Token women - good or bad?
Well I thought it was a while since we outraged all of the women in the blogosphere and/or emerging church scene while simultaneously plunging the men of the blogosphere and/or emerging church scene into a discussion they can never seem to “win”. Plus there is always a real prospect in these discussions that people who actually agree with each other almost entirely end up in a blood feud over fine interpretations. Bring it on.
The topic for today’s stoush is “Emerging women in leadership and tokenism - good or bad?”
If you are interested in joining the fray, continue reading over the fold.
So, there seem to be a number of facts or opinions which are fairly widely observed but which don’t necessarily fit together neatly:
A. There are currently more men than women in leadership (or visible in leadership) in the emerging missional church.
B. It would be a good thing if the numbers of women and men in leadership (or visible in leadership) in the emerging missional church were more equal.
C. The emerging missional church bears some responsibility (in whatever shape) for encouraging, resourcing and developing women in leadership.
But how do you reconcile A, B and C? How is the emerging missional church to encourage, resource and develop women in leadership without making the endeavour look farcical and condescending?
You see, a simple way to be seen to accomplish C is to include women prominently in all groups, committees, presentations, speaking events, discussion forums and so on. Hence the ongoing search for and highlighting of women emerging bloggers. But it also means that, because of the effect of principle A, you get a relatively small number of women being showcased. Or alternatively, women who have less experience, expertise and knowledge than men are pushed to the fore.
Now the first might not be a problem. After all, on a slightly larger scale it is fair to say that the group of male speakers who are featured and showcased is not a constantly changing kaleidoscope. And if you only have a small group of appropriately qualified women to choose from (or point to) then we can’t just snap our fingers and change that situation.
The real boggle comes when we talk about preferring womens’ voices over mens’ (or a particular woman’s over a particular man’s), even though the particular women involved aren’t the most qualified to talk about a particular issue. Depending on whether we are in favour or against this, we can call this tokenism, or affirmative action or any number of other labels. To save us talking in the abstract, here is a concrete (albeit mostly fictitious) example:
Bill and Jan are married. Bill is a fully trained ordained minister with ministry experience in a range of ministry contexts from house churches, to small struggling churches, to large contemporary worship churches to missional projects. He is the ministry team leader of an established church (MCCC) which is engaging in some missional endeavours which other people in the emerging missional church are interested in and which they might be able to learn something from. Jan has some theological training but is not a minister. She works full time in a secular job. She has significant lay leadership responsibilities at MCCC but on in relation to one area of the ministry of MCCC (ie one group of congregations - the circus workers congregations - and one missional team - the annual circus outreach community performance). Bill and Jan also operate a website (Pointers) which generates a lot of discussion about the emerging missional church (and the church as a whole). Bill and Jan are equally qualified/capable to talk about Pointers. Bill is more qualified/capable of talking about most areas of MCCC. Bill and Jan are equally qualified/capable of talking about some areas of MCCC. Jan is more qualified/capable of talking about very few areas of relevance to the emerging missional church (”experiences of lay leadership” or “dealing with Bill’s ego”, for example)
So, you are the leadership team of a new conference aimed at missional church leaders (”McClarenfy”) both existing and prospective. You are trying to juggle positions A, B and C above and you have the opportunity to invite Bill or Jan (or both) to speak to your conference participants. Bill is more generally qualified, but Jan has the added advantage of no Y chromosome. Who do you invite to speak, and why? It is tokenism to put Jan on the bill program despite the fact that she has less experience and expertise? Or do you tailor a topic for her which is in one of the areas that she is equally able to speak (the circus clown ministry or “Pointers”) or in the areas where she is more qualified than Bill (the lay ministry thing)? Or do you just get Bill to speak and decide that Jan can earn a spot on the bill program if she wants to?
