Sandberg, Summers and Sponsorship
Couple of things happening this week with women in the work world.
First, there’s this short survey that describes five vocations that were traditionally male-dominated but have, over time, flipped such that they have now become the majority domain of women. Want to guess the vocations? Go ahead. I’ll share the list at the bottom of the post.
And then there’s Sheryl Sandberg. You might have seen her on the news. Sandberg is the current COO of facebook, but she has an extensive and elite corporate history, having served as the chief of staff for the U.S. Treasury Secretary and as a V.P. at google. In addition, Sandberg holds an M.B.A. from this little east coast college called Harvard.
Sandberg recently published a book called Lean In. And while I haven’t read it yet (it’s on order), it’s got some buzz. Like a swarm of bees kind of buzz.
On one hand, you have folks who view Lean In as a prophetic call for women’s empowerment in the workplace. Building on Sandberg’s TED talk (with its 2 million views, thank you very much), Lean In calls women to take risks, chase their goals and, yes, lean in to challenges. Here’s a blurb from Jim Collins, author of Good to Great:
“Sheryl Sandberg has done a tremendous service with this work. It offers a vital and sharp message, for women and men. We need great leaders in key seats spread throughout all sectors of society, and we simply cannot afford to lose 50 percent of the smartest, most capable people from competing for those seats. Provocative, practical, and inspired!”
On the other hand, you have folks who take issue with Lean In, primarily basing their objections around Sandberg’s life situation. How, they wonder, can someone who lives in such affluence call for a gender revolution, when so many women have nowhere near the options that she does? In an editorial on cnn.com, Susan Faludi writes this:
“You can’t change the world for women by simply inserting female faces at the top of an unchanged system of social and economic power. ‘You can’t,’ to quote (Charlotte) Bunch again, ‘just add women and stir.'”
In any event, reading some of the Lean In articles, I was struck by one particular aspect of her story, and that is that she was championed. Sponsored. Vouched for in her career. Simply put, Sheryl Sandberg benefited from the advocacy of some of the men around her.
Specifically, she was sponsored by a guy named Lawrence Summers. Summers served as Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, and while I don’t know anything about the nature of their relationship or Summers’ motivation, I do know this:
Sponsorship is a key strategy for overcoming male privilege.
In his book Connecting, Leadership Professor Bobby Clinton defines sponsorship this way:
“A relational process in which a mentor having credibility and positional or spiritual authority within an organization or network relates to a mentoree not having those resources so as to enable development of the mentoree and the mentoree’s influence in the organization.”
I dare say that Sheryl Sandberg would not be in a place to write her book without Summers and his intentionally opened doors. Sponsorship works.
To use my response rubric, sponsorship is one way that men can commit to use their privilege to empower women around them. In the end, I don’t mean to say that sponsorship will fully solve the problem of male privilege, but I do mean to say that it’s a start.
If we’re ever going to find a more widespread vocational parity, we have to start somewhere.
Here’s the list: pharmacists, accountants, physician assistants, photographers and bartenders. How’d you score?!?
Will You Join in My Crusade?
Note: Today I’m again taking a quick detour from a trinitarian look at the genders in order to, well, rant a bit. I’ll be back on topic on Thursday.
Recently, while writing my post on interdependence, I noticed something new when I went to link a passage to biblegateway.com. Specifically, I noticed that the option to select the TNIV (Today’s New International Version) of the Bible was gone. Poof. Vanished.
This bugged, since I like the TNIV because it takes the readable translation of the NIV and effectively baptizes it in gender inclusive language. You know, substituting “people” for “men,” “brothers and sisters” for “brothers” and other, in my view, appropriate updates.
So I did a little research and discovered that biblegateway.com removed the TNIV option because they have now opted to go with an updated version of the NIV. From the biblegateway.com website:
“The 2011 update to the NIV is the latest fruit of this process. By working with input from pastors and Bible scholars, by grappling with the latest discoveries about biblical languages and the biblical world, and by using cutting-edge research on English usage, the Committee on Bible Translation has updated the text to ensure that the New International Version of the Bible remains faithful to Howard Long’s original inspiration.”
