Depression

 

 

 

 

 

The beginning of my depression had been nothing but feelings, so the emotional deadening that followed was a welcome relief.  I had always wanted to not give a fuck about anything. I viewed feelings as a weakness — annoying obstacles on my quest for total power over myself. And I finally didn’t have to feel them anymore.

But my experiences slowly flattened and blended together until it became obvious that there’s a huge difference between not giving a fuck and not being able to give a fuck. Cognitively, you might know that different things are happening to you, but they don’t feel very different.

Check this out. It’s a series of cartoons talking about a depression cycle. True yet FUNNY.

Forgiveness?

One of my greatest struggles has been overcoming a certain theology of forgiveness. Let me explain. Growing up I have been continually taught that all I needed to do was love and forgive. The problem was not with the idea of love or forgiveness, but what this meant to the person saying it. For them it meant that I should be quiet about the family member who had abused me physically and emotionally as a child and turn a blind eye to the continued slander they get away with in regards to one of my siblings who was much worse off than I was growing up. I’m just supposed to be quiet and not cause a scene. I’m supposed to always look on the bright side.

My problem? I don’t buy it. What further amazes me is how many Christians have suggested that what I need is forgiveness–even though they did not know me or the situation very well. When this happens I try and use it as an opportunity to explain what great things God has done in my life and that at this point forgiveness is no longer the problem. However, the affects of abuse are still present and it are not good for anyone (including the one living in denial). Still, what bothers me (more than just on a personal level) is that I have been noticing this false conception of forgiveness in too many Christians. It bothers me that often our first response to evil is to hold the one who suffers from it accountable and it bother me that too often we silence this same person.

Too many people I know have been abused by husbands and have been told by pastors to just forgive and submit. Once at Westminster Phil I had a group pray for someone close to me who was getting a divorce because their husband (who had a pattern of disappearing already) had gone to sleep with a prostitute in Vegas while they were on vacation. The main prayer was that she would remember her wifely duty and submit. What is wrong here?

As for me, in some ways I am silenced. I still cannot name this person who has caused me and especially my sister so much harm over the years. It will happen though, but not for revenge, but for healing for all persons involved.

 

The “Feminization” of the Church

When I was a student at Biola I recall hearing a peer railing against what he called the “feminization of the church.” The problem? There were many more women at church than men and many more women who were strong, active Christians than men. He concluded it was the fault of the women who were taking too many leading roles (not pastoral mind you) and the fault of the churches for making services “girly.” Having never heard this before, I raised my hand and asked him why this was the case if “men were the natural leaders.” Not necessarily the most awe-inspiring comment from me. Still, I kept hearing about this problem and, for a while at least, hopped on the band wagon.

Currently I believe it is a great problem that there are so many men missing from our churches–just as I see it as a great problem that there are so many women missing from the leadership within the churches. But what is the real issue here?

A while back (a year?) I came across an article in the Biola magazine titled The Feminization of the Church: Why Its Music, Messages and Ministries Are Driving Men Away.” It is claimed that “the result of this feminization is that many men, even Christian men, view churches as ‘ladies clubs’ and don’t go.” The solution? “Restore the male ethos.” All of this is said to resonate with how men feel and why they hate going to church. While the article does share some helpful information (ex: it lightly covers the industrial revolution), it seemed as though much of it bought into the very mentality that is fueling the lack of male attendance. Why do I say this?

Before the industrial revolution there was less separation between the genders in terms of the private and public spheres. Livelihood came from the home and/or farm. Since women were seen as morally compromised, childrearing advice was directed at the father. After the industrial revolution men ended up working away from home and women were more encouraged to stay within it. Doctrines ended up affirming this new setup as men from the white middle class increasingly withdrew from the home and women specialized in it. The “Doctrine of Separate Spheres” was born.

Men were to be involved in public life and now the woman was seen as having a special spiritual nature and sacred calling to the home. Matters of faith became personalized, subjective and emotional—all thought to be female characteristics—rather than stereotypically “masculine.” How does this square with the article buying into the mentality that fuels lack of male attendance? The article sees the main problem as an actual feminization (and this is treated as a threat). They have bought into the created stereotypes that have made church unattractive to men in the first place. Their solution is to just make church more stereotypically masculine. While I agree that cultural sensitivity is important and would personally more resonate with more warrior type lyrics, to me it seems more like a case of treating the symptoms to the neglect of the root cause. I think the problem just might be that we (as a society and subculture) have created improper portraits of what men and women are and then have been surprised when men or women react against it.

What would happen if we tried to gender God? What would happen if we started really pushing male culture? This has already started happening and many disillusioned women are leaving evangelicalism. Surprised?

