Why it bugs me when “the church” tells me how to be a woman

Sorry, I'm not a woman so I probably shouldn't have an opinion.

I'm in a position where it is not the "done thing" for someone like me to be there. Working class people as priests? Working class northerners as a priest? Heck, in the 1950's and 60's I wouldn't be allowed to speak on TV as "no one will be able to understand him". Watching a documentary from the 1950's about the advent of regional broadcasting is hilarious. My life prospects if I had been born 25 years earlier were "work down the mine". Not the same thing but you will see where I'm going….

You met me at Greenbelt and you may have noticed that I like you have a personality that works at a million miles an hour. I read your post on spirituality and being an extrovert yesterday and nearly replied to that. The church tries to define spirituality as "a quiet person". QED, some people are born as spiritual introverts and some others are born as unspiritual extroverts.

Perhaps I am lucky, the myriad of different churches (and variety of different denominations) I have been involved with have spent their time empowering everyone. Not one of them has tried to define anyone’s role by gender. I guess you can work that out by meeting Ruth who is a high flyer in the NHS with no kids, a Harley and a singing in a rock band. I'd like to see the person who could go up against the good doctor in a reasoned academic debate about the subject.

So what does it mean to be an excitable extrovert person who is in a role that would traditionally not be open to you? For me it sometimes causes problems. People expect a quiet "prayerful" type. This is everyone. From the bottom to the top. Are you trying to be "one of the boys"? Many of "the boys" are quiet and peaceful spiritual types. Many of them wish they were. Personally I have realised that God makes each and every one of us and is happy to talk to us as we are.

The quietest monk at the local monastery where I trained for a year was always thought to be "uber spiritual". "He's always praying you see, he's a spiritual giant". I spoke with him about this once and he quietly said "I don't know what they're talking about. I'm usually daydreaming".

Perhaps I am like your non Christian friends. I've only been a Christian for just over a decade and I was at school in the 90's. The angst about personality type and gender weren't on the radar. We were all told we were equal and able to be whatever we wanted to be. It is only since joining the church that I have learned that I am an evil oppressor who uses my bolshy northern personality to oppress people.

Sorry, I ramble. Be loud, be proud, be a woman. Make no apologies for who you are and how you were wonderfully made. I look forward to another freight train conversation in the future where we both talk at a million miles an hour to each other.

…"You are loved! You are free to explore your gifts and talents. You are free to love those around you…"
We've done training days trying to explore this asking:
What would a church made up of people who believed they were loved, gifted and appreciated look like?
What would the symptoms be?
If everyone was accepted, not tolerated *shudders*, but accepted as they are, right in that moment, how would people look at each other, treat each other, and deal with conflict and disagreement?
What would the training/development/discipleship be structured like in a church that promoted acceptance?

I find accepting that others are different incredibly hard. I want everyone to agree with me and struggle against taking it personally when they don’t. At time I can barely tolerate my own incompleteness, let alone others’. I have to ferociously battle with suspicion and jealousy of women doing things differently to me or, heaven forbid, better than me. I have had the language of “should” firmly cemented in my head about how people “should” be, how they “should” behave, how they “should” treat me…my expectations allow me to prepare for situations that make me scared but, more often than not, cause me to feel angry that those same expectations are not fulfilled. I end up feeling it is my right an obligation to help ‘improve’ people and find their way back to the right behaviour, personality, appearance.

That is not having ‘life in all its glory’, warped by anger, anxiety or suspicion and it makes me bloody insufferable.

*groans* Just imagine if Proverbs 31 was used as the template, the model from we’d be endlessly fall short, scrambling to catch up with those we perceived to be ahead of us and smugly looking down on those behind. With such pressure, would be able to celebrate in others’ successes and offer support at times of difficulty? You see this with mums at baby and toddler groups, battling to have the best baby, be the best dressed, doing the most extracurricular activities whilst also being the most doting. It risks women dropping away from their support groups, unable to compete thus increasing the risk of post-natal depression. Or Christians being the most devout, most read, the longest prayer…only to drop away in times of difficulty because their projected image is tarnished or dimmed.

You mentioned kindness previously, women towards other women…as long as there are models we must fit in, the word “should” inherent in our expectations, kindness becomes a chore or obligation rather than a symptom of a loving relationship.

There is no “should” about being a woman or man. There are likelihoods, stereotypes form for a reason, friends in the police find profiling very helpful to do their job….but there is not rule book that defines what mould a person must fit in to.

……..except maybe one, that image of who you were perfectly designed to be. The image of a perfect God deep within the human soul capable of so much love, strength, creativity, graciousness, kindness, gentleness, wisdom; the person who has all the family traits of the Father who beseechingly calls you to come home, join the family business and inherit His Kingdom with all the inherent acceptance, forgiveness and love that comes with it.

I'll take that mould thanyouverymuch.

If I misrepresented your view here, I think honours are equal after your very selective editing of my post in your new blog entry. I didn't "declare" anything (even though that's what men are supposed to do when staying within stereotype). I asked a question. And you missed the bit of your own blog that I quoted where you describe Galatians 3:28 as a "choose your own adventure scenario". If everyone chooses their own adventure (and if doing that is what the Christian life is all about), I really do see little room for the singularity of men, women or any other group. If it's all about chasing the dream then, as the theologian Lloyd Webber puts it, any dream will do.

The whole issue with Galatians if obviously in what respect there is no longer male nor female. I would argue, from what precedes and follows that statement, that Paul is talking, primarily, about rights before God. We are all sons of God which, in that cultural context, means that the best God has to offer is for all of us. In the First Century in the mouth of a Jewish teacher, this was radical feminism.

But the same Paul writes a lot about different roles for men and women. Yes, he had female co-workers – in fact it seems to me that he does rather better than Jesus appointing twelve male apostles to lead the church, if organisational status is what matters here. But Paul stil writes what he writes about husbands and wives, about behaviour in church, etc. And it seems to me that if we are going to dismiss those statements out ot hand, we ought to dismiss Galatians 3:28 too. Cherry-picking the statements we like is not a good way to engage with any text, whatever our motivation.

I would argue that, to a large extent, Paul is suggesting a pragmatic way for Christians to behave given the constraints and assumptions of their society. So, yes, I think that gives us licence to do likewise in our own, different culture. But here's the rub. By taking this pragmatic approach, Paul demonstrates the importance of culture, and of sometimes submitting to culture. We see him doing likewise when he circumcises Timothy despite articulating a theology that says there is no point in circumcision. (Incidentally, I don't recall Paul physically mutilating any women for the sake of the gospel.)

The Christian life is not about following the dream. It's about living in a distinctive but connected way within the society in which we find ourselves. Yes, there are sometimes opportunities for reform. But there were few such opportunities in the First Century, and with the passing of Christendom there will be less such opportunities in our century.

We don't choose the canvas, or the palette of colours. We don't pick the adventure. For male or female, one of Paul's favourite analogies is "bond slave". We're slaves to the gospel, but we're also slaves given to a particular society. It's not about our right to do whatever we fancy, it's about our duty to do what needs to be done, whatever the cost. I can see why centuries of prejudice and injustice would make that sound like another attempt to legitimate the status quo. But it's still the heart of the gospel. Once we make actualisation the centre of our faith, each of us – Jew or Greek, male or female, slave or free – has only bad adventures to choose.