missional chicks
So I went to the Forge summit on Sunday for a day and was particularly interested in one of the discussion points that was ongoing - the need to give female missional leaders a higher profile. To be truthful, I found the day a little “blokey” but struggled to explain what I meant by that. There were a few pretty ordinary comments by a couple of the leaders which weren’t exactly the height of gender neutrality, but apart from that, the problem is difficult to articulate - particularly to others who don’t have the same reaction.
So, in the second writing of this post (which was rudely gobbled up the first time), I make a few comments on the profile, role and contribution of women in leadership of the missional church.
1. Leader chicks are in short supply
There are obviously some women who are leading missional churches and who are very articulately contributing to the debate in the missional church, but to be blunt, the fairer sex is under-represented. So step one in looking at the profile of women in the missional church and in leadership of summit and seminars such as the forge one is to admit that there is a relatively small number of women who lead in this area. So while we might say that women should be more represented and visible, there is a limit to the extent that this can be accomplished at the present time.
Most of the presenters and speakers at the conference on the weekend, for example, were in full time christian ministry in one form or other. Most were involved in some way or other with the emerging church. There are a limited number of women in full time Christian ministry when compared to blokes. If you narrow the field even further to those involved in new or emerging types of churches, the numbers dwindle even more. So a big part of the lack of involvement of leader chicks in an event like this is simply that there are less qualified candidates.
2. Chicks don’t dig leadership
This is a tough argument in a politically correct world, but I think that it deserves respect. One big reason why women aren’t involved in leadership (particularly if you define this as full time Christian ministry or as having Christian ministry as your number one priority) is because they choose not to be. I am an example of this - I could have chosen to continue theological studies with a view to working in mission or ministry full time, but I chose not to.
So maybe some of this is all okay. Maybe chicks don’t get involved because they don’t want to exercise their apostolic gift, because they are called to other things, because they simply aren’t interested. Someone once said that gender pay disparity doesn’t arise because women and men are doing the same job and women are being paid less, rather it arises because a lot of women make other choices which display priorities other than increasing salary.
This isn’t across the board, as there are many women who do choose to be involved in apostolic leadership and in my experience those women are given the voice, respect and profile that you would expect.
3. Chicks aren’t supported
Despite my statements above, if there is a value in encouraging more women to engage in missional leadership, then I think some of these issues have their roots further back in time. You see, I work in an area where there are plenty of strong women leaders who are capable and efficient and highly competent. So what is industry and academia achieving that churches are not?
Two things I think. First, one of the differences between churches on the one hand and industry/academia on the other is that churches grow with and mentor young people in a much more personal and social context than in schools, university or work training. I suspect that a lot of churches have a pattern which shows high uniform involvement in leadership and responsibility across both genders in Sunday school and early high school, but at the end of the teenaged years, there is a higher number of boys involved in leadership despite a lower number of boys overall.
First I think that young chicks handle puberty in a social/personal environment much differently than young blokes. Insecurity, self-doubt and awkwardness is often expressed through shyness, and cliquiness. The opposite reaction is those young people (often young men) who deal with insecurity, self-doubt and awkwardness by becoming more assertive, shocking and rebellious. So, from this pool of young people, we see and develop potential for leadership in the assertive and seemingly confident young people and imagine that the more quiet and seemingly less certain young people have less potential for leadership.
4. There is a crisis for blokes in the church
This is another issue which could be one of the reasons why a lot of chicks aren’t supported and mentored early on. Simply put, the church has a view that there is a crisis for blokes in the church, that men are leaving church and abandoning spirituality. So often the reaction is to tailor both mentoring and the event itself to be more attractive to blokes.
As a result, you get a situation where there might be a lower proportion of blokes in the church, but a higher proportion of men in leadership. Men are brought into leadership both to provide for mentoring to younger men, but also as a way to make church an attractive place for the men themselves. I can think of half a dozen young men that I have seen move into leadership positions over less “fringey” women, simply because of this perceived crisis of masculinity in the church.
I don’t know what to think of all of this theory about the crisis for masculinity in the church. We are talking about an organisation overwhelmingly led by men - why is it so unattractive to other men (if this is indeed the case)?
5. The missional church has a blokey style
I (and others) have often spoken of the attraction of the “emerging” church for the “angry young man”. It appeals to the rebelliousness and self-righteousness borne of frustration. I think we all know examples of fledgling communities which have been commenced as a “crusade” against everything we disagree with and sometimes struggled to define what they agreed with.
