Emerging Women

This past weekend we held the first ever Midwest Emergent Gathering. Basically a few of us who help lead Emergent Cohorts wanted to put on a regional gathering. We invited all the Midwest cohorts and anyone else who was interested and dove into putting on a conference. It was a ton of work, but in the end turned out to be a great experience. We had a fantastic group of people show up and heard from some dynamic speakers. Our keynote speakers included Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Denise Van Eck, Nanette Sawyer, Alise Barrymore, James King and Spencer Burke. If you are interested in hearing what they had to say, the main session talks (and a few others) are all available for download at the Midwest Emergent Gathering Website. And if you are interested, a summary of the whole event has been posted at the conference blog.

It was great to see some of the women who interact on this blog at the conference. We held an informal Emerging Women lunch that was basically a time to share experiences and dream about what we as women would like to see happening in the church. A fairly diverse group of women and men attended to discuss the “role” of women in the emerging church (a problematic concept if there ever was one). One father attended who had become disillusioned with his faith as he watched his daughters leave the faith because of how the church treats women. Other women who come from mainline denominations said they have never had any issues as a woman in the church. Other women there were tired, very tired, of struggling to be accepted at all. There were women there who see no need for a separate “women’s group” and others who are desperate for other women they can relate to. Needless to say, we had some rich conversation.

Some of the women shared how they were surprised at how male dominated the conference was. While we had tried to give equal speaking and workshop opportunities to women and men, most of the upfront voices were still male and all of the God talk was male gendered. For women especially from mainline backgrounds, it was a bit shocking to see such an imbalance. It made me realize that even when we deliberately planned for more gender equality, the male voice still dominated. No wonder it has been hard for women to see themselves represented in the emerging church. What will it take for women to be fully recognized and seen as a vital (and needed) presence in this conversation?

Another topic of conversation at the lunch involved the lack of resources (or information about such resources) for emerging women. There are women out there writing books, teaching theology, and giving brilliant talks. They just aren’t well known. We discussed some of the reasons why this is the case. Some suggested the mommy factor. Women who have the ability to teach, speak, or write often are never blessed with the time to do so because of family obligations (the men seem to have no problems on the other hand.) Also if women do get books out there, they rarely get the same level of promotion and press as books by they male colleagues do. Hence fewer women know that those resources are out there. And often those resources are coming from mainline and not evangelical publishers, making it difficult for many evangelical (or post-evangelicals) to even know they exist. So as a group we discussed the need to not only encourage and empower women to use their voices, but to also start grassroots movements to promote women whose voices are already out there. To let others know what books have influenced you or given you hope. To let the world know when there is a new book published. That could involve sharing with friends, making a point to blog a review about a book (or even just provide a link), or something as simple as creating lists on Amazon or adding a book to your Facebook or Librarything bookshelf. Grassroots means that women get behind other women to help let their collective voices be heard. What are other ideas people here have?

To help with that sharing of information, we highlighted a few of the books women who were at the lunch had written. I wanted to share those here as well. Many of you may have already read Ivy Beckwith’s Postmodern Children’s Ministry. I found it to be a fantastic introduction to postmodernism and a great help for reimagining children’s ministry. We also highlighted upcoming books from Beth Booram (The Wide Open Spaces of God, Sept. 2007) and Nanette Sawyer (Hospitality the Sacred Art, Oct. 2007). I look forward to reading those and hope to post more about them in the future.

In all, I thought the conversation was helpful. It pushed us to think about the effects the roles the church (even emerging churches) have given to women (and we have accepted) have on people’s faith and desire to be involved. I realized that we need to always be aware of whether or not all people feel welcomed and included. I saw also the need to be doing whatever we can to help women find, use, and promote their voice. And that doing so does not necessarily have to involve fighting for equality (although that is often also needed), but engaging in love and hospitality. It means encouraging and supporting each other – be that by reading each other’s books and blogs, by giving moral support, or watching a friend’s kids so she has a quiet moment to write.

So thank you to all who attended for a good conversation.

One sign that God may be calling is a certain restlessness, a certain dissatisfaction with things as they are. Other signs of God’s call may be a sense of longing, yearning, or wondering; a feeling of being at a crossroads; a sense that something is happening in one’s life, that one is wrestling with an issue or decision; a sense of being in a time of transition; or a series of circumstances that draw one into a specific issue.

– Suzanne Farnham, et al, Listening Hearts

Thoughts? Do you agree? Disagree? What would you add to this?

