"In Search of Holy Joy: Women and Self-Esteem" (Ch 25) by Joan Burgess Winfrey

Summary

This free-ranging chapter by Joan Burgess Winfrey, professor of counseling at Denver Seminary, explores how women find "holy joy" in discovering a healthy view of their "work of ministry" and their "ministry of work." Winfrey acknowledges that self-esteem is a multifaceted concept, in need of clarity. Its true meaning is uncovered only when "we bring theological discernment to bear on psychological theory" (433). Without attempting to produce such a definition in her sixteen-page chapter, she mentions two key factors: a sense of worth and a sense of competence. In her counseling, she has found that women often feel a lack of worth and competence, a lack that affects them as they seek to exercise their gifts in the church. Women frequently believe that they are less intelligent, capable and valuable than men. Winfrey attributes this lack of self confidence to their having accepted certain social and psychological categories that exclude them from the work of the kingdom. If we are to restore women's sense of "kingdom purpose," she says, we must work to reduce the "phenomena that have placed women outside the gate for...millennia, rendering them anemic and sometimes powerless to flourish on their own behalf and on behalf of Christ and his kingdom" (432).

To aid us in understanding how we have arrived at this state of affairs, Winfrey discusses three major influences on female self-esteem. The first is the fall. Winfrey echoes Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen's work on the fall, which encourages us to "go beyond biological, familial and cultural explanations" (435) of gender stereotypes and struggles. Adam and Eve are both called to two tasks as they reflect the image of God: "accountable dominion" and "sociability." The fall "foretells an unreciprocated desire for intimacy on the part of the woman and a tendency to abuse poser in the case of the man" (436). Thus fallen women, even Christians are prone to seek peace at any price and to ensure relation-

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 122

ship and nurture even at the expense of obedience.

The second influence is that of Freud, whose huge contribution to psychology Winfrey praises in passing while agreeing with a passage in Betty Friedan's Feminine Mystique that claims America turned to Freud to get rid of a bad conscience about consumerism. The results for women were not positive: "If the new psychological religion-which made a virtue of sex, removed all sin from private vice, and cast suspicion on high aspirations of the mind and spirit-had a more devastating personal effect on women than men, nobody planned it that way" (438, quoting Friedan). Freud depended on the "Victorian woman, whose degradation and inferiority were taken as the natural order of things" (439). Freud's pleasure principal gave consumer driven Americans an excuse to idolize a "Leave it to Beaver" world, which was, in turn, adopted by the church as a biblical model of relating. This resulted in divided gender spheres, with men doing "real work" and women thoroughly domesticated.

Such definitions, based on a biological model, led to a "functionalism" that does not well-define "kingdom purpose." As Friedan put it, "By giving absolute meaning and sanctimonious value to the term ‘woman's role,' functionalism put American women into a kind of deep freeze"(439, quoting Friedan). Winfrey mentions Del Birkey's work on "role theology," which sets up a conflict between "gender, gender roles, authority or hierarchy" and the Bible's emphasis on "spiritual gifts, agape love, servant leadership and mutual submission"-aspects which properly determine Christian ministry according to Birkey (440). Ministry determined on the basis of gender relegates women to "a position in the church that is parallel to, if not worse than, their position in society" (440).

The third influence on women's self-esteem comes from developmental psychology based on a male model of what maturity should be. Winfrey argues that prior to the 1980s, psychologists tended to measure women's identity against male development. Brett Webb-Mitchell suggested that the Enlightenment overemphasized individualism and logical categories, rather than considering maturity as a pilgrimage, a "mind-body-spirit act of the person," who matures through the grace of God to the full stature of Christ (442). Women accept and participate in a false understanding of their place when they restrict themselves to social/physical or relational roles that have been defined for them by inaccurate psychological models, whose weaknesses have, in turn, been intensified in the context of the church.

Winfrey concludes her study by mentioning a few of her fears; that women will continue to be exploited by those who take advantage of their "warm and good" relational context; that women will accept the "dichotomies and categories" offered them by inadequate psychological models; that churches will continue to relegate women to "social-emotional realms, especially the home," encouraging them to continue believing that "godliness with contentment" is the "divine appointment for women"(444). She calls for a "theological self-concept," without which we cannot determine what we as women want. Women want to "participate in the unfolding drama of redemption," to "love and work" as full citizens of God's City; to "be honored as anointed vessels in God's plan of reconciliation"; to engage in "honest dialogue with the men in our lives"; to "listen and be heard"; and finally, "to ripen into Christian adulthood and grow up gifted in the name of Jesus"

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 123

(445-46).

