On Femininity as Characteristics, Tea in Coffee Shops, and Beachballs

Now that I think about it, this idea surfaced at a coffee shop on a ‘couple’s date’ with Heidi and Mike (now Daniels.)We were all having tea. Conversations with them feels like pulling the hidden beach ball you aren’t allowed to have, out of your graduation gown, and letting it fly. No one really holds onto the ball for too long lest it be confiscated; we lurch the topic into the air with questions back and forth, to keep our own legalism from pulling the topic down; telling us we should already know the answer to the question, or that it shouldn’t even be asked. The pile of books, spontaneously brought along with our bibles, intrigued other people when they caught snippets of our conversation. Sometimes the volume got a little out of control, and the ball would fly over to a different table or seating nook, and people couldn’t help but join in bopping the forbidden beach ball back into the air. It’s safe because it’s non-committal, if the ball comes to you, you push it up. It is over sooner than anyone can accuse you of heresy. People ask their questions and then settle—slightly ruffled— back into their papers with a suppressed smile. It does feel good.

The topic this night wasn’t particularly controversial, but interesting enough:
“I just don’t like the female arch-types the culture throws at us,” Heidi began. “It’s as though in order to fulfill the image of ‘Christian woman’ you need to be totally inspired by the Proverbs 31 woman, and do decoupage, and have rose wall-papered bedrooms.” (Even though Heidi does have a have rose wall-papered bedroom)
“Well, would you say that the problem people find themselves in,” Matt volunteered, “ is wanting to give a specific image that other people can work towards, as an inspiration—” Heidi finished his thought: “but then you end up losing identity as you journey more towards the ideal. So people feel like in order to be ‘more of a man’, or ‘more of a woman,’ you need to become less of an individual person.”
“So would you say then that there is a problem with our ideal, and not necessarily the practise of giving one?” I offered.

This whole time Mike had been drawing lines on a napkin.
“Maybe,” he started in a still-distracted tone, “being the fullest woman or man you can be, isn’t about having all the ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ qualities in order to achieve the ideal. Maybe it’s growing in all the gender-related qualities that you are supposed to have.”
“Would you add to that then that men and women are both supposed to have a little bit of both?” Matt asked.
“And what are the feminine characteristics?” I asked, wanting to define the terms.
“And how do you know which ones you are meant to perfect in order to fill the role God has for you in telling people about who He is like?” Mike asked before sitting back into his chair and crossing his legs.
We all immediately knew that something really right had just been discovered, because anytime an easy, black and white solution is scrapped for a vague and more colorful concept that is harder to nail down or box in—it has a greater chance of being a God thing, rather than a ‘church’ thing.

To be continued...