Why I Dance

I started learning to dance about two months ago. Not just any type of dance, mind you. I started to dance ballet—and I really enjoy it. It's been one of the most positive steps I've taken in recent years and I don't regret it despite the raised eyebrows and quizzical-critical comments I receive at times.

Why dance? And why ballet in particular?

Part of the answer is quite simple. I have realized that I am not getting any younger and that I need to consciously choose to remain active. I want to maintain my health at a level where I can continue to live a full life well into my later years. Given that my work has me sitting in front of a computer most of the day, I particularly need physical activity. I started running last fall and still run on occasion, but it has not become something I truly enjoy doing. Those pleasure-inducing endorphins or whatever it is that some runners experience have so far eluded me. I run because I know I need to, not because I enjoy it. More recently I tried doing Mixed Martial Arts (MMA) with my wife and son. We undertook this primarily to get our son involved in physical activity and to help him learn discipline, but for various reasons it didn't work out as well as we had hoped. I also struggled to reconcile my increasingly non-violent mindset with an activity that involves punching, hitting and kicking things (and people). Nor did I feel at home in the often testosterone-heave environment of the dojo. (Although I respect the owner of the dojo for his perspective and attitude.) So that fell by the wayside. I could have picked up yoga or pilates, but when I saw the sign outside the studio advertising ballet, I began to think that it might be fun to try something completely new.

The Semperoper Ballet, Dresden

Dancing ballet takes me way outside of my comfort zone. When I first considered joining the class I called the studio to inquire about it and the ballet teacher answered the phone. Her warm, positive encouragement was precisely what I needed to take the first step. Her continued encouragement and the welcoming atmosphere of the class helped me choose to continue. I am not by nature a big risk-taker. I don't like to put myself in positions where I feel awkward or uncomfortable. I don't like to try new things if I doubt my ability to succeed. I am not the most gifted person in the realm of physical coordination and strength, so undertaking something that requires both was a particularly bold move. However, in the past couple years I have put aside much of my innate hesitation and the fear that keeps me from expressing myself. Although not entirely free from such constraints, I don't worry as much as I used to about what others might think of me. This, combined with the positive support of my excellent teachers (I've now had a couple, both of them very good and very supportive), encouraged me to take this bold step.

Many guys give ballet a wide berth because they perceive it as an activity for girls and women. This didn't hinder me, because although it is a reality that more women dance ballet than men, men do are in fact an integral part of the ballet world. Nor do I pay much heed to traditional prescribed gender roles. Rather than causing me to hesitate about ballet, the fact that it crossed gender role boundaries—at least in the minds of many people—motivated me to do it. I'm not uncomfortable practicing with the women in the class. Nor am I bothered in the least to have women teaching. In fact I love the teachers I have—both of them great dancers and fantastic teachers. They and my fellow students have been a very welcoming, affirming community and I appreciate that very much.

This is definitely NOT me, although she is very beautifully posed.
(c) Suzanne Gonzalez

I dance ballet because I think it is an amazingly beautiful, graceful form of artistic expression. I would not have always said this. In the early years of our marriage my wife and I went to the ballet (The Nutcracker, I seem to recall) in Seattle and I was, quite honestly, rather bored by it. Later, while living in Russia, we had the opportunity to see several ballets at the world-famous Mariinskiy Theater in St. Petersburg. There I experienced the full power and beauty of ballet at its finest and I fell in love with it, although at the time I still would not have imagined myself trying to dance. I love the way that ballet combines beauty with control to powerfully express emotion. I am naturally quite reserved. I don't display emotional readily nor abundantly. I want to change this. I want to learn to express emotion more freely and ballet offers an avenue to do so, an avenue that combines this expression with beauty and grace.

I think I look more like this when dancing.
Actually, the hippo is probably better than I am,
but I'm learning!

I didn't know what to expect when I began ballet lessons. I certainly felt awkward and lacked confidence. I'm still pretty awkward, but I look forward to my lessons. They are very challenging and provide an incredible physical workout. At the same time they allow me to open up and express myself, releasing energy and emotion that are trapped inside. My current teacher Magda is particularly good at drawing us out, moving beyond simply learning the forms and positions to expressing ourselves through our movements. Sometimes I feel frustrated by my clumsiness or my inability to flex and stretch as much as I would like. But ballet has proven to be an excellent fit for me, a combination of physical activity with creative expression of beauty and grace that lifts my mind and body and refreshes me. I only wish I'd discovered it sooner.

Woman Up!

