Where are the men?

OK, so there's loads of rubbish written about Christian masculinity (which says masculine = macho) and about men in church. The CUs that I work with are broadly representative of their campuses in terms of gender.

But one thing I am noticing is that - with a few notable exceptions - the students that are willing to hang their lives on discipleship to Jesus, and those who are willing to take real risks for the gospel, are female. This is particularly noticeable amongst first year students. Those who lead - in other words, those who lead by example - in sacrificial and radical discipleship, are almost all women. There seem to be lots of boys about but not many men.

No doubt part of this is to do with processes of maturity. I remember reading a few years ago that females mature more quickly than males. But it would seem to me from my perspective that there's a broader trend. Christian youth groups and festivals are good at keeping boys involved, but aren't encouraging them to take responsibility and to own their Christian discipleship for themselves. Why is this the case? Why is it that female students are much more likely to volunteer for summer teams? Why is it that those who are willing to count costs of friendship and reputation are women?

Where are the men?

Doctor Who, feminism and Jesus

After the awful Doctor Who Christmas special last year, we were relieved at my in-laws' house that this year's episode was significantly better. The plot was fun, there was plenty of snow and you got the sense that Doctor Who is perhaps the 21st Century equivalent of the pantomime.

I couldn't help noticing, though, that there was more of a politics to the episode than some. The combination of it being Christmastime and these politics had interesting things to say about Christianity, Jesus and feminism.

There were several mentions of and allusions to Jesus throughout the episode. At the grave side of one of the workhouse owner, a vicar rehearsed burial liturgy, surrounded by a group of men. There was a strong link of Jesus (and Christianity) with patriarchy. The villainess, Miss Hartigan, who had worked in one of the workhouses for many years, ended up in partnership with the Cybermen in reaction to the evils that she witnessed as a result of such patriarchy (indeed, this was portrayed as her only escape!). She represented herself as a new suffragette-style hero(ine) that came into the world at Christmas - only now not one that would oppress women. She even used the words, 'Behold, I have risen'. Miss Hartigan was set up as a kind of Christ figure; the implication throughout being that Christianity (even Jesus?) is misogynistic and oppressive.

In the end, however, the Doctor seemed to identify the problem with Miss Hartigan's plans: her ideals, too, were shown to be oppressive. In compassion, the Doctor offered to send Miss Hartigan and her Cybermen to another planet, where they wouldn't need to 'convert' anyone (another backward slap at Christianity?). However, once Miss Hartigan's eyes were 'opened', the horror of her evil meta-narrative convicted her and she imploded.

In the end, perhaps the episode was a critique of patriarchy and feminism. Feminism that become an inflexible meta-narrative is to be rejected as it threatens to become an evil ,oppressive (and Christianity-like) system; yet the tragedy portrayed by the episode is that a real heroine (a character called Rosita, who helps many children to be saved) ends the epsiode merely as a nanny. We're forced to ask... is this right? Is it right that a heroic, bright woman can rise only to this position in a Christianity-influenced (Victorian) patriarchy?

An interesting theme. I wonder what the writers would make of Jesus' encounters with women in the Gospels?

The controversy

In less than an hour I'll be teaching 1 Timothy 2 at Lancaster University with small group leaders.

I'm keen that this study doesn't get hi-jacked by one particular issue when I think that the rest of the chapter has a lot of good things to say to a CU. But, of course, the interest is likely to fall upon what Paul says about women teachers in the church.

I guess what's particularly struck me as I've prepared this study is the way in which all too easily the proponents of the two viewpoints caricature each other. I remember meeting a church leader about three years ago who labelled those that allowed women to speak in church as 'so-called evangelicals.' It appears to me that both egalitarianism (the position which stresses the equality of men and women in holding roles in church life) and complementarianism (which stresses diversity between men and women, and which precludes women from holding certain roles in church life) can be argued scripturally. I have no reason to believe that those scholars holding these views hold them for anything else other than exegetical reasons, and certainly wouldn't want to tarnish them with the brush of just giving into culture in some respect. What's sad is when a dialogue sinks to the level of jabbing out dogmatic statements without ever giving time or thought to passages that seem to point in other directions.

The other thing that has struck me is that God's goodness very often gets lost in these discussions. 1 John 5:3 has become very precious to me: that God's commands are not burdensome. All too often, particularly from complementarians, their position is taught in a harsh manner. But if the complementarian position is closest to the Biblical model, then we must say that the lack of women teaching in church is for our benefit.

I don't think that this is a comment on the ability of women speakers. Rather, could it be that, just as God invented marriage roles as equal but different (so that the gospel might be modelled in an Ephesians 5:22-33 manner), so God has designed church leadership that men and women might play roles that are equal and different? Could it be that, by male headship in the church and female submission, we are modelling elements of the gospel to each other?

I don't want to trivialise, but could God's design be so that conversations like this happen:

Visitor into church: (to woman) Why aren't women in leadership here? Are women treated as second class?
Woman: No - we are all truly equal. It's more of a case that in our gender roles, we are modelling something of the very nature of God. Just as the Son submits to the leadership of the Father, so as women we submit to the male leadership here. It's not always easy - but points to the Trinitarian nature of God. And the men are called to make decisions that don't just benefit the men of the church, but the women too. As we love and serve each other in different ways, we model the Truine God, whose persons are equal but different, and serve each other in love.