Another interesting thing about this article was how it described the lack of opportunities for men! This is even after admitting that over 93% of the church’s leaders are men! It is also curious that these places lead mostly by men have a 300% higher abuse rate against women. I suspect they are right that there are more official things for women to generally participate in. But what are these things? Consider this: In my denomination it has come to people’s attention that women are absent from key decision making and taking initiative. In response the women’s group is trying to encourage this. Only just now have we moved the special “woman’s day” away from the exact day when everyone else is deciding the course of our churches. My only point is that there is a lot more to the overall situation than “feminization.” Such a characterization is laughable (yet eerily culturally understandable) in light of rampant abuse, and a continued lack of representation in leadership.

That said, this article calls the pastors of our churches (evangelical generally?) “Girly-Men.” Having had many male peers in seminary at Trinity and Biola who are aspiring to the ministry and many who have actually become pastors, I am disgusted by this characterization. This could not be further from the truth (even when going by stereotypical standards).

Curiously, the article had many telling remarks about these “girly men” pastors who were probably once youth pastors as my father was. Supposedly leadership is viewed primarily as therapy. I don’t know any pastors personally (Complementarian or Egalitarian) who would ever say this is how they would primarily define leadership. However, they will admit that much of the job does involve pastoral counseling because guess what: people die, people grieve, and people have issues. The article also hinted at a dichotomy that curiously reflects the old stereotypes that once reinforced the idea of the separate spheres. “He’s really into relationships, very motivating, but is he teaching good apologetics? Is he teaching youth to use their minds and to understand deeper theological truths?” This sounds a lot like the old: women have their sphere in the relational and men in the public. Women are emotional and men and intellectual. Why do these have to be opposed? As a lover of apologetics I want more apologetics taught in church, but why are we making relationships into something purely feminine and a true sign of the dreaded girly man?

The situation is apparently even more dire, because the church is at risk of becoming even more feminine (despite the fact that males have dominated in leadership all these years even before the waves of feminism and have still managed to produce “feminized” churches):

“Yet, much of the church is seeking further feminization, through attempts to increase female clergy and to create gender-neutral Bibles and hymns…Johnstone believes the feminist movement in mainline churches has contributed to the decline in male membership.”

So, church attendance is dominated by women and has been for many, many years (one speculation was since the 13^th century)—it has been “feminized” and this has somehow happened even though men have already been the dominant leaders—even before the waves of feminism—what is the proposed solution? How do we stop the feminization of the church? Balance must be restored.  A masculine spirit must be pushed. Lest some people (apparently women) be concerned that “unilateral male leadership” is being pushed here, “He said he is not seeking male dominance, but male resurgence.”

*We can all rest assured.

I Saw a Blind Boy See

And then he could see.

He could tell us everything. It was 100% better, the little boy said.

Most people there cried. For most missionaries this was  not particularly new. God just heals people, sort of in a matter of fact.

I got quiet and got in a corner, trying to stuff the awkward feeling, because the God I was comfortable with is the distant God, the God that cannot – and will not — be involved in human affairs.

And since I’m a doubter, I have thought this could be a instance of the energy of the body just healing itself (but the faith of the boy believing it would get better igniting that energy). I have seen Buddhists do healing of say a bruise using the energy of the body.

But if I explain away this miracle, I’ll just have another to try to explain away.

In in so many ways doubt is more exhausting than just believing.

In the end the reason I believe in God has a whole lot more to do with miracles and a whole lot less to do with the trees telling me that a God exists. –Lana

Egalitarianism: Myths and Truths (Myth 5)

Myth #5

Egalitarianism leads to Homosexuality.

 In my opinion myth 5 is often rooted in the first four myths. Myth 1 states that Egalitarians do not have a high view of Scripture. As we saw, this is just not true for most of the Evangelical variety. Still, many modern feminists today do accept homosexuality as also acceptable. Liberal feminists arrive at a more egalitarian view because they have chosen to reject portions of Scripture and many of their conclusions on homosexuality also involve disagreeing with portions of the Old and New Testaments. This is not the route Egalitarians take. Even Webb (an Evangelical Egalitarian) who advocates a hermeneutic that is a bit different from others does not believe one can construe the Bible as approving of or leading to an acceptance of homosexual behavior (notice behavior is the focus here). Myth 2 and 3 have to do with a fear that Egalitarianism is necessary linked to, or leads to liberalism. I get the impression that many think that because the wider liberal culture links homosexuality and female leadership together that we should too and reject both! Earlier we saw that this was illogical (affirming the consequent and slippery slope fallacy).

