Ch 2 Lost Lambs

In the gene pool, no person has the freedom to choose their own sex. Do you like the sex you were assigned when you were conceived? I had a difficult relationship with being female for a long time. My issue wasn’t that I questioned my sex, but that being female meant that I was a “just a girl,” for which I—like all other girls—incurred negative messages about my worth and constraints imposed on my person. Coming to terms with what it means in everyday life that I emerged as a girl, and growing up in a world (family, culture, society, and church) and time that favors males over females, has been a difficult process of sorting out the good from the bad, including recognizing that some of the bad seemed good.

At what point in your life did you become aware that you were a girl or boy? I cannot pinpoint any particular age or any ‘aha’ moment. Did my sense of who I was (my identity) as a girl begin when I kept being told that I, like my sisters and girl neighbors, were ‘girls’? Was it when I realized that my sisters and I were somehow like my mother and different from my father and brother? Why did my brother wear pants all the time and we girls had to wear dresses? I can even recall playing the word ‘girl’ over and over in my child mind, wondering what meaning it had for me, not to mention its weird sound. I can feel my childhood socialization process, but not identify any single defining moment. And as far back as I can remember, becoming a girl was something I had to learn, likely because it didn’t come naturally: how to dress, how to groom, how to sit and walk, how to present myself to others, and what not to do. These were facts of life to conform to, and any latitude from the facts was unacceptable.

Much of this process unfolds routinely, wiring our brains with minimal consciousness.[1] Yet, with each conforming step in this formative process of genderization, we are inculcated and self-inoculated with the prevailing gender equation, its biases and stereotypes shaping our everyday reality. To briefly review from the previous chapter, we all have biases and stereotypes about sex and gender by which we define our own person and define others. These biases and stereotypes have been burned into our brains, formed by repeated input from our families and cultures, along with language and images all around us. Consider how much input into your gender equation has come from church influence, besides from all your other human contexts (family, friends, school, TV, movies, social media).

Because the church teaches us about God and represents God to the rest of the world, we urgently need to critically examine the church’s gender equation and expose any false narrative of male superiority/dominance that largely defines the church as well—in practice, if not in theology. The first step we need to grapple with is the presence of the prevailing gender equation reinforced in the church, thereby instilling in us the following defining, common gendered notions of persons:

(1) female/feminine = less than males; the dominated sex (less power and privilege), the weaker sex, needs male protection, passive (object, not subject), less capable of leadership, takes fewer risks, timid, less inclined toward STEM fields [science, technology, engineering, mathematics], better in verbal skills, sexually attractive, girly, ‘nice and kind, calm and quiet’

(2) male/masculine = better than females; the dominant sex (having power and privilege), the physically stronger sex, protector and provider, active (subject, not object), more capable of leadership, takes risks, brave, ‘brilliant’ in STEM fields, less verbally inclined, sexually macho, not emotional but okay to show anger

While we may not consciously promote these notions, our brains have been conditioned to see, think, and act in accordance subconsciously. Thus, these are the societal expectations that both have shaped (1) who we believe we are (identity) and (2) how we are supposed to behave in life (function)—an identity and function exposing a reduced theological anthropology. We as a church have been alarmingly accepting of the fact that the church’s prevailing gender equation and all its forms of discrimination against females is indistinguishable from the prevailing gender equations in our sociocultural contexts—a fact exposing a week view of sin. Moreover, not only does the church conform to this prevailing gender equation, Christianity has perpetuated it in society by giving it biblical justification based on fragmented biblical interpretation of God’s Word—as complementarians do, but also egalitarians counter on a similar basis.

My American Baptist church experiences from kindergarten through high school in no way countered the prevailing gender equation as summarized above; implicitly, the visual images were of male pastors and high school teachers, while women taught younger kids. Moreover, my church never provided me with a narrative of any significance for forming my identity other than a traditional, spiritualized one. That detached narrative about God, Jesus and the Bible was impossible for me to understand, too far “out there” to connect with in my heart, much less to embrace to form my identity from inner out, or to meet my inherent relational need for belonging to the Father. Furthermore, that spiritualized narrative wasn’t something that my brain learned, whereby it would make a different connection to counter how it was conditioned to see, think, and act. Therefore, in this supposedly nurturing gathering, I was lost in the church for the twelve years I attended—lost like the lost lamb in Jesus’ parable (Mt 18:10-14). By the end of high school, I was an avowed agnostic. I’ve wondered how many of my Sunday school peers fared in relationship to God.

At first glance, it wouldn’t seem that gender distinction would have anything to do with one’s lack of spiritual development at church, but it does most critically. Our gender equation is a dominating factor in how we define our person, either our whole person from inner out, or only parts of our person from outer in. Gender is integral to how we each understand our self, and the gender equation we use is immeasurably consequential to our identity and how we function out of this identity. The encompassing issue here is this: The basis and source of our identity (who and what we are) directly shapes how we function in life, notably in relationships, which in turn determines our involvement in church. Thus, the gender equation we use is directly related to who and what we are as Jesus’ followers—individually and corporately as God’s church family.

Therefore, we need to examine with critical eyes the prevailing gender equation that exists in the church: not if it does, but how, to what extent, and to what effect. The previous chapter gave a very brief summary of the ways males dominate and discriminate against females in all of our sociocultural contexts. This chapter focuses on church and other Christian contexts, and how God is affected.

Jesus’ parable about lost sheep sharply identifies the critical condition that all females have experienced (aware of it or not), the experiences of gender distinction and gender discrimination in the church. Keep in mind that our sex is created by God but gender is a human construction. This is the everyday reality associated with gender distinctions, the gender bias and stereotyping involving prejudice and discrimination against persons based solely on their gender, and almost always directed against females. The experiences of discrimination for girls and women in the church constitutes for us the condition of a lost lamb. How did the lost lamb in Jesus’ parable get lost?

As Jesus spoke about the lost lamb, our usual thinking is that a lost lamb means a sinner, a non-believer, or a church stray/leaver, whom God would pursue to bring back into the fold. That is the message that comes from the good shepherd parable in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 15:4-7). Most female church-goers probably don’t think of themselves as lost lambs, since they aren’t “lost” in that way. Let’s look deeper into Jesus’ words.

Consider, then, that the lost sheep that Jesus spoke about were persons who were already in the fold comprising God’s people—not persons to bring into the fold for the first time. In Matthew’s version of the parable, the one lamb (sheep) has “gone astray” (Mt 18:12-13; “wanders away,” NIV). Jesus is, I assert, speaking to the lost lambs in the church today, those who are in the relational condition of being relationally ‘apart’ from the whole, even though they may actively exist in the church. These are women and girls in the church; that is, even when we are present in the church, often actively engaged, we females are in the relational condition of being marginalized as relational orphans. Relational orphans can be physically present and active, even in the middle of a church’s life. How can women be lost sheep, that is, relational orphans in this case?

Recall that just moments before Jesus referred to the sheep gone astray, he made it imperative that the disciples “not despise [look down on] one of these little ones” (18:10). Here Jesus points to the relational treatment of certain persons as less. This raises the urgent question: Who treats others as less in the church? Related, also important to ask is, Who functions as if they are less?

To be lost while still in the church means that our whole persons are missing, while only fragmented versions of ourselves are “allowed” to remain, whether due to others’ actions or our own choices, likely both. Jesus’ language for ‘go astray’ or ‘wander’ (planaō) is in passive forms, meaning that persons are acted upon, or ‘led astray’ or ‘caused to wander’. But his usage can also connote that persons acted on their own volition, though their brains may not have been conscious of their choice. Women and girls still in church, by conforming to the gender equation that constrains their function are acted upon and also choose to conform because of messages or circumstances they received. Either way, their whole person is missing, gone astray, lost to the church. They can be very active in church programs and ministries, yet limited in who and what they present of themselves, and how they are involved, especially in relationships. Any lacks in who, what, and how we are directly affect our righteousness, the integrity of which is defined by the whole of who, what, and how a person is and thereby can be counted on to be in relationships. This relational condition is not limited to the lack of women pastors and other leaders in the church, but includes all females who are in any church. And it is a fair generalization to make that in the global church women and girls as a whole are lost.

Females have been looked down on by males throughout church history, and continue to be so treated to this day. Why this scandal hasn’t sparked outrage on par with the #MeToo movement, or over other so-called Christian concerns (e.g. abortion) is a reality that grieves God’s heart. There is indeed #ChurchToo and #SilenceIsNotSpiritual, but it is evident that any movement against sexism in the church meets deep resistance. It is not surprising that Jesus’ words—comprising a direct challenge to Christian brothers (notably church leaders and the academy), and to their power, prestige, and privilege—are still being conveniently ignored.

It is vital also to understand that just as females have become the lost lambs in the church, many males have also. The prevailing gender equation, as it defines masculinity in narrow stereotypical terms, also throws males into the comparative process. Those males who don’t measure up are made to feel less, and their whole person goes missing in a further consequence on their righteousness. While the focus of this study is on females, keep in mind that the lost sheep includes some males, and that God holds the shepherds responsible for all of us (as in Ezek 34:1-10).

Jesus doesn’t mince his words: “Do not look down on one of these persons.” The word Jesus used for “look down on” (“despise” in the NRSV) is kataphroneō and also connotes ‘to scorn’ and ‘show contempt’. How do males show contempt toward women in the Christian contexts (including the church)? Mirroring our sociocultural contexts in more subtle ways, males look down on females through discrimination, physical/sexual domination, sexual harassment, and silencing. These are, as mentioned earlier, overt expressions of how hostile sexism works, whether intentional or not.

On the other side of the same coin are expressions of benevolent sexism, which are paternalistic, and can even appear to be loving on the part of males; indeed, it may even be the males’ intention to be loving. The following pages give an overview of the extent of sexism perpetrated in Christian contexts, and covered up by persons in positions of authority, usually men. Keep in mind as you read these examples that we’re not talking about only situations and circumstances, but the deep effects that the lost sheep have incurred such that their whole person is lost to the church. This affects God deeply, to see his daughters diminished by others in the church family.

Hostile Sexism

There’s a range of hostile sexism that affects females in all Christian contexts. A few examples here highlight the various ways hostile sexism has ‘despised’ females. The most obvious are examples of sexual assault on females. The following is a brief synopsis of some of them. There are many more instances of sexual abuse by Christian leaders and cover up by their institutions, and we can expect more to come to light in the months ahead. Presented here is only a small representative sampling:

Sexual abuse, denial, cover up, domestic violence

As Kim struggled to answer their questions, the [two ABWE investigators] became convinced that she was telling them the truth about Ketcham touching her. What they couldn’t believe, given fundamentalist precepts about the nature of sex and women, was that she was an innocent party. “It was lust in its most base form, uncontrolled in the body of a spiritually immature woman,” [one investigator] wrote of the 13-year-old in his diary. Ketcham, he wrote, had become Kim’s “secret lover.”[3]

Her parents weren’t notified of the abuse (including rape) until much later. They learned all the facts only when 17 other MK girls who also were abused by the Ketcham created a blog, making the abuse public—which they did out of frustration with ABWE’s covering up the abuse. Moreover, after Ketcham was removed from that compound, the other missionaries blamed Kim and her family for Ketcham’s removal. Ketcham was never reported to the police by ABWE for his pedophilia.

Much of the sexual abuse that takes place in Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches involves adult men targeting 14- to 16-year-old girls. If caught, the teenage victim may be forced to repent the “sin” of having seduced an adult man. Former IFB megachurch pastor Jack Schaap argued that he should be released from prison after being convicted of molesting a 16-year-old girl, asserting that the “aggressiveness” of his victim “inhibited (his) impulse control.” In the wake of the Schaap case, numerous other stories emerged of sexual abuse cover-ups involving teenage girls at IFB churches. In another high-profile case, pregnant 15-year-old Tina Anderson, who was raped by a church deacon twice her age, was forced to confess her “sin” to the congregation….

Prominent conservative Reformed theologian Doug Wilson has a documented history of mishandling sexual abuse cases within his congregation. Nevertheless, he continues to be promoted by evangelical leaders such as John Piper, whose Desiring God site still publishes Wilson's work. When a 13-year-old girl in Wilson's congregation was sexually abused, Wilson argued that she and her abuser were in a parent-sanctioned courtship, and that this was a mitigating factor….

The allegations against Roy Moore are merely a symptom of a larger problem. It's not a Southern problem or an Alabama problem. It's a Christian fundamentalist problem. Billy Graham's grandson, Boz Tchividjian, who leads the organization GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment), believes that the sexual abuse problem in Protestant communities is on par with that in the Catholic Church.[5]

The controversy surrounding Patterson’s comments began…when a site called the Baptist Blogger posted a video of Patterson’s sermon from 2000, in which he told a story about a woman who told him she was being abused by her husband. He told her to pray, and she came back with two black eyes. “She said: ‘I hope you’re happy,’ ” Patterson said in his sermon. “And I said, ‘Yes . . . I’m very happy,’ ” because her husband had heard her prayers and come to church for the first time the next day.

….In 2010, Patterson called out female seminary students for not doing enough to make themselves pretty, saying, “It shouldn’t be any wonder why some of you don’t get a second look.”

In an article published in 1997…about Wake Forest University’s plan to open a divinity school, its former dean, Bill Leonard, said he thinks women should be ordained as ministers because he believes the Christian act of baptism “means everybody is free,” including women who want to preach.

“I think everybody should own at least one,” Patterson quipped when asked about women, according to the article.[6]

Given all these revelations, Southern Baptist women are currently gathering signatures for an open letter to SWBTS Board of Trustees stating Patterson’s unfitness to serve as president, and urging his removal.[7] Southern Baptist men have

also issued an open letter to the Board to affirm and support the women’s statement.[8]

I was too anxious to have John resume his place as one of the crucial theologians of our time. I thought I knew what was going on, but in fact I did not have a clue. In my defence…I simply did not understand what was going on. However, in truth, I probably did not want to know what was going on.^{^[10]}

Yoder never admitted to any wrongdoing. Importantly, Goossen’s report exposed the wrong steps and wrong priorities of persons who could have intervened and stopped the abuse, notably of Marlin Miller, the president of Goshen Biblical Seminary:

As Marlin Miller and other Mennonite leaders learned of Yoder’s behavior, the tendency to protect institutional interests—rather than seeking redress for women reporting sexual violation—was amplified because of Yoder’s status as the foremost Mennonite theologian and because he conceptualized his behavior as an experimental form of sexual ethics.[11]

“found examples of actions by University administrators that directly discouraged complainants from reporting or participating in student conduct process, or that contributed to or accommodated a hostile environment…. In one instance those actions constituted retaliation against a complainant for reporting sexual assault.”[13]

Mark Galli, editor in chief of Christianity Today has voiced a growing wondering about evangelical churches:

“if there has been a habit of covering up and denying child and sexual abuse in evangelical churches in general—if there is something in the evangelical DNA that makes us hesitant to deal with accusations quickly, openly, and truthfully when there is the suspicion of grave sin in our midst.^{^[14]}

“Evangelical DNA” in this case is nothing but an ideology of biblically based male dominance, control, and abuse of power at the expense of God’s daughters. The reality is that the gender equation used by males in positions of authority in Christian contexts is no different from “the male will dominate the female”—that is, no different at all from the consequence of sin (to paraphrase Gen 3:16), running counter to Jesus’ gospel of wholeness. Men commit sexual sins against girls and women, and men cover up the abuse for each other.

Microaggressions

Very often, however, the treatment of being looked down on is more subtle. These are the subtle experiences called microaggressions, defined as follows:

Microaggressions are the everyday verbal, nonverbal, and environmental slights, snubs, or insults, whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative messages to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership. In many cases, these hidden messages may invalidate the group identity or experiential reality of target persons, demean them on a personal or group level, communicate they are lesser human beings, suggest they do not belong with the majority group, threaten and intimidate, or relegate them to inferior status and treatment.^{^[15]}

Microaggressions inflict their harm insidiously in that the perpetrator could claim ignorance, or claim to be joking, which only deepens the insult. Just because some expressions of sexism are not overtly hostile doesn’t mean they don’t inflict wounds to the inherent value and worth of females. Microaggressions include any of the following:

Microaggressions in church lead girls and women into the condition of being ‘lost’, such that the reality of their person eludes them. Of critical urgency is the fact that because these messages are communicated in church, and often by church leaders, there is an implicit message that at the very least God tolerates such behavior. For the females receiving these messages, this constructs for them, at best, a picture of God in which God sees females as less important than males, though maybe a little important; at worst, that God only created them to be objects who are subservient to males.

Microaggressions are so common that the church needs to be sensitized to these individual and corporate dimensions of ‘looking down on’ not only females but all human differences considered ‘less’ in a comparative process. Because microaggressions are so commonplace in the prevailing sociocultural contexts, it is easy to assume these behaviors are just normal. Microaggressions, along with overt hostile sexism and benevolent sexism, are common to other contexts, but they are not acceptable for God’s church family. They are not normal for what counts as Jesus’ essential justice—to be discussed shortly.

It may seem that hostile sexism is worse than benevolent sexism, and in some ways it is, especially in terms of traumatic physical and emotional harm, and matters of the human rights and civil rights of women and girls. At the same time, it may seem to some persons that benevolent sexism is relatively harmless and that talking about it is a kind of overkill or oversensitivity on our part. These are assumptions we need to challenge. Many males aren’t aware of benevolent sexism, nor are many females.

It’s very probable that benevolent sexism is more common than hostile sexism in Christian contexts (including church, campus groups, missions, Christian social services, peace and justice organizations). Indeed, benevolent sexism is normative for Christians. Expressions of benevolent sexism are expressions from males to females that appear to be well-intentioned, positive—that is, beneficial for females. Having been socialized in this way by their Christian upbringing, males try to be kind, thoughtful (e.g. chivalrous), and idealize us (“women were sacred and looked upon with great honor”[18]), or perceive us as the weaker sex (like children) who need a man’s protection, which many females welcome.

Males who practice benevolent sexism are likely to believe their benevolent attitude toward women is based in Scripture (e.g. Eph 5:25; 1 Pet 3:7). In the next chapter we examine Scriptures that speak to gender relations, so for now it is necessary to understand that benevolent sexism operates from the same prevailing gender equation as hostile sexism: that females are less and males are better. Any kind or “loving” expressions from the prevailing gender equation—with its assumptions and stereotypes that reduce females to less than whole persons created in the image of God—are paternalistic messages to and treatment of females. The disconcerting reality is that they are expressions of ‘looking down on these’.

Paternalism may feel loving to those males, but we need to challenge that bias, as Christian clinical psychologist and psychology professor Elizabeth Lewis Hall explains:

The intent of benevolent sexism is often loving, aimed at the well-being of the woman in question. The problem is that the behaviors motivated by this kind of sexism do, in fact, lead to harm….

Benevolent sexism produces self-doubt about competence and decreased self-esteem, lowers women’s performance on cognitive tasks, causes them to define their worth on gender-stereotypical traits rather than on their actual abilities, makes them less likely to protect themselves and to speak out against injustices, etc. In other words, benevolent sexism undermines women’s competence, fostering feelings of helplessness, and contributing to their victimization. ^{^[19]}

We females need to understand the penetrating reality that benevolent sexism is never without harmful effect, for such messages and treatment reduce our whole person to deficit stereotypes as much as hostile sexism does, if not more. That is, many of us females like being protected, we prefer to be a passive follower (like an object-person) rather than taking the lead in relationships and in church life (as a subject-person); and we are too willing to be let off the hook for taking more responsibility for ourselves. But we must understand that this bias has persisted hand-in-glove with false male superiority. Paternalism reinforces the false belief of male superiority implied by males by ‘looking down on these’, even if the male’s demeanor appears humble and sincere.

Benevolent sexism is deceitful, fooling both male perpetrator and the female receiving the ‘benefit’. Importantly—and this is discussed below—the “love” from benevolent sexism is an illusion that violates God’s justice. Both males and females need to understand how love and justice are integrated because it is basic to our integral identity as created by God in God’s own image.

It’s also notable that persons who endorse hostile sexism also endorse benevolent sexism, and vice versa, which indicates that they are really two sides of the same coin, or of the prevailing gender equation. This is the reported conclusion of social psychologist Susan Fiske and social scientist Peter Glick, who coined the term ‘benevolent sexism’:

[They] went on to determine the extent to which 15,000 men and women across 19 different countries endorse both hostile and benevolently sexist statements. First of all, they found that hostile and benevolent sexism tend to correlate highly across nations. So, it is not the case that people who endorse hostile sexism don’t tend to endorse benevolent sexism, whereas those who endorse benevolent sexism look nothing like the "real" sexists. On the contrary, those who endorsed benevolent sexism were likely to admit that they also held explicit, hostile attitudes towards women (although one does not necessarily have to endorse these hostile attitudes in order to engage in benevolent sexism).

