Can egalitarians be "gospel-centered" too?

There aren't many topics more controversial within evangelicalism than the issue of women in ministry leadership. The debate between evangelical complementarians (those who believe Scripture prohibits all women from serving as pastors or elders in the local church) and evangelical egalitarians (those who believe Scripture does not prohibit women from serving in those roles) often gets pretty heated. I won't rehash the arguments here since most of us have probably made up our minds, but I do have some questions:

How big is the gulf between evangelical complementarians and evangelical egalitarians? Is it more like a crevasse or a chasm? And how much should we insulate ourselves from those on the other side of the great gender divide?

On some days, the gap seems pretty wide. Those are usually the days when I'm reading blogs, books or articles by anyone associated with The Gospel Coalition, an organization that for all its merits, appears to have elevated complementarianism to a level of non-negotiable orthodoxy to the exclusion of egalitarians like myself. I truly hope this isn't the case because there's a great deal to like about TGC as one of the most intellectually astute, culturally engaged and discipleship-oriented interdenominational networks in all of Western evangelicalism. I'd be willing to wager my ESV Study Bible that if I wasn't an egalitarian, I'd probably be a TGC enthusiast by now. But if my stance on women in ministry excludes me from certain fraternities, I'll learn what I can through my binoculars from across the canyon.

There are other days when the prospects for respectful disagreement and Kingdom-oriented collaboration among complementarians and egalitarians seem within reach. These tend to be the days spent closer to street level, where I see Christians across the evangelical spectrum coming together for parachurch conferences, seminary classes, small group Bible studies and yes, Sunday morning worship services despite their differences over gender roles. In these settings, the question of women in ministry seems more like a secondary theological debate open to more than one interpretation among committed believers. I've even heard of a few egalitarians reading books by Tim Keller, J.I. Packer and Jack Deere as well as complementarians benefiting from the writings of Scot McKnight, Richard Mouw and Dallas Willard.

In case you're wondering, this is not the part where I throw up my hands exclaiming, "Can't we all just get along?" Softening our convictions for the sake of a creating a mushy middle is not the answer. So long as both camps are making a sincere and prayerful effort to follow the teachings of Scripture in good conscience, I would not expect either side to discard their best theological arguments, websites and academic journals as if these differences of interpretation and ministry application did not matter in any significant way. To the contrary, they matter immensely. Just ask a gifted woman who is told she can never teach the Bible to men or a complementarian who is told that all gender distinctions are inherently oppressive and best left behind. The sheer potency of this explosive topic is enough to warrant sober theological reflection and discussion within the body of Christ.

Besides, it's logically impossible for both camps to be correct. God either calls and gifts certain women to serve in positions of pastoral authority or he does not. When a woman experiences a call to ordained ministry along with the preaching and shepherding responsibilities entailed, such a call is either compatible with Scripture or it is not. "Middle ground" approaches that leave matters up to congregational popular vote or veto depending on the "comfort level" of vocal parishioners are entirely unconvincing to me. Whether implicitly or explicitly, every church and denomination will eventually need to take some kind of stand, all the while remaining careful neither to prohibit what Scripture affirms nor affirm what Scripture prohibits.

Interestingly enough, I was originally a complementarian during my undergrad years at Wheaton. But after significant time wrestling with the "problem passages" and reviewing the arguments of both sides in the years since, I've decided to plant my flag with the other guys (and gals). Not that this switch has added much convenience to my journey of preparation for vocational ministry in evangelical contexts. If I was convinced the apostle Paul's prohibition of women teaching/leading men in 1 Timothy 2 was meant to be universal, I'd find a vast array of ministry resources and church planting networks eager to equip me from a complementarian perspective. It would also increase the pool of potential mentors, churches and denominations consistent with my theological convictions which are mostly of the old-school evangelical variety (not including my 'charismatic' understanding of the Holy Spirit which is another can of worms).

