Feb 9, 2012
Men Don’t Have to Lose in Order for Women to Win
Sometimes I write totally ridiculous stuff about pastors raging with testosterone who pound on pulpits. Other times I play with hyperbole in response to pastors who dress business casual and say pretty awful things about women in the nicest way possible.
When I write with these over the top conventions, I think I sometimes make guys think, “Whoah!”
For those not familiar with guy speak, that can be translated as, “Hey men, get off my case!”
It’s possible I may be using hyperbole right now.
Translation matters aside, I wonder if my over the top introductions give the wrong impression. While I’m making light of the more extreme masculinity stuff, I certainly don’t want to shoot down any guys. In playing off the extreme ways that men have alienated women, I don’t want to alienate men in the process.
In fact, I believe that equality in the church can happen through a very simple formula.
Less win for men + more win for women = Everyone wins.
That an English major could express an idea in mathematical form, no matter how basic, is just about as shocking as a certain pastor in Seattle going on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy—especially since that show is probably cancelled. I’m also sure there’s probably a more complex way to write out that equation with parentheses and exclamation points or whatever they use for math these days.
Be that as it may, here’s the tension we face:
Do we need to tear men down in order to build women up? Not exactly.
This isn’t an either/or situation, but it does require some changes and shifts. It may even require some downgrades for men. However, the talk of equality doesn’t need to turn into a matter where there is a winner and a loser.
If you follow The Office, you know that it’s possible to have a win/win/win solution. You win, the other person wins, and I win because I helped you both win. It’s so crazy that it just may work.
The key to gender equality, in my eyes, is that it requires one side winning a little less so that everyone can win. That may feel like a big deal, but think of it this way, if women can actually stop losing and win a bit more, the men may end up winning in other ways… ahem.
Think of it like this… let’s say hypothetically that on a certain occasion I am failing to communicate with my wife—not that such a thing EVER happens. But just in a fictional, make believe world, I commit the twin offenses of keeping my thoughts to myself and failing to listen to my wife.
Most of you should be able to guess what happens next. If not, we need to talk.
My wife will feel neglected, and that failure on my part puts a ton of strain on the marriage. Worse than that, my failure to build lines of communication make my wife feel helpless. What can she do if she feels neglected and can’t communicate with me?
THAT is our problem in the church. Many women feel ignored, have been abused, and don’t have any way to pursue a solution. They can’t even say how they feel in many churches. The inequality and neglect women feel in the church is cutting men off from something awesome and beautiful: empowered women who can reach their God-given potential, serving alongside of them and supporting them when they grow weary.
When I say that men need to “lose” a little, what I’m really saying is they need to trade some of their dominance in order to listen and to cultivate more equality with women. When they lose some of that dominance, I think they’ll gain something far better in the end—a healthy role for women in the church.
This trades a structure in the church defined by power for relationships in the church defined by love. For people who follow a dude who made his disciples into his very own family rather than keeping them as servants, this is a pretty basic concept to grasp.
So when we talk about equality for women in the church, I think we need to beware overstating our case or threatening men in unhelpful ways. We don’t want to make this sound like men need to lose everything. This isn’t about the end of masculinity. This is a shift, a relatively small lose in the long run that has a huge pay off.
Men can go shoot stuff, grill it, and watch a boxing match or whatever. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the power in the church is slanted so far toward men that women feel neglected and boxed in. That’s something nobody wants.
With equality in the church, we’re creating the ideal environment where everyone can win.
Guys like me can till manure from my rabbits into my vegetable garden.
Other guys can pursue God with a sense of strength and adventure.
Women can express their God-given gifts without fear or limitation.
Even if getting there takes a little bit of uncertainty and shifting, we all can win,
Win. Win. Win.
Just like The Office.
You’ve got me thinking about so many things right now. I like the direction you’re taking this but I still feel like something is missing.
I don’t think it’s a matter of either side winning less or winning more. At least that’s not how it should be framed.
