Women and the emerging church
Steve Taylor at Emerging Kiwi has posted a podcast interview with Jenny McIntosh from Spirited Exchanges.
It raises three issues in regard to women and the emerging church:
“We identify three ways in which the emerging church can exclude women;
- in the way the Bible is used
- in not seeking representation in speaking and in leadership
- in continuing a “culture”, patterns of being and talking, that are male in nature.”
I still don’t think the discussion went specific enough on the issue of culture. I had a hint that Steve felt so too when he said he was feeling disempowered. So, I would be interested in knowing what people think about how we can advance the cause of women in the emerging church. What can leaders of local faith communities do? What can leaders of denominations do? What will it take?
This is not the thread for allocating blame or even saying aha that is what I am talking about - but rather for discussions on ways forward.
You can download the podcast - women and the emerging church here
March 15th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
“…in continuing a “culture”, patterns of being and talking, that are male in nature.”
I find that one really interesting. Now, on another blog it was suggested that I have my head stuck in the academy, but that’s where I first starting thinking about this, so…in my early years of uni I discovered the ideas of discursive democracy. I studied some of this literature in the context of discussions about values, justice, rights, participation in political processes etc, and how those that shape processes, distribution of resources etc can unwittingly exclude others. Anyway, I found those ideas not only immensely helpful for understanding political processes and how they can exclude, but also for thinking about church - in particular, how we ‘do’ worship and make decisions. I am convinced that we still tend to worship and make decisions in ways that have been defined by men and therefore men will be favoured as worship leaders.
***Lest this turn into a thread like the other on this blog, let me say at the outset that I do not, have not, and will not ever lay blame for this at the feet of men!!***
Briefly, I think that in most churches, we still have a style of decision-making and meeting (especially the role of preaching) that means that men end up playing the dominant roles. Like, decisions are made by making arguments, then majority vote. Preaching is very lineal and very argumentative in style (rather than exploratory). Some theorists would say that these styles of communicating favour western, highly educated men - based on hugely broad generalisations, I tend to agree. Flip it over and I definitey agree - these styles of communicating certainly do not (generally) favour an indigenous woman with minimal formal education from a remote area of Australia!!
But this is where the emerging church movement could offer a way forward - in shifting the focus from formal church services to mission, and in being creative about how mission can happen, the fact that it’s diverse etc etc, we might create spaces for people who would never have previously been regarded as “leaders”.
This is why I’m not a huge fan of conferences, speaking gigs etc - they’re great for networking and catch-ups, but I think that they tend to reinforce the dominant culture rather than create new spaces. But that’s a somewhat random thought and possibly another topic…
March 16th, 2006 at 4:30 am
I think the problem centers in the conceptualizing of the church in terms of power. As I understand it, the gospel is not about power, but it is power. The gospel, wrote Paul, “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16, NIV) Unfortunately, that’s not something I hear articulated very much by Emerging Church leaders.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:13 am
I personally believe that the excessive amounts of denominations, and peoples confidence in the beliefs of these denomination’s interpretation of gender roles, lies at the root of the chauvinism excessively exercised throughout Christendom. Tradition and the holy scriptures are not on the same plato. However, due to uncontrollable amounts of exegetical malpractice taking place from pulpits all around the globe. Women are being restricted to speak from the small podium that is lower than the main podium. They are being limited to titles such as: missionary, deaconess, evangelist, mother, and sister.
March 16th, 2006 at 6:58 am
CalMe Ishamel
You hear me talking about it all the time, I believe power and the misuse of it is the single biggest problem in the world.
I also agree that Bec has some good understandings about things. In our church everyone participates, everyone leads. In doing this many styles of leadership emerge, and many styles of worship emerge.
At FORGE we feel torn, because we actually see that the speaker thing works pretty efficiently in a larger group setting, and our intensives are that. But we also try to use different ways of communicating, which are more difficult to pull off. We try to encourage more discussion stuff. And we try to ask a number of women to present as well as men. The thing is that our interns get to do the unpacking of these weekends in more appropriate ways, with coaches, and discussions around dinner tables and grapple with the implications of these teaching in their missionary context. However those that come to the weekend, may never get that chance, and to them we are just the talking head at the front of the room. Any suggestions on how we could do this better would be warmly received.
the rev
March 16th, 2006 at 8:09 am
Rev, I can imagine why people at FORGE feel torn. It’s a tough one - to some extent we need to accept the way the world operates, and to reach those in the dominant culture you need to fit into the dominant culture *to some extent*.