July 19th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
Go for it Dan! It is good to keep raising the issue. I am not a fan of tokenism. I also would rather hear someone who really knows what they are talking about, rather than someone chosen to satisfy a gender bias. My initial reactions are to work on C - not in a tokenistic way, but encouraging women to explore and express leadership. I think part of the issue is that women (especially in mainstream churches) have limited concepts of how they can serve. This shapes what they tend to get involved in (eg counselling, prophetic, prayer ministry, childrens etc) and the training they undertake… These ministry areas do not have the same profile as preaching etc, and also seem to be on the periphery of the emerging church scene. It is not surprising that they are not really talked about in the emergent context by either gender. Women need to be encouraged to explore different roles, bearing in mind that some (maybe a lot) don’t necessarily want to. But the encouragement and modelling should be there. Many of the emerging church contexts are not family friendly - eg night groups at pubs and cafes etc, and again this restricts carers of children (often women) in terms of both attendance and leadership. I personally am very interested in how this “emerging journey” can pan out in a context that isn’t restricted by these issues, that is also not restricted to creating female ghettos (eg can only lead/particpate freely in missional context such as play group etc). btw - are there any women doing this? I would love to hear of these kinds of journeys in addition to the more typical settings….
July 19th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I agree. Tokenism never solves the real issue of why there aren’t more women involved, in fact I think it can obscure the real issues because it ends up justifying the status quo because the token “exceptions” make it look ok. With the best intentions, people end up (unwittingly) doing appearance management. What is needed is honesty, and if there seems to be an imbalance, what are the root causes? Are women conditioned not to take on certain roles? Are there practical obstacles that prevent women’s equal involvement? Or is too much public stress placed on traditionally male styles of leadership, and emergents, of all people, should be the ones to explore elevating the significance of more “feminine” approaches? obviously I have no idea what the answers are, my suspicion is that there is some truth in all those things.. Has anyone actually asked the (non-leading) women what they want, and what changes matter to them? As a woman who is studying theology and has a passion for preaching and teaching I personally find it all very confusing; personally I am less encouraged by exception stories of women who have crossed that invisible line in the sand than I am by people who can show me what steps I can take myself in my situation ..
July 20th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Christina, to answer your question I do think that there are women engaging in leadership in the emerging environment in a lot of ways. I seem to meet a whole bunch of women who are involved in missional engagement.
When I was at theological college, there were many more women than men studying, but there were more men than women who were interested in going into ministry as such.
Blestpickle, I like your comment on “exception stories”. I think that a lot of conferences like “McLarenfy” perceive a lot of pressure to have a female headline speaker. The problem for that is that there are simply not that many women who style themselves (or are allowed to be styled as) speaker/preachers in the traditional form.
July 20th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Dan,
I seriously love you.
It is a difficult subject, and we at FORGE wrestle with it. But it is getting easier, there are many women emerging that are exploring leadership in many varied ways. So quite often we now have the ability to invite a number of women to present, in different ways and with different methods. These women are far from token women, but rather highly qualified and experienced.
Where our greatest difficulty lies is in our attempt to be welcoming to the more traditional church in certain events. Especially our open nights. In these evening we are using more traditional presentation techniques allowing for a more traditional audience. It seems men tend to naturally accept this style more readily. We have struggled in the past to get some of our qualified women to accept these spots.
We have recently had a few women, one is my wife, that have felt empowered enough to use different presentation methods, and this has been very significant. I find this piece of the conversation to be the most compelling. But it does seem to be a catch 22 for me. On one hand I am scolded for talking about the difference between women and men, and their communication and disposition. But then women say, “well we don’t have more “feminine” presentation methods. It appears I am only allowed to sit on the side of this conversation and say, “well whatever you come up with is fine with me”
As to your request blestpickle: get as much experience as you are able, define what your prefered style is, and have a story worth telling, and worth listening to. The one thing in the emerging church, we are still needing stories, the best stories haven’t all been taken yet.
oh, and to all of you beautiful women struggling through this oppressive male dominated world, keep fighting, and “whatever you come up with is fine with me”, not that you need my approval, or even my permission.
One of these days your boots are gonna walk all over me
the rev
July 20th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Hey Blestpickle… looks like there just might be a post grad thesis possible behind the “has anyone asked the (non leading) women what they want?” question. (I don’t think anyone has).
On a practical note… mentors are really important in the leadership development process. A mentor who can honestly critique and grow you in your gift for preaching and teaching would be helpful… obviously someone who is gifted and experienced in this area. At the right time in your development, it would also be worth seeking out someone in a position of influence within your denomination (who believes in the ministry of women) and asking if they are willing to mentor you in your leadership development… this often helps develop the kind of relationship networks that may open up ministry opportunities.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:27 am
I hate tokenism…but I also think that we still live in a world where the dominant expression of leadership is seen to be male. I also think that this needs to be addressed.
