(2nd in a series of articles exploring gender-inclusive language issues in church and culture.)
American schools have long taught the English grammar rule that allows the words “man” and “he” to refer to both males and females. This practice has evolved along a convoluted path.
According to Carolyn Jacobson (English Department, University of Pennsylvania), "man” was once a truly generic word referring to all humans. One document even refers to a seventh-century princess as “a wonderful man.” But the meaning of the word “man” has gradually narrowed to refer only to males.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, upper class boys needed help preparing for their Latin studies, so English grammar rules were created. As a result, "he” officially came to mean “male, only," not “male and female.”
Then a problem arose with using “they” as a singular, rather than plural pronoun. Eventually, grammarians drafted legislation that included establishing “he” as a generic pronoun. An 1850 Act of Parliament officially stated that “words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females.”
The new law sanctioned "he" as a generic pronoun, but application of that law was quickly ignored. In 1879, for instance, female physicians seeking admission to the all-male Massachusetts Medical Society were denied acceptance because wording in the Society’s by-laws referred to members only as “he.”
English, like other languages, is still evolving. In the 21st century, pronouns like “man,” “men,” “he,” “him” and “his” are officially generic, but in practice they are usually male-specific. Studies show that, despite knowing traditional grammar rules, both adults and children tend to think of male, not female persons when hearing or reading masculine pronouns.
Author Carol Becker (Leading Women) observes that our grammar rules promote a double standard which allows both men and women to hear male language as neutral and female language as gender-biased, noting that "Our habit of using masculine pronouns reminds us constantly that men are active in human history. …Using 'he' to talk about humanity works in favor of men and contributes to the invisibility of women."
In O Come, Let Us Bow Down and Worship, author Deborah Moore Clark adds that we must choose our words carefully, because "language often warps and filters meaning and understanding. …Words, like mirrors, reflect our attitudes…bear witness to our beliefs…influence our behavior and the behavior of others."
That is why gender-inclusive language is foundational to the issue of "women's place" in church and society. The way we speak shapes the way we think and act. Women will never achieve full equality and opportunity as long as female gender is absorbed into male terminology and imagery.
It's not a matter of being politically correct; it's a matter of putting our theology into practice. The gospel message of inclusion cannot be delivered adequately in the vehicle of gender-exclusive language.
The good news is that we can begin changing the status quo, one individual at a time, by adjusting the way we speak and write. It will take sustained effort, akin to becoming fluent in a second language, but it can be done.
Where to begin? People often stumble over feminine imagery for God (a theological issue for some, which I will address in an upcoming article in this series). So it seems easier to start with using gender-inclusive terms (rather than male-oriented terms like "man" and "he") when speaking of males and females as a combined group.
1. A short list of terms that excludes females:
he males lords guys
him man/men brotherhood gentlemen
his boys mankind fellowman
sons lads fathers brothers
fellows kings
2. A short list of terms that excludes males:
she woman/women gals lasses
her females girls ladies
daughters sisterhood mothers sisters
3. A short list of terms that includes both females and males:
person parent people
internationals sibling nations/nationals
multitudes people of God child/children
everyone/everybody one/one's humans
child(ren) of God anyone/anybody community
mortals human race souls
they/their all creation family/familial
humankind/humanity human beings saint
all/some/many/most co-worker lovers
laborers together sage neighbor
group/people group friend loved ones
world/worldwide folk all races
kin/kindred all generations team
flock/sheep tribe heir
all ages all lands
The idea is to select inclusive terminology from list #3 (avoiding list #1) when speaking of women and men together.
Remember there will always be naysayers who dig up awkward grammar problems (most of which can be worked around) created by substituting gender-inclusive language. But with practice, everyday usage will become second nature for those who are intentional about including women linguistically.
As author Brian Wren (What Language Shall I Borrow?) notes: "Language, like tobacco, is habit forming. Some patterns of writing and speaking are addictive and may damage both the user and others who breathe the same linguistic atmosphere. If we . . . decide to kick the habit, we may get withdrawal symptoms and hostility or derision from other smokers. But in the end, we shall enjoy breathing fresh air.”
Showing posts with label church relations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label church relations. Show all posts
Sunday, 23 September 2012
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Inclusive Language & the Church: Worth the Effort?
(1st in a series of articles exploring gender-inclusive language issues in church and culture.)
