On the surface the greatest contradiction of the whole Bill Hybels mess was his reputation for championing the notion of equality for women in the church. How could a man who spoke so eloquently and often about the value of women now be exposed as a serial abuser of women?
The contradiction resolves when one comprehends one critical difference between two words. Gives value vs. recognizes value. A person who has authority or essential importance can give value to someone else. For instance a king can give or distribute value to those under him. A boss can allocate a position of importance because they have the authority to do that. So only a person that has the power and authority to vest another with value can give value. Recognizing value is completely different. For instance a good athletic scout has the critical capacity to identify the innate talent that a person might have. The talent was already there but simply needed to be recognized.
Bill Hybels is clearly narcissistic. A narcissist lives with the illusion of their own specialness, that they believe is inherently existent in their being. This is not, in fact, true, but for all intents and purposes the narcissist believes it to be true. So the narcissist assumes that he has some inherent specialness that he can distribute to those around him by “choosing” them as special. They derive their value from the narcissist. The narcissist is so seemingly self assured and confident and often successful in some way that they are imbued with power from those that surround them. Those in the presence of the narcissist bathe in the sense of shared specialness conferred by the narcissist. They participate in the delusion that the narcissist has inherent power and worth and can, in fact, confer upon others a sense of specialness.
Bill Hybels gave worth to women. He did not recognize the worth that God, the only true giver of value, had inherently gifted to women as equal heirs to the Kingdom life. God alone said that there was no difference in the essential worth and giftedness of men and women. We as humans can, like the scout, simply recognize this truth.
So Bill, it so appears now, from the vantage point of his historical abuse of women, gave worth to women. But this kind of giving exposes the fact that it was not really about the women. It was about Bill. Narcissist’s derive a deep sense of gratification in the knowledge that they are the “king makers” the power brokers who others owe a debt to for the privilege of entering their domain. Bill likely luxuriated in the awareness that the women that he lifted up were “his” women, who had to have such devoted gratitude because he picked them.
Who were his women? They were not heavyset because being overweight was a sign of defectiveness. They had a certain physique that matched what he determined was a person who reflected his own need for self discipline. He knew that they knew they derived their value and position from him, further expanding his inflated sense of specialness.
When this distinction comes into focus, Bill had no contradiction in saying that he elevated the worth of women in the church. He did. The contradiction comes when the idea of recognizing the value of women is explored as a reflection of what God gives. It does not appear that Bill came from that perspective.
His treating women as objects for his pleasure is what is most telling of how he really saw the value of women. You do not force yourself on a woman if you truly believe that they have God given value and dignity. You only do this if you narcissistically believe that you have given them value so they owe you. Sick to the core.
With this distinction there sadly is no contradiction to the idea that Bill lifted women up but then abused them. They were his, not God’s.