Myth 4 is even more tied to myth 5. If Egalitarians believe in gender sameness, then maybe homosexuality could easily be seen to follow. Way too often I have been told (not by Egalitarians) that Egalitarians believe Gal 3:28 teaches male and female distinctions literally do not exist! Rather than this faulty interpretations, most Egalitarians would say that it is merely saying that such distinctions do not hinder participation in the body of Christ or stand as a basis for special status or treatment. Many Complementarians also mistakenly believe that the main difference between men and women is leadership status. One leads and one submits. If that is taken away, the gender confusion emerges. When I was a Complementarian I did not think that line of thinking made any sense. Even if this was a key difference, I did not believe it was the only difference or important difference.

Also, some arrive at this faulty thinking because they are wrongly assuming that the Egalitarian just plugs in culture whenever they don’t like something in Scripture. In their mindset the Bible “clearly” (these passages are objectively unclear talk to me about it if you want more info) teaches only men lead and women submit, but the Egalitarian tries to appeal to culture to get rid of the pesky reality. With this straw man in mind it makes sense that one could just do the same thing with the passages condemning homosexual behavior. Space will not permit me to go into too much detail, but this is not how it works. Knowing the cultural context is a standard part of good hermeneutics that most people are taught at seminary. Why? Because what is culturally obvious to them is not to us. In the case of 1 Timothy one does not necessarily need cultural context to know Paul is talking about false teachers because he says in his introduction, conclusion and everywhere in his letter that this is why he is writing.

It should be noted that even though one can find individuals who do end up favoring homosexuality after becoming Egalitarian (*cough Rob Bell) you can also find many who accepted it for themselves or others after living a strong hierarchalist (including Complementarian) way of life. Further yet, many become so disillusioned from the restrictions (that perhaps are unnatural) placed on them in these types of churches that this leads them to drop Evangelicalism all together. Many of the people I speak to fall into this category.

In addition, one should consider the history of Christains for Biblical Equality (the largest and most influential Evangelical Egalitarian organization). Even Grudem acknowledges that they have not changed their stance on this issue even in the midst of secular movements and pressures. People leave or refuse to join them because they take such a strong stance on their position.

I think that the important thing to do when considering this myth is to look at the cultural, personal and intellectual influences, which are pressuring someone to accept homosexuality. What do they believe about the authority of Scripture? Are they feeling extremely disillusioned with gender roles as they are represented in the church subculture? Are they having some serious and intelligent questions that are consistently going unanswered?

Does Egalitarianism itself lead to homosexuality? I see no reason to think it does. Individual examples will always abound in either direction, but I see no logical necessity or reason to think that Biblical Egalitarianism itself should lead in this direction. The way I see it, Evaneglicalism is in crisis and people are looking for someone to blame.

Abuse is 300% Higher in “Traditional” Marriages?

“Over the last 50 years these studies reveal that significant numbers of egalitarian marriages are happy in comparison to traditional hierarchical marriages. A recent study quantified these results revealing that over 80% of egalitarian marriages are happy while less than 20% of traditional marriages can say the same. That represents over a 4:1 ratio in favor of egalitarian marriages. Spousal abuse continues to be more than 300 percent higher in traditional marriages than in egalitarian marriages.”

…The point being made here is not that CBE is out for more “women’s rights” or is trying to upset the “traditional” ways of church and home. We are trying to save marriage and to help churches be more responsible, accurate and wise in the advice they give to husbands and wives. If this comes to pass, the impact of it will far surpass the fact that more women break through the glass ceiling in countless churches. –CBE

Egalitarianism: Myths and Truths (Myth 4 Continued)

The following post is a continuation of my post for myth 4: Egalitarians believe in gender sameness. A reader raised a culturally important issue in response to my response to myth 4 and I suspect that many others are still wondering about this. Feel free to share your thoughts with me either here or via a facebook message. These are questions I am still exploring and any insight is welcome.

 Still, it is difficult to argue you do not believe in gender sameness when you cannot state what exactly the gender differences are (beyond biology). Everything I have read so far on the subject by egalitarians is along the lines that men and women are to complement each other (in a non-hierarchical way) but that the exact nature of the complementarity depends on individual characteristics.

One of the biggest reasons why this is so pressing for many of us today (especially for evangelicals) is that we have experienced the breakdown of the family and our society at large is increasingly promoting an attitude of “anything goes” when it comes to gender and sexuality. We feel threatened (no, not the person asking this question personally). Unfortunately, opponents of Egalitarianism have put forward their view as the solution to our problem. They comfort us with certainty. In an age of gender chaos we can know a man is a man because his leadership is grounded in creation ordinances. But is this true? Below I will give some of my thoughts on what makes a man truly a man or a woman truly a woman along with my response to the idea that Egalitarians believe in gender sameness because they do not list these differences beyond biology.