Among all the idiomatic phrases regularly used in American English, two in particular irritate me beyond measure: “Man up” and phrases or sentences related to “having balls.”


“Man up” – what does this mean anyway? I hear people use it when they want to challenge a man (or even at times a woman) to be decisive, to take action or control of a situation. Perhaps it implies having courage or boldness. But what do any of these have to do with being a man? More specifically, what do they have to do with being a man as opposed to being a woman? Can women not be decisive, take action or demonstrate leadership in a given situation? Do women lack the ability to show courage or boldness? Or do we believe that, by doing so, they are really acting more as men? Are these qualities really more “masculine” or “manly?” And if you affirm them as such, does that somehow make them more desirable or laudable than a quality or characteristic that you would label as “feminine?”


The phrase “to have (or show) balls,” used either as a description of a person or as an admonishment, comes from the same mindset. Men have balls. Men should be strong, courageous, aggressive or assertive, confident. Therefore men who lack these qualities lack balls and need to grow some (yes, that expression gets used too). Women who demonstrate these qualities are displaying masculine characteristics. Whether that is good or bad depends on your view of what women should be like. But she is certainly not being a “lady.” She's acting like a man. At least that is what our use of these expressions implies.


Our very use of language indicates that we view certain qualities as being more male and therefore more desirable. We affirm certain characteristics in men and use them to define manliness. At the same time we either devalue such qualities in women or, if we allow women to display them, we view her as being less feminine and more masculine. But the character traits we have in mind do not depend on gender. They do not define us as men or women, nor should they. Women are fully as capable of showing courage, confidence and leadership as men. Often they do it better, but the fact is that these qualities vary from person to person regardless of gender. 


Unfortunately particular groups and leaders within the Church seem intent on exhorting men to be more masculine, as they define the term. Godly men must “reject passivity” and develop the following characteristics, (borrowed from Karl Wheeler's challenging blog post):

• a strong backbone—a sense of moral conviction
• courage in the face of opposition
• the ability to lead by setting a strong example of moral purity and devotion to Christ
• taking the initiative in matters of faith
• a servant's heart (willing to do some “women's work”)
• a desire to rescue women

But, as Wheeler points out, we see these same qualities in many godly women. The problem is not with the qualities—it is with the idea that these qualities are somehow “masculine” and should define a godly man. They can't define godly women, who are told that their image of godliness is to be passive, meek, submissive, gentle and kind. Never mind that these same qualities can and should be demonstrated by godly men. 


When I read Colossians 3:12 – As God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience – I don't see any indication that these are directed only at women, although these character traits would likely be viewed more as “feminine” than masculine. Despite this, I've never heard anyone admonish someone to “show some ovaries” (to again borrow from Wheeler), although if we affirm the idea of some qualities being more masculine and others more feminine, we should do exactly that if we want to encourage men to be more godly. In fact, I think these “feminine” qualities fit far more closely to the image of godliness that we see in Jesus than any of the ideal “manly” qualities that are more often pushed on men. Maybe we should start exhorting one another to “show some ovaries” or to “woman up.” We could do far worse. 

The Masculine Mystique

On Wednesday I shared some reflections I had on reading Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mystique. Today I want to explore the corresponding idea of a masculine mystique. Friedan of course was not primarily concerned with this question, but even she hints at it in her book, such as when she writes: “It seemed to me that men weren't really the enemy – they were fellow victims, suffering from an outmoded masculine mystique that made them feel unnecessarily inadequate when there were no bears to kill.” (For those who believe feminism to be fundamentally anti-men, note well her statement here.)


I have not had the time and resources to thoroughly investigate and document this masculine mystique, but I believe it exists as surely as the feminine mystique. The masculine mystique asserts that for a man to be a real man, to belong to the “dude club,” he must demonstrate certain character and behavioral traits. Among these are that he must be strong both physically and emotionally. He must be independent. He glorifies strength and power and the exercise of these in violence – of course only that which is justified by the situation. He enjoys dominating and controlling his environment, including of course being in charge of the women around him. No real man would allow a woman to tell him what to do, though he might lend a moment of his time to listen to her if he must. A manly man should love cars, guns, sports and competition in general. He recognizes that life is a battle and his job is to come out on top.


A card-carrying member of the dude's club could not possibly enjoy literature, romance, the performing arts or expressions of beauty. He can admire a “beautiful” woman or a “beautiful” car, but you won't see him getting emotional over beautiful scenery or a beautiful painting. In fact, the only truly acceptable emotion for a manly man to express openly is anger, because anger demonstrates his desire for power and control. He may tolerate certain “non-manly” things in order to whoo the girl or woman he loves, but he can't possibly admit to liking it or enjoying it. He would lose his club card for such a thing. As I understand it – and I don't know Spanish – the Spanish language has a word for this manliness which we have borrowed into English: macho. A real man is a macho man.


