Why are men or women excluded from certain groups? Why do women want to have just women groups or men just men?
Is there a special camaraderie in a group of men doing a task together without women? Hunting deer or fighting a battle or digging a hole. I think there is. Likewise, there's a camaraderie in a group of women who meet to breastfeed their babies or work out or plan a ladies tea or have a boutique. These groups meet with a common purpose and goal. And they see each other as equals.
But the camaraderie is founded upon the activity, and not necessarily the homogenous nature of the group. Obviously, a man couldn't participate in breastfeeding, but he could help plan a tea or be part of a boutique. Why the exclusivity? Is the camaraderie lost when someone of the opposite gender enters the group? I suppose it might be.
If a man in a group of ladies causes all the ladies to compete for the man's attention or to act like 1950's housewives, giving all big decisions to the man to make; or if the presence of so many ladies, makes the man a womanizer or narcissist, then yes, the camaraderie is lost. The man has disrupted it, although it might not be his fault.
Likewise, if in a group of men, a woman causes the men to compete for her or faun over her, or if she feels the need to win their admiration, then again the camaraderie is lost, and the goal of the group changes. Although, again, it may not be her fault.
It seems this camaraderie can only remain if someone from the opposite sex is seen by the group as the same. So if a group of guys sees a woman in their midst as one of the guys, then it may continue in a healthy fashion. Or if a group of women see that one guy in their midst as one of the women, they might still function fine. I don't mean they lose their femininity or masculinity, but that the group is not distracted by that. The goal is so encompassing for everyone that femininity and masculinity don't distract them.
So the camaraderie in a group can remain unbroken even if someone of the opposite gender joins just so long as the goal is truly more important than feminine or masculine differences.
Now for a group of breastfeeding mama's or a group of men who meet to talk about being faithful husbands, this can't be done. The nature of the goal is gender specific. But what about the goals of the Kingdom of Heaven? Jesus' goals? The mission of the Church? Are these goals so encompassing that those who throw themselves into Kingdom work are able to put aside the differences between men and women?
Based on the authority of scripture, we know that Jesus came to earth to equip us to be co-workers with Christ. This beautiful equalizing aspect of the gospel seems to eliminate the dividing lines between men and women. I don't mean that it makes us all the same. I mean, it makes it possible for us to work together without being tripped up by our differences.
"So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26-28
Is this possible? Could a group of Christians put aside whatever roles or weaknesses or lusts or fears they have with the opposite sex and instead work as equals? In reading various books on missionaries around the world, it seems like where faith is working beautifully, so do the men and women in ministry. But where faith is working in a limping, hobbling sort of way, so do the men and women trip over one another's differences.
I'm reminded of when Hudson Taylor approved of sending single women into China through China Inland Mission, the mission's organization that he started in 1865. He felt deeply responsible for the safety of these women in a dangerous and foreign environment during the late 1800's and into the 1900's when the Boxer rebellion took place. Hudson Taylor had to surrender his desire to protect these women. He had to trust that God was going to take care of these women much better than he himself could. He also had to do this with the men, or course, but it was more difficult for him to do with the women.
This seems like a great example of how a man saw these women as co-workers in Christ. He did not believe they were less effective or less protected by God because they were women. He saw that they were equally called to preach the gospel to the Chinese as the missionary men.
Likewise, Lillian Trasher did not see running an orphanage in Egypt as only a woman's occupation, although she primarily employed widows and single mothers to help, she also accepted the help of a few men too. In fact some of the boys who grew up in her orphanage helped teach workmanship skills to the children.
In 1945 when Jim Truxton and Edwin Hartwig founded Missionary Aviation Fellowship, they did not see the leadership of this organization exclusively as a man's work. Thus, Betty Greene, joined the board and was an integral part in making decisions and flying the planes, even into the country of Sudan where women were considered a lesser species than men. Here, the goal of reaching the unreached through airplanes was more important than men and women's differences.
There are countless more examples—Lottie Moon in China, Clara Barton treating wounded Civil War soldiers, the Quaker's acceptance of women in leadership, Gladys Alward quelling a revolt in a Chinese men's prison. I'm mostly citing examples in the Christian world, but the secular world has examples too, although I'm not as familiar with them.
Anywhere where people's love and dedication to a common goal is all-consuming, men and women can work side by side as co-workers. And of all places where this should happen, shouldn't the Church be the first? Isn't this where the most real camaraderie happens?
More on Women's Roles:Evolving Love, How Women Should Act
Posts
Comments