equal-as-themselves-partners/participants-in-church-as-in-else-western-world. I think it is patronising to assume that is the position of the author here, particularly when it argues against what he has actually written. I think he is saying that people can use egalitatarianism to surpress women and therefore it makes him reluctant to use the label, for the reasons he critiques.

Whereas if we were to apply a more literal 'pure' definition of egalitarianism, as Mak, has argued, his thoughts may well indeed fall within that academic definition.

The reality it is not about how we define the terms but how we live them out...

[Makeesha]

paul - actually, I felt quite patronized by the original article as well. And, like Bob's blog post, I feel that the "living out" in this case is misrepresenting what biblical equality is. And if he's saying that people use egalitarianism to suppress women then we are even more in disagreement than I thought originally.

[Paul]

and that's the beauty of it Mak, you're free to feel patronised and express it, you're feelings are your feelings and therefore reflect your reality. I'm not trying to ask people not to feel patronised but to have the right to express their views and be taken seriously rather than dismissed as some sort of hysteria yak yak yak.

personally i feel the only way to take your views seriously is to respond with them and dialogue with you, Julie, david and others in order so i can listen/learn from all of you in ways that will hopefully make me a better human.

[Makeesha]

hehe...yes, that's all very true, but sometimes, other's feelings allow us to see how we are communicating. I just wanted to make sure that Fitch and yourself knew that Julie wasn't the only woman who felt a bit patronized. Having said that, I'm not daunted by my feelings and certainly own them as mine. And I know, as I've said, that ultimately, Fitch and I agree that women should indeed be "allowed" (language that betrays our current social gender bias by the way) to be ordained, take leadership roles, etc. So it's all good.

[Jason Hesiak]

I personally think that men should work all this out theoretically before women are allowed to participate in the conversation or be ordained.

Just kidding :)

[David Fitch]

Folks,
Thanks for all the comments. I have been busy preparing for a family getaway here. So I just havn't been able to keep up with responding to all the comments.
Just for the record, I know that for a middle aged white guy to say anything on this issue will by definition be patronizing. Unfortunate, but true. Nonethless, I took a risk. I thank all of the women readers here who were gracious enough to give me a hearing.
As I head out of town, I have responded to many of the comments with a second post on my own blog http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/ I will check in from time to time when I have a feed in Canada where I am heading for some R&R.
Blessings ... and many thanks David Fitch

[Makeesha]

enjoy your r&r :)

[Paul]

thanks Mak, it is all good, which is no bad thang as we're in it for the long haul together :)

Have a good getaway David and thanks for kick starting something here...

[willy]

I'd like to hear if others agree with df's self-assessment, which he has said a couple of different ways, a couple of times:

above: "I know that for a middle aged white guy to say anything on this issue will by definition be patronizing."

on his blog site: "Having said all this, I fully recognize I am a white male and I have no place to speak to women's issues."