On the weekend we were talking about good women speakers that we knew and one comment made was “But that is not the sort of style that they are looking for here”. And I think that often there is a particular style that is more prominent in some organisations. And the style sometimes communicates as much as the content. Look at Hillsongs and the mode of smooth, slick communication from beautiful people and that is as much an element of the prosperity theology as the content of the speakers. Similarly, if we have a style of communication modelled in your face communicators speaking with barely restrained passion, then that will become a part of your message also.
Where to from here?
I think that we probably have a lot more work to do with the role of women (and men) in the church, and in the new missional church particularly. I am encouraged by the fact that there seems to be a recognition that more work is needed. I am sometimes discouraged by the types of initiatives that are put into place. I am discouraged by the fact that women when they seek to encourage and mentor leadership seem reluctant to adopt and celebrate our most accomplished female leaders. I am discouraged by the way that discussion is often hamstrung by political correctness and the unwillingness to evaluate women in the same way as men.
I think that it is good to be honest about stuff, and maybe me feeling that it was a little blokey is okay, even if that does make me less enthusiastic about being involved in the future. Maybe I am not the key target audience of a conference like this. I need to keep examining these issues to ensure that in the way that we construct communities we are not excluding certain groups, or if we are, to ensure that we are creating communities for them as well.
July 15th, 2005 at 5:14 am
[…] cripture Considered — Brother Maynard @ 2:09 pm
Post title is ripped from this recent post at signposts because, well, […]
July 15th, 2005 at 2:18 pm
OK girls, I agree that although most leaders are male, but I would still say that the inhereted traditions of the church tend to the more receptive, face to face, (more passive?) mode that women are more comfortable with. The strange thing to me is that this form of spirituality is largely enforced by men. That leaves the question: what *type* of men generally lead the church; and therein lies the rub. And I’m not going there! But I will venture a guess that something of an answer is found in ministry calling and gifting–namely pastors and teachers (Carers and communicators.) Where are those who call us out of comfort and convenience and actively demonstrate a way forward? It is this type of ‘masculinity’ that I think is missing. We should not fear this, but invite it for the sake of the mission of the church.
July 15th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Al, can you explain further what you mean when you say that the inherited traditions of the church are ones that women are more comfortable with?
I actually think the whole notion of sitting in seats and listening to someone give a long, somewhat intellectual speech is more “masculine” than “feminine” - at least if you look at the ways that men and women have historically met. In the developing countries I’ve been to, women sit around and chat while they work - men, on the other hand, tend to have ‘events’ and ‘gatherings’ at which the sole purpose is to pontificate!
July 15th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
this is a rushed response because i’m working on a deadline…
i’m not sure it’s a girl / boy thing.
maybe it is, but i’d also want to add in to the conversation something about how people learn and change. I think that happens rarely through an up-front speaker, and is much more likely through creating spaces at conferences for intentional action/reflection and dialogue - to use the current jargon, by creating learning communities. Most conferences i go to in my denomination and work context are beginning to take that seriously. Most conferences i go to in the emerging church don’t.
The Forge event was excellent for hearing stories and being inspired. That part of it was fabulous. There were a stack of times, though, when i wanted to press the pause button and ask deeper questions about stuff, to push my own thinking or that of the person talking, to test something out together as a group, without anyone knowing whether it would be resolved. To have a person up front who simply asks questions and uncovers the wisdom of the group (that the group doesn’t even know it has, until the right questions are asked)… to ask the questions that no-one yet has the answers to… i have a feeling that might be the kind of conference or gathering that brings change, long term.
That requires a very different kind of leadership, and i don’t think it’s based on gender lines.
July 25th, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Couple of things:
1. I went to the Forge Summit and attended an elective on pionering leadership. I asked the question, after Andy Hamilton had shared a really good presentation on the hallmarks of a pioneer, do women pioneers look different to men pioneers? We discussed the fact that pioneering leaders are often task oriented, tend to step on toes to get their passionate vision achieved and sometimes lack gifts like mercy in favour of gifts of a more confrontational nature. As someone who has often identified with the pioneering spirit and who always gets in trouble for starting new stuff then handing it over and running onto the next thing I also get called ridiculously empathic. My husband laughs that I cry during Kleenex adds. So for me, I wondered whether my femininity shapes my pioneering heart (and of course it does). Do I think men have no mercy, not at all but perhaps women’s empathy and emotional intelligence is nurtured while men’s empathic responses are channelled into “Why don’t you stand up and do something about it son!” type responses.
