I’m confused.
I’ve seen this list – “Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry at Serving Bread” linked on several websites during the past few days. The comments in response range from high fives and laughter to not-so-brief sermon outlines on why women should not teach/preach/be ordained/so/on/and/so/forth.
Personally, I almost cried. Yes, a few of the reasons brought a smirk to my face, and I laughed…out loud. I’ve heard each one of those reasons turned around in some form as an argument against women taking any form of leadership in the church. But I was quickly reminded of how I’ve been deeply hurt, and paused. I do not want to be the cause of such hurt for my brothers.
For me this isn’t an “issue”. Issues can often be boiled down to convenient sound bytes or 32-point headlines. No. I can’t boil this one down to 15-seconds because my story and the stories of my sisters can’t be reduced to that. No. Women in ministry/leadership is life.
So I’m confused because in the same week I’m also reading posts and comments about the feminization of the church being a turn-off to manly men. Phrases like “chickified church boys” and “Ultimate Fighting champion” popped up. The call to reclaim the masculinity of the church is getting louder. Somehow women who are not allowed to lead/teach/hold authority over men have so incredibly influenced the culture of the church that some believe it’s time to pump up the testosterone, grab a weapon and reclaim the Bride.
So now Jesus, instead of being a fair-skinned, wavy-haired blonde with blue eyes who sits by sheep, lambs or little children, is now being painted as a chest-thumping, nose-punching dude who in some other version of the story took down those guards in the garden.
If I’m getting all of these messages straight I’m supposed to be transformed, become Christ-like, which should be a manly dude who had calloused hands as he prepared to lead a revolution. But I’m not supposed to be like that because I’m actually a chick who has chickified the church because I only want the sensitive-Jesus.
And what about my Asian American brothers who are often reduced to slanty-eyed geeks (anyone remember “Sixteen Candles”?) or kung-fu masters (and Jackie Chan still can’t get the girl)? Or my African American brothers who are reduced to gun-toting thugs? Or my Latino brothers who are reduced to border-crossing “illegals”? Are they manly enough or too manly for the church?
I’m deeply offended that any male pastor would speak of women with such a derogatory tone. I’m hurt and angry that the few manly men left in the feminized Church, no matter what stand they take on women ordination, aren’t speaking out against such belittling speech about their mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. I don’t want politically-correct rhetoric, but I do long for grace-infused conversations with people ready to learn from people whose cultures, experiences, and heart languages are different; willing to be corrected, admit they were wrong, confess they wronged others; open to the possibility that we have a way to go to understanding and following Jesus.
I’m sad because it seems I am not the only one who is confused. Are we are losing our way?
[…] vital layer in this whole discussion isn’t just the racial insensitivity of DV, but the reactive hyper masculinity of the church in which Asian Americans must also take responsibility. (full disclosure: Kathy is my […]