Secondly, they discovered that benevolent sexism was a significant predictor of nationwide gender inequality, independent of the effects of hostile sexism. In countries where the men were more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, even when controlling for hostile sexism, men also lived longer, were more educated, had higher literacy rates, made significantly more money, and actively participated in the political and economic spheres more than their female counterparts. The warm, fuzzy feelings surrounding benevolent sexism come at a cost, and that cost is often actual, objective gender equality.[20]^,[21]

A recent paper by Julia Becker and Stephen Wright details even more of the insidious ways that benevolent sexism might be harmful for both women and social activism. In a series of experiments, women were exposed to statements that either illustrated hostile sexism (e.g. “Women are too easily offended”) or benevolent sexism (e.g. “Women have a way of caring that men are not capable of in the same way.”) The results are quite discouraging; when the women read statements illustrating benevolent sexism, they were less willing to engage in anti-sexist collective action, such as signing a petition, participating in a rally, or generally “acting against sexism.” Not only that, but this effect was partially mediated by the fact that women who were exposed to benevolent sexism were more likely to think that there are many advantages to being a woman and were also more likely to engage in system justification, a process by which people justify the status quo and believe that there are no longer problems facing disadvantaged groups (such as women) in modern day society. Furthermore, women who were exposed to hostile sexism actually displayed the opposite effect – they were more likely to intend to engage in collective action, and more willing to fight against sexism in their everyday lives.[22]

What unfolds from the above examples is the norm-alization of a gender equation that reduces females from the person created by God. The norms in these contexts construct generalized patterns that do not create dissonance in our brains, thus we routinely go with the flow of norm-alcy. Unless challenged and confronted, these gendered patterns become embedded in the institutions, structures, and systems of our surrounding contexts. encompassed by such norm-alization in Christian contexts, female persons get lost.

The Gendered Academy

The Christian academy trains potential leaders for various Christian capacities. Even at an evangelical seminary such as Fuller Theological Seminary that prides itself on being egalitarian (biblically and theologically),[23] its own practice on behalf of God’s daughters has had a spotty track record. Before I even contemplated attending Fuller, I had heard of the surging numbers of females enrolling in seminaries in the 1970s, especially at Fuller. It was a time of great expectation and hope for women seeking to fulfill their call to church leadership. Roberta Hestenes became known for being the first tenured female professor, and served as a strong advocate for women in leadership. Some female students demanded and got established the Office of Women’s Concerns. Also, Fuller co-sponsored the Evangelical Women’s Caucus conference in 1978. During the next decades many thousands of women have attained positions of leadership in churches and denominational bodies.

It was my impression then, given the above, that Fuller would have a master’s degree (or some kind of specialty certificate) in women’s studies. How naïve I was. By the time I was taking classes (2001), a nationwide backlash against women in church leadership was already in full swing. It seems that this backlash occurred at Fuller as well, though it’s difficult to pinpoint. By 2005, the Office of Women’s Concerns was closed, and nobody I asked seemed to know what happened to it or even when it closed. One of the most popular electives in the School of Theology was ‘Women, the Bible, and Church’, taught by New Testament professor David Scholer, and offered once every five quarters. Some persons were trying to get that class approved for core Masters of Divinity credit, but that never happened. That class terminated with David Scholer’s passing in 2008. I was told that no one else was qualified to teach it.

In the recent interview noted earlier, Mark Labberton, Fuller’s current president, sees an “undulation” in Fuller’s history on the gender issue, where ground is won then lost, and “entropy comes.” He further noted that Roberta Hestenes recently told him that “it doesn’t feel like the gains that seem to be quietly coming are actually standing. It feels to me like we’re starting the conversation all over again.” Now that Fuller, like many seminaries, is faced with dropping enrollment and institutional crises, it appears that women’s concerns will not be given priority—certainly not the same priority that race/ethnic issues in the church are given.

Other seminaries and Christian institutions of higher education—regardless of how much priority they currently give to addressing gender discrimination, and regardless of how liberal or conservative they are—must address the gender equation they use, or else we’ll keep experiencing ‘ground won then lost’. This must include examining their theological anthropology and understanding the sin of reductionism—which get to the heart of the basis we use for our identity and function. Until these schools do, at best they will likely engage in trying to improve things for women in basically the same ways that have been tried before. That is not a hopeful picture.

In so many of the above examples of gender discrimination, a critical common thread is that girls and women are silenced, either by ignoring their complaints, blaming them, inducing guilt, or by covering up for the male perpetrator (motivated by secondary priorities of avoiding collateral damage). But this loss of voice doesn’t exist only when females report abuses. Simply, females often have very little voice, very little input in church life together, very little say in the priorities or structures that the church is built on

and functions by. Women’s voices get lost either by being marginalized by males in power, or by our own suppression of our voices (even by dutiful submission).

Women aspiring to become senior/lead pastors commonly experience “the stained-glass ceiling” in the church (noted above), keeping them from attaining that coveted church role. As noted earlier, about 35% of Masters of Divinity graduates in the U.S. are women, but nationally only about 9% attain the position of senior pastor. Moreover, on any given Sunday nationwide, only 5% of pulpits are filled by women. The unembellished reality is that men continue to dominate church leadership; this unequivocally means that it is men’s voices being heard at the expense of women’s voices. This male dominance in the pulpit composes a fragmented message in that male viewpoints reach the ears of congregations, but female viewpoints rarely do.

The case can be made that as long as God’s viewpoint is being expressed to the local church, gender doesn’t matter—and so it should be. But the reality is that because the church is a gendered institution in its present condition, messages from the pulpit will communicate gender bias by implication, as well as unedifying examples of gender discrimination. The example of Paige Patterson’s comments that objectified a 16-year old girl is a gross example. Reflect on the stereotypes about women you have heard from male preachers. How often have you heard a male preacher make gender-stereotyped jokes about their wives and other females? About females’ obsession with shopping, or love of jewelry or flowers? About being clueless as to “what women want” (implying that women are fickle or inarticulate)? These stereotype jokes or similar stories are normative, and though it is true that there is always some truth to stereotypes, stereotypes fragment and reduce females from their wholeness as persons. But what does Jesus say? “Do not look down on these,” which is what stereotypes do. Having said this, I must also note that gender-stereotyped jokes about men are also unedifying, also reducing males from their wholeness. Yet, this is the unsurprising consequence that should be expected from making such distinctions.

The loss of women’s voices is highlighted in a study of benevolent sexism conducted at an evangelical university in 2012.^{^[24]} In the study, female faculty reported feeling undermined by implicit bias (assumptions) based on traditional definitions of femininity and masculinity. They received limited support, such as not being included in the information-sharing networking among faculty, less access to resources such as housing allowances, sabbaticals, funding, and course release for research. Females’ voices are thus minimized in Christian higher education. They did, however, report high levels of job satisfaction due to friendly relationships with male faculty and students.

Another cause of our voice to be lost is illustrated well by a female preaching instructor, Nancy Lammers Gross, who shares the following observations about women in the church, some of whom were preparing for ministry:

I know women who can sing powerfully, but when it is time to speak, especially to speak the Word of God, their voices can barely make it to the microphone.

I know women who, when they are in the company of other women, have voices that are full: full of laughter, full of body, full of personality. But when they are in the company of men, their voices are small, subdued, without mirth, and seem to fade into the background to avoid attracting attention.

…. I know women who have fire for the gospel…but since they are not allowed to preach from the pulpits of their own churches, they have shrunk their voices to fit the size of their assigned roles.