A great statement to be sure, but perhaps a bit non-specific. Because one of the key 2011 updates to the NIV is gender inclusive language. Hence, no need anymore for the TNIV. If you’re interested, the NIV translator’s notes are here.
A bit more research revealed some predictable drama around this new version of the NIV. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, rejected the updated NIV in the middle of 2011 after discovering over 3,600 “gender related problems” with the new version. Then, in Fall 2012, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod followed suit, saying:
“The use of inclusive language in NIV 2011 creates the potential for minimizing the particularity of biblical revelation and, more seriously, at times undermines the saving revelation of Christ as the promised Savior of humankind.”
All of this brings me to my point today:
It’s time we abolish gender exclusive language in our Bibles, our worship songs, our promotional materials, and in our conversations in the Kingdom.
In fact, it’s past time.
Here are 4 reasons why I think it’s time to shuck our historic reliance on gender exclusive language in the church:
1. Gender exclusive language perpetuates the cultural malady of male privilege. After all, if “people” are “men,” where does that leave women? Institutionally speaking, one of the key ways we reinforce the problem of privilege is in our language. Change the language and you help change the equation. Change the language, and over time women and men find it easier to share equal footing in the church.
2. Gender exclusive language is simply inaccurate. If we mean all people, let’s just say so. Yesterday in church I experienced dissonance as our female worship leader led us in the song All Because of Jesus by Casting Crowns. It’s a great song, but it got a bit funky when she sang the line “it’s all because the blood of Jesus Christ, that covers me and raised this dead man’s life.” Huh? Obviously, the song writer meant “person,” but what’s the harm in saying so, particularly since congregations are full of both men and women, and especially if women are leading worship in our churches?!?
3. Gender exclusive language presents a barrier to faith for an increasing segment of the population. One of the objections I’ve heard to ushering in gender inclusive language in the church is that it would upset the status quo. First of all, how do you think Jesus felt about the status quo?!? But also, what if, increasingly, the dogged persistence of gender exclusive language was keeping people from Jesus? I know women who would walk out of a church at the faintest whiff of gender exclusive language. What do you think Jesus, or the apostle Paul, would have to say about that? If our practice of gender exclusive language is limiting the propagation of the Gospel, it’s time to rethink our approach.
4. Gender exclusive language doesn’t honor God. God is not a “him.” Somehow, in some way, God represents both genders. After all, according to Genesis 1:27, both men and women are created in the image of God (by the way, the updated NIV still uses the gender exclusive word “mankind” in their treatment of Genesis 1:27…sigh). As we’ve seen on this blog, God is interested in women and men relating in an equal and interdependent orientation. Maligning that intent by our use of gender exclusive language doesn’t honor God.
In another lifetime, I led worship for many years. And I balked at the thought of changing song lyrics to be gender inclusive. My reasoning was that it would stir up questions and possibly dissent. After all, who wants to sing “Holy, holy, holy! Though the darkness hide thee, though the eye of sinful ones thy glory may not see,” when you’ve been singing it differently your whole life?!?
So, in the end, I’m sympathetic. It could be awkward. But I’m also resolute. After all, changing the words, rethinking our approach, will provoke a conversation.
And that’s a conversation that we frankly need to have.
Happy #IWD2013!
Tomorrow, March 8, is officially International Women’s Day around the world. Established with the hope of promoting global gender equality, IWD was first observed in the U.S. in 1909, and the first international version was celebrated in 1911 in Germany, Austria, Denmark and Switzerland. Since 1913, IWD has been held on March 8.
According to the official site,
IWD is now an official holiday in Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, China (for women only), Cuba, Georgia, Guinea-Bissau, Eritrea, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Madagascar (for women only), Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Nepal (for women only), Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zambia. The tradition sees men honouring their mothers, wives, girlfriends, colleagues, etc with flowers and small gifts. In some countries IWD has the equivalent status of Mother’s Day where children give small presents to their mothers and grandmothers.
