« Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church: Chapel Address | Main | Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church: Keynote 1 »
February 12, 2006
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church: Historical and Sociological Dimensions
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church
Covenant College
February 11, 2006
History professor Dr. Jay Green and sociology professor Dr. Matt Vos did a joint presentation on the historical and sociological context for considering gender and the church. Professor Vos framed the discussion by noting that Covenant is not one big Bible department. Instead, there is a multiplicity of disciplines and in each the joint questions are: how can Scripture help us understand our disciplines and how can our disciplines help us understand Scripture? Punning Radio Shack, Vos quipped, "You have questions, we have more questions." Our disciplines have enabled the right questions to be asked.
Dr. Green continued by presenting what became the central theological insight of this debate: human beings live out their callings in God's world as time and space bound creatures. Theologians are unequal to tackling this question of gender and the church without addressing the time and space bound worlds we inhabit.
But where do rules and roles for masculinity and femininity come from? The traditional answer, still preferred among many evangelicals is biological essentialism. This view suggests that we operate in a fixed, non-negotiable order rooted in natural, biological distinctions between male and female. There is an irreducible essence that defines our identities as men or women. THus, certain pre-determined characteristics are seen as God-given and to transgress these rules is "not only anti-social but unnatural."
In recent decades, though, this idea was questioned as it became obvious that these "rules" seemed to vary based on ethnic identity, class status, location, etc. It was increasingly difficult to deny that ideas of man and womanhood have changed over time. That is, manhood and womanhood have histories. Now, it is generally accepted that conceptions of gender are socio-historio specific, created rather than rooted in some eternal ideal. Humans, then are not merely "biological animals whose sense of meaning emerge from their nature." We receive our sense of what it is to be men and women from the times and places we are born. By affirming this, Green said, one does not render biology irrelevant. Rather, biological features help to inform -- but are not sufficient for completely explaining -- the ways that societies define roles for each gender.
Next, Green addressed the question "what is the difference between sex and gender?" Sex is a biological term, signifying the anatomical and physiological differences that separate men and women. Gender, on the other hand, signifies the various meanings, roles, codes, and symbols that society arbitrarily associates with one or the other of the sexes. It is important, Green noted, to make at least a mental distinction between the things imbued by nature and thsoe that are culturally imposed. If we don't, we "run the risk of baptizing arbitrary rules and roles as if they were God's design." We must beware of theological laziness that gives a narrow concept of biology the task of steering our callings and relationships. Perhaps, Green argued, "while typically claiming a self-evident model rooted in nature, we have actually accepted something that is at least as rooted in our times as those we are critical of."
Today, Green continued, there is a conservative obsession with the "imminent demise of America because of the feminization of the church." This concern has definite historical roots. In the early 20th century, evangelicals proclaimed that a weak, highly sentimental so-called feminine version of the faith had poisoned the church. They called for a strong, virile Christianity. Especially disconcerting to these men were depictions of Jesus as the sweet Savior, gentle and soft, "just a woman in a beard." They reacted by describing Jesus as young, muscular, and fiery, with "shoulders as broad as chest was deep," a man's man. Many modern evangelicals continue to support the rough and tumble model of Christian manhood, teaching that the church is endangered because of its "womanly character." Men must come alive because, as John Eldridge says, they have "a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue, and an adventure to live."
This view, Green cautioned, presumes there is little overlap in how men and women live their Christian lives. We must be honest and discerning when we speak of how much cultural baggage we bring us when we discuss issues of gender. Whatever our stance, we should agree that it should be rooted in the Scripture itself. Green concluded that Christian theology, then, is an "unnatural act." It is not uncovering "how things are" but a project of crafting a Christian identity.
Dr. Vos then submitted the notion that our socially structured world is full of tensions that we, as Christians, must recognize and wrestle with.
Tension #1: Reading and Interpreting
Egalitarians and traditionalists throw verses at each other whenever the opportuntiy arises. This belies our modernist tendency: a penchant for factoids. Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen points out that since the Bible was written by a variety of authors over a long period of time. She suggests that we understand the Bible as a developing narrative and that we can only grasp when we understand it in terms of its unfolding character. A factoid approach is inadequate. Vos wondered if, perhaps, the point is to pick up the narrative, not rotely repeat what has been done before. Of course, if we are going to do things differently, the qeustion is "how can we do them faithfully? How are faithful in a very different society?
Tension #2: Women and the Family
Where does the traditional family comes from? According to Vos, this is a debatable notion. In his view, it can actually be traced to macroeconomic changes in the workplace, sparked by the 19th century Industrial Revolution. Prior to the 19th century, the workplace and the home were essentially the same. The Industrial Revolution split the male/female and public/private domains. If we accept this, argued Vos, then it seems plausible that the family would continue to change as the work place continues to change. There is an increased ambivalence about where women should fit. But, "when we realize our roles reflect the structures of the world we inhabit, how are we supposed to follow the model in Scripture that is grounded in a completely different social structure?"
Tension #3: Women in the Church
Vos suggested that if we do accept essentialist arguments, it seems that women seem to exhibit those counter cultural traits that seem characteristic of a life led by the Spirit. For example, "gentleness" and "kindness," as listed in the fruit of the Spirit, are generally seen to be more typcially female characteristics. Womens seem to be gifted in things spiritual -- "yet we aren't quite sure what to with their gifts or willingness to serve because it doesn't fit with our idea of tradtiional church leadership."
Tentative Conclusion
The hinge is a matter of faith. Vos pointed to several contemporary thinkers who make some helpful suggestions.
Peter Berger cautions that a quest for certainty can eclipse faith. The chief secularizing argument in all spheres is rationality; as we rely more and more on rationality, we eclipse the spirit of God because we can solve our own problems. In such a world we have very little need for faith because we have edited out all mystery and ambivalence. But, Scripture shows us faith that is exercised in the face of mystery. We must live a life transcending the difficulties by faith.
Robert Wuthnow states, "Christianity does not so much supply the learned person with answers as it does with questions." Our faith leaves people with a set of unescapable questions. Most of Jesus' parables end with a question; it is the question that goes on to stimulate discussion and application. If Christianity sacrilizes the daily life, then living the question becomes possible because they have life breathed into them
Vos concluded with the caution that replacing mysteries with answers ends the struggle and replaces complexity with simplicity. This question of gender and the church requires a response of faith; it not a question we can simply solve and move past. "We can solve, avoid, or live the question. The last requires a life of faith....Faith must contain an element of uncertainty, otherwise it is not faith."
In the end, he offered an invitation to us to not resolve the question of gender and the church.
Faith , Woman, Woman, Woah-man , Writing | By elissa | 02:18 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://chattablogs.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/29624
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church: Historical and Sociological Dimensions:
