My funniest Ninja video to date! ENJOY. (If you like it, share it. It’s a Creative Commons item!)
Tag: gender issues
Transcending gendered language. Capacitarianism… is, & is not…
As I move toward a more formed definition of how gender issues can be transcended in the Kingdom of God, I’m hitting some roadblocks obstacles. Very expectedly, too.
This “Capacitarian” proposal, if you will indulge this term, is not all cut and dry…like so many abstract things, that must come to fruition by enactment. I continue to solicit your thoughts, and input. No, I won’t give the pretense of having a fully-formed argument. “In-process” is the operative word for this excursion. Yet, I bother to bring it up, in the first place, because I see some glaring shortcomings in our current models.
If you see some, too. I hope you’ll mention them.
(And yes, I made up the word for this proposal: “Capacitarian” Pronounced: <CAP-pass-it-Tarry-ann>)
Why does the term “egalitarian” fail us?
A few have (rightly, I might add) asked, something like, “If you want men and women to be treated and appreciated with equal worth, why don’t you just say, or use the term “egalitarian”?”
Here are a few reasons:
• Egalitarianism (proper) is too closely associated with politics and economic interests. It always has been. This has a consequential, and incongruent for our purposes, legal component, too. It is an interference, not a boon, to Kingdom life and the enactment of the gospel.
• Egalitarianism, as in “Christian Egalitarianism”, is most often understood as “the idea that men and women can and should function as equals in the church,” even if (or though) the true meaning is broader. The word means something beyond gender, like, rich and poor should function as equals…able-bodied and disabled…you get the idea. The prevailing connotation has undermined the term, making it less helpful. Simply put: “Egalitarianism,” the term, is not accurate enough. It shortchanges the bigger idea of what God is up to.
• God’s economy never really jives with our own. The actual working out of egalitarianism proves this, as well. It’s not enough to say, “We’re equal, let’s act that way.” Remember something called the Jim Crow laws from 9th grade history class? (Or, even better, maybe you recall them from experience. Separate but equal is ruse, whether intentionally or not.)
The difference is that a worldview change is in order, not just a mode or method of equalizing the parties involved.
• So, I propose we let go of using human economic terms which will move the conversation forward.
Likewise, if we use words for this issue that connote or speak in terms of power, (be it: social, political, gender, economic, racial, etc) we commence at the same starting point as we’ve had before. A secular starting point.
• This faulty starting point inherently undercuts the ironically nonpolitical (apolitical) quality of Kingdom life. My idea is to get away from human-centric thinking, not co-opt with it. There is a reversal of power in God’s economy, but not an antithetical reversal. So, we’re speaking of a whole new model where one cannot simply speak of things in reverse to properly apprehend it, or put it to rights.
• Equal opportunity of the members in the Body isn’t determined primarily by sentiments that “We are all of equal worth in the eyes of God.” True as this is, it is better sourced in the nature of God as person (a.k.a. “personhood”) *See note below. God’s Story is the starting point.
Capacitarianism
• It is in the very nature of God to forgo favoritism based on things humans would see as advantageous. We may give equal opportunity because we think that it is right or just. But this worldview is not about righting wrongs, or getting it right as (humanly speaking) its fundamental application point. Rather, it’s a new way of seeing and living in this world…Kingdom Come. [Theo-centric worldview]
So, moving forward we adopt that characteristic of God for our ways of relating too. Well, more than adopt. We absorb, and live and breath it. (It is the basis of our relating.)
• It is in the overarching plans of God (as seen in the whole of Scripture) that each one of us is “set free”. We reach our full potential as this occurs. We transcend, not just overcome our cultural bondage, et.al.. (See this Lukian passage, and the prophet Isaiah)
• Thus, restrictions based on finite qualities (nationality, gender, physical ability, financial prosperity, etc.) have nothing to do with God’s nature, and his vantage point. All those restrictions are eschewed. Being “set free” is the telos of creation.
• Harmonious/loving relationship, not (primarily) equality, is main aim of children of God…Kingdom citizens, in this proposal.