So in honor of IWD2013, Tertullian and I would like to welcome our first ever guest blogger, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. This is his IWD2013 message:
As we commemorate International Women’s Day, we must look back on a year of shocking crimes of violence against women and girls and ask ourselves how to usher in a better future.
One young woman was gang-raped to death. Another committed suicide out of a sense of shame that should have attached to the perpetrators. Young teens were shot at close range for daring to seek an education.
These atrocities, which rightly sparked global outrage, were part of a much larger problem that pervades virtually every society and every realm of life.
Look around at the women you are with. Think of those you cherish in your families and your communities. And understand that there is a statistical likelihood that many of them have suffered violence in their lifetime. Even more have comforted a sister or friend, sharing their grief and anger following an attack.
This year on International Women’s Day, we convert our outrage into action. We declare that we will prosecute crimes against women – and never allow women to be subjected to punishments for the abuses they have suffered. We renew our pledge to combat this global health menace wherever it may lurk – in homes and businesses, in war zones and placid countries, and in the minds of people who allow violence to continue.
We also make a special promise to women in conflict situations, where sexual violence too often becomes a tool of war aimed at humiliating the enemy by destroying their dignity.
To those women we say: the United Nations stands with you. As Secretary-General, I insist that the welfare of all victims of sexual violence in conflict must be at the forefront of our activities. And I instruct my senior advisors to make our response to sexual violence a priority in all of our peace-making, peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities.
The United Nations system is advancing our UNiTE to End Violence against Women campaign, which is based on the simple but powerful premise that all women and girls have a fundamental human right to live free of violence.
This week in New York, at the Commission on the Status of Women, the world is holding the largest-ever UN assembly on ending violence against women. We will make the most of this gathering – and we keep pressing for progress long after it concludes.
I welcome the many governments, groups and individuals who have contributed to this campaign. I urge everyone to join our effort. Whether you lend your funds to a cause or your voice to an outcry, you can be part of our global push to end this injustice and provide women and girls with the security, safety and freedom they deserve.
Ban Ki-moon
You can follow IWD on twitter at hashtags #iwd2013 and #womensday.
It’s All About Interdependence
Note: this is the fourth post in a series exploring a trinitarian understanding of the relationship between the genders (yep, you read that right!). The introductory post is here, the second post is here, and the third post is here.
As a culture, we don’t do interdependence very well. Ours is a culture whose narratives include concepts such as “rugged individualism,” “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” and “every man (or woman?) for himself.” Heck, one of our national cornerstones is a document titled the Declaration of Independence. But here’s the thing:
Independence is not the Biblical norm.
Instead, the Bible emphasizes community. It calls people to connectedness. It tells stories like “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself.” To be sure, the individual has a part to play in the Biblical narrative, but the vast weight of the data is on the collective.
Consider Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s take on this, from his book Life Together (and please excuse the gender exclusive language):
“The Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s Word to him. He needs him again and again when he becomes uncertain and discouraged…The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother.”
Now that’s interdependence.
Friends, we are who we are as interdependent people because we’re created in the image of God, and, in the Trinity, we find an eternally interdependent, forever mutually reliant relationship. Simply put, God, Jesus and the Spirit need each other to accomplish their mission. They are interdependent.
We can see the interdependence that marks the Trinity in many places in Scripture. As just one example, consider the story of Jesus’ baptism from Matthew 3:16-17:
“As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
What a beautiful picture of synergy and partnership! Jesus the Redeemer, about to start his earthly ministry, bathed in affirmation from the heavenly voice of his Father and empowered by the descending Holy Spirit.
For us, this interdependence applies across the relational spectrum. Kids and parents are interdependent. So too are churches and pastors. We express our interdependence when accountability groups meet, when Bible studies gather and when we partner together in the work of evangelism.