Miroslav Volf writes in Free of Charge that when the Spirit of Christ indwells us, God occupies the space, of “I,” so that Christ lives in and through us; the cooperation and intimacy between our spirit and God’s spirit becomes so intimate that there is in some ways no distinction.When we love, it is truly God loving through us. When we will God’s will, it is also God willing through us.

What does this have to do with self-love? Simply that when we love ourselves, it is God loving us through us.

It isn’t even controversial to talk about showing someone else the love of God, or letting God love someone through our presence, our actions, our listening, our acceptance. But somehow when we apply this exact same theology to self-love we feel a little worried. Is it self-indulgent? Selfish? Shouldn’t we make ourselves feel guilty for our failures so we can improve? Is God loving us through loving ourselves too close to saying that we are God?

Or sin of all sins, Is self-love New-Agey?

If it’s wrong to allow God to love us through our own spirit-filled self-love, then let’s be consistent: It’s plain wrong to let God love others through our love. Trying to let Christ shine through us to others is too close to self-worship.

Or does loving self in God’s Spirit actually lead to the death of ego and the birth of a renewed life?

A new wisdom: A return to the beginning

People in Jesus’ day could recognize the language of biology just as those living before them. They would have known that the silencing of the woman was about their own submission to God himself.

Paul would make clarifications just for good measure in saying things like who exactly the husband was:

2 Cor 11:2
“I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”

or after instructing them on how husbands and wives were expected to behave, he would cap it with:

Ephesians 5:32
“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

The actions of the early church would reflect their understanding the symbolic language in that they did not literally silence biological women. The women participated actively in the first century church, alongside the men. The early church, or bride, refrained from using their own wisdom to teach the Gospel, and submitted to Christ, their groom.

Humanity would react to Christs’ and the churches’ unusual treatment of women by diving headlong into denial. Society then just did not view women as equals. Again, I am not suggesting that men only reacted that way – the women did as well. Even now, I am often reminded of my place from time to time by other women.

Mary Magdalene would eventually loose her historical position as a disciple of Christ in the Gospel story, eventually tagged as a prostitute until only recently; and Junia would be denied the title “Apostle”, given her by Paul, in translation. Most translaters chose to translate her name as male like “Julius” or “Junias” because of the title.

One book considered for canonization was turned away largely because of the depiction of a strong willed woman named Thecla (http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/iconTheckla.jpg). She took Paul’s words encouraging purity and chastity very literally, and very seriously – and refused to be taken in marraige according to the laws and rites of the society that she lived in. Her family and the man who had wanted to take her as his own believed that she had lost her mind. Paul, they dismissed as a magician. In the story, her mother eventually declares, “Burn the wicked wretch; burn in the midst of the theatre her that will not marry, in order that all the women that have been taught by this man may be afraid.”

The governor would be moved to have Paul whipped and sent away – and to condemn Thecla to be burned. (http://www.aug.edu/augusta/iconography/spain2005/teclaBurgos.jpg) The blazing fire would not touch her though, God would send rain and hail to put it out. She will have returned to find Paul in prayer as I assume that he had done daily since the sentence. Probably surprised that she was already there, he thanked God for answering him quickly, and a celebration would follow.

Thecla would go through a number of trials and would eventually claim her right to baptize, throwing herself into a pool of water (http://www.bryansfolkart.com/images/art/Thecla%20Baptizes%20Herself.jpg); the story again showing her actions as approved by God.

Probably overstated, accepting such a story would have still served to legitimize women’s roles of teaching and baptizing in the modern church. As well, it will have been the endorsement of women practicing choice; participating in their new found freedom from marital laws.

It was ahead of the times as were the statements and actions of Christ and the early church. Consider the gravity of the words “there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” or “in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage”. Not only would this have suggested the equality of biological women with biological men, but symbolically it would have a great impact.
Using biology to decode this, like they will have, would tell us that this would be the final marriage of God and humanity and that the two would become eternally one (http://www.marriageencounter.freeserve.co.uk/images/Rings.jpg). From that point on, there being no further marriage and only oneness.

On every level those statements will have been staggering.

Addressing only the literal and biological one, such words will have required a new kind of wisdom to carry them out. Physical ability will have meant nothing, because the gain from it also will have meant nothing. Jesus himself will have been recorded as making another radical statement in saying:

Matthew 19:23, 24
“Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.” “..again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.”

That must have been mind blowing for them. In the very next verse the seemingly confused disciples even ask, “Who then can be saved?” to which Jesus would assure them that with God all things are possible – though they may not be with people.

Prosperity was not riches and power gained by people he would clarify, those things would rust and fade away. True prosperity, or that which is “good”, had always been things like joy, patience, and peace. We can know that the ability to aquire monetary riches therefore, doesn’t make one person of more value than the other.
We are not always quick to see one another as God sees us – back before gender even existed. Through the eyes of God, we’re all the same – just as we were at the very beginning, we are both 100% in God’s image and 100% in his likeness. Though how we’ve grown as a society will never be undone, it is possible to use the wisdom haven been given us by Christ, to determine whether we are going in a “good” or “bad” direction. We are able then to see through gender, and return to the beginning where we were just human beings.

Holding on to gender: Is it true?

Some of the conclusions that we’ve drawn in the passage of time are:

* We are born as incomplete beings, each 1/2 of the image of God; we complete one another.

Many folks buy this because of how either they see the other sex, or themselves. Someone is always lacking. The idea that we are able to complete one another, hasn’t proven true. It would mean entering a relationship expecting the other person to fill our needs. If we constantly expect it from someone else, or demand it somehow, how fun a person are we going to be to live with? Already we’ve learned that nothing “good” comes of a relationship based on the belief that anyone other than ourselves can make us feel whole. I would say that an important step toward building a healthy relationship would be to toss the story that we are unable to make ourselves whole, because we were made that way.

* Women and men think differently.

Now I’m sure that this could be broken down into a number of subcategories because there are many theories about how men or women think. Find a single woman or man that doesn’t think as the theory states, and you’ve disproven the theory. The reason that none have proven true is that as a whole, women do not think alike and men do not think alike – this is because “I”, “Amie May” am not “woman”, I am “Amie May”. I think like “Amie May” and no one on this planet thinks like me.

* Women are more emotional than men.

No doubt that gender has been created from this one in that it is commonly accepted that it is not masculine to cry. This is a gender identity that is actually passing away. Firstly, the new wisdom that we practice tells us that it is not “good”. Repressing feelings does not bring those prosperous things like peace and joy.
Another gender identity that grew from this view is the belief that women are therefore more emotionally driven than men. I have yet to have an emotion that has been completely foreign to a man. Many men are moved by emotion, to help the oppressed, to get into yelling matches, or to declare the Gospel. To believe that women are more emotionally driven is to minimize the choices that women make, and to dismiss emotion from the human male. This isn’t prosperous for either of us.

* Men have a “feminine side”

This one can also be connected to the last, because often has to do again with emotion. For a man to be in touch with his emotions, is to be in touch with his “feminine side”. This reduces the man to half yet again, in that without a feminine part, he is unable to be in touch with emotion. I think that time will tell that it will be a great deal more prosperous for men to embrace that part of themselves. One is able to be a man and want to be clean, to be a man and in touch with feelings, to be a man and like to sew, etc. Truly, a man isn’t able to be anything but a man. However, like many of the things which comprise gender, the way this is being seen is already changing. After all, this side of a man is not often called “sissy” anymore.

* God is male.

That may fill another presentation. I’ll just point out today, that the spirit of God which hovered over the waters in Genesis 1, is “rauch” in hebrew, and feminine. If male and female were both made 100% in his likeness, then God cannot contain anything other than both, just like mankind. Mankind as a whole then, is reflective of God.

I remember when I was little, and climbed trees, and collected bugs, and played with snakes, and played football… that I was called a “tomboy”. Society had determined that what I was doing was outside of my gender role. Such behavior was boy behavior, and for a while, I decided that I was going to be the best boy then. I would be a better boy than the boys, and denied that part of me as a girl by doing it. Now, I will define feminine, rather that feminine defining me.

I sure don’t want to raise my daughter to believe that she has to somehow be a better boy in order to climb the highest tree.

As well, I don’t want to compete with the likes of my son – and hope that he along with all of the other men loose. I want him to win. I hope to nourish his feeling comfortable with his manhood, so that he more unfearfully may cross the culturally defined gender lines that are no good for him to hold on to. Let’s face it, those gender lines can often be used as laws, and crossing them can mean certain condemnation.

