The Impossible Middle

I’ve always loved middles. Golden means. The place away from extremes. I describe myself as a moderate, both politically and theologically. So I’m attracted to the rare attempts at finding a logical, maybe even warm, middle in between patrarchialism and egalitarianism. The well-known Christian psychologist and best-selling author Dr. Larry Crabb is one who explores that territory by trying to set up a comfort zone where the two sides can meet and be civil.

In his book Men & Women: Enjoying the Difference, Dr. Crabb does that by playing up the complementarian concepts of masculinity and femininity (or the extremely uncomfortable “hood” words), but also de-emphasizing roles. Traditionalists (his word), according to him, emphasize that it’s “not right to guard against the abuse of authority by eliminating it,” and egalitarians look “for ways to honor our equality as redeemed image bearers.” The tradionalist’s gender roles may “encourage a moralistic obedience that hides self-centered purposes behind good behavior, and the egalitarian’s mutual freedom may “foster an unhealthy interest in developing and freeing oneself, thereby strenthening self-centeredness” when the real problem in life is just that: self-centeredness. I think Dr. Crabb is probably right when he tries to emphasize that both of these groups do not “adequately highlight the central problem of self-centeredness…. Fitting into roles can provoke self-serving conformity, and affirming equal value can encourage self-serving assertiveness.”

Being a marriage counselor, Dr. Crabb discusses this issue within the context of marriage. But to him, putting an emphasis on a partnership of equals leaves him “strangely unwarmed” since he sees his wife as not only equal in value, but also “enjoyably different.” He agrees with J. I. Packer when he says that certain Biblical passages continue to convince him that “the man-woman relationship is intrinsically non-reversible.” However, he would prefer to “think more about richly relating to one another than pinning down an exact definition of sexuality that we must express in our behavior.”

Crabb’s counsel is not to define masculinity and femininity and try hard to measure up to it, nor to try to fit into whatever role seems to best fit that definition; neither is his counsel to figure out who we are as people with our own sets of interests, talents, and resources, working to more fully express them and removing obstacles that get in the way. Rather, his counsel is “to look hard at your spouse, to identify his or her hurts and wounds and frustrations, and then to do whatever is within your power to help. The obstacles [we] need to remove are those that interfere with [our] progress toward other-centeredness, not with self-expression.”

That makes a lot of sense to me. However, Crabb then goes on define the undefinable. Masculinity, he suggests, is “the satisfying awareness of the substance God has placed within a man’s being that can make an unique contribution to God’s purpose in this world, and will be deeply valued by others, especially his wife, as a reliable source of wise, sensitive, compassionate, and decisive involvement.” And femininity, he suggests, is “the secure awareness of the substance God has placed within a woman’s being that enables her to confidently and warmly invite others into relationship with God and with herself, knowing that there is something in each relationship to be wonderfully enjoyed.”

What? Women don’t want to make unique contributions to God’s purposes in the world? Tell that to the female theologian or the female doctor. Men don’t want to invite others into relationships? Tell that to the ever growing moose lodges and hunting clubs — or male-led churches for that matter. Maybe the former has more to do with A and B type personalities and the latter more to do with introvert and extrovert ways of interacting with others. Neither are gender specific.

Crabb basically sees masculinity as “moving toward others,” and “entering,” while femininity involves warmly inviting others in. Therefore personal sexuality mirrors physical sexuality. This to me, while at first attractive, really doesn’t express to me all of life. It leaves me strangely unwarmed.