…. I know women who have insightful and important things to say, but who cannot say them with the conviction they feel.^{^[25]}

This instructor is addressing how women have come to feel about themselves, and how their physical voices reflect a diminished view of self. This gender stereotype is not a modern phenomenon, and it also affects male self-image. When God chose Moses to lead the Exodus of God’s people, Moses used his poor speech as an excuse not to act (Ex 4:10-13). Paul was also judged by the strength (i.e. weakness) of his voice (2 Cor 10:10), but he didn’t define himself by this male stereotype (2 Cor 11:6; 1 Cor 2:4). But how did we females come to feel so insecure about our voices?

In any formula of the gender equation, our voice is a significant aspect to express our selves, that is, of our identity as persons. Our voice is central in relationships and life situations, thus our voice is important to our function as persons distinguished by the image of God. Our voice is important to focus on because it represents how well we are able to be involved in church life and practice, as well as in all our other life situations and contexts. To clarify for this study, in discussing women’s voice, ‘voice’ encompasses women’s perspectives and input as integrated with (and inseparable from) our physical voice.^{^[26]} When our voice is lost to the church, we are all diminished.

I suggest that more females in the church have been fragmented, reduced, and thus silenced by acts of benevolent sexism and microaggressions than have been affected by the more overt acts of hostile sexism. There is no doubt that girls and women who hear subtle or hidden demeaning messages in church or other Christian contexts internalize those messages in the wiring of their brains and the refuge of their hearts.

The fact that we receive those messages in church—where we are supposed to be nurtured as God’s daughters makes it highly likely that females will continue to internalize the notion of being less because of gender. At this point, consider Jesus’ relational words to Peter to “feed my lambs…tend my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17). What have church leaders in particular been doing with the flock? As long as church leaders reinforce the gender equation that makes gender distinctions, then they are leading the lambs astray, apart from the rest. Many in church leadership have functioned contrary to God’s desires, like the false shepherds in the Old Testament who did not take care of God’s people but served only their self-interests in the name of serving God (Ezek 34:1-10).

Gendered Worship

Finally, we need to expose the prevailing gender equation in our worship gatherings. The distinctions based on gender in the church are perhaps most visible and audible here. Every Sunday, male voices are amplified while female voices are regularly muted when God’s people gather together to worship him; and don’t be misled by the sound of female vocalists. When the church gathers to worship God, there are a set of gendered habits that church families engage in. Most worship services in the Western church are highly genderized—in both traditional and contemporary worship, and especially in evangelical worship. Worship services are patterned—‘structured’ if you will—according to certain roles and functions which are roughly taken up according to persons’ gender. Consider the interplay between these roles/functions, and how these inform persons’ identity. For example, who tends to lead a particular part of the worship program, and who sings a particular kind of song? In very large part, the roles/functions that define persons are traditionally gendered roles. To even consider interchanging these roles would likely encounter much resistance, because that would threaten persons’ very identity, sense of purpose, and worth.

Surely you have noticed in most Christian worship settings that worship leaders are males, not females. This is the case particularly for large churches. Small churches have fewer available persons to lead worship, which may open up opportunities by default for females. Females are usually among the singers, but aren’t usually at front and center leading everyone in singing. I am in no way promoting the ‘front-and-center’ style of leading worship—in fact, I strongly oppose all such performance-oriented worship^{^[27]}—but only mention it here to highlight the dearth of female lead worshipers. Similarly, females are rarely the guitar players or the drummers. I notice this because I play the guitar, and long to see more females doing so. Talk about a gendered stereotype from our sociocultural context’s rock bands—male guitar players and drummers in worship!

In traditional worship, there are likely more female musicians, mostly playing violin, cello, and flute. And I have only rarely seen women leading worship sitting at a piano (are musical instruments gendered too?) And all the church choirs I have seen have always been composed of more women than men, which also always seemed to be commensurate with the higher numbers of females involved in the church to begin with.

Think about who preaches. Mostly men, and much less often women—unless you attend the rare church where the lead pastor and primary preacher is a woman. It bears repeating the dim reality that though there continue to be around 30-35% women students in theological education, yet, as noted above, on any given Sunday nationwide, only 5% of pulpits are filled by women preachers.^{^[28]} This reflects the systemic silencing of women’s voices at the church leadership level. Even when a church or denomination explicitly states that both women and men can be senior/lead pastors (e.g. the United Methodist Church ordains about 50% women), women still aren’t being hired in equal numbers for the top position.

This practice is the outworking of implicit bias, as the common explanation goes, whereby those who make such decisions hire persons who are just like themselves. Such practiced bias parallels the ‘mirrortocracy’ label applied to Silicon Valley’s lack of diversity. Silicon Valley is well-known to be predominantly white/Asian male, and is notorious for having a strong ethos to hire persons just like themselves to compose this mirrortocracy.[29] What mirrortocracy in the church reveals is the unresolved cause of gender distinction-making—who and what defines persons.

Most churches I’ve attended or visited had male ushers and offering collectors, although there were more women than men in the pews. The young children’s Sunday School is taught by young women, whereas teens, college, and young adults are usually taught by males—unless students are segregated by gender. Coffee and refreshments are the domain of females, although at one Baptist church my husband and I attended, there were a couple of men who regularly helped, which was refreshing to see.

This gender segregation is part of the old normal; it is simply second nature to many of us to self-segregate according to gender. I recall that at an informal gathering of a seminary class at a male professor’s home, as a teaching assistant I wanted to interact with the students. Many seminarians aren’t very comfortable in such informal social settings. At one point, I noticed that the group I was standing with were all males; most of the women (and only women except for the professor) were in the kitchen preparing refreshments, which the professor then served. It was not necessary for the women to do this, but I’m sure it was where they felt most comfortable. I had to make the conscious choice not to do the ‘woman’s work’ but to give priority to talk with the students (i.e. to give primacy to relationships, as God does). On the other hand, how common is it to see men take charge of the kitchen duties (“hospitality”) in Christian contexts, not out of obligation but because it’s second nature to them? As well, how often do you see women volunteer, for example, to move tables and chairs? These are not big deals—someone has to do these tasks; it only illustrates how embedded we are to genderized assumptions. Unfortunately, along with these assumptions is the deficit model applied to females and males who don’t measure up to the masculine yardstick.

How did our worship and church practices get like this? Why is it like this? To further our collective examination, consider the following. The above scenario reflects the typical complementarian church,^{^[30]} specifically the preacher and lead pastor being a man. But many egalitarian churches (so called) do not look much different in actual practice. Egalitarians want women to have equal access and opportunity to be in that pulpit, but don’t usually comment about all the other aspects of genderized roles that compose the weekly church gathering. Why is that? Yet, even having noted the self-segregation, merely mixing up who does what on Sunday morning isn’t the issue we need to address.

What all this gender distinction making in worship (and in all church practice) reveals is just how narrow and constrained we are in our persons; and this fragmentation and reduction of our persons—by which we define our identity and function—exposes our incompatibility with the image of God. Any such incompatibility creates an injustice that is imposed on God’s creation, which then subtly becomes norm-alized among God’s people. This variable lack of justice is evident in how the Sabbath has been shaped by the theological anthropology of God’s people throughout history, thereby also shaping God, the Lord of the Sabbath accordingly.