In his article “The Trinity and the Mission of Jesus,” theologian Howard Snyder writes:
When it comes to the genders, we are likewise called to interdependence, and this call goes way back. Like to the beginning. Consider Genesis 1:26-28:
26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
In the Genesis story, God calls Adam and Eve to shared dominion over the newly created order. Both are called to rule and subdue…together. In this way, the pre-fall relationship between the genders is characterized by interdependence.
Like the Trinity, we need one another. And by affirming the necessity of women and men partnering together, the creation account declares our gender interdependence.
What about you? How have you been blessed by God’s creation intent for interdependence between the genders?
Some Views From 30,000 Feet
Note: We’re in the middle of a series where we’re examining a trinitarian theological perspective on gender, but today we’re taking a short detour!
My supervisor is fond of the word “telescope.” In fact, he uses it as a verb. As in, “let’s telescope out and see what’s going on in the bigger picture.” I think it’s hilarious, quirky and mockable.
It’s also wise.
Blogging each week takes me pretty deep into a particular, focused topic. But sometimes, it’s well and good to pause and survey the bigger picture. Sometimes, “telescoping out” is the right thing to do.
Today I want to offer a bird’s eye view of some instances of male privilege in our culture and in the church. To do so, I’ll give you some selected links and a bit of commentary. Most of these links actually come from you, so let me also say thank you for resourcing me. Keep ’em coming!
The Good:
According to this piece, “what is growing…is the diversity of leadership in mainline Protestant churches, where 28 percent of pastors are women, up from 20 percent in 2001. New research using survey data also finds female pastors are in general more satisfied in their ministry than male pastors and are strong in welcoming new people. Almost two in five pastors of growing churches are women.” Let’s keep these trends going!
There’s a lot to like in Preston’s post entitled “When We Need Women Behind the Pulpits.” Here’s a quote:
“And I know,” she goes on, “That not one of them in that room would have had a problem with a woman praying. I know you all well enough to know better than that. But it’s still resident within me, from the culture I’ve been in, that when there’s a man in a room and someone is asked to pray, it’s always his right and his role.”
The Bad:
Tis the season for the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue. According to this article, “this year’s Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue contains a new feature, a six-page style guide ‘to help women recreate the looks they see in the issue.'” Heaven help us.
Some controversy from last weekend’s Oscars ceremony. In this article, Philippa Willitts dissects host Seth McFarlane’s “We Saw Your Boobs” musical number. Her verdict? Demeaning to the actresses and their craft at one level, horrific at another level. After all, several of the scenes being referenced were rape scenes.
The Ugly:
Lastly, in all this talk of Danica, let’s not forget that last week the young sport of MMA welcomed women into the octagon for the first time. The story is here. How should we read this? Is it privilege getting pile-driven, or equality gone awry?
I”ll leave you on a high note, quoting the tail-end of Anne Hathaway’s Oscar acceptance speech: “Here’s hoping that in the not too distant future the misfortunes of Fantine will only be found in stories.”
Amen to that.
What about you? What’s happening with male privilege around you?
It’s All About Equality
Note: this is the third post in a series exploring a trinitarian understanding of the relationship between the genders (yep, you read that right!). The introductory post is here and the second post is here.
To be a Dixon is to be into NASCAR.
At least that’s true in my immediate family, where every year Daytona Sunday was a holiday around our house. We grew up going to races. We knew all the drivers (my favorite was Bobby Allison, thank you very much). And, after church, heaven help you if you somehow revealed the results before Dad had a chance to watch the race from green flag to checkered.
Because of this, I watched with interest yesterday as Danica Patrick took her shot at the Daytona 500. And, no doubt, she did great. First woman to sit on the pole of any NASCAR race, much less the so-called “Great American Race.” First woman to lead a lap at Daytona (and first woman ever to lead a green flag lap in any top-division NASCAR race). And, to top it off, highest finish (8th) for a woman at the Daytona 500.