Don’t Discount Biology

There is an unfortunate tendency among Christians and non-Christians alike to try and separate the spiritual from the physical as though the two are opposed or as if one is better than the other. We are both matter and spirit. Matter is meant to be part of our existence. God wants us to be physical beings (gender is part of this).

Matter is good (we are not Gnostics). This is one reason why God is not going to have us simply live as disembodied spirits in heaven, but has promised to restore creation and resurrect us from the dead just as Jesus was raised from the dead. The mistake that Piper and others make (when they charge that Egalitarianism can’t name any gender differences beyond biology) is in implying that only something other than the physical is legitimate when it comes to gender differences. We are truly physical beings and the physical is not merely cosmetic or an empty shell to house something greater.

Nope. Try Again.

It is one thing to claim leadership is what is the key difference between men and women (on a spiritual level that transcends the physical body?), and it is quite something else to be right about it. I can personally claim that my system is the only one that can tell you what constitutes this gender difference and that all others teach androgeny because they deny my belief—but it doesn’t make me right. For example, it used to be “common knowledge” that the key differences between the sexes were the following: female nature was more moral and emotional and male nature was inherently brutish and logical and was in need of the female domesticating influence. That’s just how it was.

Any Egalitarian can (if they so choose) make a similar claim about some characteristic and simply say it is not merely physical, but spiritual—and then you have your one example “beyond biology.” Ex: One could say: Women are generally much more emotionally aware than men (not more emotional) and this is merely reflected in the connection btw the two hemispheres of the brain. In this belief biology would reflect a deeper reality. Why not? In Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Complementarians try and do just this. They attempt to show how biology is consistent with their particular views of men and women. They try and show how men are natural born leaders and women naturally domestic.

Many Egalitarians have claimed gender differences as a basis for Complementarity and they have spoken in generalities. For example, perhaps women are simply better at nurturing and discerning emotions (great qualities for a church leader)? I will dig into my computer and see if I saved a debate within the Anglican church where Complementarity in gender was appealed to by Egalitarians arguing that because the genders (not mere individuals) complement each other, women should be allowed to lead.

Some other things to consider: What if Piper (the one who often claims Egal believe in gender sameness) is incorrect about male and female nature being dependant on who leads and who doesn’t? This would mean that he has no idea what makes a man a man or a woman a woman. Take away that one thing and there is nothing deemed significant left. Keep that one thing and that one thing is all consuming and possibly all distorting. Also, leadership is what someone does, hopefully out of gifting. If Piper or others want to make this part of one’s inherent spiritual nature, they will also have to explain why a good portion of men do not seem to have the particular gift of leadership and why so many women have thrived as leaders over men even despite the bias against female leaders.

Why is the Bible Silent on the Ontology of Manhood and Womanhood?

Nowhere does the Bible say the nature of being male is leadership and the nature of being female is submission. Nowhere is this a necessary implication. Nowhere are males told to be the leaders over women. There are examples where men lead women and women lead men, but no gendered command of this kind. Both are told to rule and dominate creation (Genesis). Both are told to rule/manage their households (1 Tim). Both are told to submit to one another (Eph 5 and general Christian principles). Both are told to regard the other as being in authority over them (1 Cor 7). The Bible does not lay out an ontology (and ontology is not Biblical vocab anyway) of gender on any level and so we must be careful not to read this into the text.

Difference in Correspondence?

Something I have more recently considered (and am still toying around with in my head) is the possibility that our key difference is in correspondence. It is a matter of relationship, but not hierarchical. Across cultures men and women naturally differentiate themselves from one another by cultural expressions. While these cultural expressions might vary and change, both genders appear to know they are different and wish to highlight this fact. I believe this is good even if some of our expressions are tainted by sin. We relate to one another by correspondence. In order to correspond there must be both similarity and difference. One is defined in relationship to the other. I do not believe Adam physically changed when Eve was created (minus a rib), rather he may have understood himself now in relation to another. Mankind became gendered.

The Bible teaches that Eve was a strength (the meaning of what we translate as “helper” in Hebrew) corresponding to Adam. When Adam glories in Eve he calls her “woman.” He is “ish” (man) and she is “isha” (woman). “Isha” is not a name for Eve (later she is indeed named Eve), it is merely what Adam is “ish” with a feminine ending.  They were made to live in loving relationship and made to better the other (and I believe this goes beyond marriage and into the church and society). Each relates to the other and is not the other. They are differentiated by relationship. Eve was uniquely made so that Adam would not be lonely. The Lord enjoys loving community within Himself. He is truly love Himself. We are not Triune and our love is derived from Him. We are made to love each and support each other in a unique way that is not only about procreation. Even our biological differences (which include the brain) and minds give us occasion to learn from the other as we sacrifice what we want for the other’s good or grow in understanding of how the other functions. Ideally there is mutual dependence and mutual sacrifice.