What's the difference?

Another Something trod on a mine by criticizing some quotes from John Piper, a leading light in some evangelical circles. A christian pastor called the post 'dumb' in the comments - in love, one must assume. Talking to a conference of pastors about JC Ryle, Piper was affirming a certain definition of masculinity (things he likes), assuming it was interchangeable with male nature, and led off with:

God has revealed himself to us in the Bible pervasively as King, not Queen, and as Father, not Mother. The second person of the Trinity is revealed as the eternal Son. The Father and the Son created man and woman in his image, and gave them together the name of the man, Adam (Genesis 5:2). God appoints all the priests in Israel to be men. The Son of God comes into the world as a man, not a woman. He chooses twelve men to be his apostles. The apostles tell the churches that all the overseers—the pastor/elders who teach and have authority (1 Timothy 2:12)—should be men; and that in the home, the head who bears special responsibility to lead, protect, and provide should be the husband (Ephesians 5:22–33).
Masculine Christianity
From all of this, I conclude that God has given Christianity a masculine feel. And, being a God of love, he has done it for the maximum flourishing of men and women. He did not create women to languish, or be frustrated, or in any way to suffer or fall short of full and lasting joy, in a masculine Christianity. She is a fellow heir of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). From which I infer that the fullest flourishing of women and men takes place in churches and families where Christianity has this God-ordained, masculine feel. For the sake of the glory of women, and for the sake of the security and joy of children, God has made Christianity to have a masculine feel. He has ordained for the church a masculine ministry.

Simone's post gave a very reasonable statement of the use of 'feminine' models for church, not least that the church, and individual Christians, are pictured as the Bride of Christ.

I have a lot of problems with the poor job the John Piper's of the world do in explicating their position. Simone is broadly sympathetic, but was naturally offended by Piper saying 'Christianity has a masculine feel.'  You can't say things that sloppily if you're supposed to be speaking for everyone.

I shall just point out some of them:

• First, if you are going to do all your justificatory work in the ideals of masculine and feminine, you create some work for yourself when you come back to male and female with a thud, and find that the ideal qualities are distributed and while there may be some validity in our culture at the moment for the generalisation, there's probably more that doesn't fit than does.
• Second, the nature of that generalisation is that men are equipped for violence (Physical resources of strength, psychological competitiveness, just plain obtuseness - Force, harshness, criticism, robustness etc are the euphemisms for it) and women are generally much so, and since violence is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives*, men are the bosses and need to show leadership.  (There's some confusion of this with courage, which is an independent quality necessary for all people.)  I think there is some validity to this specific tie that is diluted when we talk about men & leadership, men & wisdom, men & harder doctrine etc.
• Third, the offence is saying 'the church has a masculine feel' is that it asserts domination, and driving femininity to the periphery.  If men are going to speak for both sexes, your speech had better be ample, illuminating, and truth that sets free.  Masculinity is one pole, and the point is that the better expressed the masculinity, the more the other pole of Femininity can be raised up.
• Christianity is not a good descriptor - Christianity is something every Christian owns, and it feels like being yourself, only absolved and at peace with God.  If you mean church, say church go back to point three.
• There is a prioritisation of institutional forms - jobs and decisions in this definition of Christianity.  It seems like the clergy justifying themselves.
• The final point I would make is that this dialogue does very little for anyone's masculinity. There is a stink of ressentiment about this.  One of the things about masculinity is that it doesn't spend a lot of time in huddles reassuring itself.

And 'What's the Difference?' - it was a slender volume by Piper and a woman in his congregation, of terrible empty gender-defining pablum.  He scammed me $10 for it.

* Starship Troopers reference.