I really didn’t grasp what Jesus was saying in communicating that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Not until I started thinking so much about gender. I love many things that we’ve come to define as masculine. I prefer that my man not wear a tutu and heels. I’m not standing up here with the intention to destroy that any more than Jesus was interested in destroying the traditions that were important to the people of that day. I think that it might be interesting though, to view gender in terms of fulfillment – of how love might fulfill even the laws set in place by society. Love can truly sum up all which is biblically taught as properous, or “good”. It is the knowledge and wisdom which can tell us whether or not we’re headed in the right direction.

At times, gender roles often trump love in our society. Belief in gender, the denial of our unity in Christ, can foster suffering at different levels. Unity in Christ after all, is not the loss of differences but allowing love to take priority – to look at one another as God sees us, which again, is as human beings.

Just a couple of months ago, I watched a documentary on a boy who became transgendered in kindergarten. Society told him that he could not do ‘this’ and he could not do ‘that’, because he is a boy. Because those were things that he wanted to do, that he enjoyed doing, and maybe even were a part of who he was, he decided not to be a boy any more. Because of the societal gender law, he has turned on his own gender. Consider how that situation may have differed had it been okay to be a boy and say, play with Barbies. He will not have begun so early on to wish that he was not a boy at all.

Some take such things a step further and turn on their sex. They undergo surgery, hormonal treatment, and entire life changes all for the sake of becoming what society calls “feminine” or “masculine”. Had they felt able to define those things for themselves, perhaps they will not have gone to such extremes to feel like their biology and their mind, match. I’m not saying this as a blanket statement, we are all very individual human beings. I’m just making an observation that might bring peace to the lives of a few.

All the better to see you with

Truly we are all just working very hard to understand one another, and ourselves. If I could figure out the male mind, perhaps I would be enabled to better relate to the men in my life. If men could embrace their emotions, perhaps they could connect better with women. Yet, to discount emotion as a part of being male, and to categorize all men is to then create a barrier, rather than the bridge that we had hoped for.

If we were to see emotion as a mostly feminine trait, in example, then to a man, a crying woman would become more of an alien in the room rather than someone that we are able to connect with. “This is foreign to me, I don’t know what to do”. If we accept it as masculine as well, then he might feel more equipt to respond in a situation like that – more connected. The other sex no longer being something outside of ourselves, but a human being just like us.

If we categorize all men or all women in any way, or even using the word “most”, then we aren’t even interacting with an individual anymore, we’re interacting with the gender. Years back, my Dad accused me of lying to him about something that was fairly big. I told him, “If you knew me, you would know that I did not lie.” He said to me, “I know you, you cook, you clean, you raise the kids.” It became clear that for my whole life up until that point, I had been a gender. He hadn’t known me at all. I was that role, all of the things that he had already decided, and society for the most part had also decided, that I was. I wasn’t Amie, I was one who cooks, cleans, and raises children, and he interacted with me in that way.

For another exercise, I’ll ask you to imagine for a moment that men and women are broken into small groups and you are on the outside looking at them. What are the women talking about? What are the men talking about? Did you come up with different answers? Let’s say that you imagined that the women are talking about shopping, because that is what you feel that women like to talk about. There would be a number of ways to respond to this. A couple are: One, that wouldn’t be a topic that interests you so you wouldn’t approach the group at all. Two, you approach the group and bring up a sale sign that you saw down the road.

The first response wouldn’t build relationship at all. No one ever talks. This is because the gender has already been interacted with. The second response, might make for good conversation, and it might generate polite and fast small talk so everyone can get back to talking about interesting things. Either way, no one as a person has been regarded at all. Gender came before relationship, relationship being damaged for it.

I was at a hardware store with my husband and we ran into an old friend of ours – who was a guy. He said that he recently bought a house and was there buying tools and supplies to fix it up, and he and my husband continued in conversation – my receiving polite smiles from the friend from time to time. After he was done talking with my husband, he let me know that the Dollar Store next door had a great sale on fruits and vegetables. They had avocados ten for a dollar. I knew in my heart that he was trying to be personable and friendly. I’m not talking about the boogie man, he’s a decent fella. What happened though, was that he interacted with my gender and not me at all.

My husband doesn’t really like beer. More than once he has been offered a beer, declined, and then the offerer walks away, not asking me at all whether I would like one. What if I had wanted a beer? Media definately plays up that gender role – beer, in America at least, is a man thing. It has even come with honorary “man laws”.

Question: Is it acceptable to leave a game before it ends to beat traffic?

Man Law: No. In a rare double man law it is also deemed unacceptable for a man to bake on game day.