In the formative tradition of God’s people, the Sabbath has been a key identity
marker to distinguish them from other persons, peoples and nations. What should have been integral, however, for who, what and how they are as persons and in relationship together became fragmenting of their created ontology and function. Consider carefully the Sabbath in God’s rule of law, which constituted the climax essential to creation (Gen 2:1-3). The Creator enacted the Subject God’s righteousness in what is right and whole, and this is how human persons are to function in likeness—function contrary to the pressure and demands of self-determination to measure up and succeed, and that preoccupy us with secondary matters at the expense of the primary. This contrary function from the primordial garden got embedded in human tradition and became entrenched in the status quo of human life. As a consequence, the Sabbath has been converted into a mere day lacking justice.[31]

Likewise, in modern day church practice, the Sabbath lacks justice, and we ignore the injustice imposed on God’s creation—and assume incorrectly that God can be rendered in our image. Our longstanding problem is that our theological anthropology is based more on the outer in of our gender and genderized roles in the church than on the inner out of who, what, and how God is. In light of the decades of trying to bring equality to women in the church and family (admittedly some gains have occurred in this area), our theological anthropology has not changed, thus the stained-glass ceiling has not changed, and thus male dominance in Christian institutions has not significantly changed. And the status quo keeps everything functioning smoothly and efficiently in a variable lack of justice. The status quo is rigorously defended because whenever there is any threat to the male gender’s place of power, privilege and prestige (such as enjoyed by a male pastor and others in church and academic leadership), or threat to the female gender’s comfort zone (such as inhabited by female ‘hospitality’ service)—these are threats to persons’ very identity and sense of self-worth based on these distinctions. Of course, there will be resistance whenever there are perceived benefits to injustice. This was the very issue Jesus encountered with many Pharisees, as he consistently challenged their “theological” anthropology that was based on outer criteria of what they did and had—not on the primacy of their person from inner out, involved in relationship with God on only God’s relational terms (e.g. Mt 15:8-9).

The breadth of gender discrimination by males (and some females) that causes females in the church to be lost hurts my heart, as I know others’ hearts hurt as well. Sadly, in the absence of concerted response, complicity in the church has allowed this condition to remain both pervasive and resistant to change. Imagine how God is affected that his beloved daughters have been caused to go astray and be lost to the church family and relegated to relational orphans. Even beyond God’s daughters, the reality is that males also have gone astray or gone missing in the church. As Isaiah wrote, “We all, we like sheep, have gone astray” (Isa 53:6, NIV). That is because for all human life, when our person is defined and determined by the outer aspects of our person (both imposed by others and self-imposed), our person is fragmented and reduced; our whole person goes missing, lost to God’s family (i.e. God’s new creation family). Whenever human distinctions prevail, not many of us measure up to the criteria and standards of the inevitable comparative process that define who’s better and who’s less, who’s first and who’s last.

As mentioned in these first chapters, what gets lost is our whole person for the primacy of whole relationships together (with God and each other). That is, rather than functioning from inner out, we function from outer in, thereby presenting only secondary aspects of our person to others in relationships that are shallow, even when the church characterizes itself as very relational. Indeed, many churches’ theology may insist on the primacy of relationship that needs to define and determine all of God’s daughters’ and sons’ identity and function. Yet in practice, the local and global church demonstrates that its practice emerges from competing priorities—secondary priorities which render primary theological truths to impractical ideals or inconvenient truth..

A shift in priority takes place whenever secondary outer aspects of what we do (jobs, roles in church and academy, and even the traditions we repeat in our worship gatherings) and have (outer aspects of gender, race, class, along with resources, power, prestige, privilege, and even spiritual gifts) are what we give primacy to. Whenever we give primacy to these secondary outer aspects of persons, we relegate relationships to secondary importance—or even no importance, by implication (e.g. as demonstrated on social media). This shift from God’s relational priorities to ours is evidenced by showing partiality and favoritism—which are incongruent with the Trinity’s nature and being, and incompatible with the Trinity’s intimate relational involvement (e.g. Dt 10:17)—which even the Pharisees knew about, but only as referential information (Lk 20:21).

Who in church life establishes a church’s priorities? This is the responsibility of church leadership, those entrusted by God to ‘feed my lambs’ by giving primacy to wholeness of persons and relationship together in the image and likeness of the whole-ly Trinity. However, in the global church, the shift in priorities has replaced the primacy of relationship on God’s relational terms with illusions of unified relationships. How do we know this? Just look at the fragmentation and relational distance that characterizes the church—for example, within regions, or worldwide.

In the next chapter, we focus on the irreplaceable and nonnegotiable basis composed by the integral righteousness of who, what, and how the Trinity is, thereby constituting the whole integrity for who, what, and how we must be in order to be in the image and likeness of the Trinity. Anything less, and any substitutes of our own construction to form our identity and function—by theological illusions and simulations of whole relationships—are clearly challenged by God throughout Scripture, because they shape a righteousness that cannot be counted on to signify the whole person.

Jesus himself integrally embodied for us the theological anthropology necessary for the primacy of whole persons in whole relationships together to compose God’s church family to be whole-ly (whole + holy) one, as the Trinity is one. However, rather than living whole-ly—that is, whole and uncommon in the common fragmentary world—the church has traditionally made distinctions on the basis of gender, race/ethnicity, class, age, etc.). The unavoidable consequence has been dis-integral-izing persons, relationships, and God’s church family. Moreover, even though each of us individually are accountable for our complicity in this dis-integral-ized condition, God holds the shepherds/pastors of his church(es) especially accountable for the lost lambs in the church, because they got that way through the shepherds’ teaching, reinforcing, and sustaining this dis-integral-izing by the sin of reductionism (Mt 18:6-11).

After his resurrection, Jesus spoke directly with Peter (Jn 21:15-22). In a pivotal moment for Peter, Jesus called him on the relational basis of the primacy of love, and challenged him to “Take care of my sheep” (v.16 NIV). Peter could not fulfill this primary responsibility and relational purpose until he stopped making distinctions, as he did between Jews and Gentiles (e.g. Gal 2:11-14), which was the very action causing some, including Barnabas, to go astray (v.13). Even after Jesus’ post-ascension correction of Peter’s theological anthropology and view of sin (Acts 10-11:18), Peter still struggled to make the turn-around change necessary to be whole in his own person.

As the preeminent shepherd leading the early church, Peter’s divisive actions have to be understood for creating relational distance in the church. Relational distance is the critical issue for all divisiveness and fragmentation, not merely as a structural or organizational concept. We cannot assume to love persons while maintaining relational distance; and relational distance is inescapable when we don’t engage the whole person (both ours and others’). Anything less and any substitutes for the whole person engenders an injustice, which reduces the person to a condition lacking the inherent justice of God’s creation. Therefore, just as Peter was, church leaders who cause, reinforce and sustain relational distance among persons become enablers of injustice; likewise, church leaders who cause, reinforce, and sustain relational distance among persons become disablers of justice. That is, God’s design and purpose for his human creatures gives primacy to the wholeness and well-being (God’s peace, shalôm) of all persons, and the relationships together that enable this shalôm. It is this primacy of wholeness that defines God’s justice, and its violation is injustice—as illuminated here by T. Dave Matsuo (my husband):

Underlying all rights in human life is the inherent need to fulfill and to be fulfilled in the created make-up of the human person, functioning in the primacy of relationship together in likeness of the Creator. Contrary to the theory of evolution, persons don’t merely survive as their fitness warrants, rather person thrive as their created make-up is fulfilled. This integral human need basic to all persons is at the heart of justice—the justice by which the human person is created, the created justice of all persons and their relationships. The need for fulfillment is the basis for the rights that all persons (individual and together) have legitimate reason to expect to experience in human contexts of interactions.

