Empathy, Feminism, and the Church
Women’s Ordination is Indeed a Watershed Issue
A number of years ago, I kicked up a hornet’s nest by highlighting how empathy, as understood and practiced in the modern world, is dangerous, destructive, and sinful. Since then, every so often, another battle in the Empathy Wars breaks out (usually on social media), and we all learn something. In most of these dustups, there is an underlying dynamic that manifests again and again, and now seemed as good a time as any to identify it. Providentially, the recent controversy involving Fr. Calvin Robinson and the Mere Anglicanism conference provides the perfect opportunity to do so. The dynamic I have in mind is the intersection of feminism in the church, theological drift, and the sin of empathy.
My basic contention is that running beneath the ideological conflicts surrounding all things “woke” (race, sexuality, abuse, and LGBTQ+) is a common emotional dynamic involving untethered empathy–that is, a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality. In the modern context, empathy is frequently, as one author put it, “a disguise for anxiety” and “a power tool in the hands of the sensitive.” It is the means by which various aggrieved groups have been able to steer communities into catering to greater and greater folly and injustice. And a key ingredient in making this steering effective is feminism.
Controversy in Carolina
Which brings me to Fr. Robinson. Others have described the controversy in greater detail (see here, here, and here), but the simplified version is that Fr. Robinson was asked to speak on Critical Theory: Antithetical to the Gospel. Rather than simply focusing on Critical Race Theory or Queer Theory, Fr. Robinson went to the root of the matter and identified Marxism, Liberalism, and Feminism as the origin of the rest. In particular, he identified feminism as the gateway drug to Critical Theory in the church, calling women’s ordination a “Trojan Horse” and a “cancer.” In doing so, Fr. Robinson was simply following in the footsteps of another Anglican intellectual, C.S. Lewis, who in his famous essay, “Priestesses in the Church?”, notes that ordaining priestesses seems to entail a number of other modifications to Christian theology, including addressing “Our Mother in Heaven,” and the notion that Incarnation might just as well have taken a female form.[1. C.S. Lewis, “Priestesses in the Church?” in God in the Dock (ed. Walter Hooper; HarperOne, 1994), 255-262.] As Lewis notes, “Goddesses have, of course, been worshiped: many religions have had priestesses. But they are religions quite different in character from Christianity.” You can read Fr. Robinson’s full remarks at his substack. He ably describes the ideological dimension of the slippery slope from feminism to other forms of Critical Theory (his account of Marx, Luther, and Liberalism is less compelling).
More than that, he briefly described the social dynamics in play and connected it particularly to empathy.
Generally speaking, men tend to be more theologically rigid, whereas women tend to be more theologically flexible. That is because men do not have the emotional intelligence of women. We are more black and white, meaning we tend to be logic-based when it comes to problem solving. Women tend to be more inclusive. They are more empathetic and tend to be more emotion-based when solving problems. You can see how that might be a problem when a group is claiming to be an oppressed minority, and the thing preventing them from attending Church is the cruel doctrines and the regressive scriptures we follow. Which empath wouldn’t want to compromise in order to make a so-called oppressed minority feel included?
To expand on Robinson’s point, he is correct that, in general, women are more empathetic than men. And, in itself, this is a God-given blessing. Empathy–that is, vicariously experiencing the emotions of another–can be a wonderful thing in its place. It fosters connection and bonding. It’s why women frequently act as the glue that holds communities together. Abigail Dodds describes some of the benefits of this God-given feature.
Research shows that women in particular are more empathetic than men when seeing other people in pain. I think this reflects a wonderful design feature that God has given women that benefits not only any children we might have, but our entire communities.
A woman who is sensitive to the feelings of others, especially their pain, will be a sort of first responder. She is able to move toward the hurting. She can sound the alarm that someone is in need. And very practically for mothers, she can sense her infant’s need for food and sleep and attention. She can detect a downcast glance from her teenage daughter or son. She can tell if her husband is carrying some frustration from his workday. Doesn’t this make sense with God’s design for a woman? The one he called helper (Genesis 2:18)? What a gift God has given to women.
Crucially, however, what is a blessing in one place is a curse in another. The same impulse that leads a woman to move toward the hurting with comfort and welcome becomes a major liability when it comes to guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. There are times–usually involving grave error or gross sin–when God forbids empathy and pity. When someone–even a close family member–entices Israel to commit idolatry and abandon the Lord, “You shall not yield to him, or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him” (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). So also in the case of first-degree murder, or of bearing false witness in court (Deuteronomy 7:16, 19:13, and 19:21). In such cases, God is adamant that “your eye shall not pity them.”