Oh, and I work in an established church, but (hope no-one from my church reads this) I’m hoping to subvert it, or at least the young adult population into missional expressions. And yes, I am endlessly frustrated that the senior minister’s office accross the hall seems to contain a boys club. But I think this is a blind spot more than an intentional supression of women.
2. I tried writing an assigment on full time women ministers recently and couldn’t find any. Ok, well, couldn’t find any with husbands and children under 20. The woman pastor I work under and I constantly joke that we need a pastors wife at home. Our spouses are both full-time teachers. Actually come to think of it, on our large ministry team, there are no full time women, 3 full time men and a host of part timers, most of which are female. Every single man on the ministry team has a wife who works part time or not at all, while every single woman has a husband working full time, or who has retired. Sadly I think that women simply aren’t allowed the time investment required of missional leadership. I’m 21 and newly married and I’m shocked my the number of default systems even in my own head about gender roles. My husband is a good fella but even he balks when i tell him he needs to start planning his career to include working part time when we have kids. Women have been thinking that way all along.
3. Whoever said that 3rd places tend to be blokey doesn’t work in a cafe! I do and at any given time women outnumber men 10 to 1. There are some very feminine third places out there, but not enough women going into them. Perhaps 3rd places look blokey because when a bloke starts a third place he does it in a blokey place. Lets see the chicks create some female 3rd places - cafe’s, community centres (ie, mothers groups etc), anyone go to fernwood gym or Curves (both women-only gyms)? The play group movement has been doing emerging, incarnational church for years! So while the reality of women being part time and looking after kids works agains women in ministry or leadership, it works for starting missional communities amongst young mums or part time women. Lets go guerilla with it and use our weaknesses as strenghts. If we chicks have to be at home with the kids lets connect with other women suffering in isolation and sleep deprivation too. The kindgdom could certainly use more gutsy, godly mothers.
And lets support, encourage and give permission to the fella’s who want to stay at home and do the kid thing.
joevans@bccc.org.au
July 30th, 2005 at 7:53 am
I didn’t read past #16, but Brigid got me thinking..
WIth history as a counsellor, I buy Brueggemann’s assertion that times of transition and rapid change require grieving. And there is the key. Women are much better at grieving than are men, who tend to simply amp up the energy.. full speed ahead, damn the torpedos.. we tend to reach higher rather than embrace the call to fall.. to look inside.. to slow down.. to weep. We aren’t good at liminality.
So.. here is an opportunity.. to learn from our women, to listen to those we love and cherish, and who cherish us in return.. to listen to those who are often pushed aside, those we have often thought weak. I think if we can learn from women how to grieve, we have a better chance of moving forward into the things the Lord wants to release to us. Women are the ones who give birth anyway..
Remember FOTR..Galadriel says that these are the times “when love is now mingled with grief”…
July 30th, 2005 at 9:38 am
the real nature of apostolic leadership in a post-Christendom context
times of transition and rapid change require grieving. And there is the key. Women are much better at grieving than are men, who tend to simply amp up the energy.. full speed ahead, damn the torpedos.. we tend to reach…
July 30th, 2005 at 11:59 am
I have been folowing this thread as the conversation that followed my presentation at Forge was very helpful in terms of considering where women fit in the pioneering field.
I resonate with some of what Hirschy says in seeing the pioneering energy as more masculine in its dynamic - but Jo and the others I spoke to at the end of the session have sparked my thinking as to what this looks like in women. I’m not sure I know to be quite honest.
What I am doing is reflecting on the stories of women I would consider to be pioneering/apostolic leaders and asking what it is that characterises them.
There are obviously fewer of them, but is this a result of the socialisation process that cuts girls our of that loop or is it something intrinsic to being female? That is the million dollar question.
FWIW my gut feel is that the answer is ‘yes’.
Seriously I do think it is probably a mix of both.
The discussion has been great though as it has led me to learn, shed light on some blind spots and it will help me re-shape what i will present next time.
July 30th, 2005 at 2:50 pm
[…] A good question that continues to bob around in my mind. Thanks girls! In the comments at Signposts I have suggested that the current situation i […]