There have been subtle hints on the blog in recent months that I'm not the biggest fan of "Reformed" Christianity. My post The Reformation Sucked was one of those hints, as was the provocative Why R.C. Sproul Is Not Really a Christian. If you want to know why I am the way I am, read this post on Reformation21.
The author, Derek Thomas, is reflecting on Together for the Gospel class of 2010, a biennial conference led by some of the current giants of the reformed tradition and specifically aimed at pastors and church leaders. Actually, correction: Derek Thomas is reflecting on the 7,000 men at the conference. That's a lot of men to be reflecting on. But more to the point, where are all the women? Was there literally no woman at this conference to reflect on? Or perhaps worse, were there women present but deemed so irrelevant by Thomas that they don't get a mention? I understand that being reformed doesn't mean you have to marginalise women, but damn if that's not the way it often looks. It's sadly ironic that a conference called Together for the Gospel would be so dismissive of women, given how radical the gospel proclamation was for women in the 1st century - "...there is neither male nor female; but all one in Christ."
Of course given that the reformed way of doing church is "biblical", I must be in the wrong. (Note to myself and others: the adjective "biblical" is void of meaning and stems from a misuse of the Bible itself. I vow never again to use it in the way Thomas uses it. To do so would be unbiblical.)
Next, a quote from Thabiti Anyabwile: The church is multi-ethnic but not multi-cultural.
Huh? That's just not true. Why would anyone say that? Am I missing something?
Thomas proceeds to dub the kind of Christianity preached by Sproul et al as "masculine". Well, apparently only 7,000 men are allowed to hear about it, so Thomas has a point. But why on earth would it be a good thing to have a "masculine form of Christianity". We're alienating half the potential participants with such a thing. Or is there a completely separate "feminine form of Christianity"? Perhaps there was another conference on at the same time - Together for the Men. 7,000 women showed up, and were taught how best to keep silent in church, how to be as submissive as you can without your husband breaking any major criminal laws, and how to make the most amount of tea in the shortest time period. Quote of the conference was: Church leadership is multi-ethinic, not multi-gender.
Thomas rounds things off by saying that these are encouraging times. Quite the opposite, if this is the alternative to Joel Osteen that America has to offer.
The author, Derek Thomas, is reflecting on Together for the Gospel class of 2010, a biennial conference led by some of the current giants of the reformed tradition and specifically aimed at pastors and church leaders. Actually, correction: Derek Thomas is reflecting on the 7,000 men at the conference. That's a lot of men to be reflecting on. But more to the point, where are all the women? Was there literally no woman at this conference to reflect on? Or perhaps worse, were there women present but deemed so irrelevant by Thomas that they don't get a mention? I understand that being reformed doesn't mean you have to marginalise women, but damn if that's not the way it often looks. It's sadly ironic that a conference called Together for the Gospel would be so dismissive of women, given how radical the gospel proclamation was for women in the 1st century - "...there is neither male nor female; but all one in Christ."
Of course given that the reformed way of doing church is "biblical", I must be in the wrong. (Note to myself and others: the adjective "biblical" is void of meaning and stems from a misuse of the Bible itself. I vow never again to use it in the way Thomas uses it. To do so would be unbiblical.)
Next, a quote from Thabiti Anyabwile: The church is multi-ethnic but not multi-cultural.
Huh? That's just not true. Why would anyone say that? Am I missing something?
Thomas proceeds to dub the kind of Christianity preached by Sproul et al as "masculine". Well, apparently only 7,000 men are allowed to hear about it, so Thomas has a point. But why on earth would it be a good thing to have a "masculine form of Christianity". We're alienating half the potential participants with such a thing. Or is there a completely separate "feminine form of Christianity"? Perhaps there was another conference on at the same time - Together for the Men. 7,000 women showed up, and were taught how best to keep silent in church, how to be as submissive as you can without your husband breaking any major criminal laws, and how to make the most amount of tea in the shortest time period. Quote of the conference was: Church leadership is multi-ethinic, not multi-gender.
Thomas rounds things off by saying that these are encouraging times. Quite the opposite, if this is the alternative to Joel Osteen that America has to offer.
Cool blog, Declan. Glad Jurg inspired you with all his pro-women talk ;)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Debo! Jurgen has indeed inspired me in numerous ways, from gender theology to how I put my duvet cover over my quilt. The man's range of expertise knows no limits.
ReplyDelete