Paul advises this, speaking often of and encouraging unity in the Body.
Tri-unity (Trinity) is the essence of God. God: Communion and Love reciprocated ad infinitum.
• Hierarchy, then, for our purposes, is a non issue (off the table), in any typical way we would be able to apprehend it, from a human understanding or from our experience. So, I contend that we cannot do well to draw on our flawed applications of so-called hierarchy if we are to move forward on this issue.
One more consideration on the particulars:
I propose that the idea of “the last will be first” is not a speaking of reversal of fortune, or class/status, but a full dismantling of human interaction, economy, epistemology, and eschatology as we have known it. That is to say: we don’t have a good way to gauge who is last or first, as we normally perceive life. I should also say that this means we will be very surprised who may or may not be “first”…whatever that means to God. It will likely mean something different to God, in itself, than to our understanding. God is speaking in terms, and will actualize terms in God’s way. It won’t look like what we imagine it will. I’m not sure his ways ever really have. The whole manner of the Messiah thing/Incarnation came as quite a shock, for instance.
What Capacitarian cannot be:
With regard to studying the marginalized, and in particular the disabled, it is critical to note that “capacity” in human intellectual, ability, or physical terms is not the pivot point for Capacitarian thinking. The capacity denoted has to do with the Holy Spirit giving us capacity for his good work. And, “work” he what God determines it is…which may just be lying there, vegetative, and soaking in Divine love.
A case in point: A severely mentally disabled child is given great grace and capacity by God. A simple, pure, and powerful faith and enjoyment of God which may not be attained by her “normal” peers or her church family in the same capacity. She may revel in worship music, with her whole soul (being); given capacity to be aware of and experience God’s holy love in that very moment.
Likewise, others historically on the margins of society may be afforded capacity in gifting, and understanding, and the Body of Christ utilizes each one in their unique way. (This may not appear to be equal in application, or role, but it is not gender-based either.)
• Suffering, or experiencing trials, it seems increases the opportunities for said capacity. (See James 1)
Each member of the body is given full honor. Each has a gift to give to the Body.
To be continued, next week!
Your thoughts are welcome during this process. Leave your comments.
* Note that person and personality is not exclusive to humanity (human persons), but rather refers to a being, individuality, or creatureliness, plus relational capacity. A being is a person, even a divine being is, in the case that this being is accessible (imminent). Basic Theology asserts God is both transcendent and imminent. God is a Person, Three-in-one.
Next post! The promised interview with Caleb Wilde, Funeral Director and author of the upcoming book, Confessions of a Funeral Director: Working Between This World and the Next.
Exploring Misandry in the church Part II
misandry |misˈandrē|
noun
the hatred of men by women
ORIGIN 1940s: from Greek miso- ‘hating’ + anēr, andr- ‘man,’ on the pattern of misogyny.
As promised, I’m covering the female side of misogyny, which is misandry. I call this type of article a “BOOM post”. You have been warned.
I would be remiss to not admit that sectors of feminism are strongholds of misandry. Feminism, though, as many women think of it, is far more general. It has to do with equitable treatment toward women, in business, home life, society in general, and it hinges on the ability, explicitly or implicitly, to have choice (of many kinds) as a basic unalienable right. A wiser person, female or male, will understand, however, that freedom of choice must be balanced with one’s community, not rooted or executed from a selfish starting point.
It seems to me that troubles for either gender will stem from control issues. For men, it may be that they feel somehow impotent in their life, interactions, career path, health, etc. Perhaps the feeling or appearance of weakness is the pivot point.
For women, it may be that they want to be regarded well, and cherished (and I don’t mean in simply an emotional, or fuzzy way. This is more of a cherished at an essential level of being for (female) human flourishing). They want to not feel objectified (which, is disregard), or to relegated to a small box, i.e. a narrow role, a low ceiling limiting personal or career pursuits, an intellectual prejudice.
