My So-Called Life

Thursday, May 11, 2006

Dear Chris Field,

I was going to jot you a short little note in the Comments section, but it turned into a HUGE note, so here it is:

Thanks. There are a lot of "justice issues" that I hope Christians will get more serious about.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I didn't feel attacked, and my toes are just fine. Forgive me if I did come off as somewhat combative--I like to argue.

And I agree with Connor, thanks for talking about the stuff no one wants to talk about. I'm just afraid it was sort of one-sided and that it aimed to attack a symptom, not a problem.

Christian women who dress immodestly do so because it gets them something they want: power, self-esteem, attention, affirmation, dates, etc. And why does this work? Because as Scoots, DLove and others mentioned, the way men and women in the church interact is all jacked up, and that’s the problem. (Or at least one of the problems in the church. Not enough room to address them all here, but I digress.) Women’s dress is just one of the many symptoms of this problem.

I mean, let’s face it, I’ve never heard an older Christian man say to a younger one, “You should keep her around; she’s got a great set of morals.” I have heard plenty of, “She’s a good-looking girl,” or “She’s sweet.” The one I always heard growing up was, “What a pretty girl!” God love ‘em, the elders at the church where I grew up (the good ones who are dead now) used to tell me how pretty I was, even when I was at my most awkward and least pretty. I love those men dearly and what they said to me was good and I needed to hear it, but it never occurred to them to compliment me on my spiritual gifts or my talents or the good things I did. It didn’t occur to me then that they should be encouraging me in those things, especially because the church I grew up in is still not really big on women using their gifts where other people can see them.

And now that I think about the church where I grew up, I remember my Dad preaching a sermon on the fact that women (especially the teens) should dress modestly in church because it was brought to his attention that some of the men were struggling because of some immodest dress. (I was a teen at this time, but I can tell you that the sermon was not directed toward me. I have only recently learned that I might be able to wear spaghetti straps in public and not go to hell.) Anyway, the whole time he was preaching I was thinking about this older man, probably in his thirties, who needed to hear the OTHER side of the sermon: that he needed to control his thoughts even when he saw women who were covered. This man creeped me out and always made a special effort to talk to me, and when he did, I got the feeling that he was imagining me naked. Ewww. He weirded some of my friends out, too, but I don’t think we ever told our parents or any other adult. I probably should’ve said something, but if he had tried anything, it would’ve given me an excuse to knee him in the balls, which I’m pretty sure he deserved. He and his wife moved away after a while, so it wasn’t a problem anymore, anyway.

I also just learned through experience that the Singles Groups at many larger churches are like meat markets. Very few of the singles in the local groups I visited would talk to me, and I couldn’t understand why. Now I think it’s because I am an attractive and intelligent woman, and the women saw me as competition and the men either didn’t notice me or found me intimidating. It was, for me, more like trying to meet people in a bar than in a church. Or trying to make friends on the set of The Bachelor. And that made me sad.

I also got the feeling that the singles at a lot of churches were either pitied or thought of as existing in a sort of purgatory. It’s pretty easy to argue that the church places more emphasis than it should on getting people married and that singles, especially older ones, are sometimes viewed as second-class citizens. And why is this? Didn’t Paul say that being single was better? I think too many of us are convinced—because of our culture and what we witness in churches and not because of anything biblical—that we can’t be happy unless we’re paired off, that one is not a whole number. Are we uncomfortable around older singles because we’re afraid there’s “something wrong” with them?

Or are we afraid that they’re homosexuals? I think the way we treat homosexuals is also a symptom of this problem. If homosexuality is a sin, then why do we treat it as so much worse than any other sin? Why do we invite in the greedy jerkwads who mistreat their wives and tell the homosexuals that they have to change before we’ll accept them? Is it because we’re afraid to admit that if they’re attracted to people of the same sex, then perhaps we could be, too? Are we afraid that they’ll contaminate us in some way or “lead our children astray?”

Why do so many Christians blame the breakdown of the American family on the prevalence of homosexuality in our society? It seems pretty obvious to me that most of the time, the American family is broken down because the American parents get divorced. Why are the divorce rates of Christians the same as the rest of the country? Could this be another symptom of the problem?

I would even argue that in many churches, women aren’t allowed to use their gifts in public because some men have a desire for them to fit certain roles and not because of any shared hermeneutic perspective. It seems to me that their “biblical beliefs” may spring more out of their tradition and expectations than any actual study. I think this is another symptom of the problem.

So thanks, Chris, for starting the discussion. Let’s keep it going.

6 Comments:

Blogger Stacey said...

A.Lo - Wow, this is great stuff. Thanks for taking the time to make a well thought out and gracious response. I appreciate it. I think that I agree with you about every single thing you said. My post may not have addressed all the things you did, but I still agree with you on it nonetheless. On the topic of homosexuality, check out my posts from the middle of March about the Soul Force visit to ACU. I think you will enjoy what you read. Thanks again, blessings to you, I look forward to continued conversations via the internet.

P.S. You won't find a bigger fan for social justice than me so I think we have a lot more in common than either of us initially realized.

3:11 PM  
Blogger A. Lo said...

