The Male Gaze and The Complementarian Church

In 1975 the feminist writer and theorist, Laura Mulvey, highlighted a problem to be found in the film and media industry in how it portrays women. She suggested that:

The male gaze occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. It may linger over the curves of a woman's body, for instance. The woman is usually displayed on two different levels: as an erotic object for both the characters within the film, as well as the spectator who is watching the film. The man emerges as the dominant power within the created film fantasy. The woman is passive to the active gaze from the man. This adds an element of 'patriarchal' order and it is often seen in "illusionistic narrative film". Mulvey argues that, in mainstream cinema, the male gaze typically takes precedence over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry.

The key element here is that women are essentially referenced by men in terms of value and function. I would suspect that very few evangelicals would disagree with her view that women are over sexualised in such a way. I would like to suggest, however, that the same critique can be used in response to complementarianism; in terms of value and function if not in sexualisation.

Let's see if this theory works:

1) The male gaze occurs when the preacher puts the congregation into the perspective of the heterosexual man.

2) The woman is usually displayed on two different levels: unregenerate whore or wholesome homemaker.

3) The man emerges as the dominant power within the created ecclesiology.

4) The woman is passive to the active leadership of the man.

5) In complementarian churches the male gaze typically takes precedent over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry.

The destructiveness found in the media industry is worthy of challenge. The effects of the theological male gaze in church is equally in need of question.


One man's ceiling is another man's floor - Evangelical Sophistry

Have you ever listened to a sermon or read a blog that seems to have the ring of truth about it but leaves you with misgivings because you recognise that what's on offer it is not the whole story. I heard one recently and it left me with the need to dig a little deeper into what was being said. The speaker made huge statements about key issues facing evangelicalism at this time and linked them in ways that appeared to be legitimate. It didn't help that his audience seemed to be lapping up every word.

He was attempting to make a reasoned, and thought out argument, but what we were given was a great example of sophistry.

At its heart sophistry is an argument, viewpoint, or thesis that at first sounds plausible but is essentially misguided - at least in the way that the case is made. It is not that I am saying that the conclusions are without merit but that the style of argument does not prove what the speaker intended.

It went a little like this (shortened for the sake of space):

Speaker 'we need to be biblical' - Audience 'yes'.

Speaker 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'family life is breaking down'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'people have no respect for God'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'Pastor X has questioned beliefs that we hold dear'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'She/he is undermining God's word'. - Audience 'yes'

Speaker 'this means that they are no longer an evangelical'. - Audience 'yes'

At first glance it may not be completely apparent why this is problematic; let me try to explain.

Sophistry can take many forms but in the context discussed here it follows this well worn pattern:

1) The speaker/writer makes a number of statements that are seemingly easy to agree with. For example 'we need to be biblical' or 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth'.

Neither of these two statements are easily measurable. To quote Paul Simon 'one man's ceiling is another man's floor'. The listener/reader is inclined to agree with what is on offer because they judge them from their own context and so are drawn into the sophistic trap.

Most Christians will concede that having the correct mix of grace and truth is essential because it suggests to them a comforting balance; but who is to judge what the correct mix is.

I am a big of a fan of television cooking competitions. Watch a few shows and it is not long before you hear the idea offered that good cooking needs the correct balance of both sweet and savoury. Here is where the difficult lies. Every judge has a different palate. They approach the dish in different ways. They can agree with the idea of balance but they cannot agree with how this should be achieved. In this context the statement 'good cooking needs a good balance of sweet and savoury' becomes a truism in that it does not offer any useful, measurable guidance. So it is with the notion of 'a balance between grace and truth' - we can agree with it as a statement but how on earth can we measure whether we are agreeing with the same theology or practice.

2) The next stage is to introduce statements that appeal to the hearers sense of fear. Often these revolve around the various levels of dysfunctionality found in society. The link is made to the problems highlighted in point 1 and so we see cause and effect confirmed in the mind of the listener/reader.

3) Added to the above is a good number of statements about unrelated subjects that show how poor the theology is of the Christian preacher being disagreed with. Quite often there is enough reference to the original speakers work to be recognisable but in truth what is offered is a caricature.

4) It is often at this point that questions are raised about the opponents evangelical pedigree; sometimes even to the point of calling them a heretic. Firstly it is worth noting here that the original meaning of the word was 'a free thinker' and used to identify those who didn't tow the party line so to speak. This is where evangelicals have a problem; essentially there is no formal party line. For sure people will trot out various reference points that suggest there is common agreement, but most groups are subject to being called heretical by other sincere evangelicals at some point. It is not that long ago that some reformed evangelical Calvinists were throwing the accusation at Pentecostals. Indeed, if you care to read the comments section on most Christian blogs it still occurs today all too regularly. Again Paul Simon's ceiling and floor analogy is useful to us here in understanding our own folly.

All of the above is intended to ensure that the audience agrees with the stated position of the speaker. This is done by a growing sense of the hearers need, or inclination, to say yes to the various statements being proposed.

We emotionally say 'yes' to the truisms of 'we need to be biblical' and 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth' even though they are subjective and not measurable.

Our insecurities are engaged and we agree that 'family life is breaking down' and that 'people have no respect for God'.

It seems obvious that 'Pastor X has questioned beliefs that we hold dear' and that 'She/he is undermining God's word'.

At this point the hearer has become so used to saying 'yes' to the statements offered that the final premiss is agreed to without question ensuring that the audience will feel comfortable in dismissing Pastor X and their 'heretical' views and nod assent to the conclusion that 'this means that they are no longer an evangelical'.

The reason that the above example can be called sophistry is because it sounds like a reasoned argument when in fact the link between the initial truisms (being biblical and the need for grace and truth) and societal dysfunctionality has not been proved, at least not in this sermon. Added to this is that Pastor X's views are being linked to the other statements in a spurious way.

I suggest that this form of argument treats neither the subject nor the audience with respect. If we feel the need to disagree with another's theology surely we can do so without resorting to sophistry.

I intend to write a further blog on how preaching and propaganda can overlap. Watch this space!

Does God owe us anything?

It is a regular Calvinist suggestion, when questioned about the harder issues of life, that 'God owes us nothing'. I presume that the statement is either meant to stop us on our tracks or to shame us into becoming silent followers of a doctrine that presents God as a vulnerable and careless creator (rather than the sovereign and benevolent deity that they try to offer).

I think, however, that such statements are far from rooted in the teachings of Jesus even though Calvinists are at pains to display their 'biblical' credentials.

Perhaps the greatest, and most consistent, teachings of Christ about God is the idea of fatherhood. Leslie Newbigin highlights this when he shows that the use of the aramaic term 'Abba' in the predominately Greek New Testament shows a care for the actual words of Jesus in showing an intimacy within the creator/creature relationship.

Every parent has a responsibility for their child that must include the space for 'why' questions. This alone demands that the parent owes the child both a duty of care and a responsive attitude to the pleadings of their offspring. The alternative would suggest that the parent is lacking in both responsibility and love.

So it must be with God; the creator, or parent, owes the created, or child a loving response that must be open to question. In this space questions of 'why' become sacred rather than sinful.