This principle is highly relevant for the leadership and governance of the church (whether we’re talking Anglican priests, Presbyterian elders, or Baptist pastors). Whatever other functions ministers may perform (administration, service, care for the sick), the sine qua non of the ministerial office is teaching and guarding the doctrine and worship of the church. In such moments, empathy and pity are a liability, not an asset.
To use a biblical example, when Moses comes down the mountain in Exodus 32 and witnesses the gross idolatry of the Israelites, he says, “Who is on the Lord’s side? Come to me.” And the sons of Levi gathered to him. He then tells them to pick up their swords and to go to and fro through the camp, killing their brothers, companions, and neighbors. Their eye was not to pity those who had committed such evil. God’s response to their obedience was to ordain them to the priesthood.
Similarly, in Numbers 25, when the Israelites are confronted with the very first Pride parade, when the Israelite man struts through the camp with his idolatrous Midianite bride, Moses and the elders of Israel weep at the tent of meeting. Phinehas, however, takes action, following the man and woman into their tent and driving his spear through both of them (presumably while in coitus). And God’s response is to say, “That man will make a great priest.”
In other words, the Scriptures teach both by precept and example that God’s ministers–those who serve in God’s sanctuary, must be “jealous with his jealousy” (Numbers 25:12), that is, our zeal for God’s holiness must supersede our natural love for our family and friends and neighbors. The truth of God, the right worship of God, is more precious to us, such that we will not compromise or buckle even in the face of natural affection, even under the influence of pity and empathy. The relevant application for us, as Fr. Robinson noted, is that the empathetic sex is ill-suited to the ministerial office, and thus women’s ordination is indeed a watershed issue.
What Robinson Revealed
But my interest in the story is not merely in what Fr. Robinson said, but in what happened after. For the fallout was almost a textbook demonstration of his point, as well as a demonstration of another feature of the emotional dynamics involved when feminism encroaches upon the church. While Fr. Robinson’s message was apparently well-received by many in attendance, others were decidedly nonplussed. And this was perhaps not surprising, since there were Anglican priestesses and advocates for women’s ordination in the audience.
Reading the various accounts of the reaction and the removal of Robinson from the subsequent speaker panel, it is not difficult to see what happened. Fr. Robinson’s talk was offensive to some of the priestesses in attendance; according to some accounts, a number of women (and men) walked out. No doubt some concerned and angry emails and texts were sent to the conference organizers, urging them “to do something about it.” And so they did, disinviting Robinson from the remainder of the conference.
Here we see an additional layer to the emotional dynamics. Put simply, it is this: men struggle to deal with the unhappiness and displeasure of women. Put another way, female distress activates male agitation. Male empathy for the unhappy woman is frequently a disguise for his own anxiety and angst. This is especially true of good men, who have been taught to be “servant leaders.” We’re all familiar with the modern social media phenomenon of “the white knight,” the man who, seeing a woman in distress (that is, engaged in online debate with a man), comes to her aid by attacking her opponents with a vehemence and zeal that he would not have if a man was engaged in the same sort of ideological conflict.
Of course, this phenomenon is again a perversion of a good impulse. Women are the weaker vessel, and the masculine impulse to protect them is noble and good. Men are taught from a young age, “Don’t hit girls. Treat them differently than the boys.” But the noble principle is also subject to gross manipulation, especially in the modern egalitarian world in which women enter the proverbial boxing ring, but conservative men still operate according to the old principle. As Lewis taught us, “Battles are ugly when women fight.” This is true, not merely of physical war, but also of ideological and theological battles.
In fact, we might state the challenge in this way: faithful men know how to resist unfaithful men. Good shepherds are willing to fight wolves. But faithful men struggle to resist unfaithful women. She-wolves, especially ones who present themselves as victims, give even faithful men fits, because of the unavoidable asymmetries in the dynamics. What’s more, ungodly women are often willing to exploit these asymmetries in order to steer entire communities. And it’s not just the she-wolves, but also the compromised (female) sheep, what Paul calls “the weak women” who are captured by false teachers due to their emotional instability, immaturity, and sin (2 Timothy 3:6-7).