The inherent worth (neither ascribed nor achieved) of all persons constitutes the justice required for all persons (without distinctions) to experience their equal position in the human order; and the rights of persons belonging to the human community are determined by the fulfillment of their integral human need.[32]

Understanding and enacting of God’s justice underlies Jesus’ call and challenge to church leaders and those in the academy, just as it was for Peter. Moreover, Jesus didn’t merely call Peter to be a justice activist in the way peace and justice activists function today. Even more challenging than that activity—which can be engaged merely as an outer-in activity without deeper relational involvement—God’s justice involves the whole person involved vulnerably from inner out. That is, enacting God’s justice is the relational involvement of one’s whole person in love, just as God was and is involved with us to fulfill our inherent human need for intimate relational connection. This vulnerable relational involvement of love is the responsibility of the shepherds, who must account for all the sheep in relational terms, and pursue their persons beyond merely in a role function.

In Jesus’ interaction with Peter, Jesus was calling and challenging Peter’s whole person, from inner out, to be vulnerably open to Jesus, for Peter’s reciprocal relational response. The basis for Jesus’ reciprocal expectations (the sum of discipleship) was simply just as Jesus was always involved with him, and just as the Father was involved with Jesus (Jn 15:9). This is how God is always involved with us because this is the righteousness of who, what, and how God is—nothing less, and no substitutes—and expects nothing less from us, and no substitutes for this depth of relational involvement, reciprocally and congruently in how we live in everyday life. If God cannot count on our whole person in relationship together to be in righteous likeness ‘just as’, what is the significance of our relationship?

It cannot be sugarcoated or euphemized, or stated in politically correct or irenic terms. God is displeased with shepherds who don’t take loving care of all his sheep, any shepherds who benefit from the flock at the sheep’s expense (“you eat the fat and clothe yourselves with the wool”), and who have abused them (“with force and harshness you have ruled them,” Ezek 34:1-10). Like the people of Israel, God’s church today is full of sheep who have gone astray because of the presence of making distinctions based on human differences; in fact, the church’s presence and influence in Europe and North America is minimal—and even negative—in our significance and much of our witness. In contrast to the irresponsible shepherds, God informs church leaders and those in the academy what is necessary according to his justice and for taking care of his sheep (Ezek 34:11-22).

Church leaders and the academy need to grapple with these matters, with their part in the present condition of the church—locally and globally. Whenever and however these leaders function on the basis of making false distinctions in a comparative process—based on any human difference, physiologically or socioculturally defined—the consequence will always be erecting relational barriers that cause someone to go missing in the church. Therefore, these persons need to address their own theological anthropology (just as Peter was challenged by both Jesus and Paul), and their inadequate view of sin (that excludes reductionism). Furthermore, they will also need to address the entire church on these critical issues (Ezek 34:17-22), even at the cost of their positions of privilege, prestige, and power. Redemptive change does not allow ‘the old’ to remain. Anything less and any substitutes will continue to constitute them as enablers of injustice, and disablers of justice.

In the surrounding context, when females (and male supporters) work for justice, they are trying to turn inequality into equality, trying to get wage parity and equal access to opportunities, privileges, and power, get wrongs righted, get reparations paid to victims who were unfairly or illegally deprived of their human rights and civil rights. Activists want males to stop abusing women, want females to be recognized and treated as persons (not objects for men’s use), and be paid monetary restitution for harm they’ve incurred and for violation of their person. Females want males to take responsibility for their sexist perspective and actions. They’re trying to flatten hierarchical human relations on the individual and institutional levels. Accomplishing these goals would be victories of justice, and would satisfy activists working only in our sociocultural contexts.

We who are Jesus’ followers, however, need to recognize that achieving these goals addresses conditions that involve only premature justice. As important as these pursuits for justice are, they are not sufficient for the church to pursue. Our common notions of justice and injustice (the violation of justice) are only human constructs, and don’t get to the heart of human needs, and therefore the complete rights of persons involved. God’s justice encompasses the depth of the human condition, our needs, and the rights as humans bestowed on us by God, which are explained here:

Therefore, the integral human need—invariable for all persons (both individually and collectively)—composes the rights (the human need-rights) for all persons to have their inherent need, which is invariably designed by God and created in God’s image, respected, honored and allowed to be fulfilled. The inherent human need antecedes what is considered ‘human rights’ and forms the irreducible and nonnegotiable basis for human need-rights.

Human need-rights emerge from the inherent human need in this relational dynamic:

1. Vested rights from God that are inherent to all persons created in God’s image, irreducible rights which cannot be revoked to prevent fulfillment of the human need.

2. Privileged rights unique to all persons created in God’s image, who can claim these nonnegotiable rights just in their created uniqueness, unless the rights are withdrawn or denied only by God.

3. Permissible rights available to all persons to the extent that their enactment either doesn’t disrespect, abuse and prevent the fulfillment of their and others’ human need, or that isn’t allowed access to that fulfillment by the normative enforcement of others.[33]

Reflect on the above rights with the Spirit; the rest of the study refers back to them as we focus on our theology and practice. At this stage, what rights has the church mainly focused on; and who do you think has incurred the most loss of their rights?

This discussion brings us back to God, in whose image all humans are created with a distinguished relational design and purpose. Unequivocally, as the following excerpt illuminates, ever since creation, God has revealed what is essential to the image of God, and therefore clarifies that God’s justice is relationship together on just God’s relational terms:

The Sabbath signifies the most transparent stage in the creation of all life, in
which we see God being God. In the context of the world, God’s whole ontology and function just is, without any other action or activity in this moment. On this unique day, God’s relational message is “Be still and know that I am God” (Ps 46:10). At this perspicacious point of just being God, God constituted whole-ly the relational context and process of what is primary of God and who is primary to God for the whole-ly relational outcome of all persons coming together in the primacy of face-to-face relationship. Subject God blessed the Sabbath with the definitive blessing of the Subject’s face (Num 6:24-26)—the primary of God for the primacy of face-to-face relationship with the persons primary to God. Only this relational outcome is the just-nection of creation, that is, the right order of relationship together created by the Subject for subjects having the right relational connection in his likeness. Accordingly, Subject God made the Sabbath holy in order to perspicuously distinguish the uncommon from the common prevailing—and notably preoccupying us in the secondary—in everyday human life.[34]

Just-nection: this alone will fulfill all of us in our inherent human need-rights, regardless of our gender, race, or any other human difference. We Christians must not be satisfied with premature justice.

Church leaders and leaders in the academy concerned with gender equality share the view that despite important gains for women in the church, we have a long way to go, and that we keep covering the same ground over and over again. I agree completely. God is calling us all to the hard relational work that Jesus embodied while here among us. In spite of all the biblical study and conversations we’ve all been having about gender, there are critical gaps in our theology and practice to examine.