Language is powerful. In the broad sense, language as a communication tool takes many forms: behavior, expression, gesture, tone, words. Language has power to bless or curse, inspire or deflate, heal or wound, clarify or confuse, include or exclude.
Theologian and hymn writer Brian Wren, in What Language Shall I Borrow?, says that “language has limited power ‘by itself,’ but it gains considerable power—to enable, oppress, or liberate—in the hands of powerful users.”
The most obvious form of language is words. Words may be written or spoken, read or sung, whispered or shouted. Language not only puts our thoughts into words; language shapes our very thinking.
The nuances of language evolve within cultures and subcultures: countries, regions, cities, even churches and families. In every culture, young children absorb the basic language—including words, phrases, idioms, gestures, inflection, tone—of their parents and siblings, intuiting meaning and usage as they begin to mimic words and phrases.
Formal education then fine-tunes children's inherent language skills, teaching them reading, writing, spelling, vocabulary and rules of grammar, all reinforced through repetition. One's primary language becomes second nature at a very early age.
Once language patterns are set, it then becomes difficult to make adjustments. Editing our primary language is more difficult than learning a second language because the words and idioms of our primary language come to mind so easily that adjusting the verbiage feels awkward, unnatural.
Making changes that are lasting also requires constant intentionality over long periods of time, which many regard as unnecessary and "too much work."
Such is the difficulty when trying to establish gender-inclusive language as normative in patriarchal cultures, where gender-exclusive language has been the primary language for centuries. Ingrained habits are extremely difficult to overcome and replace.
When someone points out another's use of gender-exclusive language, the response is often, "Well, English grammar rules say it's okay to use the word 'man' and 'he' to mean 'everyone.' Everyone knows what I mean." [Then why not just say what you really mean; why force people to interpret your words?]
We sometimes forget that those default grammar rules were themselves created by men who were educated and powerful. Women--who were not allowed a formal education--had no voice in making them. It is no surprise that the rules favor men over women.
Most likely, the rule-makers didn't intend to be "anti-women"; it's just that no one thought to include women in the process. That's one of the biggest problems with women's equality issues, anyway. It's often not so much that women are openly rejected; it's more likely that they are "invisible," simply not thought of.
Then when women object to being constantly overlooked, they are quickly labeled as "aggressive" or "domineering," both considered undesirable traits for women who are expected to be "passively pleasant" in the realm of males.
It is when women speak up that patriarchal society resists, pushing back towards the status quo. As Wren puts it, "Power over others is usually clung to rather than surrendered."
The more patriarchal the culture, the more its women are discounted, overlooked, rejected, considered unimportant, not worth the effort of intentional inclusion. Patriarchal grammar rules are just one of the ways that women are kept "in their place."
Some may argue that perpetual use of outdated grammar rules (i.e., gender-exclusive language) is but a minor problem within efforts to raise the worldwide status of women. That "talk is cheap" and "actions speak louder than words."
On the one hand, that is true. But consider that gender-inclusive language is foundational to the entire question of "women's place" in church and society.
Language shapes thought; thought precedes action. Until the world speaks of women differently and thinks of women differently, women will not be treated differently in the long term.
Gender equity will never be fully achieved in church or society as long as gender-exclusive language is the norm. Only if enough people think gender-inclusive language is important enough to sustain intentional usage long enough will any real progress be made.
The larger question is, "Are women worth it?"
Monday, 20 February 2012
Responding to Truth
In 1978, Frank and Evelyn Stagg's groundbreaking book, "Woman in the World of Jesus," gave impetus to the modern Women in Ministry movement. The Staggs' meticulous research effectively poked large holes in prevailing Scripture interpretations that advocated male domination of women in church and home.
An uproar ensued among conservative pastors and husbands. The ground shook beneath the status quo platform of "women's place." Today, after decades of passionate debate, the controversy remains heated.
Shortly after the Staggs' book was published, one of my pastor colleagues was attending a conference at Southern Seminary, Louisville. He happened to be sitting with the Staggs at dinner one evening. The conversation drifted to their popular book.
At some point he asked Evelyn how she felt after completing all the research for their manuscript. She looked him square in the eye, set her jaw, and gave a one-word reply: "Mad."
Several years later I was gathering materials for an article* I was writing on Women in Ministry. By then I'd been full-time Minister of Music in a South Georgia church for over a decade--against all odds, considering the climate against women ministers.