I think that as an emergent community of believers we run the risk of dragging ‘old wine skin’ practices into the new wine skin if we don’t conciously make the effort to balance the leadership/gender load.
To me it’s like learning any new thing - there are stages we go through:
Bridged between the 2nd and 3rd stage of learning is where I think the emergent movement is at. We are feeling awkward about having to conciously address the gender imbalance but we need to keep on doing it.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Rev, I love you too.
I think that the balance is really hard to achieve and I appreciate it can be frustrating. In my experience of Forge, the leadership genuinely want to do “C” well and have tried a range of different things for intensives. This might make them prime targets for those of us who would critique how it is working.
Sometimes, attempts to “address” this issue actually call attention to it and open the operation up for criticism that might otherwise have been levelled. As an example, I have been to conferences etc (not necessarily in the emerging church) which have featured women upfront and have then incorporated the male conference leader waxing lyrical about these inspiring strong women leaders in a way that is over the top (but assuming that everyone understands why women leaders are worthy of this applause when men aren’t). From the male leader’s perspective he is making a point of encouraging the women in leadership, but I always (and others might differ) find it kind of condescending and awkward.
I think the aspect that makes it condescending and awkward (at least to me) is the “don’t mention the war” mentality - the need to pretend publicly that things are equal while simultaneously conducting these sorts of conversations about how this is balanced.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 am
mmmm…
some random thoughts from a younger (the youngest here?) woman…
- I was attracted to my present church in part because of the strong female leadership. Strong women who are *gasp* SINGLE and cool with that. And who don’t have kids. I’m in a relationship and would like to have kids, but I really, really appreciate being around older, single Christian women who feel fulfilled. There’s not enough of it in the church. Now I might get flamed for saying this, but one has to look no further than the media’s treatment of Julia Gillard to see that there’s still a double standard as far as the kids and marriage thing goes for men and women.
- That said, I find that my skills often go unrecognised because I’m a chick, and it’s assumed that I’m skilled in some areas and not in others because of that. I’ve seen men my age be approached before me to take up certain leadership roles even though they’re less experienced and less skilled in those roles. I know people are trying, but subconscious stereotypes still abound.
- I personally don’t think tokenism is all bad - attitudes change over time and we have to start somewhere. Refer to Greg’s post above.
- as far as the emerging church specifically goes - in part I think that the narrow speaker base has been because the emerging church has been defined a bit narrowly. ie. for a long time in Melbourne there was quite a divide between the “emerging church movement” and the “radical discipleship movement” despite the two having many things in common - and despite the latter having many strong female leaders who regularly do speaking gigs. There are TONNES of women out there doing mission - in fact, in my voluntary experience I’ve come across many more women than men. So maybe it’s also about definitions, and how widely you cast your net?
- as discussed previously on Signposts, I think it’s also about speaking style. Rev, I never said you could make generalisations about the differences between men and women, I just think we need to be very, very careful about making them - and if we make them, we need to go beyond the generalisation to asking “why?” and “how”? So - why do more women than men reject the opportunity to speak up front? why is this mode of speaking not attractive to them? how can we make it more attractive to them? how can we get more women speakers? should we perhaps change our format?
Note that I’m not suggesting that Forge isn’t already asking these questions! I would note, however, that having been attending things like McClarenfy for several years now, I’ve noticed a distinct shift in the “scene” to one that is more welcoming of people from a conservative evangelical/charismatic/pentecostal background…and with that there has been a shift in speaking style, which I think tends to favour men more than women. But I’m still thinking that one through!!
July 20th, 2006 at 11:44 am
oh, and re: the “hypothetical” (HUH!)
I would invite them to speak on what they’re best qualified to speak on. Personally, I’d really like to here Jan talk about mission in the secular workplace. There’s not enough talk of that going on…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:51 am
oh, and I ALSO meant to say…
Rev - re your comment: “It appears I am only allowed to sit on the side of this conversation and say, “well whatever you come up with is fine with me” ”
I want to thankyou for your interest in these issues. In both academic and Christian circles, I’ve found that generally, very few men attend discussions labelled as discussions about “women’s issues”. Which is ridiculous. A prime example of this fact is offered by your post above, where you, like me, note that in attracting the traditional church, you resort to a format that is perhaps less attractive to women leaders.
