At church we've just finished a sermon series on relationships and it's raised a few questions in my mind concerning our theologies of gender.
As men, is it patronising to speak of providing a "safe" emotional and relational place for women? The biological differences between the sexes means that physically the provision of a safe place is necessary, but how much of our help do women need in other areas? At uni I was stuck in the situation where one female friend told me "men need to make room", and another said "we don't want men to make room, we need to do it ourselves and it's patronising to suggest otherwise." During sunday's sermon I addressed the men saying:
When we use affirming language, we create a relationally secure environment. Our sisters will feel that they can contribute without fear of unfair rejection or dismissal. And if we create that environment, then that's an environment where our sisters will thrive and flourish. And we want our sisters to thrive and flourish don't we? That's good for everyone, and most of al it's good for our sisters.
Was this patronising? Why should a sister have to rely on me for them to contribute to the church? Sure there's a place for encouragement, but it's not primarily up to me to give a sister confidence, surely that confidence should come first from her identity in Jesus. To suggest that she needs me to make the first move does, I fear, leave us with a sense where the woman is still subjugated in a way.
What do people think??? Do men need to make room?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I wonder if it's helpful to consider two sides of 'making room'. There's the idea of actively making-room - pushing people out of the way, clearing space by removing obstacles, and there's a more passive idea of stepping back, allowing space. It's one thing to say that women won't have a space unless we create one for them, it's another to say that we will step back and not be unfair obstacles to them.
No, I don't think it's patronising to the poor dears.
Why should a sister have to rely on me for them to contribute to the church?
Actually, of course they do. But then, we have to rely on them too. I don't think the 'solution' is independence, but an honest acknowledgement of our complex interdependence as community: The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
(are you responding to someone actually saying 'hey that was patronising'?)
Jeltzz and Byron: Thanks, I think that speaking of interdependence and not becoming an obstacle are helpful ways of speaking about this issue. I will incorporate those angles next time I address the issue.
MPJ: No, nothing was said, I just was thinking about how it might have sounded to female ears.
Interesting... surely the way we make room for each other is defined primarily by our identity as christians, rather than as men and women. to be quick to listen and slow to speak, to use words to build up rather than tear down, to encourage each other to use our spiritual gifts for the good of the body and the glory of god - surely these things are required of us all, as we relate to each and every other member of the church (regardless of our / their gender).
If our churches have developed a culture in which that kind of 'room' is not commonly experienced by members of one sex (eg women) because of the behaviour or attitude of members of the other (eg men), then surely people of the latter group need to repent and grow in godliness rather than in gracious masculinity. I guess i'm suggesting that making 'room' for each other primarily involves living effectively as christians, rather than as effective men and women. Or does that downplay our differences to much?
I don't think it was patronising. Although something in me grates at the sentence Why should a sister have to rely on me for them to contribute to the church? moreso than the previous paragraph. But that that could just be my own struggle with submission!
You are right in saying that our (us girls) confindence should come from our identity in Christ first and foremost, but I don't think that that absolves the Christian community from providing an encouraging environment.
Perhaps....
I think to say that it is best for guys to provide an emotionally secure environment for girls, does not leave them subjugated, it is more about mutual submission: our wanting what is best for the other.
??
Do men need to make room for women? Practically speaking, in sydney evangelical circles, perhaps the answer is often yes.
Your comments are not patronising, but it is equally true and just as important that women do the same for men - use affirming language to create a relationally secure space (use of 'relationally' secure here = an interesting choice...another tangent).
However, the reality is that while men are in reality predominantlly the ones in positions of authority, to a certain extent they have the responsibility to use their authority to create space for women to contribute, participate and minister, perhaps ideally just to open doors by encouraging men and women to think about and create spaces together.
Its just Affirmitive Action really in one sense... can be pretty patronising, but look at aspects of secular feminism where it sure has been important, and effective...
Anon: Which examples of secular feminism do you have in mind?
Post a Comment