Steve Said (http://www.neurotribe.net/blog/) has an interesting post up at the moment, reflecting on the Forest Edge Festival and thinking about celebrity culture. I certainly don’t think Christians are immune from this - in fact I think it’s rampant, wherever you look. There’s plenty of “celebrities” in the radical discipleship and emerging church movements as much as in any other movement. The challenges for me include:
- how do we recognise excellence/commitment/sacrifice/whatever you want to call it, in all its forms, rather than just some forms?
- how do we acknowledge that, to some extent, we need “celebrities” to attract people - ie for some organisations I’ve been in, “celebrities” have been essential to our success in attracting the funding we need to do our work, for Forge, “celebrities” are necessary to attract people who might not otherwise be thinking about this stuff…
…there’s more that I can think of right now…
Rev, maybe rethink how speakes present - ie rather than having one speaker (as was the case with Brian McLaren), why not have a panel/interview style presentation? At my church we’ve found that this encourages conversation far more than a single person standing up the front does - with the former, you’ve got a “conversation/discussion” vibe from the start, with the latter there’s more of a speaker, then disjointed questions and answers. I don’t know how it would work, but it’s something you could experiment with - you might create more space for discussion, and you might find that while women aren’t so keen to ‘present’, they’re happier to chair a discussion/interview someone…
I don’t know - just an idea.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:48 am
We have had panels, interviews and the like, in fact we usually do versions of this in our intensives, just typically not the open nights. With Brian we felt like most people wanted to hear from him so let him talk.
the rev
March 16th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I was suggesting it for the open nights.
I know what you mean about letting people talk - but seriously, it works. We’ve found that when you let someone go for it for 20 minutes +, the audience sit there like stunned mullets at the end (there were a few questions at the Brian Mc gig, but not as many as I thought there would be!). People respond quite differently when you have a panel/interview - it starts off with a conversational style, and if the people involved have discussed it before hand, they usually get to cover the ground they want to cover.
What about smaller things, like making sure that if you have a male speaker, you have a woman pray? (ie at the Brian McLaren gig, have Deb pray - if she would have!)
Rev, I guess it also depends on who you’re targetting. I wonder whether there are “newbies” rocking up to the Forge weekends, or whether they’re mainly people who’ve been thinking about this stuff for a while. If it’s mostly the latter, there’s more to be gained by keeping the main speaking stuff really short, and spending more time in discussions. If it’s the former, well, chances are you need to cover quite a lot of ground, and you’re talking to people who are more familiar with a ‘guest speaker’ kinda culture than a ‘discussion group’ kinda culture…
March 16th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I am still struggling to see how a panel is more equal gender wise. Is it the format? Is it the fact that the speaker (brian mcclaren) was a man and therefore the panel allows you to have females speak from the front, What if the speaker was female - would we do the panel or just keep it as a speaker format.
Just on the Brian McLaren one… I would have been a bit frustrated at the open night if the format had of been a panel (yes, I know they work and I have used them many times) but I was there to hear Brian as he is a significant author and one that I had not had much access to as he is the US and we are in OZ. If it had of been a longer time, say a weekend of input then I think a panel would have definitely been a way to go.
March 16th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Phil, I wasn’t suggesting it would necessarily be more equal, I just think it could open up new possibilities - you could include a higher number of speakers, with different roles (The Rev’s talked about how Deb doesn’t want to speak up front, maybe women would be happy to be ‘interviewers’ or chairs), and the more conversational style might offer more space for participation by more people.
I don’t know, I’m just hypothesising…
March 16th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Gotcha Bec.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
do you think it would work? what’s your experience with this at northern?
March 17th, 2006 at 10:02 am
I know a process that runs a mix of these. It involves a short introductory address by a speaker (or not), then a focussed conversation in a half-circle of about 8 chairs at the front (3 or 4 are ‘experts” or “special guests” and they stay) which is moderated panel by a facilitator but anyone in the audience can get up and participate through the half circle - this runs for about 40 minutes. And then the audience/plenary nominates a handful of issues arising and they split off to discuss these in small groups - but the participants can also float from one group to another whenever they want to. Not many do, but some do. the whole thing is 2 hrs long. I’ve used it in all sorts of situations and it works brilliantly, don’t know why. fosters interaction, shared learning, interactive access to the experts. it sort of emerged from experiences and ideas.