On a practical level, I've discovered this whole egalitarian thing to be a downright dealbreaker in many circles, keeping me (and my wife) at arm's length from an array of otherwise palatable opportunities for ministry networking and training. It's painful to admit this, but complementarians are increasingly in the middle of the action these days when it comes to a putting forward a theologically robust integration of church planting and discipleship resources for local congregations. While the real world doesn't always mirror what's happening online, I foresee TGC embodying more of a long-term trajectory than a short-lived trend. Living in Hawaii, it can take a while for the rumblings of Christendom (i.e. mainline decline or complementarian resurgence) to reach our shores, but it's only a matter of time before the well-equipped contingent of "gospel-centered" churches makes its mark (or should I say 9 Marks) on the islands' evangelical landscape.

Last year, I posed some questions looking at why one’s persuasion on gender roles carries far more weight in the 'Restless Reformed' movement than other secondary issues open to evangelical disagreement including one's view of baptism, the Lord's Supper, charismatic gifts, eschatology, church polity or young earth/old earth creationism. The line of reasoning typically offered by my TGC brothers tends to rely on slippery slope scenarios. The basic gist goes like this: "If we allow egalitarians into our movement (which would invariably include the voices of women pastors who are unfit for spiritual leadership), the stage would be set for additional theological compromises to inevitably follow." I'll grant that potential for doctrinal drift always exists, but this can work both ways. Are egalitarians more likely than complementarians to slip into certain forms of cultural accommodation including moral relativism, universalism and the denial of biblical authority? Yes, but couldn't it also be said that complementarians have been more susceptible to other vices in the direction of fundamentalist separatism, sexism and self-righteous legalism?

When terms like "gospel-centered" and "gospel-driven" are only used in the context of describing complementarian ecclesiology, it creates the perception that one does not have the Gospel right if one is not a complementarian. When egalitarians are excluded from any reference to participation in "gospel-centered ministry," the implicit message is clear: We will not recognize or affirm your commitment to the Gospel unless you hold to complementarian theology. Conversely, egalitarians (however orthodox) are disqualified from being trusted as ministry partners in the task of proclaiming the true Gospel. I could be wrong, but this appears to be more than just a case of like-minded parachurch organizations taking a strong stance on gender roles. It feels more like an attempt to marginalize egalitarians outside the boundaries of orthodoxy.

I can hear some of my egalitarian friends saying, “Relax Dan, you can’t expect those restless reformed guys to touch anything egalitarian with a ten-foot pole. If they want to isolate themselves as the only true bearers of the Gospel, so be it.” My response would be that the Gospel Coalition represents anything but an irrelevant, shrinking movement. Far beyond a loose affiliation among big-name pastors like Piper, Keller and Driscoll, the vibrant network of complementarian Calvinists continues to broaden and deepen through an effective strategy of vigorous church planting, publishing and of course, online resources up the wazoo. They are not so much isolating themselves as they are isolating us. Again, I'd love to be wrong because some of my favorite pastor-authors include guys like Tim Keller and Sam Storms, godly men who have been incredible role models in the development of my own approach to ministry. It is precisely because my fellow egalitarians have so much to gain from their wisdom that an evangelical schism over the gender debate would hurt both sides.

In essence, here's what I'd like to ask my brethren over at The Gospel Coalition/Desiring God/9 Marks/Ligonier/Acts 29/Sovereign Grace/White Horse Inn/T4G:

• To what extent is complementarianism more than just a prominent feature of the New Calvinist movement, but essential to the Gospel itself?
• Is adherence to complementarian theology a prerequisite for becoming "gospel-centered" or "gospel-driven?"
• As someone who affirms the Nicene Creed, salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, the supreme authority/infallibility of Scripture, original sin, the existence of hell, Christ's sinless life, his penal substitutionary atonement on our our behalf, his propitiation of God's wrath, his bodily resurrection and his second coming but also holds to an evangelical egalitarian perspective on women in ministry leadership, have I failed to believe the Gospel?
• In short, can egalitarians be gospel-centered too?

Since it is my conviction that the boundaries of historic Christian orthodoxy can (and must) include evangelicals of both the complementarian and egalitarian variety, here's what I hope we could say to one another:

"With all due respect for your sincere desire to follow Jesus and adhere faithfully to the teachings of Scripture, I disagree with your position on this important issue. Just as I would love for you change your mind on the question of women in ministry, I'm sure you feel the same way about my stance. But because our shared belief in the Gospel is more important than our differences on secondary matters, I'm hopeful we can respectfully disagree as brothers/sisters in Christ while encouraging each other to live joyfully and faithfully in light of the good news."