This image of manliness has lost some of its currency in the culture, although our media continues to promote these stereotypes both in programming and advertising. More significantly, the Church continues to uphold the masculine mystique. The Church has added to it certain expectations of being a good, caring, devoted husband, but without losing those core traits of the masculine mystique (which in fact often leaves a man with internal tension as he tries to fulfill both expectations.) Lately certain prominent male Church leaders have made statements pushing for an even stronger masculinization of the church, railing against what they view as the effeminization of Christianity and of men in the Church. Men like Mark Driscoll, John Piper and John Eldredge have written and spoken a clear message upholding traditional, macho-driven models as being the ideal of “biblical” manhood.


The time has come to cast off this masculine mystique. There is room within the Kingdom of God for men of all types. God doesn't welcome only men who meet a certain image of “maleness.” He doesn't check for your dude club card at the entrance. Yes, there's room in the kingdom for men who are very traditionally male. And there's room for men who express characteristics and behavior that have traditionally (and still by many in the Church) been considered “feminine.” I think the designation “masculine” and “feminine” need to lose their meaning in society and in the church. At least they need to lose the stigma we currently attach to them. Men and women are different biologically and they may tend to express certain differences in behavior according to their biology, but much of what we label as masculine and feminine – gender differences – are really culturally and socially determined and therefore can be changed.


Not only does God's kingdom have room for men and women of different characters, but I think that we men need to cast off the masculine mystique because it hinders us from recognizing the qualities of godliness that have too often been labeled as feminine. We need to let go of our desire and need for power and control, for competition and superiority. I could make another entire post out of this topic alone, because I think we have falsely skewed our understanding of faith, godliness and the kingdom of God because of the influence of the masculine mystique.


We do so much damage to individuals and to the body of Christ by insisting that being “godly” means following the feminine mystique if you are a woman or the masculine mystique if you are a man. Godliness isn't about gender. It's about justice, mercy, humility, redemption, transformation and a host of other things that transcend gender.


I have a dream that the Church can become an inclusive, embracing place – a place where men and women are free to develop the character that God has given them without being constrained by culturally-driven definitions of manhood and womanhood. We're not there yet and sometimes I wonder if this dream will ever be realized. But I hold on to the sparks and the small signs of hope and transformation.

In Which My Blood Boils

My wife called my attention to another excellent article recently. While I don't agree with everything this author writes, much of what he said resonated very strongly with this unguy. (Chris, should you ever read this post, you're welcome to join the Unguy Club.)


Like the author, I too am not a member of the Dude's Club. I'm pretty sure I never have been. And while there have been times I wished I could be, I have reached a point of contentment in not being in. In fact I no longer mind being excluded and wouldn't want to join even if I could.


“I'm okay with that, really. Members of the Dude's Club are hard to talk to. When I hang out with them, I feel like I'm constantly being weighed, measured, and found wanting. If I don't drop enough sports references, or if my voice cracks, of if I use too many art terms, or if I express an awe of beauty, or if I talk about how I love to cook, or if I'm not physically aggressive enough, or if I wear the wrong colors, or if I talk poetry... I feel as if I'm relegated to a lesser status. Not a real man. Not a man's man anyway.”


Among the guys I know locally, the favorite activities seem to be hard-core bicycling and hunting. Although I enjoy bicycling, I'm definitely not hard-core about it (I don't have the gear and can't afford it even if I wanted to) and I do not enjoy hunting in the least. Nor am I at all interested in guns. So that effectively limits my involvement and puts me outside the Dude's Club at my church.


More significantly than this question of inclusion or exclusion from the Dude's Club, I like how this author examines the use of the term “effeminate.” Although I disagree with him on the complementarian/egalitarian question, I think he's on target with questioning the way that some Christian leaders (and others) use the word “effeminate” as a label to discount and marginalize men who do not fit their image of manliness. These men are gender shaming all those who don't subscribe to their definition of what a man (or woman) should be. And that's wrong.