But this is a process - not a way of engaging women (as equals?) in an emerging church…
I think that the way in which women are seen in the church relates essentially to the way in which the Bible is interpreted, sometimes very conveniently. The Bible is based on judaic culture, and it happens to be a patriarchal culture - this is just an historical fact. And many in our church communities find this interpretation of ongoing convenience. It’s embedded in church culture.
I went to do the paperwork to enrol my daughters at a christian school on the nthside of brisbane, at the beginning of this year. They had all the papers arranged alphabetically and as I arrived at the top of the queue the woman said to me “Name of head of house?” (as in, what was my husband’s name). I gave her a short blunt response.
She was very taken aback that I challenged her and took a righteous position..she’d assumed that I did “church-speak” - and “church values” about the place of women.
I don’t have the energy for talking about this issue in church - it’s considered aberrant and I’ve other places to put my energies. I don’t have these arguments in my normal life (non-church, whatever that says) and i don’t have time for them at church where I go to worship, not argue roles. But I also don’t engage - I’ve other places to make contributions, and it’s not going to be at church if I have to waste time on this. Not all women have the same views either - some are very happy with the current definition of roles. I guess one way of engaging is to remember that not all church attending women are in the ‘church-speak script’. And probably not all men either (another topic).
March 17th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Bec, at Northern this is a different issue for us as we have a range of different styles and types of gathering and people are encouraged to connect where they feel most at home. So we have a model with up front speaking, and we have discussion based models as well as “side talking” models (there is some theory about the involvement of men in worship which suggests that men are less likely to feel comfortable engaging in face to face talking, but prefer talking side by side while engaging in another task).
I don’t know that any of our models are particularly female or male friendly, but they appeal to different people for different reasons.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
I would also like to remind everyone that at FORGE we also have the requirement to complete certain teachings that are part of the curiculum which is required for accreditation. I remember one time when we went a bit overboard when it comes to questions for one of Al’s talks, and I remember he didn’t even get half finished with the lecture. We try to use different kinds of process but sometimes academic and time restraints require the lecture. We can accept this because the coaching appointments and ministry assignements allow our interns to engage and work through the teachings.
the rev
March 17th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
But does this apply to nights like the Brian McLaren night Rev? I thought that was the kind of thing we were talking about…??
March 17th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
I gotta say, I find this issue pretty tiring sometimes. You see, you can equally build an argument that church does not connect well with men (you might see a disproportionately large number of people up front, but you will see fewer of them in the pews), and I know that Alan H at least has in the past raised this as an issue for Forge as well.
I have a lot of space for the importance of different theologies and readings (including female/feminist readings) but I get less worked up about the male/female format stuff. Every year for example I receive a bunch of invitations to very female friendly events designed for wives of ministers and run by our christian womens fellowship groups. But just because they are so-called “female” formats doesn’t mean that I believe that I want to be involved in them nor that those formats should be expressed in the broader church.
The real danger that I see from all of this is that it tends so easily towards tokenism.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
The Brian McClaren night was a postcards event, not an intensive. On the postcard nights we ask the speakers to do whatever they want. The idea of the postcard nights is to give a place for visiting people to give a snapshot of what they are doing, or involved with at that time, hence the name postcards. The focus is meant to be on that persons story. So panel discussions would not really fit in that idealogy, not that that can’t be changed. The FORGE open nights also have a specific focus and are part of the curriculum but a part that we feel we can share with others. A panel discussion would fit better in other setting during the intensives and we have placed them there.
the rev
March 17th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
And I may be taking this wrong Bec, please correct me if I am, but it seems to me that you are saying women are just as capable as men, (which I agree with) and then are saying we need to change the format so women would be more comfortable. Why? When Deb shares at the intensive she does it in a monologue with questions and discussion time built in. She would be expected to do the same if she did a open night, but she doesn’t want to. I don’t think format has anything to do with that. I may be wrong but I don’t think Dan or yourself would have a problem leading in a more monologue focused way.
Now I think the issue of how we present, and the idea of medium is the message stuff is important, but I don’t see how its a male female thing. And if there are more female friendly things, why are they more female friendly? Do blokes not like discussion?
Just not getting it
the rev
March 17th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Rev, I’m not saying anything has to be changed.
The post that stimulated these comments asked for comments on church culture.
You then asked for suggestions as to how Forge could get more women involved.
I’m just tossing around ideas, that’s all.