But if this sounds too much like key lime pie in the stratosphere, maybe we could just shout it across the canyon once in a while.

UPDATE: Scot McKnight has begun a related discussion over on his Jesus Creed blog.

Is There a Calvinist-Complementarian Connection?

As a social worker by trade, I’m no theologian. But in my spare time between parenting, grad school, church life and employment responsibilities, I find it fascinating to observe the theological movers and shakers of the current American evangelical landscape. While the Gospel must never be defined by popular vote, the question of why assorted varieties of evangelicals believe as they do (for better or worse) is worthy of exploration. In recent years, I’ve taken an interest in the so-called “New Calvinists,” a growing movement recently described in Collin Hansen’s book, Young, Restless, Reformed, as well as a March 12 TIME magazine article calling it one of the “10 ideas changing the world.”

As an outside observer of the movement, I’ve noticed that in addition to Reformed soteriology (often summarized by the acronym TULIP), one of the key doctrinal distinctives for New Calvinists is complementarianism, the view that male leadership in the church and home is a Biblical imperative. It’s no coincidence that influential Reformed/Calvinist (I’m using these terms interchangeably here) leaders like John Piper, Al Mohler and Mark Driscoll are among evangelicalism’s most vocal opponents of women’s ordination. As a staunch egalitarian, I believe Scripture teaches that God gives the gifts of preaching, teaching and church leadership to both men and women, which puts me squarely at odds with the young, restless, Reformed camp. Complicating matters further, much of my own spiritual growth has occurred in the context of complementarian congregations, but that’s another story…

Despite our disagreements on gender roles, I share a lot in common with my New Calvinist brothers and sisters. I am very much drawn to the Reformed tradition, its covenant theology, historic confessions and doctrines of grace (TULIP included). I also adhere to a robust understanding of God’s sovereign grace, charismatic gift continuationism and the centrality of Christ’s cross. I agree that prosperity theology, self-help sermons and market-driven models of church growth are harmful to the Gospel. Like many in the movement, I enjoy expository preaching, Justin Taylor’s Between Two Worlds blog, Sam Storms’ books and the ESV Study Bible- its unyielding complementarian slant notwithstanding!

If I were capable of passing through the narrow doctrinal checkpoint affirming both TULIP and complementarian gender roles, I would find a community of New Calvinists refreshingly open to a range of positions on baptism, miraculous gifts, the Lord’s Supper and eschatology. This explains why a charismatic like C.J. Mahaney can partner with a cessasionist like John MacArthur at the distinctly Reformed Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference, not to mention fellow conveners Ligon Duncan, a paedo-baptist (one who practices infant baptism), and Mark Dever, a credo-baptist (believer’s baptism). As someone who welcomes evangelical collaboration across denominational lines, I am encouraged by these expressions of unity amid theological diversity.

In light of such ecumenism, it’s perplexing to consider why egalitarians are not also welcomed to the New Calvinist table. Complementarianism may not be at the forefront of New Calvinist identity, but it nonetheless serves as a distinct theological boundary not to be crossed. From what I gather, egalitarianism is categorically rejected by the full spectrum of interdenominational networks, ministries and conferences home to New Calvinists (including Tim Keller and Don Carson’s Gospel Coalition, Piper’s Desiring God Ministries, Driscoll’s Acts 29 Network, Mahaney’s Sovereign Grace Ministries, Dever's 9 Marks, R.C. Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries, Duncan’s Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals and MacArthur’s Shepherd’s Conference among others). I hope I’m mistaken, but the young, restless, Reformed subculture seems to have built an impenetrable wall to keep out those who are not both Calvinists and complementarians. One out of two is not enough, and thus I have failed to qualify.