So…thanks. And I love you.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Thought you guys might be intersted,
The Metropolitan Community Church Petersham (Sydney’s Inner West) looks like it is appointing Amercican lady, The Rev Pat Langlois as their new Senior Minister.
Find out about Pat here http://www.mccsydney.org.au/rev_pat.htm
You may think that being a Gay & Lesbian Church there would be little resistance but as i hear it, there were quite a few whom tried to block it & there was apparently lots of intense internal politics (the original Senior Minister, Ps Greg whom was returning from overseas mission was also contending for reappointment).
July 20th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Isn’t that remarkable? Goes to show that these issues are often more complicated than one expects. We have a couple of churches (still) who have no females in eldership on purpose. It always surprises me when strong independent women that I know then become a part of the community there with no objections. I (and plenty of men that I know) would avoid it on principle.
July 20th, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Dan, it makes me think of the patriarchy of plaintiff law firms - I have plenty of female friends who’ve left plaintiff law to cross to “the dark side” because it’s more female-friendly (and family friendly)!
Not dissimilarly, I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who, among many other things, happens to be indigenous. I was saying that at a conference I went to a few years ago, a lot of my friends were raving about one of the speakers who was indigenous and runs an ‘indigenous church’. I struggled with this, because I thought this guy was pretty conservative, pretty unoriginal, pretty rooted in colonialist attitudes, and had a poor attitude to women. I said to my friend that I don’t care what the colour of your skin is, if you’re sexist, you’re sexist, and I don’t like it. Similarly, I don’t care whether you’re straight, bi, gay, or none of the above - sexism is sexism, and it’s not acceptable, and it’s definitely not cool.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
A few thoughts from an un-chick…
Everyone needs training. In AFL, an 18yo rookie is played in short bursts with a very short rope. Over time he develops skills, earns trust/respect and becomes a solid ‘2nd tier player’. As he matures, he is trusted with greater leadership responsibilies until he becomes part of the established leadership group. So it is with church-based leadership/speaking.
I’d ask Bill to speak primarily, but ensure that Jan (who is more than capable, albeit less experienced) has opportunities to address the mob in the way that best suits her style (monologue, dialogue, workshop, panel, text-book, over coffee etc). If someone in the broader leadership is coaching/mentoring Jan, they will create various opportunities for her to develop some ‘match fitness’ and within a space of time, she will either drop off the edge of the world due to a lack of development, or she will become a key leader/speaker in her own right.
Too often, speakers are 1) thrown into a pit without a rope. They get 1 go, and that’s it and 2) seen as something separate from the rest of the event. A good event coordinator will ensure that the various components of several events link to allow for development of ideas (so the same ones don’t get flogged), development of personell, development of relationship/rapport etc.
Bec - your post #13 (esp last para) sits very well with me… I reckon you’ve hit onto something re seeing past the agenda.
July 20th, 2006 at 10:38 pm
So Bec, why is “and with that there has been a shift in speaking style, which I think tends to favour men more than women.” Okay to say
But to say that men “tend” to accept a more aggressive arguementative approach not?
It seems to me the only difference is that a woman said one and a man said the other.
Not trying to stir, I just don’t get it.
the rev
July 20th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Oh and I love you to
July 20th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
The thing I’ve always thought about this, is that by very nature and definition, the EMC scene is pretty much one you get involved in if you choose to, simple as that.
It’s not a heirachical denomination with all these rules and regulations, and conservative ‘women shouldn’t be in leadership’ people to get past, if you wanna get out there and try something new, you do it, male or female.
It’s as simple as that from where I stand.
Yeah, there are definitely more blokes on the scene, and there may be deeper reasons why that is, or it might just be like that cos men are the ones, who so far, have had a crack it.
July 21st, 2006 at 12:25 am
Digger, I agree with that perspective to a degree. But it is only valid so long as the playing field is level and people will actually accept women who choose to “have a crack at it”. Not saying that it necessarily is, but as a wise man once said, the whole “teach a man to fish” thing only works if there is not a barbed wire fence between the person and the river.
FWIW I think that the chick agenda doesn’t always respond the way that we expect it to either. I held a fairly prominent leadership position with my denomination for a couple of years (actually the first time that a woman had held this position) and expected that it would generate a fair bit of “highlighting the woman in leadership” stuff. But in fact, I had none of those sort of invites, and had no higher profile or interest generated than any other male who had held the same position.