A key part of the challenge is the failure to recognize the lie of interchangeability in all of its forms. Male groups operate according to male norms–oriented to things (or ideas), willing to debate, challenge, and provoke one another directly, and comfortable with hierarchy. Female groups operate according to female norms–oriented to people (or feelings), prone to indirect and subtle communication and sublimated conflict, and averse to open disagreement and overt hierarchies but comfortable with excluding those who violate their social norms. Making such a generalization already violates a number of feminist and egalitarian dogmas. But the more important generalization for our purposes is to note that mixed groups will inevitably tend to adopt female norms, including the orientation to feelings (there’s empathy again) and the move to exclude those who violate the norms of “niceness” by engaging in direct, challenging speech.
The unsurprising result, often unexpressed in public, but noted in private among men, is the frustration at the unfairness of the asymmetry of the mixed group. Direct speech is out; indirect speech is in. Open debate is out. Emotional reasoning is in. Ideas are out; empathy is in. What seems most compassionate and empathetic in the moment is prioritized over what is good and wise in the long run. Violate the new rules and expect to be policed by white knights and sidelined for being quarrelsome, divisive, and rocking the boat, as Fr. Robinson discovered.
In the face of this challenge, the solution in some circles is to put forth godly women to resist the unfaithful ones. If a female teacher is leading people astray, find a faithful female Bible teacher to answer her. You might call this the “Call Rosaria” option. But the challenge is that faithful women (including Rosaria) expect faithful men to guard and protect the flock. Outsourcing resistance to she-wolves to conservative shepherdesses is itself a subtle form of capitulation. And what’s more, there will never be enough godly, faithful women to meet the challenge, since the vast majority of them are too busy being faithful at their posts–raising their children, managing their homes, and serving the people of God in all the ways that are fitting and proper.
Identify the Battle In Your Context
So then, if fighting feminine fire with feminine fire is out, what then should we do? First, recognize where the particular battle is in your denomination or church. For ACNA, women’s ordination is clearly the issue, and the notion of “dual integrities” is obviously unstable and unworkable, an oxymoron.
In the Southern Baptist Convention, the ongoing fight over female pastors and the Law Amendment is a clear battle line. In the Presbyterian Church in America, the same feminist impulse lurks beneath the principle that “a woman can do anything an unordained man can do.” In non-denominational churches, the form the issue often takes is the pressure to get more women “up front” (not to preach at first, but to make announcements or read Scripture, etc) or to make sure that more women are “in the room where it happens.”
In a local church, the problem might manifest when there’s a repeated pattern of all-male elder meetings in which a difficult decision is made that draws clear lines, and then, after the elders have gone home and talked to their wives, the emails and texts start flying. “Brothers, I’ve been praying about it, and I think we need to reconsider our decision…”
In all of these cases, conservative churches and denominations that are engaged in such battles are in the early stages of sliding down the slippery slope pioneered by the mainline, and described in detail by Wayne Grudem in Evangelical Feminism: The New Path to Liberalism?[2. As Fr. Robinson noted in his address, the move to ordain women in the Anglican Church opened the floodgates of liberalism. “Naturally speaking, women who are conservative or orthodox in their theology will not believe that women can become men, or that women can be priests, and therefore in general do not put themselves forward for training for Holy Orders. So, the kind of women going forward for ordination tended to be liberals by design. This meant that when the Church decided it needed a ratio of 1:1, an ‘equality’ of men and women, what actually happened was that the Church was flooded with liberals.”] To mix metaphors, that slippery slope is a one-way train with four stops (often represented by the four books that someone on that train could write). Stop 1: “I’m Not That Kind of Complementarian.” Stop 2: “I’m Neither Complementarian Nor Egalitarian.” Stop 3: “I’m Egalitarian.” Stop 4: “Sodomy Is Cool.” Or, as I’ve written elsewhere, “The frequent move from egalitarianism to the affirmation and celebration of homosexuality is not so much a slippery slope, but simply what cancer does when left untreated.” So the first step is to recognize how the cancer is expressing itself in your particular community.
Of Varieties of Complementarianism
Second, having recognized where the rot is, it’s imperative to dig deep roots in God’s revelation both in Scripture and nature. Over the years, folks have sought to distinguish between broad and narrow complementarianism (or thick and thin complementarianism, or hard and soft complementarianism). But it’s worthwhile to clarify what the fundamental difference between these groups is. To that end, let me suggest that the key division in all of these denominations (except ACNA, which already has egalitarian churches within it) is between natural complementarianism (or patriarchy) and ideological complementarianism.