So yesterday was historic for sure. But while I think what Danica is accomplishing is terrific, it’s not without it’s problems. First there’s the marketing of Danica. I like my girls watching her race, but I don’t like having to change the channel when her GoDaddy commercials come on. Could it be that she’s undermining her talent by how she’s choosing to craft her public image?
And then there’s the reality that as important as Danica’s arrival in NASCAR”s top division is, the sport of auto-racing is nowhere near gender equal. After all, she’s just one women among a full race field of men. Make no mistake about it, when it comes to gender equality, NASCAR has many more laps to go.
In NASCAR, privilege reigns.
Equality is something that’s fundamental to the Trinity. That is, God the Creator, Jesus the Redeemer and the Holy Spirit participate in a community that is intrinsically equal. Put another way, there is no hierarchy in the Trinity. Consider this quote, from 17th century Puritan theologian Thomas Watson:
“If there be one God subsisting in three persons, then let us give equal reverence to all the persons in the Trinity. There is not more or less in the Trinity; the Father is not more God than the Son and Holy Ghost. There is an order in the Godhead, but no degrees; one person has not a majority or super eminence above another, therefore we must give equal worship to all the persons.”
Equality. It’s what the Trinity is about. And of course this trinitarian mark of equality has significant social implications. After all, human relationships are modeled after the Trinity’s.
In particular, a trinitarian theological understanding mandates that the relationship between the genders be marked by equality.
In other words, there is no room for privilege when it comes to the genders.
I’ll leave you today with this loaded quote from theologian Kevin Giles, from this article entitled The Doctrine of the Trinity and Subordination:
“Because virtually all theologians agree that the doctrine of the Trinity should inform human relationships correctly, enunciating the historically developed doctrine of the Trinity is of great practical consequence. If in the Trinity all have the same authority, “none are before or after,” all are “co-equal” (the Athanasian Creed), then the doctrine of the Trinity calls into question all forms of human domination. It reminds us that totalitarian regimes that ride roughshod over people or hierarchical ordering that presupposes that some are born to rule and others to obey cannot and never will reflect the divine ideal seen in the Trinity. And to be quite specific, rather than supporting the permanent subordination of women in the church and the home, the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity suggests exactly the opposite.”
What about you? How does this trinitarian understanding of equality between the genders challenge your paradigm?
It’s All About Relationships
Note: this is the second post in a series exploring a trinitarian understanding of the relationship between the genders (yep, you read that right!). The introductory post is here.
I’m in full time Christian ministry. To dispel any doubt, let me offer a short story to demonstrate my credentials.
The other night, we were sitting around trying to figure out a guest’s Myers-Briggs type. There, see?!? And of course one of the questions was around the distinction between the MBTI “I” and “E.” As in, was our guest an introvert or an extrovert? To dramatically overstate the difference, the introvert recharges by being alone while the extrovert recharges, well, at cocktail parties.
In the end our guest was an E, but during the conversation we realized something important. Both I’s and E’s relate with others. Both need people. It’s just a matter of how being around other people effect us. This conversation illustrates a simple but important truth:
We are created as relational beings.
Which makes sense, because we were created by a relational God. In fact, trinitarian theology rests on the bedrock that God the Creator, Jesus the Redeemer and the Holy Spirit are eternally, fundamentally and, dare I say, happily in relationship with one another. As pastor and professor Darrell Johnson notes in his book Experiencing the Trinity:
“‘At the center of the universe is a relationship.’ This is the most fundamental truth I know. At the center of the universe is a community. It is out of that relationship that you and I were created and redeemed. And it is for that relationship that you and I were created and redeemed!”
What I’m saying this morning is that the God we worship is in fact a relationship.