They stopped that ad campaign by the way, sales didn’t go up. Maybe they needed to look outside of their market.

For reflection:
- Allow relationship to come before gender. Interact with the individual.
- Allow personal wholeness to come before gender. Who you are defines gender, not the other way around.
- Allow the individuality of others to come before gender. Leave no room for condemnation which fosters self hatred.

It is my hopes that this will make for even better conversation between the men and women in our lives. Truly, peace begins there.

Well that’s finally it per the conference presentation. God Bless

Covenantal function
Genesis 2:18 reads, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.”

The word translated “alone” literally means “separate” – as in the branch of a tree according to the symbols. “Towb”, translated “good” basically means “productive”. We all know that a branch with no tree is not productive – we could easily agree with God I would think. What humanity needed, was some sort of attachment, and God was about to create some relief.

A rib is a pretty symbolic thing in and of itself. If it were a wooden rib, then it would help the hull of a boat to keep its’ shape (http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/drw23/boat%20frame%20from%20bow.JPG). If it were made of bone, then it would help the skin to hold its’ shape, and it would also encase and protect the vital organs.

This was taken out of humanity, and so named in hebrew, “ishah”. “Ishah” is a feminine word and she is female. It also means “betrothed”, or “promised”.

(Covenant = Promise.)

Have you ever heard the saying, “I knew your Daddy before you were a spark in his eye”? Well, the spark suggests that even at the moment of passion, the child was being born. That is how I see the birth of “Iysh”. “Iysh” is a masculine word and he is male. Like “Ishah”, it also means “betrothed”, or “promised”. Before Ishah, who would become known as Eve, was ever taken out of humanity, Iysh was a spark in God’s eye – so he was first and would become known as the patriarch, Adam.

While in Genesis 1 mankind has within it male and female and creation is largely given a direction in that God is creating some semblance of order from chaos; in Genesis 2 they become “betrothed”. In other words, Genesis 1 tells the story of the creation of mankind: biological male and female. Genesis 2 describes the birth of covenant mankind: male and female. One which would know promise.

They were promised one to the other, because they were made to that purpose. They were promised to God, because from the beginning God intended them to have life, yet apart from God there cannot be life.

Fleshly Wisdom

Eve is recorded as observing that the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil was a tree to be desired to make one wise. Definitions:

“Sakal” (wise) : Knowing what results in prosperity.
“Towb” (good) : Doing rightly; measured by result. Functional; productive.
“Rah” (evil) : A broken path; measured by result. Disfuntional; unproductive.

The eyes of Adam and Eve were opened that they might know “good” and “evil”, or in other words, they gained that “wisdom”. However, at that time their understanding was limited to the world in which they dwelled. Jesus was far from coming on the scene to explain that prosperity was not riches and power, but things like peace and joy. Their eyes told them what truth was, rather than their hearts.

They would look at one another and see that men were stronger and faster than women, and not held back by pregnancy and nursing babies. Women would look to men for protection, so the care of their man meant ensuring their own livelihood. Because of the way that people then began to interpret the world around them, men would rule over women, and the desire of the woman would be for her husband – just as God said would happen.

The Language of Biology

You may begin to notice here, the progression of the differences between male and female. First, the differences are biological. Next, function becomes different – Eve being the “rib”, and Adam the source; both now living promise where before there was none.

(Covenant = Promise)

From there, things really got messed up because people begin to make “wise” observations. It sounds as if as a whole, people moved from just being, into a world built upon their vision of things.

It was a good thing for us all, that God communicated with them in ways that they could understand and recognize. The only visible evidence of the production of offspring to ancient humanity, was the seed from the male. He will have been understood as the source of life – like adam, and she the facilitator thereof – like Eve.

Like a rivers head, men were the entrance point of life giving water. And like the rivers bed, women allowed for its continued flow. Neither will have been superior in that without one or the other, life will not have been maintained.

Just as important as literally being fruitful and multiplying biologically, we would come to know, would be being fruitful and multiplying spiritually. People could observe how to be fruitful and mulitply biologically, and so gain understanding of their part spiritually. God said to Jerusalem: Ezekiel 16:8
“Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.”

In the poetic language of Hosea 2 God declares that he would make himself tenderly known to Samaria and on that day, Israel would call him her “iysh”,

(Iysh = betrothed; promised; covenanted)

..no longer calling him “Baal”.