Naturally, this raises a series of questions. What exactly is the relationship between Calvinism and complementarianism? Why is opposition to the ordination of women a non-negotiable for New Calvinists? Why does one’s persuasion on gender roles carry more weight than one’s view of the sacraments, spiritual gifts or church polity? Are New Calvinists willing to recognize the existence of mature and authentic Christians on both sides the debate over women in ministry, a controversy that will not reach an evangelical consensus anytime soon? Is there something about Reformed theology that is inherently complementarian or is the Calvinist-complementarian connection unique to this particular neo-Puritan stream? Put another way: Is it possible to be a young, restless, Reformed egalitarian?

If the existence of “egalitarian Calvinist” denominations such as the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) are any indication, the answer the last question must be yes. At the scholarly level, there are numerous examples of well-respected evangelical Reformed theologians who are also egalitarians: Roger Nicole (Gordon Conwell, emeritus), Nicholas Wolterstorff (Yale), John Webster (Aberdeen), Bruce McCormack (Princeton Seminary), Donald Bloesch (Dubuque Seminary, emeritus), Todd Billings (Western Seminary), Jamie Smith (Calvin College), Bill Dyrness (Fuller Seminary), Mark Husbands (Hope College) and Laura Miguelez (Wheaton College) just to name a few. My personal favorite is Fuller President Richard Mouw, whose book, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport, is a must-read for skeptics who have erroneously dismissed TULIP as dried out determinism for the “frozen chosen.” Mouw’s work on Christian ethics, common grace, cultural engagement and public justice embodies the convergence of rigorous Reformed thought and passionate social activism in the tradition of Abraham Kuyper.

But even once we accept that there are indeed thoughtful and sincere Reformed evangelicals who support the ordination of women, this does not fully explain why has the rigidly complementarian variety of Calvinism been making so many waves at the parachurch level in recent years. Why does there seem to be an overwhelming correlation between Calvinism and complementarianism at the street level of popular/semi-academic Christian publishing, online media, “celebrity” pastor/speaker/writers and interdenominational networks like the Gospel Coalition? Where are the egalitarian Calvinist counterparts to best-selling authors like Piper and Keller? Or popular bloggers Taylor and Tim Challies? Or burgeoning Gen X pastor/writers like Kevin DeYoung, Josh Harris and Tullian Tchividjian? Why do t-shirts declare that “Jonathan Edwards is my homeboy” and not Abraham Kuyper?

I suspect that much of New Calvinism’s magnetism is a reaction to the postmodern leanings of the emerging church movement as well as the market-driven approaches of seeker-friendly megachurches and other forms of cultural accommodation. It could also be that Reformed egalitarians at the popular level are publishing on different subjects than the T4G crowd, thus leaving the impression that egalitarianism is a topic best left to Anglicans, Wesleyans, Anabaptists and others from non-Reformed traditions. Perhaps the complementarian-Calvinist connection is not a feature of Reformed theology per se, but has more to do with Piper's contagious enthusiasm for neo-Puritan pietism.

In any case, there’s much to affirm about the New Calvinists and their passion for God’s glory. I only wish this egalitarian could be welcomed at the table. If it makes any difference, I’ll even bring my ESV Study Bible.

UPDATE: Kevin DeYoung has responded to my observations on his blog.

ALSO: Related discussions have started at Between Two Worlds, Emerging Women, Complegalitarian, New Leaven, BLOG and MABLOG, and The Wanderer.

My Wife the Preacher

Two Sundays ago (December 7), my beloved wife preached a sermon, her first ever. The text was Luke 1:26-38, the story of the angel Gabriel's visit to Mary. It was a beautiful, challenging, simple and profound message all at the same time, complete with vivid illustrations, careful exposition, reflective stories and solid theology. While it goes without saying that I am a biased listener who had the benefit of hearing her practice it several times before Sunday morning, my glowing appraisal was confirmed by the feedback she received from others who were in attendance.

Sadly, but not totally unexpectedly, a small number of people walked out of the service when she began to speak, presumably because of her gender. There were also a few complaints from others who are opposed to the concept of a woman preaching, regardless of her gifting or ability, even though the elders and pastors of our church are supportive of the idea. Since I can't pinpoint the exact reasoning and motivation behind the objections, I'm not sure if the disagreement was theological, cultural, or both. Perhaps they had never heard a woman preach before and wanted to keep it that way. Perhaps they were graciously removing themselves from an awkward situation, thereby preventing a heated confrontation so that others could listen without distraction. Either way, they missed out on an excellent sermon.