“Thus my conclusion is, these 'Esau Christians' are guilty of using gender shaming as a way to insult those they disagree with on minor issues.” [I would argue that not all these issues are minor.] “Call someone effeminate and you can marginalize them. Nitpick about their clothing and you can explain them away as part of the problem. Associate that music style that you dislike so much with womenfolk, and you can get people to reject it. It's emotional manipulation. Faggot, pussy. Girly-man. It's manipulative and it's wrong. Because God, even if he turns out to be complementarian, embraces a wider and larger view of masculinity than Driscoll and Wilson and Rosebrough do. There is room in the church for all kinds of men.”


Like this author, I am not trying to say that men cannot be “manly” in the traditional cultural understanding of this term. If a guy likes guns, or cars, or sports, then great. But if a guy likes art and poetry, beautiful fabrics and pastel colors, that's okay too. We err when we establish some type of behaviour as normal for either gender and then ridicule, mock and marginalize those who don't hold to that. We do this with women as well, pushing them into stereotyped images of what it means to be a godly women that usually have far more to do with our cultural conceptions than they do with anything God has in mind. That was my point in this post. Gender is defined culturally, not divinely.


This use of effiminate as a pejorative label also bothers me deeply because it implies (or states even) that things associated with woman are somehow inferior. It continues the practice of marginalizing activities, behaviours and character-traits that have come to be defined as feminine. The division of these character-traits, behaviours and such into categories of masculine and feminine is culturally and socially driven in the first place and inaccurate in the second. These divisions and labels more often than not define that which is “masculine” as superior and preferable and that which is “feminine” as inferior and to be avoided, particularly by men. Based on these perceptions the worst thing a man could be is like a woman, as if a woman is somehow inferior and exhibits undesirable qualities by virtue of being a woman.


The Body of Christ called the Church should be a place where each individual can embrace and live out her or his identity as a woman or man of God without regard to her or his biological sexual identity. Belittling men because they don't fulfill one's concept of what a “real man” is like has no place in the Church. None. 


“My God is big enough that he describes himself in both Father imagery and Mother imagery. He is bigger than gender, bigger than gender roles, bigger than all the silly trappings. And if in my God there is no Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female – then there certainly isn't any demarcation between the properly manly men in the Dude's club and those of us who aren't macho enough to make the cut.”


And if an unguy like me gets labeled as effeminate, I will accept that as a badge of honor, for it identifies me with our sisters who have been marginalized and demeaned for far too long.

Strong is Beautiful

I am not normally an advocate of strength. I think our society misconstrues strength as a measure of worth or success, especially when it comes to men. The ideal man is physically strong. He revels in his own strength and seeks to demonstrate it over and against that of others. He proves his manliness by being stronger than others. In addition, although the modern man is allowed a limited amount of emotional display, he shows his emotional strength by not revealing his emotions. Being viewed as emotional is generally not acceptable in male circles. It will get you labeled as effeminate, which is about the worst insult a man can receive.


At the same time, women are supposed to be modest and demure. We are often uncomfortable with displays of strength in women. Somehow it strikes us as unfeminine. Perhaps this is one reason that women's sports struggle for acceptance: the idea of athletically-strong women seems to violate the feminine mystique.

For this reason I like the ad campaign of the WTA (Women's Tennis Association): Strong is beautiful. Of course the campaign aims to promote the activities of the WTA first and foremost and we will grant them this right. But I appreciate that they have chosen to accentuate that strength and beauty need not be mutually exclusive qualities in a woman. The pictures and videos produced for this series emphasize the combination of grace and and athleticism that these female athletes possess. I like the statement made by Caroline Wozniacki, one of the world's top tennis players:

“It takes so many elements to reach the top of such a competitive sport as tennis – strength of character, discipline and willpower. All of these things define who we are as people and as athletes. For me the new campaign captures the inner strength of players in a beautiful way.”





By contrast, I would not find a similar campaign on behalf of male athletes nearly so appealing. In fact  I think it would be unnecessary. We don't need to be told that “strong is handsome” because we already believe it. I think a comparable campaign for men would have to emphasize precisely the opposite. Society needs to hear the message for men that “humble is handsome” or something like that. But meekness doesn't really sell well for men in our society, does it?


Jesus' Kingdom is counter-cultural. In Matthew 5 he tells us that the meek are the ones who are blessed. But even within the church we more often celebrate strength in men and meekness in women. Are only women meant to be meek? Are only men able to show strength? Or should we not all display meekness, while also embracing the strengths that God has given us? Too often I have seen and heard the church celebrating only those women who project an appropriately feminine image of meekness and submission. We ask them to mute their beauty and stifle their strength because, we argue, this is more appropriate and spiritual for women. But is it? Does God's Kingdom have room for strong women? Does it have room for a woman to embrace the beauty God has given her – in whatever area that may be? I don't want us to fetishize beauty as our world has, but I think we send the wrong message as well by making beauty and strength into something shameful.