The law given to Moses would be for humanity’s attaching even more to its’ own view of things. The more that people used the wisdom from the tree of knowledge, the more that they would understand the language that God would use when the time of fulfillment would arrive. That would be when humanity was ready to hear all of it. It would be “the time of love”.

In the meanwhile, people would live in the cold hard reality that old wisdom would get them. (The end of the world: http://resistir.info/energia/imagens/flat_earth.jpg)

The development of the roles: falling downer

Unlike the children that we raise today, who have typically had a good dose of what their own culture finds acceptable for their gender before they ever discover that people have different plumbing, the bible suggests that people started out with making only biological observations.

Men and women would interpret the law handed down by Moses strictly as flesh and blood would see things. The poetic language of the bible would progress from the usage of feminine language in reference to God or creation, to completely overlooking the feminine in favor of the masculine. Those who did take note of it often worked to explain it away.

Lilith (http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/lilith/burn.gif) in old writings and beliefs had been a goddess and a demon. In one story, she is said to be the first wife of Adam, and formed out of the same dust as he.She refused to lie beneath him, and he refused to lie beneath her. Each being equal, this just wasn’t an option. Seeing this, Lilith calls upon the ineffible name of God (http://z.about.com/d/altreligion/1/0/I/w/2/serpentwmn19.jpg) and flies away.

An angel would eventually be sent to fetch her and she was told to return to Adam, and to submit to him. If she did not, 100 of her children would be killed every day. She chose to accept the consequences.

A hebrew tradition, even older than the written story, supports that the legend existed even in ancient times. Mothers would place an amulet around their infant’s necks to protect him/her from Lilith. The babies will have been most vulnerable in their first eight days of life – before being dedicated to God through circumcision. They hadn’t heard of SIDS then, and certainly had no understanding of any internal issues that the babies might die from. Today, hospitals mostly won’t allow young children into the nurseries because infants are so prone to disease. For the ancient hebrew mother, these deaths were attributed to Lilith (http://altreligion.about.com/library/graphics/lilith5.jpg) – the woman who dared demand an equal, or even higher status than her husband.

The law would state that women were of less value than men (Lev 27:1-7). Men were more able to produce. To produce meant to bring riches, and riches meant to be favored by God. Once again, it was that good old fleshy wisdom which would make it all seem logical. As a fact therefore, women were of less monetary value. People would conclude that less monetary value meant that women were therefore less in every way. They brought less evidence of favor from God, therefore they must have been favored less all together. I’m not suggesting that only men believed it. The women did also.

The view of women would degenerate until Jesus’ relationship with them would appear to others as shocking and maybe even distasteful (wink).

Looks like this isn’t going to be shortened much, heh. I will post some every day and will let you all know which is the last. Thanks for listening – I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Back in June, I spoke at a conference themed “God’s Great and Precious Promises”. I explored the whole idea of “one in Christ” per “male and female” this side of the promise. In other words, we’re all supposed to be “one in Christ” presently. How then do we live it? Especially in the face of it not even seeming to be true.

I want to share my presentation with you, however will condense it as much as possible without compromising my efforts. I noticed though, that many of you here are just as concerned with gender and relations as I am, so I’m confident that you’ll understand the length. If I find that I am unable to cut it down short, I’ll post it in pieces .

When I was little, I was taught that girls were more easily fooled even to the point that we had nothing to offer the male mind. While I was being taught that by most of the men in my life, my Mother ran the house and had the final say in all decissions.

What I observed in the world around me was that women were working, they were teaching, and were even running countries. So, what I was taught verbally, didn’t match what I saw.

By my late teens, I was convinced that I was supposed to be quiet – I just never was. Things were all topsy-turvy and oxymoronic – nothing made sense. If I wasn’t doing what I was supposed to, then I was hell bound for sure, I thought. My heart didn’t say that to me though, my heart said that I had something to contribute to this world. Like Scarlett O’Hara, I thought, “I won’t think of it today, I’ll think of it tomorrow, when I can”.

And, tomorrow eventually came. It just so happens that most of my studies take me back again to the beginning. Before I go there, I would like to share some terms as I understand their meanings.

Stereotype: Ideas held about members of particular groups based primarily on membership in that group.

One kind of stereo typing is..

Sexism: To distinguish between people based on their sex/biology rather than individual merit.

Grab a piece of paper and on it have two columns. One column headed, “Because I am a woman, I can..” and the other column headed, “If I were a man, I could..” Anything on your list having to do with biological function, like giving birth for example, has to do with “sex”. Anything other than that is “gender”.