I find it interesting that body image plays a powerful role for both men and women. Ill-health, lack of fitness, the effects of aging, being fashionable, and certainly other issues influence personal issues of self-worth, emotionally and bodily. They also influence how each gender reacts to the other. Those things hated, or feared in one’s self will be trigger points and irritations all too glaringly visible in the other gender. Spite develops.
I will cover some ways misandry happens among women. Please note I use the word among purposefully, because there seems to be an execution of misandry in a social capacity more than in any other way. For men, they may both take their misogyny on as a personal war, and they may find strength in numbers, but women may tend towards a “team strategy”.
For women, physical aggression with misandry is not normative. Rather, it is mental, social, and tactical. Bullying of other female by female happens this way as well. The tendency may to manipulate, rather than misogynistic tendency to (in some respect) conquer or master (perhaps with resources, people, money, intellectual pursuits, empire, and including areas of competencies and skills). (I’m speaking quite generally, please bear with me.) Women seem more socially powerful, while men seem more dominant. Perhaps a good analogy is to say influential in contrast to jurisdictional.
For some general information, I will note 6 areas ripe for, or given to misandry. (Please note that these same areas are ones of great good, effectuality, and ministry if they are not perverted by selfishness and sin. Yes, the same goes for males.) Steps should be taken to purify and strength these venues through the Holy Spirit, and his Fruit, not disable or disband them.)
1. Gossip as bonding.
2. “Tribal Culture” (if you will) of malcontent.
3. A “sick clique” (more on this is a later post) It has to do with venting, fault finding, griping. For men, the counterpart might be verbal attacks or passive aggression. But, this also can and does happen with females.
4. Platforming (A leader or leaders pumping up/motivating a like-minded group)
5. Subversion of Systems (rather than negotiation)
6. Rebellion (overt or covert/and sometimes unintentionally) to authority, powerful groups, institutions, concepts, norms in question.
Often man-hating patterns are established in the context of a social group norm. There may be a retaliation tenor, as well. A pecking order type of culture may subtly and socially pressure its affiliates to employ a particular attitude. Acceptance in the group will be linked to the propagation and use of this structure, and its attitudes. Bear in mind, unlike many times with males, this all happens as sub-context, and is almost always implied, not vocalized.
(There are others areas. I welcome your additions, or specific ideas or comments on them.)
To expose the flaws and missteps among women is to set myself up as an enemy of women, and undermine some of the great and vital gains women have made societally to achieve appropriate equality. Quite a few people, whether they will admit it, or not, believe a certain amount of misandry seems justifiable because of humanity’s long history of abuse and antipathy toward the female gender. In recent, postmodern times, the female voice (or story), as well as many other historically-marginalized groups, has been given new validity and attention.
It is not my intent, of course to sabotage any positive and rightful gains for females. I do believe these rectifications have been sorely overdue, and really have not yet been accomplished. And what a sad commentary on the Christian assimilation of the ministry of Christ, and the human expression of the redemptive nature of the gospel.
To women, I say, we can be secure and mature enough to take on and strength whatever weaknesses we may have that are causing injury of harm to the body of Christ. We can work toward a better way, healing, and unity. As for you males, please read this all compassionately, and let it help you understand women’s weaknesses and strengths better. There is responsibility that comes with know more, so I trust you to use this new knowledge for good not evil.
I mention all of this, not to divide any of us from each other, or to give us weapons to beat each other with, but rather to call out areas of potential growth. Then, we can call them into question ourselves (men and women), confess before God, humble ourselves to each other in love and service, and work toward unity, reconciliation, and enacting God’s glorious Kingdom Come. God transcends gender, and our petty hang ups and weaknesses. It is in God’s strength and grace that we may be fashioned as new creatures that reflect God’s good character and nature.
I would have loved to make this whole article somehow more jocose (or humorous at all), because that’s usually how I roll, but I couldn’t switch gears, adapt and integrate that writing style on this one. Don’t expect such seriousness in any following installments on this, or any topic. (There’s only so much of this trajectory I can take, before I have to insert more cheer.) :)
So-weigh in. I’m listening.