Conversely, I would like to see the Church celebrate true humility and meekness in men. I'd like to think that a man wouldn't have to be traditionally “manly” in order to find his place in the church. Each of us is unique and I believe that we should celebrate and promote that uniqueness in our churches. Rather than prescribing behaviour for men and women based on culturally-defined gender roles, let's give each person the freedom and opportunity to embrace and become the person that God made her or him to be. For some that may look a lot like the traditional image, but for others it may mean being a strong woman or a quiet man. The goal isn't to be what someone else thinks we should be, but to become the person God created us to be. Let's create an environment where that can happen in our churches, which includes admitting that for women, strong can be beautiful.

The Color Pink

Today I want to pose a question:


Can Unguys wear pink?


Let me expand on this with one more question:


Can guys in general wear pink?


I say "Yes." Many years ago I had a hot-pink t-shirt that I wore until it was no longer wearable. (Does anyone recall the "Golden Boy" episode on Seinfeld?) Last week I saw a pink t-shirt in the store and decided it was a good time to replace that long-gone, but not forgotten one. You see, I actually rather like the color pink. I'm not saying I want everything to be pink, but I think the color has gotten a bad rap, especially among men. So I'm advocating for a pink revolution.


I was wearing my new pink shirt around the house the other day and both of my children commented that guys aren't supposed to wear pink. "It's just not right," they said. I thought to myself, "Who raised these kids?" They got this idea from the culture, not from me, as they revealed by their further comments. I asked them whether they thought the culture should determine all our choices. They were silent. At other times when the topic of pink has come up and they, especially my son, have made negative remarks, I recite the great line from one of the Pixar shorts:


"Pink, pink, what's wrong with pink? Seems like you've got a pink kink in your think."


So I intend to proudly wear my new pink t-shirt. I expect that my kinds won't be the only ones to raz me about it, but I don't care. I like pink. After all, it's the color of sensitivity, right?


One of these days I'll change my profile picture to me in my new pink shirt.

Feminism--It's not Just for Women

Tomorrow is International Women's Day, so let me begin by congratulating all the women I know on this, the one day of the year when we recognize and affirm you for being who you are. Let me also apologize for our failure to recognize and affirm you as women the remainder of the year. As I wrote on this day three years ago, some men might dream of a world without women. They might see this as a virtual paradise. More accurately, I think most men dream of a world in which women exist only to serve them and satisfy their needs and otherwise remain silent and unseen. In fact, that would describe our current world all too accurately. However, I would not want to live in such a world. A world without women would be a world without so much that enriches and enlivens us as humans and as men. It would be a sad, uninteresting and, unfortunately, probably a rather violent place.

In January I acknowledged myself as a feminist or, more accurately, as an awakening feminist. In acknowledging this I felt somewhat like one who is “coming-out,” because there still exists an enormous amount of shame and teasing for men who support the equality of women. Some see feminism as a curse of modern liberalism, not recognizing the significant effect that denying full equality to half of the human race has on our society and our world. Many think that feminism is only for and about women—men have no role to play here. As I wrote in February, I recognize more and more that my first role as a male feminist is to listen and learn and then to support and encourage the voices of the women who are speaking out. But feminism is not just for women. The equality of men and women is an issue for all of us and men not only have a role in advocating the equality of women, they also stand to benefit from it. This articleby Soraya Chemaly offers a good explanation of the need for male feminists—not because women are powerless without us men, but because we men hold the positions of privilege and power and are in the position to help bring about the needed changes in our society. Feminism is not just about women. It's about all of us, because we all are created equally in the image of God and we will all benefit the more we acknowledge and affirm that in practice. 

Pronouns and Perceptions of God

Language influences our perception of the world. While not dictating how we perceive things, it certainly exerts a significant shaping force. Recent statements by certain prominent figures have emphasized the supposed “masculine” nature of Christianity, pointing to various references in the Bible for support. None of those who reject this “masculine” claim argue that the Bible doesn't use male language to refer to God at times. However, the Bible uses a much wider range than simply masculine terms and male pronouns. This range is often overlooked or ignored by the mainstream evangelical community, whether out of ignorance or deliberate neglect. This article byLauren F. Winner raises our awareness of the richer language available to us in the Scriptures and often sorely lacking in our personal and communal religious practice. I affirm her statement that:

“To my mind, the church today has impoverished itself by praying with and singing with and thinking with such a small set of the many images for God found in the Bible.”