In the Orthodox stream of the Christian faith, icons are important things. Icons communicate truth through a visual medium. Medieval Russian painter Andrei Rublev was famous for his Orthodox icons and frescoes, and he is most famous for his icon on the Trinity. Here’s a picture:
What I love most about Rublev’s work is how he captures relationship. First, there’s the relationship between the three members of the God-head. Reclining around the table, comfortable in each others presence, fully at peace with one another. It’s beautiful.
But at the same time, it’s more than just the relationship between the members of the Trinity. Because there’s an empty place at the table. There, right in the foreground. The icon welcomes the watcher in for a seat with the God-head. The empty place at the table is for you and I.
Friends, we are created as relational beings by a fundamentally relational God.
The implications of this are of course critical and far-reaching. We belong in families. We need social bases. We resolve conflict, forgive each other and pursue vulnerability because of it.
And when it comes to the genders, this trinitarian reality beckons us to relationship. In fact, it calls us to full and healthy relationship. Like a Trinity-caliber version of relationship, one marked by peace, by comfort, by intimacy, by partnership. After all, according to Genesis 2:18, Adam solo wasn’t good enough.
So as we start our examination of the trinitarian implications for a theology of gender relationships, let’s begin by establishing that men and women are called to relationship that mirrors the relational character of the Trinity. Quite simply, we’re designed to be in cross-gender community.
What about you? What is the healthiest cross-gender relationship that you’ve enjoyed?
Redeeming Tertullian
So after this week, I’m just 4 months away from my Masters. It’s been an awesome journey. And all that stands in my way now is this: 9 books to read, 5 book reports, 4 reflection papers, 2 term papers and then my final project.
Piece of cake.
As I come to the end, I’m looking back at major themes, and one big idea that we’ve hit class after class is the reality of the Trinity. You know, that theological doctrine that says that God, Jesus and Spirit are one yet distinct? If you grew up in the church, it’s the bit of theology that youth pastors have spent years trying to cook up just the right analogy for. You know, a three-legged stool, three-space, the three states of water and the like.
As it turns out, Tertullian was one of the primary shapers of our understanding of the Trinity. Yep, our Tertullian. In his work Adversus Praxeam, he wrote this:
“…while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.”
So for the last two years, Tertullian has helped me conceive of a trinitarian theology that applies to everything from the mission of God to the built environment. The hallmarks of a trinitarian understanding are concepts such as equality, interdependence and the all-encompassing reality of relationship.
This said, for some reason, Tertullian wasn’t able to apply this line of thinking to his theologies around gender. Remember his take on women?
“You are the Devil’s gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first foresaker of the divine law; you are the one who persuaded him whom the Devil was not brave enough to approach; you so lightly crushed the image of God, the man Adam.”
Equal, interdependent and relational? Not so much.
So for the next few posts, I want to endeavour to redeem Tertullian’s thinking by applying his trinitarian theological framework to the relationship between the genders. How does the unified, interdependent, relational reality of the Trinity factor into how men and women ought to relate to one another? And what are the implications for male privilege?
Stay tuned and we’ll find out together.
What about you? How do you see the Trinity factoring into the conversation about the relationship between the genders?
Taking My Cue from Jesus
I don’t know about you, but Jesus indicts me. As in, he challenges me to be more than I am. He raises the bar. I mean, I get him figured out only to learn there’s so much more.
Over the last 3 weeks, I’ve been thinking about Jesus and how he treated women in his day. Jesus was/is a gamechanger. He really saw women, he trusted them, he taught them as disciples, he respected them, he valued their stories and he mourned with them.
And here’s the kicker…he did it all publicly.
What I mean is that there was a public dimension to each of the stories. It’s not like Jesus was going around empowering women behind locked doors; he was engaging with women on the streets, in house meetings and surrounded by crowds.
This blog has been up and running for about 5 months now. And of course it’s public. In fact, I like to think that in some way, writing this content in this type of setting is me following Jesus. To go one step further, it’s me publicly surrendering privilege in pursuit of Jesus.
