“God has given Christianity a masculine feel” says John Piper
There have been a lot of posts in the blogosphere lately about the role of women in the church. I’ve contributed to a few of these on this site and on Twitter, so feel free to read my earlier posts too if interested.
Last week John Piper held a conference called ”God, Manhood & Ministry – Building Men for the Body of Christ” in the Minneapolis Convention Center.
He taught that: “God revealed Himself in the Bible pervasively as king not queen; father not mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son not daughter; the Father and the Son create man and woman in His image and give them the name man, the name of the male.
God appoints all the priests in the Old Testament to be men; the Son of God came into the world to be a man; He chose 12 men to be His apostles; the apostles appointed that the overseers of the Church be men; and when it came to marriage they taught that the husband should be the head.
Now, from all of that I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel. And being God, a God of love, He has done that for our maximum flourishing both male and female.”
So how does he think this will make women feel? Apparently he thinks it will make us flourish in a way we could not do outside of a ‘masculine Christianity’.
He says his teaching “is liable to serious misunderstanding and serious abuse since there are views of masculinity which would make such a perspective repulsive.”
He explains: “When I say masculine Christianity or masculine ministry or Christianity with a masculine feel, here’s what I mean: Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.”
And as a clincher:
“It’s the feel of a great, majestic God who is by His redeeming work in Christ inclining men to humble Christ-exalting initiatives and inclining women to come alongside those men with joyful support, intelligent helpfulness, and fruitful partnership in the work.”
So women are called to ‘come alongside’ these godly, masculine men and offer ‘joyful support’ and ‘intelligent helpfulness‘?!
I see that as a total mis-reading of the Genesis concept of ‘helper’ (Hebrew term ‘ezer’) – and as utterly patronising. Genesis 2 speaks of God making woman as a ‘helper’ (ezer) for Adam. This Hebrew term appears about 19 times in the Old Testament and is mainly used about God himself being the helper of Israel. For example, ”O Israel, trust in the Lord, for He is your Helper and shield” (Psalm 115:9).
Using ‘ezer’, rather than portraying a woman coming under the powerful, masculine leadership of Adam, it presents her as a strong, God given person there to be relied on and leaned on as Israel leaned on God. Is God subordinate to Israel? Is he a weak lapdog? Or is he a strong and able person whom it would be utterly inappropriate to regard as ‘lesser than’? I think we know the answer.
I also see Piper’s arguments lacking in trinitarian theology; in creating us male and female in the imago dei, only when both men and women are represented equally in Christianity can the Godhead fully be reflected (Genesis 1:26 ”Let us make humanity in our image, according to our likeness”).
I believe God revealed himself through male Patriarchs and male disciples and came as a man in Jesus because the culture of that era would not have listened to a woman. A woman couldn’t have received a Jewish education and Rabbinical training. A woman’s word was not given any weight. So yes, Jesus was a man and was masculine. It’s important that he was both of those things rather than some in between, genderless non-masculine non-feminine creation. But I believe he came as a man purely because that was the culturally possible way to impact the world that he loved.
I don’t see all this as God crafting a ‘masculine religion’, rather as a sad result of the fallen world and its created hierarchy of male leadership. Of course, we are equally to blame for this gender hierarchy – both sexes are represented in Adam and Eve’s choices. And the result is a hierarchy resulting from that sinful choice. In the true understanding of the Hebrew term ‘azer’ there was no gender hierarchy before the Fall, only afterwards. And I see that as part of what is redeemed by the work of the cross, leading Paul to say in Galatians 3:28 that post-cross ” There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.
Some argue that Galatians 3:28 doesn’t apply to male-female roles in the created order, in ministry or marriage. This baffles me as surely the work of the cross is enough to reverse the results of the Fall and remove the barriers that sin has caused to gender equality? I believe this is exactly what Jesus has done and that the cross has changed everything – the created order made new. As my friend the Assistant Bishop of London says about that passage – how can it NOT be taken soteriologically?!
One point Piper doesn’t make is that the Holy Spirit is genderless. Or that there are numerous significant women in Scripture in the Old Testament (Deborah, Esther, Hannah, Miriam etc) and in the New Testament (Mary, Mary of Bethany, Junia etc). Or that Jesus broke all the social norms to make women feel equal (e.g. telling Mary to sit at his feet and learn in the Rabbinical style, or conversing with the woman at the well to the horror of those around him).
To say God mainly reveals himself through men and wants a masculine Christianity is to me a very sad state of affairs. And no doubt in raising my concerns I will be branded as some sort of irate feminist who is somehow ungracious and critical of people like Piper and Driscoll. If you know me at all, you’ll know I’m not harsh, or judgemental or angry. I’m a pretty quiet, gentle kind of person who just has a huge heart to see women welcomed in to the Church and treated as equals. This kind of teaching is the antithesis of that. So no, I can’t be quiet about it.
Driscoll, Piper and others are saying we are in a crisis as there are very few young men in our churches. They say their teaching is an attempt to win them back.
Yet at the same time many of my educated, gifted and thoughtful female friends are feeling less and less welcome in Church culture.
So if we aren’t careful, this ‘masculine Christianity’ teaching may well attract the young men back in, but at the expense of the women who are feeling increasingly disturbed patronised and excluded by the rise of this kind of teaching. And for the sake of them, I write this.
Over to you:
- What are your thoughts on this?
You can comment by clicking here