Earlier, I'd become certified to teach public school choral music. But my circumstances changed unexpectedly and I "fell into" professional church music ministry instead.
Though I hadn't attended seminary, I found that I was well-prepared for music ministry. In addition to my formal choral training, I was the child of a church-planter Baptist preacher, and grew up doing all sorts of leadership tasks in mission settings. Also, for two summers during college, I conducted music schools in churches throughout Florida.
Unknowingly, I'd been preparing for a career in church music ministry all along. Yet, I'd never considered being a minister, and had no women music minister role models.
Since childhood I'd been taught to follow wherever Christ leads. So Christ called, I followed, and I've thrived as a Minister of Music for 30+ years.
In preparation for the article I was writing on "women's place," I sent a survey to Baptist women ministers throughout Georgia, garnering about twenty intense responses.
My plan was to fashion a mostly anecdotal article from their responses, including a section dealing with women's ordination issues.
Just one problem: I didn't feel qualified to write that section. No biblical scholar here--I hadn't even been to seminary yet. And the survey responses regarding ordination were only moderately helpful.
I remember sitting with KJV Bible in hand, wondering if I'd been wrong about "women's place." Certainly, what I was experiencing was different than what I'd been taught.
My instincts, satisfaction, and affirmation from the saints around me--not scholastic exegesis--had given me confidence in my calling.
With some trepidation, I breathed a quick prayer asking God to reveal whatever it was that I needed to know. Opening my Bible, I decided to focus on Jesus' words and actions.
Yeess!! There it was, clearly shown, even in the KJV. Affirmation after affirmation. How could anybody miss it?
Jesus didn't restrict women; he demolished the status quo. Jesus reserved his strongest admonitions for the religious power brokers, who usually got things wrong.
Jesus made no distinctions between women's and men's roles. He even freed Martha from the kitchen.
Jesus had women disciples. God gave the Good News of Jesus' resurrection first to women, and told them to proclaim it.
Women's "place"--just like men's--is next to Jesus' heart. Knowing Jesus brings boundless freedom, fulfillment and joy.
I can hear Jesus saying, "Follow me. Develop your gifts. Become the wonderful person God created you to be. I'll love you, be with you and partner with you always."
When the Holy Spirit reveals to women (and men) that the status quo they've bought into for so long is a lie--despite well-meaning instruction by trusted parents, religious leaders and mentors--their responses are varied: Shock. Betrayal. Bewilderment. Frustration.
Evelyn Stagg, after discovering truth through her own scholarly research, felt anger. Righteous anger at the misguided teachings of so many churches. Her response? Co-author a book that shares her findings.
For myself, after discovering biblical support for what I'd known all along in my soul, I felt relief, validation. My response? Write a blog advocating for women, especially women ministers--and be the finest Minister of Music that I can be.
Countless other women (and men) also use their little corner of the world to empower women: Activists. Politicians. Authors. Preachers. Social Workers. Mentors. Parents.
Some create websites and utilize social media; others organize conferences and give speeches. Some create informative reading materials; others mentor young women.
Some provide emotional support for battered women; others elevate the physical circumstances of needy women. Some are in-your-face activists; others advocate from behind the scenes.
Whatever the mode of our responses, our message is always the same: "The truth shall set you free."
[*Subsequently published in The Christian Index (GA) and The Southern Baptist Church Music Journal, which devoted the entire 1985 edition--including sensitive commentary about women's ordination--to articles by women music ministers. My, how the SBC's official stance has devolved since then.]
Monday, 8 August 2011
Pitfalls of Hierarchy: Scarcity Thinking & Domination
(4th in a series of articles exploring how hierarchical paradigms negatively impact culture)
Human relationships are complicated. Each of us is uniquely endowed with particular strengths, weaknesses, desires--and peculiarities. The very nature of being human is that we are created to live not only in relationship with God, but with all those other "peculiar" human beings. That's where things get messy.
For humans to live together peacefully on this planet, we must constantly make adjustments in order to get along with each other and achieve satisfying lives.
No matter what the connection--within families, with coworkers, friends, neighbors or people groups--human relationships are in a constant state of flux. We ebb and flow between conflict and resolution, brokenness and wholeness, anxiety and serenity, dissatisfaction and contentment.
Too often we get so stuck on the negative that we have little time or energy left to enjoy the positive aspects of our relationships.