And yes, I agree with your observations about Dan and I - well, I can’t speak for Dan, but you’re definitely correct as far as I go. But I’m a highly-educated western woman.
I don’t necessarily think it’s a male/female thing - that’s too simplistic these days. But I do think it tends to favour ways of communicating that would TRADITIONALLY be regarded as male (and western, and educated, blah blah blah)
March 17th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Yeah I am thankful for the suggestions, just pointing out the difficultires involved, I was commenting more towards your linking things with a more feminine style, which was atleast implied as Dan also addressed it.
the rev
March 17th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Apologies - didn’t realise this was a private discussion.
March 17th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
BrissieGirl - feel free to contribute this is not a private discussion, its just that Rev and Bec have been talking about this for ages.
March 28th, 2006 at 10:35 am
[…] podcast: women, the emerging church and male cultures HT […]
March 31st, 2006 at 11:24 pm
I feel left out of the emergent movement. I’m beginning to understand it a bit more as we go along, but old habits die hard. I’m submitting to the mission my husband is on, and our family is following. There’s a lot to the story, nothing horrible, but it seems like the men are in constant “conversation” about this movement, and the women are no where to be found. I haven’t read McClaren yet, but I started into “Blue Like Jazz.” I had to put that book down for good after 3 pages. It was soooo testosterone laiden, I decided it wasnt for my eyes. It seems too when I ask the couple of women I know who are involved one gets it, but the other two of us just kind of dont. It isnt that the leaders of this movement are seeking to exclude women, that wouldn’t be biblical. I do think, however, that as men they have inadvertantly not directly spoken to women and families. It’s still so wrapped up in “male” speak and technical jargon. Are there any women writers on the subject? or women leaders to look to as role models? If not it needs to happen soon. Because if we are not fed soon, we will starve. I love my man, and I know the Lord has planted a vision for us, but if clarity doesnt come soon, submission will become harder than it already is.
April 1st, 2006 at 6:44 am
Hey Lizzil, for what it’s worth, I edited a mag recently with the theme of the emerging church - I really wanted something on kids in the emerging church, and while Barb Daws wrote something, I couldn’t find anyone else who’d done any thinking or writing on it! I’d also agree that there’s a lot of jargon…and I say that as a lawyer who also works in academia - it’s a bit scary if *I’m* feeling overwhelmed by jargon!
I’m trying to think of a book written by a woman, but I haven’t been able to come up with one…anyone else??
April 1st, 2006 at 7:38 am
Well to be honest I don’t read any of the books anymore. Stopped years ago, but I don’t know of any books by women on the subject. At the risk of angering Bec again, it has seemed to me that many of the women have a tendency to just get to it, and get to work rather than writing books about it. There are many female leaders involved in the emerging church in Melbourne, but they neither write books or are particularly fond of speaking at big groups.
We do have some resources at FORGE that you might find interesting. Deb Hirsch has dvd’s of her amazing talks on “belong before believe” and her talk on “sexuality” If you are interested I can get you contact info for these.
Oh, and not much besides testosterone going on in me, so if I was no help, please excuse me.
the rev
April 1st, 2006 at 7:50 am
Hey Rev have I made you paranoid?!
Why would the suggestion that women “get to it” rather than “write about it” anger me?! (I’m still curious as to the reasons why women leaders neither write books or are particularly fond of speaking at big groups though…goes back to our other discussions…)
Like the Rev I don’t read books anymore, but I do still buy them to give to other people - and like you, I have noted the lack of women’s voices, and it’s a bit concerning. This isn’t just an emerging church thing though - in many fields of academia it’s still the women “doing” and the men “writing”. Why not take advantage of the gap in the market and write something?
(Seriously!)
Have you tried googling “emerging church” and “women”? Some interesting stuff comes up.
April 1st, 2006 at 7:52 am
Well, I know you don’t like me to say “women tend to…” cause you guys are essentially the same as men but without any of the bad traits.
the rev
April 1st, 2006 at 8:40 am
hahahahahahhaaaa!!!
April 1st, 2006 at 11:44 am
I would suggest that the women authors that I like on these sorts of topics write “non-typical” books. One of my favourite books which speaks into the experience of mission and the emerging church is Margaret Craven’s book “I heard the Owl call my name”. But it was written 50 years ago and is pretty far from a “how to” book.
Phil has also pointed to “Leadership and the New Science” by Margaret Wheatley which has a lot to say about new leadership structures.