I think of women’s suffrage. That’s was an inequality that was righted. Guys didn’t “lose” anything per se. That may be a matter of opinion but it’s not like guys had to vote less, they just made room for women to vote. I’m sure the angry guys framed it as a loss but women would be remiss to frame their victory as a men’s loss. If anything, we gained the voice of women in society.
As far as the culture in the church, here’s how I see it. Leadership is male and culture is female. I’m not sure if I’ve ever been to a church that isn’t significantly slanted towards a higher female population. It’s just the way things go.
I think what Piper and his cohorts see is a church full of women and very few men that live out their faith unless they are specifically in a leadership “role” in the church. Now I preface this assumption by saying that I don’t know everything that was said by him or anyone else talking about “masculine” Christianity. But if a church with a more female dominated culture then began to be dominated by female leadership, where does that leave men. Again, I’m just making assumptions based on what they “could” be thinking. It’s an interesting thing to think about.
So the questions then become: What does the church look like with more female leadership? Can men learn to have female leadership without feeling like their identity is being changed? Can a woman have a voice without a title?
I want women to have the voice that they were given by God. I want to see women valued and honored in the church. I just don’t want to over-correct either, which understandably becomes the case after long periods of oppression.
I think I’m on the same page with you Tony. Perhaps I didn’t quite say it right. However, I think your this line from your comment hits on what I was saying, “What does the church look like with more female leadership?” That right there is “losing” a little. We can choose different words, but men do have to give up a little bit. However, the point of the post is that gender equality will generate so many other benefits, that little bit of uncertainty, that shift, that minor change, will be overshadowed.
So the title of the post is that men don’t have to lose, and I believe that. Men don’t have to lose, but some things will need to change in order for everyone to win. And regarding your last paragraph, that encapsulates the whole heart of this post. “Men losing” their places or identities is over-correcting. Men changing the power dynamics so everyone can win is the goal.
I love the way you expressed this. Isn’t it just simply sharing? When we share, one of us has to
give up having all the thing so the other can have some of it.
Thanks Alicia. That’s exactly it. Why didn’t I just use the word “share”? I’m so grateful for the wisdom that comes through the comments!
“the men may end up winning in other ways… ahem.” You over-sexed English majors, I swear.
So what I really love is this: “This trades a structure in the church defined by power for relationships in the church defined by love.” And then the thing about Jesus. Because, God, it’s just supposed to be about loving him and each other. He said so himself.
I learned the “Ahem” pause from you alright! I learned it by watching you!
The tension here really is that men aren’t technically losing, but they need to give up on some flawed structures in the process. So we can debate what to call things, but there is a loss that needs to happen in order to gain far more.
Not to force you to think through another math equation, but when women lose, men lose too.
Last night was a major loss for the women at my church. Until further study is completed by our leaders, the women are now asked to get quieter (I’ll spare you the details, but know that we’re unhealthily quiet already).
By further suppressing the voice of half the church, the other half will suffer a loss as well. Sigh.
Oh, God, why is this happening to the Church? Lisa, you are exactly right with your equation. There’s loss all around. It breaks my heart.
I’m so sorry to read that Lisa. That makes me want to use some angry words.
Honestly, if they don’t like hearing the voices of women in the church, then maybe the best solution is for the women to stop showing up and have their own meeting. What a sick, sick use of scripture. That is abusive and wrong. No one should have to sit and tolerate that. IMHO, abstaining is the only alternative in such a blatantly off-balance power structure.
Thanks for your understanding.
Abstaining appears to be the most viable option at the moment, on many levels. I first need to meet with our church elders (I’ve already spoken with one on a minor issue) to make sure I understand what is going on.
But then…I pray I’ll have the faith and courage to follow wherever God leads.
Great post, Ed!
I love math! So here’s my attempt at some other equations.
CONDITION OF SOME CHURCHES:
Men step up + Women step back = Kingdom goes nowhere
FEAR BASED ON A LIE:
Women step up = Men step back so…
Women step up + Men step back = Kingdom still goes nowhere
TRUTH:
Women step up + Men step up = Kingdom goes forward
Me thinks we operate too much by FEAR…