Good deal, Chris! I look forward to it, and am always glad to meet another Social Justice Junkie. It took me a year in the inner city with Mission Year after graduation to really find my inner Social Justice Junkie, though, so I'm impressed that you have already developed yours!

3:39 PM  
Blogger scoots said...

Ooh, you touched on one of my pet topics. I can't be held responsible, consequently, for what happens in the rest of this post.

In particular, I mean your mention of singles and they way they (don't) fit into the church. In my opinion, this stems from bad ecclesiology. (That means beliefs about the church.)

I am convinced, frankly, that we don't believe what Paul said repeatedly about the church being the Body of Christ (Rom 12:3-8; 1Cor 12:12-26). We're happy to see lots of different people meeting under a roof, but we have nothing like "equal concern" (1Cor 12:25) for each other.

The parts of an actual body aren't just happy to know that everyone is intact; they rely on each other, they're truly interdependent, and they can't ignore other parts of the body because they genuinely need each other.

But we aren't basing our churches on Paul's notion of what they should be; instead our ecclesiology is grounded, essentially, in well-meaning marketing strategies, as exemplified by Rick Warren and his Purpose-Driven™ model.

While Warren makes some good points and clearly is an effective leader, his Purpose-Driven™ model urges churches to focus in on the people they can best reach. Problem is, when you do that you end up with a lot of people just like you in your church.

Being around a bunch of people just like us is a lot more fun (and far easier) than welcoming new and different people, so it hypnotizes us into ignoring the strangers in our midst, and it certainly doesn't encourage us to invite or welcome those who don't naturally fit in.

The result: the church at large doesn't welcome singles in any meaningful way because they don't feel very comfortable around them; older folks don't talk to teens, and vice versa; the various social classes and races never really integrate, so we all end up in churches tailored to our demographics. Or we end up in separate programs (for teens, singles, etc.) funded by the same board of elders but failing to create meaningful relationships among different kinds of people. In other words, we look a little bit like a Body but fail to actually be one.

Here's my point: to be a Scriptural church, we can't just do a bunch of things that the church is supposed to do. We also have to be what the church is called to be. So if we do a bunch of stuff scripture describes, but the being of the church still doesn't match up with what it's described as in Scripture, we have a problem.

But the Purpose-Driven™ model, so widely used in churches today, is all about what we do. Which is great for a missional strategy, but it sucks as an ecclesiology.

OK, that's enough for now. I'm sure it has something to do with Abby's post.

8:35 PM  
Blogger A. Lo said...

Therefore they are justified and doing the correct thing until the system itself changes and rewards those that operate ethically. Right? I think not.

I don't believe I said that they were justified or right. I'm just pointing out that if you want people to change, you can't just tell them to because you think it's a good thing. You have to give them a good reason and attack the problem at its source. Thus, immodest dress, as a symptom of the problem, will be stopped when the problem itself is fixed, and not before. Otherwise we'll be following our tradition of putting band-aids over gaping wounds. It makes us feel better, but it doesn't fix the problem. Sometimes it makes it worse. (Not to mention that we end up covered in blood and bodily fluids and, well, eww.)

And let's not forget that both women AND men have the responsibility to change the system, to fix the problem. So let's make a commitment to doing so by thinking and loving deeply and going from there.

6:50 AM  
Blogger KentF said...

You've hit on a substantial issue -the underlying fact that many Christians, particularly in the Bible belt, are more concerned with appearances rather than spiritual issues. Hence, Christian men feel compelled to instruct women how to dress, act, etc. without EVER getting beyond the appearance issue.

The Pentecostal movement is quite prevalent in the South and this movement is largely centered around men telling women they can't cut their hair, wear make-up, or dress in anything that includes pants or shorts. What requirement does this place on men? NOTHING. I see a few Pentecostal women from time to time at my local health club and these poor ladies can't workout on 2/3 of the machines because their wearing ankle-length skirts!

It's really no different than men instructing teens they can't dance. The rationale is -- if we instruct them not to dance then we've built a fence around them having sex. Let's don't talk about sex or lust or fornication, let's just make sure they don't dance. Absurd? Of course, but that's the rationale for appearance-minded, i.e. shallow Christians.

Same issue here - we don't get to the foundational issue of the fact we are spiritual creatures and God desires for us to seek him spiritually, to treat others as equals and to treat Christians as spiritual partners.

2:18 PM  
Blogger A. Lo said...

If some has cancer, you treat their symptoms, even though it will not cure them, and you certainly dont stop searching for a cure.

Actually, I can't think of any cancer that is treated this way. The problem with cancer is that it often has so few symptoms that it is not caught until it is too late. I’m no doctor, but I can think of very few diseases off the top of my head that are treated this way.

Regardless, I think you’re missing the point, because while I don’t have a problem with treating symptoms, I do have a problem with certain ways we choose to treat symptoms. If you say, “Women, dress modestly,” that’s great, but obtuse and not very convincing. I mean, what is modesty? And why should Women dress that way? (And “Because God says so” doesn’t actually mean anything, at least not here. WHERE does he say so, and WHY?)

11:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home