Gender: The social constructs of masculinities and femininities.

We might then draw conclusions about people because of their “sex” and further construct or conclude what is masculine or feminine basaed on that. An example of that is an actual explanation that I was given when I was a child for there being no woman president in America: “A woman would not make a good President because women PMS”. The conclusion from that belief was then, “It is not feminine to be President.”

Another example of stereotypical and sexist view would be: “All men are interested in one thing.” The gender would then be defined by that: “Lustful behavior is therefore masculine”. Just consider how most societies view women who behave lustfully as opposed to men. It is often expected of men, and seen as a dirty thing for women.

Basically we draw the conclusion that “this is what boys are” and “this is what girls are” because of our sexist views of boys and girls.

“Gender role” is how we act out gender. Once we’ve determined what is masculine and what is feminine, we tend to go with that. If purses are understood as feminine, then the ‘go’ is given for mass marketing it to women.

I’m not condemning anyone for their very human outlook, no one that I know is not guilty of it – not even me. I remember after first meeting a male friend of mine, and his carrying out the gentlemanly behavior that much of society would expect of him, that one experience struck me in particular. We were due at a meeting and as he unloaded needed things from his car trunk, he began to hand some over to me. I was taken aback. I wondered whether I should be offended or impressed. I mean, here he was treating me as an equal, right? This wouldn’t have even been a question in my mind had I not been a bit sexist myself — as well as spoiled thanks to my hubby.

All humans were created equal: A blank slate

Genesis 1:27 reads, “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

“Man” is translated from “adam” which literally means, “mankind”, or “humanity”, inclusively. The reason that the pronouns “he” and “him” are used, is because in the poetically written hebrew language, when they were unsure of the sex, they diverted to the masculine. So, “he” doesn’t always mean male.

The hebrew words actually translated “male” and “female” very clearly point to biological differences. They therefore describe the biological differences existing within “adam”, or “mankind”.

Genesis 5:2 reminds us that we, male and female, are all “adam”. It reads, “Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

At this point in the bible story, stereotypes could not have existed, because humanity had not yet categorized anything or anyone. We hadn’t drawn any conclusions based on our biological differences, so there was no “masculine” and “feminine” (which means that there was no gender) and there was no roleplay of gender. We simply were what we were: Both 100% “In God’s image” and both 100% “After God’s likeness”.

Like the human beings created in Genesis 1, this little one (http://babiestoday.com/graphics/geddes1.jpg) has no idea what the pink or blue card on their incubator might mean.

To follow, I’ll dig a little further into the theological side of things — and much more into relationship.

I am so thankful for this forum for sharing..

What does it mean when the common label given to a group of people is a negative description imposed upon them? At a recent seminar on poverty reduction for Haiti I attended, the presenter’s historical overview of Haiti was interrupted by the woman sitting next to me. She mentioned that she would greatly appreciate it if he would stop referring to people as slaves. Those were men and women who had slavery forced upon them, not people whose core identity was that of being a slave. Slavery was a horror they had to endure, not the essence of who they were. The presenter thanked her for bringing that distinction to our attention and proceeded to integrate her suggestions into his talk.

We all use labels to self-identify and make sense of our world. They are unavoidable and often necessary. As a culture we have attempted in recent years to move away from offensive labels or ones that objectify others. Reducing a woman to a particular body part is far from acceptable speech. And no one would ever categorize victims of sexual assault merely as “the raped.” No, we attempt with our words and labels to respect people and focus on positive categories. Yet the negative label of oppression, “slave,” is still in common usage. Even in a presentation on how we can overcome the negative effects of slavery the term is so common its usage is assumed – until someone challenged it and forced us to consider the implications of our words.

This woman’s request forced me to consider the negative label we as Christians use all the time – “the lost.” I’ve heard from a number of people who have had that label imposed upon them that they find it highly offensive. They do not appreciate having others insist that at the core of their identity they are mistaken, misguided, or just plain ignorant. They dislike being seen in terms that generally imply that they are a project to be saved not a person to be loved or respected. I understand that we as Christians do hold certain theologies of sin and redemption, but perhaps we need to seriously consider the impact our use of labels has on the very people we are trying to reach. That may mean abandoning the practice of assigning labels to people who are not like us altogether. And maybe, just maybe, it may mean getting to know, love, and respect people as people.