Out of respect for my complementarian friends who object to women preachers on the basis of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 which, in their view, prohibits all women from teaching or having "spiritual authority" over men, I recognize that there are mature and authentic Christians on both sides this debate. Even in 2008, the majority of evangelical churches in this country do not ordain female pastors and the debate over gender roles within evangelicalism is not likely to be resolved anytime soon. I will not take the time here to explain why I believe the Scriptures provide strong support for women preachers and teachers, but if you're interested, here's a link to a pretty good summary of the egalitarian point of view.

I don't pull any punches about the fact that I am an egalitarian, but I owe much of my spiritual growth to the godly influence of complementarian writers and preachers, most of them men. Of the half-dozen or so churches I've been a part of in my lifetime, only one has had a female pastor on staff. Of the 1000+ sermons I've heard over the course of my life, I'd be surprised if more than 5% were preached by women. I am not proud of these realities, but they have shaped who I am.

My egalitarian theological position is what it is, but what good would it do if I were to blacklist or throw shoes at anyone who is against women preaching? What would my bookshelf look like without the Reformed theological rigor of complementarians like J.I. Packer, John Piper and Sam Storms? Should I categorically write off everything they've written about the truth of Scripture because I disagree with them on this particular issue? Besides, there is an abundance of books on my shelves authored by egalitarians including Dallas Willard, Richard Mouw, Stan Grenz and Eugene Peterson to balance them out!

For better or worse, my wife and I belong to a church community that is part of a denomination that restricts the positions of pastor and elder to men only. We do not agree with this policy, but we willingly submit to it nonetheless. The rules may or may not change someday, but for now, my contention is that women should still be encouraged to develop their giftings even if the rules never change. We shouldn't need to wait for the ordination of women to come along before we can allow women to start sharpening their teaching and preaching skills. Rather than focusing on what is prohibited, we should be empowering women to use their gifts for the Kingdom wherever God has currently placed them, blooming where they've been planted.

Apart from serving as an elder or pastor, there are many opportunities and positions already open to women in our local body. Unlike more conservative churches, I'm proud of the fact that we encourage women to serve as ministry team leaders, worship leaders, small group leaders, Bible class teachers and other positions where both men and women are being taught. There is nothing in the doctrinal statements or policies of either our denomination or local church that prohibits women from leading a ministry team that may include men or teaching the Bible to a group that may include men. In the case of our particular church and denomination, the only rules against women preaching are unwritten, unspoken ones like "men should lead, women should follow" or "a woman's place is in the home."

With respect to these gender role assumptions, is it reasonable to assume that women teachers are needed for children and other women, but not for men? As a man, should I expect to gain a balanced and well-rounded perspective of the Scriptures without ever having to be taught by a woman? Are men the only ones who can ever be intellectually and spiritually gifted by God to exegete biblical texts and preach His Word? If God calls and gifts a woman to teach Sunday School lessons for children, we welcome her. If God calls and gifts a woman to lead a prayer group or start a new ministry, we affirm her. If God calls and gifts a woman to lead a Bible study, we support her. If God calls and gifts a woman to lead the congregation in worship, we recognize her gifts and cultivate a place for those gifts to be developed.

And yet, if God calls and gifts a woman to preach the Word on occasion, we dismiss this calling as "out of bounds" without even listening to the sermon first? I've heard my share of theologically irresponsible and poorly delivered sermons in my day, but I sincerely hope that I evaluated each message on the basis of its content and delivery, not the speaker's gender.

If I were to walk out of a sermon because I found out that the preacher was an African-American or a Native Hawaiian, I would hope that one of my brothers or sisters in Christ would kindly point me to the words of Galatians 3:28 where Paul writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." If I were to rationalize my point by saying, "I'm just not comfortable with black preachers because I was raised listening to Caucasian preachers," I would hope that someone would be bold enough to lovingly speak the truth to correct my prejudices. I'm not a radical feminist who derives any joy from humiliating or taking revenge on the entire male species for the oppression of women that has taken place throughout history. I'm not trying to blur every distinction between male and female. I believe that God, in His infinite wisdom and artistry, created plenty of healthy differences between men and women, but the ability to preach a good sermon is not one of them. My wife's homily last week was proof of that.