Critique

Winfrey's obvious compassion for women uncertain of their place in the world and in the church comes through loud and clear in her chapter, as does her desire to count in the kingdom of Christ. However, she falls into the very trap she asks others to avoid. She appeals to Christian women to resist the society's or the church's definitions of the value of women, and to seek, rather, a sense of worth and competence in "the strength of God's truth" (445). No Christian eager to understand women's place in ministry would disagree with this desire, but in order to define our "work of ministry" and our "ministry of work," it is not sufficient to sprinkle a dash of Bible into a psychological potpourri to produce an appetizing dish.

Winfrey calls for a working definition of self-esteem, one which would bring together "valuable, respectable research in psychology with teachings of Scripture as they relate to the many layers of the self." She asks us not to base our self-esteem on models created by traditionalists, but she bases her definition on conclusions drawn by psychologists writing from a secular worldview: "Although writings on gender have frequently reflected a secular worldview, the body of knowledge on the subject accumulated in the biological and social sciences is of much potential value to the church" (437). She even seems to equate the research of pagan psychologists with God's revelation in nature: "The church has the duty of accumulating, interpreting and sifting scientific and cultural knowledge, and the privilege of speaking to the needs of society from God's truth. This is accomplished through the humility that ensues from the recognition of our finiteness and through persistent effort to discover truth, both from God's revealed Word and from his creation, which is also part of his revelation" (437).

Such faith in psychology as neutral science is puzzling, since Winfrey has readily admitted that psychological constructs are difficult to measure and not at all the same as definitions and measurements in the physical sciences. Because of this, "we should not attempt to stringently apply the rigors of the scientific method to the study of humans" (434). Do we not, as Bible-believing Christians, bear the responsibility of stringently applying the truths of the Scripture to our study of humans, since God himself created and defined us? Winfrey calls for such an approach-"We need a theological self-concept" (445), but utterly fails to help us find it in the Scriptures. Christians cannot rely on interpretations of human motivations and goals offered by those who have no understanding of why humans were created or what their God-given goals should be. Christians can never take of their biblical glasses, especially in analyzing the state of the human soul, which is the sole domain of God's Spirit (1 Cor 2:11-16; 4:3-5).

Having admitted that there is virtually no way to define self-esteem, Winfrey calls on women to exercise it more boldly. Says Winfrey, "Self-esteem, adequately defined, may well determine not only the ability of Christian women to follow God's call on their life but indeed the belief that God would call them at all."(431) This is rather curious reasoning. If we could only define self-esteem (which we cannot), we could not only offer women the ability to follow God's call, but insure their belief in that call. Winfrey contents herself with various psychological models, such as Sanford and Donovan's definition-"the

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 124

reputation we have with ourselves"(433). Though she would not like to see it put so baldly, Winfrey is arguing that a woman cannot truly serve the kingdom until she has found a liberated sense of worth and competence by breaking with traditional views of woman's role in the church and erasing the misconceptions that traditionalists have foisted on her about the nature of God. The problem woman is the one who "gives herself away at the expense of her self-respect" (443). Winfrey works with such a woman "helping her reframe her internal representations of God, a crucial step in the healing of her soul" (443). The reader is not told which representations of God are exorcised and which rush in to take their place. In the end, it seems that the woman herself is the one who defines her work and her joy. "There exists for each one, as the beloved, a God-breathed self-statement and job description. The pursuit and discovery of that divine intent hold the secrets of joy and the composition of self-esteem" (432).

The problem with defining our work of ministry according to our "self-statement" is that the Scriptures do not equate calling with self-esteem, even if we do not use the term "self-esteem" in its most secular definition. We must not delude women by presenting their present joy as the treasure they should seek. Joy is the ultimate by-product of service, a gift of the Spirit that infuses us now in some deep sense, but which will come to fruition only as we accept God's definition of our calling, enduring the trials he has ordained for us, sacrificing ourselves and our desires for the joy that is set before us (Matt 25:21; Luke 6:22-23; 10:20; John 16:20-22; Rom 14:15-19; 2 Cor 7:4f; 8:1-2; Jas 1:2; 4:7-10; 1 Pet 1:6-8). Winfrey points to a question we may justly ask: "What have we come to the kingdom for?"(444), though it would be better phrased differently: " To what does God call me, a woman in his kingdom?" We do not have the right to answer that question. Only God can, and if he has already defined that purpose, then we have no right to redefine it. It is true that each woman is unique and will serve Christ as an individual, but she is not free to define her calling according to her gifts, if she steps outside the boundaries God has drawn. Winfrey suggests that those boundaries have been misunderstood by the church, which is surely true to some extent. But the question remains, and Winfrey's article does not answer it: Has God himself set limits on women's ministry in the church? If so, women must respect them in their service to Christ and his kingdom.