Winner speaks of her frustration in not having a suitable pronoun for God, having recognized that using the male pronoun set (he, him), fails to capture the fullness of God and, unfortunately, leads most worshipers to perceive of God in strictly masculine terms. Other languages are more fortunate in that they lack gender-specific third-person pronouns. In these languages a third-person reference need not carry any notion of gender. In fact without clear antecedents, the reader or listener cannot determine whether the subject of reference is male, female or otherwise. In English we don't have this option, so when confronted with choosing to refer to God as “he” or “she” most of us fall back on the default “he.” For many it is disturbing, even unacceptable, to adopt the female pronoun “she” in reference to God, although the Bible doesn't present any specific obstacle or objection to this.

Like Winner I am trying to figure out how to speak of God without always saying “God” or using other specific names and nouns. More often than not I still revert to the standard “he” but occasionally in my own prayers I will boldly(?) use a “she.” I admit, however, that I would be uncomfortable doing so in a public worship setting, in part because I can foresee that such a usage would meet with general disapproval and rejection, which I am sensitive to, and in part because my conditioning leads me to find this usage strange and awkward. I would like to hear what experience others have with this and what their current practice is.

How do you speak of God and how does your worship community speak of him/her? (You see the problem here.)

Would you and your worship community find it uncomfortable or unacceptable to refer to God in feminine terms?

Revising my Thinking on Same-sex Unions

The issue of same-sex marriage or civil unions has become quite the hot topic lately. I come from a church background that would unhesitatingly reject the notion. I have no doubts on where my church stands on homosexuality, nor on the possibility of same-sex unions, however you want to label them. In 2008 the state of Arizona passed a measure defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I do not remember how I voted on the measure, but I'm fairly sure I voted in favor of its adoption.

Were the same measure put on the ballot today, I'm not sure that I would support it. In several excellent posts Elizabeth Esther captures well much of my thinking on this issue at the present time. I recommend this article, this article and this one as well. While many of my conservative friends would disagree strongly with me, I do not think that our society is going to crumble if we allow same-sex couples to enjoy the same legal rights that hetersexual couples do. 

The issue for me is not whether homosexuality is moral or not. The issue is whether we as Christians can enforce a particular understanding of morality on a society that is increasingly diverse and not inherently Christian. Some have suggested that the majority still support the idea of hetersexual marriage only and that this should settle the matter. But as others have countered that society has an obligation to protect the rights of minority groups. By definition a minority group is never going to win a straight-out popularity contest in its favor. That's why we make laws to protect their interests. If majority rule were the only criteria, blacks would still be politically disenfranchised in this country (or at best they would have waited for it even longer than they had to). To quote Esther:

I also find it disturbing that Christians are upset about "the will of the people" being overturned by a judge. Sometimes the "will of the people" is dead wrong. If the majority always ruled, then African-Americans and women still wouldn't vote. The reason we need the courts is to help protect the rights of minority groups.

Whether I agree with homosexual behavior,  I don't think that I have the right to tell homosexual couples that they cannot enjoy the same rights before the law in regard to each other as I have in regards to my wife. 

A second issue is whether in trying to enforce a particular definition of marriage, Christians succeed in showing love. I often hear the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner," but what I see all too often is that the sinner receives the hatred and love is not communicated in the least. I think that Elizabeth Esther points us in the right direction. Rather than fighting so hard against same-sex unions, Christians should lead the struggle to show true love to our neighbors--even if those neighbors happen to be a same-sex couple. In our current efforts to "defend" marriage we seem to be doing nothing more than demonstrating how hateful and arrogant we can be and that doesn't strike me as being in the spirit of Jesus at all.

Women in the Church

As our home group gathered one evening recently, another member of the group asked me how my week had gone. I mentioned that I had attended a Bible study at another church in town. When I told him which church, his reply caught me completely off guard. He questioned whether there were any believers in the denomination of which the church in question is part. That alone troubled me, but then he added the question, “Don't they allow women to preach?”

This second question offended me, because I do not believe in the restriction of women from leadership within the church and para-church ministries. I certainly do not believe that the inclusion of women in church leadership, including preaching, excludes a church or a believer from the community of God's people. In fact I consider the exclusion of women from these roles to be one of the greatest sins of the Church, akin to the segregation that some churches (far too many, unfortunately) used to practice concerning different ethnic groups or races. The struggle for the inclusion of women in church leadership is a key issue for me as a feminist, particularly as a Christian feminist.