So the question is this: How do we resolve the thorny issues of day-to-day disagreements within the local church? What happens when people of sincere faith disagree about the role of women in ministry? Should we call each other names like "feminist" and "sexist" and see who wins the verbal slug-fest? Should we wait until 100% of the congregation is "ready" before we allow women to use their gifts? Should we squelch the controversy and hope it will disappear if we sweep it under the rug? As Shane Claiborne likes to say, my hope is that we can learn to disagree without being disagreeable. We must learn to speak the truth in love. We must learn to tolerate, respect and even value differences of opinion when they are expressed with civility and Christ-like kindness. For the sake of our witness to the world, we must to learn to disagree well. The cost of disagreeing poorly is too great.

Theological or cultural differences within the body should not be grounds for severing a friendship or cutting off the lines of communication and dialogue. After all, if I never shared a pew with anyone who didn't have the exact same doctrinal convictions as me, I'd be missing out on a lot of great sermons.

Male Spirituality: Is There Such a Thing?

I often joke that my career goal is to become a pastor's husband. Wait, is it still a joke if I'm actually serious? As someone who attended private Christians schools for all but three of my K-12 years and grew up in a home filled with Focus on the Family paraphernalia such as Breakaway magazine (yes, I was a devoted subscriber), my adolescent years were largely shaped by a full portion of James Dobson, I Kissed Dating Goodbye and DC Talk. Come to think of it, I still remember the full lyrics to "I Don't Want It" and "That Kinda Girl" from their historic 1992 album, Free at Last.

All CCM nostalgia aside, my evangelical upbringing as well as my college years at Wheaton have made me very familiar with the supposedly "Biblical" reasoning for why "manhood" can be used as a code word for spiritual authority while "womanhood" or femininity is often defined as little more than providing a supportive, nurturing role to men. Many evangelical churches (including the one I attend) hold to the the basic view that there is something intrinsic about men (by God's design of course) that makes them more qualified than women to be leaders in the home and in the church. Although it's become trendy now for evangelical Christians to promote the idea of men as 'servant leaders', it is still largely men (I almost said "large men") who retain positions of authority in evangelical churches.

The debate over gender roles in the evangelical church will not likely be resolved anytime soon. While the mainline denominations have largely reached a consensus that women can be ordained as ministers and their access to positions of church authority should not be limited strictly on the basis of being female, the evangelical world remains very divided on the matter. The debate over the women in the evangelical church doesn't get the airtime of say, homosexuality or abortion, but it's still a very polarizing issue with well-respected scholars and pastors on both sides.

If you're not familiar with the vocabulary, the terms most commonly used in the debate are complementarian (the position of those who believe in male headship) and egalitarian (those who say that women can be pastors or hold other positions of spiritual authority such as a church elder). For example, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) is a complementarian denomination that was formed in 1973 largely in response to the ordination of women in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) that began in the 1960's. More recently, The Vineyard USA, one of the country's largest charismatic denominations, changed their stance in September 2006 to begin allowing the ordination of women. I should also note that the terms complementarian and egalitarian are only useful for the most part among evangelicals- a term which itself has become increasingly devoid of any helpful meaning as it now commonly tossed around by political reporters in an attempt to label a particular group of conservative voters as opposed to a stream of Christianity distinct from Mainline Protestantism, Catholicism and the Orthodox Church.