It is beyond the scope of this brief review to offer a thorough response to such a question. However, one mistake that sometimes blinds us is to think of calling as the sum of our passion and our gifts. Gifts do not equal calling. Passion does not equal calling. And even the sum of gifts + passion calling. God has poured out his gifts lavishly on his children. We all have God-given gifts we have never pulled of the shelves to use yet in God's kingdom. We do not have the time in this brief life to develop all the gifts God has given us, and Paul even suggests that we are to ask God for gifts we do not yet possess (1 Cor 12:31)! So gifts cannot be the unique and determining factor in calling. Nor can our passions define that calling.

Jesus passionately wished that the cup could pass from him, but it was not the Father's will, to which he obediently submitted himself in spite of the suffering he endured. It was Jesus' God-given calling to save his people. How urgently he must have longed to march into

JBMW 10:1 (Spring 2005) p. 125

Jerusalem, set himself up as king, and shepherd the lost sheep of Israel. Did he have the gifts to be their king, priest, and pastor? Absolutely. Did he have the desire and passion? Definitely. Was it God's calling? Yes, but he was not to accomplish that calling the "easy" way. This is the case for every Christian. We have godly passions to serve the kingdom, and we have gifts God has given us to accomplish his purposes, but we must submit our gifts and passions to God and follow the path he lays before us. Tat path for women's service is defined in Scripture. She was created after Adam, as "a helper fit for him" (Gen 2:18). This pre-fall creation definition does not change in Christ's kingdom, though we understand it more deeply and have greater power to accomplish it.

This leads us to the third puzzling aspect of Winfrey's article, namely her aversion to "dichotomies and categories." Arguing that such divisions come from the Garden of Eden, she does not mean that God set such divisions in his creation, but that dichotomies are a result of the fall. "Femininity and masculinity are more accurately depicted on a continuum," she argues. "Prior to the 1960s, psychological research...conceptualized masculinity and femininity as bipolar opposites. The view of male and female as opposites, having mutually exclusive qualities, has deep historical roots" (437). She sees the sharp distinctions some Christians make between male and female roles as a Christianized form of the biological determinism of Freud.

Opposites do come from the Garden of Eden, but they were ordained before the fall. In all of God's work of creation, he constantly makes distinctions. He calls the light day and the darkness night; he separates the waters from the dry land; he creates species that reproduce "after their own kind;" and he creates "male" and "female." He calls each creature into existence and sets it in its own holy (sanctified) place. Each part of God's creation brings honor and glory to his name as it accomplishes the "role" for which it has been set apart and called. So an elephant finds joy in its "elephantness" and a rock in its "rockness." The donkey "knows its master's crib." Masculinity and femininity are not on a continuum! This idea is what our present culture is trying to force upon us, to the detriment of our familial and societal health. The destruction of God's dichotomies is the goal of pagan spirituality, which finds its ecstasy in bringing together the opposites and in attempting to destroy the differences God has set in our world.

Winfrey is certainly not consciously advocating any pagan spiritual experiences, but because she values so highly (and borrows from so freely) what she considers to be "valuable, respectable research in psychology" (433), she is prone to absorbing definitions and values far from those given us by God in the Scriptures. God calls men to serve him as men, and he calls women to serve as women. If this is structural and biological determinism, then it is not Freud's, but God's. Both sexes are equally servants of Christ. Both are equally in God's image. But a Christian woman's "holy joy" is found not in rebelling against the clear teachings of Scripture that she is to be in submission to her husband and is to refrain from taking on a teaching or authoritative role in the administration of Christ's church. Her joy is found rather as she plunges her roots deep into the power of the Spirit within her to live out her holy creation calling as a woman, set apart and sanctified to follow the path her Creator and Savior has laid down for her. In her whole-hearted obedience to that "set-apart" call, she will find holy joy.