I would like to share some links to articles that demonstrate my concern for women’s status in our modern world, an issue I believe we(the Church) should all care about:
Surely, this young girl’s passion for education would not have met much resistance if she were a boy. But then, a boy wouldn’t have to speak out for his right to be educated because boys already have that right in Pakistan.
~The Church Needs Dudes
Apparently, being a real Christian man means you’re not “chickified”, and that you like to beat up and slaughter other guys. Mark Driscoll says he can’t “worship a guy I can’t beat up”. He says he built his church by going after young, single, non-Christian, perverted, technological men. Does that sound like a safe place for women to be?
Driscoll has a problem with the church being chickified. So, to be clear, it’s not good for forty-year old women and their children to faithfully attend church, because the church becomes feminine, and because men, not women, are the innovators, the ones who get things done. Don’t get me wrong, I value and respect the worthy men around me and I want them in the Church. But if men alone are the innovators, where does that leave us ladies? Personally, I think women should be commended for being faithful by attending church, but according to Driscoll, too many women and “womanly” things(singing love songs to Jesus, soft, tender, and pastel colors), means the church is “chickified“. Blech.
Mark Driscoll’s use of the term “chickified” is an insult to the feminine. I thought I was supposed to embrace my femininity as a positive attribute, but what he says in this video makes it sound like being feminine(chickified) is for losers. How can women feel valued after hearing a teaching like this?
I don’t know Mark personally, so it’s impossible for me to judge his character or intentions…but, what he is saying on video is damaging and hurtful to women.
Do you think this young girl needs a masculine “leader”, or should she be empowered to determine the course of her own life? Would we go to this part of the world and evangelize, making sure to teach the essential part of the gospel that says men are leaders and women are followers? That wives should submit to their husbands as an essential component of demonstrating the gospel?
Remember, in order to be appropriately “masculine”, a man must be a “leader”, and a woman must “affirm, receive, and nurture the leadership of men”. So how can any girl or woman be a “real” female without a man?
Do you take your right to vote for granted? I sure do sometimes. Here is just a sampling of what women in our nation went through to “get the vote”. I doubt the majority of men around them were trying to “serve and protect” them(Although I know there were some good men; I’m not doubting that). I’m pretty sure that gender roles were alive and well at the time, and it was culturally acceptable for a woman to submit to the authority of her husband. Yet this accepted belief didn’t seem to influence the majority of men to serve and protect the women around them being abused.
Those are just a few issues that make it extremely important to me to study, discuss, and debate the issue of roles, complementarianism, and leadership by men verses shared leadership between men and women.
Because the ideas we accept have consequences.