On Masculine Christianity and Powerplays

You may recall a while back a big conversation that was kicked off on the Internet by some comments John Piper made about Christianity having a "masculine feel." Regarding this "masculine Christianity" Piper said:

...the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families where Christianity has this God-ordained, masculine feel. For the sake of the glory of women, and for the sake of the security and joy of children, God has made Christianity to have a masculine feel. He has ordained for the church a masculine ministry.

As a part of the Internet reaction I wrote a post in response to a call made by Rachel Held Evans asking for some men to weigh in on the topic. That post of mine focused on this text from the gospels:

Matthew 23.9
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

I'd like to revisit this topic and some of the associated commentary responding to John Piper by expanding on my original post.

Let me start with this. I think a lot of people were missing the point in trying to push back on John Piper. Specifically, the focus was often on gender and not on the deeper issue--power. More, I think by focusing on gender a lot of the resultant commentary unwittingly helped John Piper make his case.

Let me explain that. When John Piper made the comment that Christianity--God in particular--has a "masculine feel" many people rushed to their bibles to point to passages where God is tender, soft, or nurturing or where a maternal metaphor is used to describe God.

I think this was a mistake for two interrelated reasons.

First, in pointing to "feminine" aspects of God you're unwittingly reinforcing gender stereotypes. By pointing to God's tenderness as an example of a Christianity with a "feminine feel" you've labeled tenderness as "feminine." Which is a tacit acceptance of Piper's describing other adjectives as "masculine." My point here is that tenderness isn't masculine or feminine. And by rushing to present a contrast to Piper some people allowed his framing to structure the conversation.

Second, by pointing out these "feminine" aspects of God you are unwittingly contributing to Piper's complementarian position. Piper points to "masculine" attributes of God and those responding to him point to "feminine" aspects. That is, God has these "masculine" aspects--like strength--and these "feminine" aspects--like tenderness. That would make sense to Piper as both man and woman are, as a complementary pair, created to reflect God's image. Of course God has both attributes, which is why a man and a woman can't, by themselves, reflect the Image of God. You need to bring the woman with her "feminine" attributes, attributes presumably that men don't have or contribute, into union with the man who brings the "masculine" attributes.

In short, I think the rush to show that God has "feminine" attributes muddies the waters at best and makes Piper's case at worst.

My recommendation is to not play Piper's game. Don't accept his framing. The issue isn't really about gender at all. The issue is about power.

Which brings be back to Matthew 23.9.

On the surface in this passage it looks like Jesus is saying something that backs Piper up. That God is a Father, a male. But I think that is missing the point.

Jesus's statement--"call no man on earth father"--was a bomb. A huge bomb. Jesus is attacking the foundation of the power structure supporting his society.

We tend to forget just how patriarchal Jesus's society was. A survey of gender relations in the contemporary Middle East gives us some clue. As does a perusal of the Old Testament where the patriarchs rule. The men, the fathers, the patriarchs held the power.

And into that context Jesus says, "Call no man on earth father."

Jesus isn't saying God is a man. Jesus is attacking the patriarchal power structure, cutting it off at the knees. The issue isn't about gender. The issue is about power.

We see Jesus elaborate upon this theme in one of his more puzzling statements:

Matthew 10.34
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Huh? Isn't Jesus supposed to be the non-violent Prince of Peace? What's all this about swords and "I have not come to earth to bring peace"?

In the next verses it all becomes clear:

"For I have come to turn 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.'"

Again, Jesus is attacking the patriarchal power structures embedded in first-century Middle Eastern family organization. Jesus is bringing a sword, but he's not attacking people. Jesus is attacking a power structure, cutting it down. Yes, Jesus is bringing a war. But it's a war against patriarchy.

In both of these passages Jesus is showing a new way, a way that renounces powerplays. Just after his statement about bringing a sword Jesus goes on to say this:

Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

This isn't a contradiction of Jesus's earlier statement about not bringing peace. Again, Jesus is attacking power structures. The cross is the sword. The cross is the war. Instead of grasping at power we lay it down and take up the cross.

So the issue isn't really about gender, about if God has a "masculine" or "feminine" feel. The issue is about the use of power within the Kingdom. The discussion about gender is really just a cover for a powerplay, about who is in charge and who gets to call the shots. And as we've seen, Jesus is absolutely hostile to this sort of thing. When this sort of thing is going on in the Kingdom Jesus will be bringing the sword. There should be no peace in this instance, only conflict with the power structure. Another moment in Matthew on this point:

Matthew 20.20-21, 24-28
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.

“What is it you want?” he asked.

She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”

When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Jesus completely undermines the powerplay. Power in the Kingdom is not "lording over" people, with some giving orders and others obeying orders. That's the way the world works. And if you see that sort of stuff going on in a church you're witnessing heresy. Christians don't give orders to Christians. The Christian way is the cross. The greatest amongst us are the servants. The preeminent amongst us are the ones washing feet. We seek to serve rather than be served. That's how power looks in the Kingdom of God.

The problem with what John Piper said isn't about Christianity having a "masculine feel." Truth be told, I don't know what the hell he's talking about. The problem is with what is going on beneath that statement. "Masculine" is just a warrant to exert power. About calling men on earth "father." About some getting to "lord over" others. It's about a power grab.

And in the face of that powerplay Jesus's response is pretty clear.

"I have come not to bring peace, but a sword."