April 26, 2012
-
“Effeminate Worship” update
Douglas Wilson has posted a response to those (like myself) who took issue with his “Eleven Signs That Your Church Is Effeminate.”
Thoughts?
I’ve talked enough on this subject, so I’ll mention just one thought: Wilson sidesteps the issues his original article brought up. He defends himself and complementarian thought in general terms, saying that a church is “truly feminine” (a good thing) when you have “a worship service led throughout by men.” But he doesn’t address that he took a list of nongendered things such as certain chord changes and articles of clerical clothing and made them out to be complementarian gender roles. He may have done it in jest–I never doubted that–but humor reveals what you think to be true.
What do you think?
Comments (8)
I agree a lot with the article, but I can see how you don’t think it satisfactorily addresses the objections to his original piece.
Btw, Blog and Mablog. I lol’d.
@stuartandabby - Heh, I know, I liked that too.
To be honest, other than my dissatisfaction, there is much in this article that I agree with. I still will defend a female deaconate as having historical precedent and possibly biblical support, and I disagree with him on being unable to use Jesus-as-lover metaphors except in a corporate setting, but he responded in a graceful and clear manner, and I have to give him credit for that–as well as for the funny blog name.
A worship service led throughout by men? O_o Whaaaa?
I know that Paul had a decent amount to say about women, but I have to say that even though it’s in the Bible, I disagree with it. Or at least disagree with the way it’s been translated (since maybe something was lost in translation?). Maybe Paul just had a lot of nasty, gossipy women in the church he was trying to create. *shrug* I feel that the reason church was a male-dominated place in that time was because, well, it was that time in history. Women were not taught anything, so of course if you don’t know anything about a topic then you shouldn’t speak on it, and certainly shouldn’t teach others on it. Now, though, women and men are educated equally. I would hope that, given this development, women and men are equally able to discern things about scripture and able to participate in and lead a church.
All of this “effeminate” stuff that he presents in the first blog post includes things like gossipy women undermining leadership decisions and the leader not talking about important, difficult issues in sermons. These things, I agree, are bad for a church. However, labeling them “effeminate” makes it sound like if a guy wears the wrong clothing then the church is going to fall apart. I don’t think that that’s the case. I think the reason a church may be ineffective is because there is poor leadership or certain members are causing problems, not because the leader or members decide they don’t like songs about war or want to wear pink shirts or what have you. >_> Sheesh.
in general, i am exhausted by the labels. i know, i said it yesterday.
but honestly, i feel there’s nothing more manly than seeing a man truly worshiping the Savior he loves. does that make him effeminate? NOT AT ALL. in fact, i would say that he has a better grip (goodness, can i SAY that?) on who he is… as a MAN… than someone who is constantly NOTICING that this, that and the other seems “effeminate”. i just think that people who are well… ahem… ADJUSTED… simply do not notice trivial things like that. it seems to be less of a “male” versus “female” problem…. and perhaps… maybe… more of a maturity problem. i dunno.
we would all serve humanity better if… we were WELL ROUNDED men AND women… and didn’t feel the need to label activities, such and so on as “male” and “female”.
@Ooglick - Dunno if this helps, but the part where Paul says the women should be silent, is that in that culture the women were particularly loud and aggressive, so if they had a question, they would interrupt. So Paul said hey this isn’t right, ask your husbands at home, don’t disrupt the worship service. It doesn’t mean a woman can not speak at all or share a testimony or stuff like that.
There is a certain class of men who spend an inordinate amount of time defining femininity, and a lot of them are church leaders. It seems to be their favorite subject. Men have traditionally had a lot of trouble pinning women down. “What do women want?” is one of those eternal questions (that men ask). It has inspired a lot of thought, a lot of poetry, maybe a few wars. I think it shows a defect of character to tire of asking what women want and instead approach the problem by putting women in a box. “These are women, those that follow this list I’ve made up and want the things I’ve listed, and the others don’t count.” (I have had your experience from the other side, ChrisRusso.)
I suppose there are a lot of pressures on definitions in these times. There are questions about gender, but also questions about the problem of evil. There is a lot of interaction with other religions today that maybe Christians did not have to deal with in the previous generation. In general, the church response has been to make lists of rules. Unfortunately, the dead word on the page does not rise to meet every situation, nor can it anticipate every change of circumstance. Mathematics is a list of rules and the explanation of the consequences thereof. Since 1931, thanks to Kurt Godel, we mathematicians have had to deal with his result that a statement could be made that could neither be proven nor shown false no matter how extensive and meticulous the list of starting rules. Making more rules is not the answer. I think this is a tendency and a problem of modern people, in gender as well as in proliferation of doctrinal rules.
So, that to say, calling worship leaders effeminate is a symptom of the general problem of trying to control things that can’t be controlled.
@Happily_Married_Guy - Yes, that does help.
Context of what the culture was like at the time is important.
A joke can be a way to “test the waters”, so to speak. If people want to say something, but anticipate an adverse reaction, they might say it in the form of a joke. That way, if a hearer gets really upset, they can back up and say, “hey, it was only a joke”.