Douglas Wilson has
posted a response to those (like myself) who took issue with his
"Eleven Signs That Your Church Is Effeminate."I've talked enough on this subject, so I'll mention just one thought: Wilson sidesteps the issues his original article brought up. He defends himself and complementarian thought in general terms, saying that a church is "truly feminine" (a good thing) when you have "a worship service led throughout by men." But he doesn't address that he took a list of nongendered things such as certain chord changes and articles of clerical clothing and made them out to be complementarian gender roles. He may have done it in jest--I never doubted that--but humor reveals what you think to be true.
What do you think about Wilson's response? Do you feel that calling the church "effeminate" is a negative thing? Why or why not?
True 
Comments (4)
Christians are, collectively, the bride of Christ. We are, all born again persons, the female (bride) to Jesus' male (groom).
Except for the Pauline texts that are totally taken out of context, we have a body of Christ meant to include servants both male and female. So yes, the church should be both effeminate and masculine. And no one can be judged by their robes because they don't parade around in clothing like the mega church preachers on t.v., preaching once a week on maybe one scripture that they've concocted to make one feel that women's roles in the church are only to support the men and their decisions.
Is this really important?
Anyone who makes a list about 'effeminate churches' isn't someone I'd take too seriously - especially when the appeal to masculinity has to do with the amount of battle analogies used and the style of dress. I also find that people criticize the "Jesus is my girlfriend" songs without ever referring to which songs they're talking about.