July 21st, 2006 at 8:11 am
Perhaps if they were labeled more clearly? “Emergent conversations around women that men should attend but not lead” sounds like a straight forwward kind of title for a discussion I’d go to but not lead!
In all seriousness though…if it’s labeled womens issues the natural inclination for most men is to assume that they really have nothing to contribute and so wouldn’t attend.
I think that if it is presented in the way that Dan has presented it here you would get men involved - case in point - her’e we have 5 men (I assume Digger is a bloke) who have commented and 5 women - equal representation - men have flocked to the conversation.
July 21st, 2006 at 8:45 am
http://www.cartoonchurch.com/blog/2006/07/11/my-emerging-church-credentials/
This cartoon fits here I think
July 21st, 2006 at 9:23 am
I have been thinking about tokenism a bit lately. My husband and I are both finishing our studies this year (except I am a postgrad) and we are applying for graduate positions- several of which are the same. Difference is, he is applying within the indigenous graduate program. What this means is- while I am competing with 1500-2000 other applicants for 30 jobs, he is competing against 70 other applicants for 30 jobs. He has just been to the interviews, and from what he said about the other applicants there, they seemed like a pretty bright bunch, some of whom had postgrad law degrees, etc.
If he gets a job and I don’t, it is definitely going to suck, especially as I have been studying for 8 years, and he has for 3. But I also know he will have to put up with being the ‘token aborigine’ and will have to work twice as hard to prove himself.
The thing is, I do think it is important to have a range of perspectives, whether you are in a govt department or looking at a list of conference speakers. If the two of us were asked to speak at a conference, he would definitely be able to talk about things that I know very little about, and vice versa.
So when I say I think it would be good for Jan to speak at the conference, it is not just because I’m female and want females to have lots of advantages! And Jan will probably find she has to do a better speech than Bill to get the same recognition (as opposed to token recognition).
That’s my two cents
July 21st, 2006 at 9:34 am
Well at FORGE we have asked a number of women to speak at our main sessions and have been turned down many times, but sometimes we are not. Shirley Osbourne spoke at the last one.
And
“I’ve found that generally, very few men attend discussions labelled as discussions about “women’s issues””-bec
I don’t want to go to a discussion about menstrual cycles, birthing babies and knitting!!!
the rev
July 21st, 2006 at 9:45 am
Greg, I’m not sure that men think they’ve got nothing to contribute to those discussions, I think it’s that they often just don’t see how it relates to them. I assume Rev is making a joke above.
Rev, in our prior conversations and on this thread, I have said that while generalisations are often made, we need to be careful to unpack them, rather than use them to make sweeping statements and shut down good conversations.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:56 am
but bec, you didn’t unpack it, you just said it.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:17 am
Bec says : “I’m not sure that men think they’ve got nothing to contribute to those discussions, I think it’s that they often just don’t see how it relates to them”
As Steve Biddulph (Author of that Men’s Therapy “Bible” : “Manhood” has said in a roundabout way, “Feminism is not for men, Feminism is for women & for men to support from the sidelines, where approrpiate”.
I think everyone would agree there is something unseemly about men whom are visibly passionate & vocal about feminism, it is not more palatable that a man would quietly support a woman’s assertion of her own genders rights?
Besides that, in Western Society, Men’s issues should recieve the focus of men, - fatherless boys, highest suicide / violence rates / lower life expectancy, male homophobia, depression, men whose social/emotional skills will not sustain them after divorce……
C’mon lads, western women for the most part are not helpless, & the 60’s & 70’s started their revolution - isn’t it time we now started cleaning up our own backyard before we look at women’s.
And..ummmm…….sorry to be a firestarter, but……how many women are passionate about the men’s issues of the type listed above?
July 21st, 2006 at 10:35 am
I never said I was perfect, Rev.
Do you want me to unpack that one? I think you basically unpacked it for me in a subsequent post anyway…
Reve, do you not think that my freedom, my empowerment, has benefits for the men in my life? Would you say that the empowerment of indigenous peoples is for them, and for me as a white woman to support from the sidelines? No - I believe I am obliged to get in and fight for equality alongside my indigenous friends. I use the word “alongside” deliberately - I’m not to take control of their battles, but rather jump in and stand with them.
