Lots of stuff on the net about John Piper’s claim that Christianity has a masculine character (see whole thing here). Piper himself claims that “Theology and church and mission are marked by an overarching godly male leadership in the spirit of Christ with an ethos of tender-hearted strength, contrite courage, risk-taking decisiveness, and readiness to sacrifice for the sake of leading and protecting and providing for the community. All of which is possible only through the death and resurrection of Jesus.” That is standard complementarian theology, nothing new here, nothing to rant about. But the statement that Christianity is inherently masculine is the wrong way to express that. It is the implications that are very unpalatable. It sounds like women are less Christian than men. And we are left wondering if Gal 3:28 should be stricken from our Bible’s as heterodox. Why does Scripture call the church the bride of Christ? Why are believers likened to pure virgins? Why does Paul refer to himself like a mother in childbirth for his Galatian converts?
My friend Simone Richardson, who is the wife of a Presbyterian minister, writes in counter-point on her blog:
God gave Christianity a feminine feel on purpose. Throughout history his choice has consistently been for the underdog – quiet, bookish Jacob over big hairy Esau , harp playing poet David over beefy Goliath, the village of Bethlehem over the city of Jerusalem, a stable over a palace… and now, the oppressed gender over the oppressor gender. It makes sense that Christianity has a distinctly feminine feel. If one wants to be part of God’s kingdom he/she will need to leave macho behind and learn to submit to Christ as a woman does to her husband.
Christianity is both masculine and feminine precisely because male and female are one in Christ.