Therefore, we need to vulnerably and carefully listen to Jesus’ voice as he reveals the Father’s heart to us in our current time. As Jesus made paradigmatic for his followers, “the measure you use will be the measure you get,” (Mk 4:23-24); this paradigm is definitive for the gender equation in our theology and practice. As we move into the next chapter, focusing more deeply and vulnerably on God’s relational language—which is only for the primacy of relationship together with God and each other on God’s relational terms—Jesus tells us to “pay attention to how you listen”… and respond (Lk 8:18). Will we? That is, will we, in reciprocal response just as Jesus enacted?

[1] The workings of the human brain must not be overlooked by Christians. Mark Cosgrove provides perspective in The Brain, the Mind, and the Person Within: The Enduring Mystery of the Soul (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018). Further understanding of our brains is found in Dr. Ski Chilton, with Dr. Margaret Rukstalis and A.J. Gregory, The Rewired Brain: Free Yourself of Negative Behaviors and Release Your Best Self (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2016).

[2] Read the account as reported by Kathryn Joyce, “The Silence of the Lambs: Are Protestants concealing a Catholic-size sexual abuse scandal?” Https://newrepublic.com/article/142999/silence-lambs-protestants-concealing-catholic-size-sexual-abuse-scandal, June 20, 2017; see also blog created by some of the other MK victims at https://bangladeshmksspeak.wordpress.com/. From their blog you can download the final report (April 15, 2016) by Professional Investigators International (PII), a third party that was hired by ABWE to investigate the MKs allegations against Ketcham.

[3] Kathryn Joyce.

[4] Bob Smietana, “Willow Creek Promises Investigation Amid New Allegations Against Bill Hybels,” https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2018/april/bill-hybels-willow-creek-promises-investigation-allegations.html. Accessed May 9, 2018.

[5] Kathryn Brightbill, “Commentary: The larger problem of sexual abuse in evangelical circles,” November 14, 2017, online at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-evangelical-roy-moore-girls-1115-20171114-story.html. Brightbill is a legislative policy analyst at the nonprofit Coalition for Responsible Home Education, advocating for the interests of home-schooled children.

[6] Sarah Pulliam Bailey, “Southern Baptist leader apologizes for sermon example about teenage girl’s physical appearance” May 10, 2018; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2018/05/10/southern-baptist-leader-apologizes-for-sermon-example-about-teenage-girls-physical-appearance/?utm_term=.3241790878c6.

[7] See the full text of their letter at https://swbtsletter.com/ .

[8] The full text of the men’s letter is available at https://swbtsletter-men.com/.

[9] Rachel Waltner Goossen, “Defanging the Beast”: Mennonite Responses to John Howard Yoder’s Sexual Abuse,” http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news5/2015_01_Goossen_Defanging_the_Beast.pdf.

[10] Stanley Hauerwas, “In Defence of 'Our Respectable Culture': Trying to Make Sense of John Howard Yoder's Sexual Abuse”, online at http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2017/10/18/4751367.htm.

[11] Goossen, 10.

[12] Marc Tracy and Dan Barry, “The Rise, the Shame, of Baylor Nation,” March 9, 2017; online at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/sports/baylor-football-sexual-assault.html.

[13] Des Bieler, “Baylor suspends four football players amid new sexual assault investigation,” March 15, 2018; online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/03/15/baylor-suspends-four-football-players-amid-new-sexual-assault-investigation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bb3007fcd833.

[14] Mark Galli, “We Need an Independent Investigation of Sovereign Grace Ministries,” March 22, 2018, Online at https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2018/march-web-only/sovereign-grace-need-investigation-sgm-mahaney-denhollander.html. Mark Galli is editor in chief of Christianity Today.

[15] Derald Wing Sue, “Microaggressions: More than Just Race: Can microaggressions be directed at women or gay people? Online at https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/microaggressions-in-everyday-life/201011/microaggressions-more-just-race.

[16] Comments by Mark Labberton in an interview of Tara Beth Leach (senior pastor of First Church of the Nazarene of Pasadena (PazNaz), Fuller Studio, April 2018, available online at https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/tara-beth-leach-on-women-in-ministry/.

[17] According to Roberta Hestenes, “Stained Glass Ceilings and Sticky Floors,” Fuller Magazine, 2015 Issue #3 Women, 58-62.

[18] From a statement by current White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, reminiscing about a past time when many things were “sacred” in the U.S., https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/the-anguish-of-john-kelly/543474/.

[19] Elizabeth Lewis Hall, “When Love Damages: The Case of Benevolent Sexism,” February 20, 2017; online at https://cct.biola.edu/benevolent-sexism. Elizabeth Lewis Hall is Professor of Psychology at Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University. Accessed May 1, 2018.k=333i

[20] Writes science communications consultant, Melanie Tannenbaum, “The Problem When Sexism Just Sounds So Darn Friendly...”; online at https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psysociety/benevolent-sexism/ April 2, 2013. Accessed May 11, 2018.

[21] For the full study, see Peter Glick and Susan T. Fiske, “Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: Measuring Ambivalent Sexist Attitudes Toward Women, online at https://www.academia.edu/login?post_login_redirect_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.academia.edu%2F28644060%2FHostile_and_Benevolent_Sexism%3Fauto%3Ddownload.

[22] Melanie Tannenbaum.

[23] To see a summary of Fuller’s biblical basis and position statement for “Women in Ministry” go to https://www.fuller.edu/womeninministry/.

[24] As reported by Karen Swallow Prior, “The ‘Benevolent Sexism’ at Christian Colleges,” online at https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/november-web-only/benevolent-sexism-at-christian-colleges.html. The full study is by Brad Christerson, Hall, Elizabeth, Cunningham, Shelly, “Female Faculty at an Evangelical University: The Paradox of Gender Inequality and High Job Satisfaction," Religion and Education, Vol. 39, Issue 2, 202-229. Published online: 02 Jul 2012 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15507394.2012.648574.

[25] Nancy Lammers Gross, Women’s Voices and the Practice of Preaching (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2017), xviii-xix. She teaches speech communication in ministry at Princeton Theological Seminary.

[26] Lammers Gross’ book deals more with women’s physical voice, or as she calls it, an “embodied voice” and “full-body instrument.”

[27] I have written several studies on worship, notably about the primacy of relational involvement with God on God’s relational terms (not our terms) in worship. These worship studies are available at http://4X12.org.

[28] Eliza Smith Brown, “150 theological educators celebrate 20^th anniversary of Women in Leadership,”

Association of Theological Schools (ATS), Colloquy Online March 2018, online at http://www.ats.edu/search/google/women%20students.

[29] The term apparently originated with Mitch Kapor, founder of Lotus, and currently supports inclusivity in the technology world.

[30] Complementarians believe Scripture establishes that females and males are created with equal worth, but that males are to be the heads of churches (senior or lead pastor) and families, while females serve secondary roles in submission to males. The most conservative segments of evangelicals believe and practice a highly genderized binary of what it means to be female or male. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) is the flagship organization for complementarianism. For more information, go to https://cbmw.org/.

[31] T. Dave Matsuo, Jesus’ Gospel of Essential Justice: The Human Order from Creation through Complete Salvation (Justice Study, 2018); online at http://4X12.org, 58.

[32] T, Dave Matsuo, Jesus’ Gospel of Essential Justice, 51.

[33] T. Dave Matsuo, Jesus’ Gospel of Essential Justice, 51-52,

[34] T. Dave Matsuo, Jesus’ Gospel of Essential Justice, 59.