Disbanded Brothers – Has a ‘Feminised’ Church Alienated Men in the UK?
Disbanded Brothers - Has a 'Feminised' Church ... - Theduckers.org
Disbanded Brothers - Has a 'Feminised' Church ... - Theduckers.org
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
CHAPTER FIVE<br />
ANDROGYNY <strong>–</strong> A FURTHER EXPLANATION?<br />
We have seen that <strong>the</strong>re is evidence of fem<strong>in</strong>isation with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Church</strong>, both generally <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
West and specifically with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>UK</strong>. I propose that <strong>the</strong>re is an equally serious trend<br />
accompany<strong>in</strong>g fem<strong>in</strong>isation that also discourages men from belong<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Church</strong>: that of<br />
androgyny, an artificial state of gender neutrality. The accusation here is that <strong>the</strong> <strong>Church</strong> has<br />
failed to recognise <strong>the</strong> profundity and significance of differences between <strong>the</strong> sexes and has<br />
failed to value men as men and women as women, to <strong>the</strong> detriment of both. 23<br />
5.1 Denial of Genderal Differences<br />
One term that has been applied to this condition is ‘gender bl<strong>in</strong>dness’, whereby essential<br />
and fundamental differences are ignored or denied, ei<strong>the</strong>r un<strong>in</strong>tentionally or deliberately,<br />
often <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> name of ‘equality’. With<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Church</strong>, this reason<strong>in</strong>g is conventionally based on<br />
two Biblical passages: Genesis 1:26-27 and Galatians 3:26-29.<br />
The first passage rem<strong>in</strong>ds us of <strong>the</strong> profundity that, from Creation, men and women are both<br />
made <strong>in</strong> God’s image:<br />
Then God said, “Let us make man <strong>in</strong> our image, <strong>in</strong> our likeness, and let <strong>the</strong>m rule over <strong>the</strong> fish of <strong>the</strong> sea<br />
and <strong>the</strong> birds of <strong>the</strong> air, over <strong>the</strong> livestock, over all <strong>the</strong> earth, and over all <strong>the</strong> creatures that move along <strong>the</strong><br />
ground.” So God created man <strong>in</strong> his own image, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> image of God he created him; male and female he<br />
created <strong>the</strong>m. (Genesis 1:26-27, NIV)<br />
It is rightly observed that men and women are both created <strong>in</strong> God’s “image” and “likeness”<br />
and, <strong>in</strong> some sense, have jo<strong>in</strong>t rulership over <strong>the</strong> earth. Whereas some would read from this<br />
passage <strong>the</strong> essential fact that humans were created <strong>in</strong> two dist<strong>in</strong>ct forms, male and female,<br />
o<strong>the</strong>rs argue that <strong>the</strong> key po<strong>in</strong>t of this text is <strong>the</strong> commonality of humans, s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong>y are all<br />
“<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> image of God.”<br />
The second passage also addresses sexual dist<strong>in</strong>ctions (although verse 28 is often removed<br />
from its context <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> rest of Galatians):<br />
You are all sons of God through faith <strong>in</strong> Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized <strong>in</strong>to Christ have<br />
clo<strong>the</strong>d yourselves with Christ. There is nei<strong>the</strong>r Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are<br />
all one <strong>in</strong> Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, <strong>the</strong>n you are Abraham's seed, and heirs accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong><br />
promise. (Galatians 3:26-29, NIV)<br />
These verses have frequently been used by those argu<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st gender dist<strong>in</strong>ctions <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Church</strong>, s<strong>in</strong>ce Paul claims “There is nei<strong>the</strong>r… male nor female.” Equality <strong>in</strong> salvation (“you<br />
are all one <strong>in</strong> Christ Jesus”) is extended to <strong>in</strong>clude functional and even essential sameness,<br />
or homogeneity. Christian fem<strong>in</strong>ists would argue, <strong>the</strong>refore, that differences between men<br />
and women have sociological, environmental and historical orig<strong>in</strong>s, ra<strong>the</strong>r than div<strong>in</strong>e ones,<br />
and have downplayed differences between men and women. See, for example, Mary<br />
Stewart van Leeuwen’s chapter on ‘How to Th<strong>in</strong>k About Sex and Gender’ (1990, 53-71)<br />
which takes a study on verbal abilities and extrapolates its results to conclude that men and<br />
women are more alike than different. 24<br />
23 Whilst <strong>the</strong>re have been specific men’s movements or <strong>Church</strong> organisations for men (such as <strong>the</strong> Promise Keepers <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>the</strong> United States, or Christian Vision for <strong>Men</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>UK</strong>), <strong>the</strong>se have tended to be ei<strong>the</strong>r short-term and transient with<br />
limited impact (Promise Keepers) or an optional extra for some churches (CVM) ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>in</strong>fluenc<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
transform<strong>in</strong>g all aspects of a <strong>Church</strong>. This issue should not be seen as someth<strong>in</strong>g merely for a ‘band of bro<strong>the</strong>rs’ or<br />
men’s group but ra<strong>the</strong>r someth<strong>in</strong>g that must lead to a fundamental shift <strong>in</strong> <strong>Church</strong> culture <strong>in</strong> its totality.<br />
24 Whilst that assertion might be true, <strong>the</strong> more pert<strong>in</strong>ent issue is what are <strong>the</strong> differences and how significant <strong>the</strong>y are.<br />
On <strong>the</strong> question of polarity (as suggested by <strong>the</strong> title of John Gray’s bestsell<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Men</strong> are From Mars, Women are From<br />
Venus) versus cont<strong>in</strong>uity, which Dorothy Sayers called “neighbour<strong>in</strong>g sexes” ra<strong>the</strong>r than “opposite sexes” (cited by van<br />
Leeuwen 2002a, 28), it is <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g to recall suggestions that characteristics of mascul<strong>in</strong>ity <strong>in</strong>clude o<strong>the</strong>rness and<br />
apartness, whilst characteristics of fem<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>ity <strong>in</strong>clude sameness, toge<strong>the</strong>rness and <strong>in</strong>clusivity: could men tend to believe<br />
that men and women are differently, whilst women tend to regard <strong>the</strong>m as <strong>the</strong> same?<br />
29