So if you’ll indulge me today, I want to offer a couple of reflections on what it’s felt like to be challenging Tertullian:
First, it’s been wildly encouraging. Because the vast majority of comments, on the blog, on facebook, in my inbox and in person have gone something like this: “thank you so much for taking these issues on and for encouraging me to wrestle with them.” When it’s Wednesday night and I’m not sure I’ll make my Thursday morning deadline, these comments push me onward.
Next, it’s been personally enriching. If I’m honest, there’s a sense in which if no one else ever read this, it would still be worth the effort. Because the process of writing gives me life. And the process of writing about male privilege teaches me. I’m being shaped as I write. And, believe me, I’ve got blog fodder for years to come. So get ready Mr. Tertullian.
Finally, it’s been horribly intimidating. After all, the more I write the less I feel like I know. This is learn by doing stuff for sure. In addition, public equals vulnerable for me and so putting my thoughts out there has been a sobering experience. I’m someone who is allergic to self promotion, so the trick is to remember that it’s the ideas that are being promoted. It’s the cause. Ultimately, it’s Jesus.
At any rate, let me offer a hearty “thank you” for journeying with me in this process. I’m grateful.
On Really Mourning with Someone
Note: this is the seventh post in a series exploring how Jesus related with women in his day. Find the introductory post here, and the previous posts here, here, here and here, here and here.
If you spent any time in Sunday School when you were younger, you probably know the answer to this question:
What’s the shortest verse in the Bible?
Got it? Yep. John 11:35. “Jesus wept.” When I was younger, and snottier, I would boast about how I had memorized Scripture, only to trot out this verse when challenged.
The context surrounding John 11:35 is fascinating. Lazarus has died. The text tells us that he had been in the tomb for 4 days by the time Jesus arrives. Previously, Jesus had promised that Lazarus would be alright. In verse 4 he says, ““This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” So, by the time we get to verse 17, here’s the issue: Jesus said Lazarus would be fine, but clearly he’s not.
Because of this, Lazarus’ sisters Martha and Mary (remember them?!?) have two problems. First, their brother is dead, and that of course is cause for mourning in and of itself. But, perhaps worse, their convictions about Jesus are on the line. In other words, their grief at their brother’s passing is accentuated or deepened by their feeling that Jesus had not delivered on his promise.
In the midst of this, what is Jesus’ initial response to the women’s grief?
To weep.
He weeps. Sure, later in the passage Jesus will do the miraculous and the women will indeed see a resurrection. He’ll make good on his promise. But, make no mistake about it, Jesus’ first step is to mourn alongside them.
And in doing that, he validates their grief.
I’m not a huge fan of generalizations. You know, statements like “all Californians know how to surf.” It’s because often I feel like the generalization doesn’t apply to me. On the other hand, generalizations can provide helpful ways to talk about bigger issues, and so here’s a gender generalization for you this morning:
In our culture, men are action-oriented problem-solvers.
That is, by nature and/or nurture, men are conditioned to jump in, take action, and solve a problem. In our minds, as men, we’re all Bruce Willis in DieHard.
And, heck, whether or not this is generally true, it’s specifically true for me. Have a question? I’ll answer it or find the answer. Need help? I’m your guy. Struggling? Find me and I’ll make it better. Broken? I’ll fix it. Honestly, I can’t wait to solve your problems!
This “jump in and solve it ” masculine drive gets me a lot of advantage. It reinforces my privilege. After all, the world needs leaders who take action and solve problems.
And right here is where Jesus really challenges me.
Was Jesus an action guy? Yes. But was he also reflective? Yes again. See Mark 1:35-36. And, more to the point, Jesus was willing to first meet Martha and Mary in their grief.
Sometimes people don’t need a problem solved; they need someone to share their mourning.
Friends, my male identity compels me to act, and I get privilege because of it. Surrendering that privilege to Jesus can mean that I sit first and act later.
Because, sometimes, the right response is to just weep.
What about you? How have you seen this generalization be true or not true in the men around you?
Challenging Tertullian 