For those on the outside of the evangelical world looking in, it remains a mystery why women are welcomed and even encouraged to become CEO's, politicians and community leaders, yet they are simultaneously prohibited from preaching the Sunday morning sermon or serving as members of an Elder Board. A woman's leadership role in the church may range anywhere from Sunday School teacher to Co-Pastor with her husband, but the phenomenon of evangelical women pastors whose husbands are not also pastors is rare. For those of us who are trying to change things from the inside of the fish bowl, there can be the temptation to abandon the evangelical church altogether or at the very least throw up our hands in denial and distance ourselves from "those people." I may not be able to provide the correct definition of true masculinity, but I certainly know what it is not. I am increasingly weary of Christian slogans, trends and movements that attempt to summarize my masculinity as little more than a gender role that somehow entitles me to positions of leadership in my church, my home and my marriage- usually at the expense of intelligent and gifted women like my wife.

A couple years ago, Christianity Today featured a spot-on article by Agnieszka Tennant entitled "What (Not All) Women Want" in which she described her frustration with a narrow definition of femininity espoused by John and Stasi Eldredge in their book Captivating: Unveiling the Mystery of a Woman's Soul. If you're wondering why John Eldredge's name sounds so familiar, it's probably because you've heard someone at church (if you attend a conservative evangelical church like I do) discussing his books such as Wild at Heart and The Sacred Romance, which in a nutshell, encourage men to embrace their inner warrior and re-discover the lost art of rescuing the princess and leading her, with God's blessing of course, on an adventure filled with romance and dragon-slaying. It all sounded fun and exciting until I realized that it was just the latest adaptation of the hierarchical ideology that promotes men as the active leaders by default and women as the faithful followers.

To be clear, I don't have a problem with flourishing marriages and I applaud the efforts of organizations like Eldredge's "Ransomed Heart Ministries" that provide much-needed inspiration and counseling for couples who are trying not just to preserve an unhappy marriage, but make it truly thrive. However, I have a serious problem with the idea that men have to be in charge in order to be spiritually healthy husbands and church members.

In fact, a good way to make me cringe would be to show me a book description, sermon outline or conference brochure with the phrase "MALE SPIRITUALITY" prominently displayed. When I hear the word "male" coupled with any type of religious term, my Christian sexism alarm goes off. After all, complementarians are the usually the ones who draw distinctions between male-ness and female-ness while egalitarians like myself are so paranoid and wary of hierarchical oppression that we shy away from almost all spiritual comparisons between men and women.

Both complementarians and egalitarians agree that American culture has corrupted the church with a warped idea of maleness- a lazy couch potato who has little to offer beyond crude humor and sports trivia. Everyone knows that church services, seminars, retreats and youth groups are filled with a disproportionate number of females. There is little debate over the need for men to become more intentional about their spiritual journeys; the disagreement comes over how to fix the problem. The complementarian model offered by "family-oriented" groups who publish marriage/parenting books and broadcast radio programs has been to provide identity-starved men with more authority and responsibility so that they will 'step up to the plate' into their leadership role as intended by God. The egalitarian approach has been to include more women in the male-dominated circles of authority so that the Body of Christ can be more balanced from top to bottom which will hopefully lead more male involvement at the lay level.

But there may be a third way. I have recently discovered the work of a Franciscan priest named Richard Rohr who seems to describe a unique understanding of male spirituality that is neither hierarchical nor afraid of gender distinctions- could there be such a thing? In his book entitled Wild Man to Wise Man, Rohr says that "we know instinctively that masculinity cannot be the same as patriarchy." Ok, sounds good so far. He also says that men must seek "honest mutuality" in their relationships with women as well as "recognize and critique their own power with regard to women." Now I'm intrigued.

A quick scan of his website, malespirituality.org, reveals a program called M.A.L.E (Men as Learners and Elders) that I can only describe as an ecumenical/anti-patriarchy/monastic version of Promise Keepers. It should be noted that Rohr uses the term 'elder' to describe wise spiritual mentors, not men in authority over women. It sounds like an active, yet contemplative brand of male spirituality that seeks to "initiate" men (sort of like a fraternity?) into contemplative practices that are largely practiced by women these days. Rohr says that the idea of masculine spirituality is not "just for men", but it is actually an approach that many women are more in touch with today than men because women have been encouraged and even forced to work on their inner lives more than men in our culture.

In another interesting twist of fate, Rohr will be speaking at Honolulu's 2008 H.I.M. Conference this weekend which I'll be attending. I am looking forward to finally discovering what it means to "be a man."