The fundamental difference has to do with the relationship between Scripture and nature. For natural complementarians, the biblical restriction of the ministerial office to qualified men simply cuts with the grain of God’s design in creation. Biblical imperatives are built on divine indicatives. Nature and Scripture speak with one voice. Male headship in the home is unavoidable; it’s not a command, but a baseline reality, a fact, and the only question is whether a husband will be a faithful head or an unfaithful head. Likewise, male leadership in the church is simply an outworking of the way that God made the world and the way that he is remaking it in Christ. The Pauline restriction in 1 Timothy 2 is built on God’s design as testified in Genesis 1-2 and manifested in the concrete ways that he has made men different from women. Thus, for natural complementarians, male leadership outside the home and the church is normal and expected, and is why the Bible regards a nation ruled by women and children as a sign of God’s judgment (Isaiah 3:12).
Ideological complementarianism, on the other hand, regards the biblical commands about male leadership in the home and the church as arbitrary law overlaid on a neutered nature. At root, men and women are interchangeable, but God inexplicably assigns men to be the head of their homes (which, in this context, means that they are the tie-breaker in extreme circumstances) and to be elders in the church (which means they lead the congregation by serving them and doing whatever they want). The biblical restrictions, insofar as they exist, are ideology imposed on nature, not fitting commands derived from nature and clarified and reinforced by Scripture. In other words, ideological complementarians are egalitarian at heart, and maintain their complementarianism only because of a handful of verses in Paul, and only until they are able to rationalize and embrace the egalitarian contortions of those passages. Then they take the Feminist Train to Stop 3.[3. The distinction between natural and ideological complementarianism, I think, also explains the exceptions to the slippery slope from feminism to wokeness and progressivism, as is found in certain charismatic and Pentecostal churches which allow for female pastors, but have in large measure avoided further spread of liberalism. My suspicion is that these churches are naturally complementarian–they recognize and gladly embrace that God made men and women differently and with different callings and abilities, and they practice this in their homes and welcome it in society. The adoption of female pastors is not driven by feminism and its impulses, but rather by their charismatic theology which links the Spirit’s ongoing prophetic ministry (which is extended to both men and women) to the pastoral office. In other words, for them, the normal and natural complementarianism is, in effect, suspended by the supernatural work of the Spirit in particular contexts. In that sense, it’s almost the reverse of ideological complementarianism, which is an interchangeable egalitarianism with a few positive laws sprinkled over the top for inexplicable reasons. Instead, this is a supernatural charismatic positive law imposed on an otherwise patriarchal world. On top of this, charismatics tend to be more immune to popular, respectable ideologies (such as feminism and wokeness) because many charismatic churches are lower/working class and because they are already socialized to embrace stigmatization for their charismatic practice. As one charismatic pastor put it, “If you’re open to praying in tongues, you’re not easily embarrassed.”]
Given this difference, the starting place for resistance must be an unashamed embrace of reality. As I’m fond of saying, the first imperative is to love the indicative. The first command is to love God and the way that he has made the world. In this case, that means gladly embracing, without embarrassment, the reality that men and women are gloriously different and complementary and that these differences are relevant in all areas of life. What’s more, it means celebrating (again without shame or embarrassment) the biblical teaching that accounts for, clarifies, and further grounds the reality of what it means to be men and women. Equally made in God’s image, yes, but men are the head and women are the glory. From this happy embrace of reality, we can then apply the steady pressure necessary to not only remove the feminist infection from our churches, but also to commend God’s design for men and women to a rebellious and confused world.
Finally, applying this sort of steady pressure in the church and in the world will require steady men, sober-minded leaders who possess a clarity of mind, a stability of soul, and a readiness to act. They must be clear-headed, humble, and willing to take the lumps that will inevitably come. They must develop the kind of Christian fortitude that will enable them to endure the hurt feelings and offense of priestesses and lady pastors, as well as the agitation and pressure of the nice guys. In other words, the key need will be leaders who have the moral strength and stamina to resist the inevitable emotional sabotage and manipulation while offering true care and compassion. Who is sufficient for these things? By the grace of God, we can be.
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:58)
Image Credit: Unsplash