I understand that this question can provoke some highly contentious debate and I do not intend to undertake a full defense of my position in this blog. I know that there are verses in the Bible that seem to restrict women's roles within the church as well as to prescribe (and proscribe) their behavior in the worship community. I have read many articles on this question and am convinced that one can exegete these passages in a sound manner that does not result in the exclusion of women from leadership. In fact, some of the vitriol I have heard and read by certain esteemed Christian leaders concerning women offends me and displays not only a false understanding of Scripture but a highly sinful pride and attitude of male superiority. I will not name these people, but their attitude toward women causes me to receive anything they have to say with a very critical spirit.

I believe that God gifts all of his children. Those gifts different for each individual, but are not segregated according to our sex. There are not certain gifts that are appropriate for and given to women and others that are not. I believe that we hinder the in-breaking of God's kingdom, we hinder the spread of the Gospel message and the transformation of lives when we refuse women the right and opportunity to exercise their callings. We lose the talents and abilities of half of God's people. I no longer consider this acceptable. It is time for us to affirm the full equality of women within the community of God's people.

Some, many in fact, argue that men and women complement each other by their differences. I do not argue that women and men are exactly the same. In fact I'm beginning to question the whole social construct of gender, but whether men and women are different is not the issue. These “complementarians” claim that the Bible teaches that women are equal, but that God has given them different roles from men, roles that complement men in their roles as leaders, husbands, fathers, etc.. This sounds a lot like the old doctrine of “separate but equal.” Most of us have long ago recognized that separate is not equal. We can affirm the value and equality of women all we want, but if we are unwilling to accept them as equals in every area, then we effectively deny their equality. This is not acceptable.

Churches that do not want to reconsider their position on this issue may well continue along in their status quo. I think there will always be some people willing to accept this segregation of the sexes. Unfortunately despite progress within our culture on this issue, the Church in general, especially those portions of it that label themselves “evangelical” lag quite a distance behind in this area. But I think that such churches will find that they increasingly alienate the younger generation. If I were a woman, I would not be eager to attend a church where I was told I could not fill certain positions simply because I had two X chromosomes. Those who understand and affirm the equality of God's children, male and female, will increasingly abandon those churches that do not. Some may find a home in other Christian worship communities. I fear though that some may reject the faith altogether because of this lack of love on the part of their brothers (and, yes, some of their sisters as well). That would be a tragic loss, all the more unfortunate because it is entirely avoidable.

Whose work?

To what extent, if any, does there exist women's work and men's work? Although I imagine most people understand the question clearly, let me express it differently. Is there work that inherently should be done by women as opposed to work that should be done by men? Or as followers of Jesus Christ are we called to offer a different model, a model of mutual servanthood?

I raise the question because of a recent conversation with a friend of mine. She is a single mom raising a teenage son. She works hard both in and outside the home to provide for herself and her son. But when she asks him to do household tasks, he often responds that these are “women's work” and she should do them. They live in a non-Western culture where gender roles are much more distinct and strong than they are now in the West, so his response is acceptable within the cultural norms, although she has done her best to raise him to a different standard. But his response ignores the fact that his mother by necessity must perform many tasks that would culturally be “men's work” and that she is weary and exhausted, while he spends his time hanging out with his friends. (There are also issues here of respecting one's parents, but that is a different topic.)

When I hear stories like this I become angry. I become angry because of a mindset that continues to perpetuate gender inequality even now in the twenty-first century. I simply do not believe that there are roles, or work, that belong by their very nature to women or men. (I make exception for child-birth, which biologically cannot happen naturally any other way. But even in this the husband can take a more active role than he has traditionally and continues to take in many cultures around the world.) I acknowledge that some work may be more suited to a man or woman due to the nature of the tasks required and the physical characteristics of men and women. But I object to saying that any particular work or role should be done or belongs to men or women. I know many women who are physically stronger than I and therefore more suited to tasks that might be considered “men's work.” At the same time men are also capable of performing work that traditionally has been assigned to women. I don't see any valid basis to argue for an inflexibility delineation of tasks into the categories of men's or women's.

Thankfully in Western cultures we have progressed far in this area (which is not to say that we do not still have room for improvement) But many cultures around the world lag far behind. Unfortunately many people I know who go to work in these cultures do not want to confront this issue because they feel it is a matter of cultural preference. I recognize that it is culturally defined, but I also assert that it can be cultural redefined and offering an alternative example can be a powerful way to begin that process. But we must be willing to risk ridicule and rejection along the way. While living overseas I once was sweeping the sidewalk outside our gate. Our neighbor, another foreigner who had lived longer in that culture, informed me that I was “shaming” my wife by doing work that culturally she was expected to do. Why should it be shameful for a husband to help his wife with the burdens of daily life? And why should I care if others think that way?