I think there is nothing unseemly about a bloke who is passionate and vocal about feminism. I am very much a feminist, but I have learnt much from my partner about true equality. I don’t think it’s possible to make generalisations about what the appropriate role of men is, since it will be different in every situation.
Um, I’ve had women tell me that I’m not a real feminist because I’m not lesbian. Now, that’s basically the same but slightly more extreme version of your statement that “men’s issues shoudl receive the focus of men”. Identity is complex, and boys need women as much as they need men. We’re in this together - it’s not men versus women, and since we all need each other, these issues are for all of us.
And for what it’s worth, my mother is the most vocal advocate of the issues you name that I’ve ever met.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:40 am
Reve, as a woman who has a (grown) son, I care about men’s issues. justice is about caring what happens to everyone, true equality has to mean giving real consideration to the needs of the other gender too. I want both my son and my daughter to have the opportunities to become all that God planted within them, and not have some essential part of their personality, giftedness or needs suppressed because it doesn’t fit some prescription of what their respective gender is allowed to do. But also, as a woman who has been marginalised by men, particularly withing the conservative church (my background is Anglican and Presbyterian) I treasure the experiences I have had of males who have spoken into those wounds and redressed the balance. I treasure the experience I had at a conference some years ago of hearing a man get up and publicly apologise to the women for the way the church has treated them — that was a major healing for me and led directly to hearing God’s call to go go and study theology now my children are grown. I treasure the letter a male friend wrote to me when he learned some of my story, apologising on behalf of his gender for the males in my life who had physically, sexually and emotionally abused me. I treasure a couple of good male friends who support and encourage me as I continue to break the “rules” I was brought up with. I am thankful for my male minister, who in an Anglican church in Sydney, has encouraged me in ministry and gives me opportunities to preach. Jesus’ kingdom is one in which there has to be justice and liberty for all, men and women, black and white, the poor, the marginalised, the disadvantaged of every kind. None of us can fix the world on our own, none of us should paternalistically decide to fix other people and take away their self-determination and personal responsibility; but we all need to offer whatever kind of support we are able to, as we are personally confronted with these issues. there can’t be a just world for anyone until there is a just world for everyone ..
July 21st, 2006 at 11:05 am
Wow. That’s beautiful blestpickle.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:45 am
Bec, please pardon me as I C&P in response to a couple of your comments:
‘Greg, I’m not sure that men think they’ve got nothing to contribute to those discussions, I think it’s that they often just don’t see how it relates to them.’
While this comment is true of some men, they’re not the type of men who will address their own issues either. However, when you said:
‘No - I believe I am obliged to get in and fight for equality alongside my indigenous friends. I use the word “alongside” deliberately - I’m not to take control of their battles, but rather jump in and stand with them.’
I think you were right on the money, and, I think it reflects in men’s contributions/not to such discussions. For a long time, men made a very ham-fisted job of empowering women. We tried to cut you off and rescue you when what you needed was space to fly. We (men) put women in another gilded tower while we fought your battle FOR you, not WITH you.
Hence, I think a lot of women got jolly sick of it, and have (out of turn) dismissed men from such discussions because of their (our) poor record.
When I fight for women’s rights within my own church, I have had to learn to be very careful that I don’t bugger it up again, and turn a bunch of capable, frustrated, ready-to-fly women against me!! Because there is NOTHING worse than that!
I am really pleased to be able to read and contribute to such a discussion on a site such as this with a (roughly) equal group of M&W about this topic - it’s refreshing not to have it hijacked by an agenda driven nazi.
It makes me reflect on the discussion (many & varied!) we’ve had re gay/lesbian issues. Given that the nature of the men/women leadership thing in church has been going a bit longer and is only now making (some) headway, I wonder if it’s simply a matter of time and a few more headbutts to the concrete before we can (all) discuss gay issues with such clarity, and without causing the pain that often still occurs…
We need to continue to destroy the notion of ‘other’. While white/educated/straight/ment are the ‘norm’, everyone else is ‘other’, and therefore to be feared or excluded. I believe it is this notion of ‘other’ that is killing our churches, and is decimating our society.
July 21st, 2006 at 11:46 am
(Gosh - that got a bit serious didn’t it…)