I also find it unfortunate that believers often lag behind in this area. Thinking again of people I know who serve cross-culturally, I am disappointed that they do not more actively challenge their local friends and converts in this area. Perhaps it does not seem to them to be a core issue of Christian life. But is that the case? Christ came to transform society, not to simply save souls out of it. What a powerful example we could offer if we as believers modeled not a gender-based division of labor, but rather mutual servanthood. Instead of refusing to do a task because it might bring shame or would be considered the work of the other gender (and most often it seems men have the problem with performing “women's work”), couldn't we offer a powerful model of servanthood by looking for opportunities to serve our brothers or sisters at the point of their need? If a sister (woman) needs help cleaning or cooking, or in any other task, why can we brothers (men) not step up and offer to carry that burden? (Again, women seem to be quicker and more willing to offer this service to men, but the same question could be asked of them.)

The same friend of whom I wrote initially also has a task to help organize a seminar for women. Among other responsibilities she must help with organizational and administrative needs. This comes on top of her many other duties and responsibilities in life. When I heard this, I thought that this would be a great place for the Christian men in the community to step in and offer to help their sisters. Then the women could focus on the direct ministry to women, while the men could offer a powerful example of Christian servanthood by providing for the needs of the women. I expect they would receive a lot of cultural criticism, shame and ridicule for doing so, but at the same time they could offer a powerful testimony of what a life transformed by Jesus Christ looks like.

So let's put aside the outdated concepts of “men's work” and “women's work.” Instead let's adopt an ethic of mutual servanthood and look for opportunities to serve each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. After all, that's the model he gave us.

Neither Jew nor Greek

Yesterday my 12-year-old daughter was filling out a survey while we were riding in the car. She piped up from the backseat, asking: "Mom, am I of Spanish background?" A couple seconds later she asked: "Am I white?" Hearing these questions my wife told our daughter that she was glad that she had to ask these questions because it was a sign that ethnic or racial background has little significance to her. The question of being black, white, Asian, Hispanic or anything else simply is irrelevant to our daughter.

There's a lot of talk these days about eliminating racism from society and overcoming ethnic differences. Yet the funny thing is that the solutions offered often seem to amplify racial or ethnic distinctions. Recently our local university announced that it was going to merge the six (6!) distinct minority student centers on campus as a cost-saving measure. The administration also defended the move by saying that it would be able to provide better service this way. The outcry was quite strong though, as each group argued that its members would be disenfranchised or disadvantaged in some way by this move. For them, overcoming racial divisions seems to require that each racial group keep to itself and have its own unique support group. It seems to me that a single center for students (minority or otherwise) would be better for promoting interaction and ethnic understanding, regardless of the cost savings.

I agree with my wife in saying that I'm glad my daughter doesn't pay attention to racial or ethnic labels. Maybe this is a result of having lived in three different cultures already in her life. I hope it is also a result of how we handle the subject in our own home. I would love to see the church become a place where the color of one's skin or the group in which one grew up had no significance concerning how each person was welcomed and valued. That's what the kingdom of God should look like. We had the privilege of attending a church that was moving in the right direction when we lived in Canada several years ago. The first time we entered the worship service we felt like we were the minority. Over time we saw that the community was a beautiful blend of Asians and Africans, Chinese and Koreans, whites and blacks and all sorts of others. That's one of the reasons I love this song from the Newsboys so much. The video in particular graphically depicts the unity we have in Christ.

I love Paul's admonition in Colossians 3:11: "Here there is Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and is in all." (NIV) Again in Galatians 3:28-29 he states: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (NIV)

I am not arguing that when we come to Christ we cease to be what we were as men or women, Asian, African, American or other. Obviously these realities are not undone by entering God's kingdom. But they are superceded. They no longer have the significance that we once gave them. The distinctions we like to make as humans lose their meaning in the face of the promise we have in Jesus Christ. In him we are made one. We are all heirs of God's promise of salvation. That is all that really matters. So let's put aside issues of race and ethnicity and gender and embrace people for who they are: unique and precious children of the most high God. Some have not yet acknowledged that reality, it is true. But the reality is there if they choose to embrace it. As far as I am concerned, the other differences really don't matter and I am glad that they don't matter to my children. May the day come quickly when they don't matter in our churches either.