One negative factor is our tendency toward "scarcity" thinking (your gain is my loss) rather than "abundance" thinking (plenty for everyone). We come by this naturally, entering this world as egocentric infants, assuming that everything revolves around our needs and wants.
We grab all we can for ourselves; we have to be taught to share. Unfortunately, many adults--even nations--never fully outgrow their egocentricity.
Scarcity thinking is hierarchical thinking. It's "who's on top," rooted in lack of trust in oneself, others and God. It's "if you win, I'll look or feel like a loser"; "if I don't control you, you will control me"; "if you get lots of praise and recognition, I'll look or feel stupid and insignificant"; "if I don't dominate or intimidate you, you will take advantage of me."
Domination issues underlie much of human conflict: bullying, gender inequities, racial unrest, economic gaps, abuse, war. To the degree that one party in a relationship is allowed to dominate, the other party is proportionately submissive.
Adult relationships tend to fall within one of four categories, each with predictable results:
1. Dominant party + submissive party, both parties comfortable with their roles = generally peaceful relationship.
2. Dominant party + submissive party, one party (usually the submissive one) uncomfortable with role = generally conflictual relationship.
3. Belief in equal parties, but difficulty working out roles in cultural context, one or both parties uncomfortable with role = generally conflictual relationship.
4. Equal parties, successfully working out details of roles, both parties comfortable with their roles = generally peaceful relationship.
Human relationships in category 1 rarely stay there very long. There is something innately human that resists being dominated by others, whether it's slaves seeking freedom, women seeking equality, or the poor seeking economic parity.
At best, category 1 relationships only maintain the status quo--a very tenuous "peace"--because what appears to be willing submission is often only passivity.
In category 1, relationships may outwardly appear to be peaceful because the submissive party has low self-esteem or is too weak or intimidated by the dominant party to protest the inequity.
Or the submissive party may have been indoctrinated, with not enough education or life experiences to discern unhealthy relationships. I once read of a girl who "accepted" incest throughout her early life because trusted relatives had convinced her that it was just "something girls do with fathers and brothers." She didn't know it was unacceptable until she went away to college.
Sometimes the submissive party in category 1 is unwilling to shake up the only way of life she/he has ever known. At the end of the Civil War, some newly-freed slaves begged their former masters to let them stay on as indentured servants because launching out on their own was too overwhelming.
Females growing up in male-dominated homes often enter into male-dominated relationships when they date or marry. For them, it's a familiar way of life, usually reinforced by patriarchal religious beliefs.
Some females, especially those who marry young, transfer directly from supervision by their fathers to supervision by their husbands. They don't comprehend that only God--not any other human being--is automatically qualified to be anyone's "boss."
Dominance is often characterized as being brutal or overbearing toward others, for whatever reason. But dominance can also be subtle--perhaps just an underlying attitude or assumption of entitlement due to being wealthy, male, Caucasian or American.
I once heard a church member proudly say, "My ancestors were good to their slaves," as if that somehow exonerated his family's slave ownership. "Goodness" is not the issue; domination is about lack of freedom, equality and opportunity.
Conservative groups such as Promise Keepers teach that male domination is inherently God-ordained in church and home. Their premise is that men are to be "in charge" of women (whom God expects to submit graciously), but must treat them "lovingly."
Besides this misapplication of Scripture, the problem is that within human relationships, power and authentic love cannot co-exist. Even a kind, gentle, "loving" ruler still retains power to control the direction of others' lives. Again, the real issues are lack of freedom, equality and opportunity.
Some may ask, "How can the conflictual relationships of categories 2 and 3 be preferable to the peaceful relationships of category 1? Isn't peace, even a tenuous "peace," always better than conflict?"
For one thing, there is a difference between the peace found in category 4 and the "peace" found in category 1. Category 4 relationships are justice-based; category 1 relationships are not. In category 4 both parties--not just the dominant party of category 1--have God-given freedom and opportunity to thrive as individuals.
Conflict—especially sustained conflict--is always difficult, and conflict for its own sake is never justifiable. But conflict can sometimes be valuable. Just ask any civil rights advocate if progress made in race relations has been worth decades of struggle.
When the goal is justice and equality for everyone, rather than dominance by some, then non-violent conflict is good. For those who are willing to struggle through categories 2 and 3 in order to achieve category 4, their reward is a lasting, satisfying, "just" peace.
However, scarcity thinking ("who's on top") can thwart progress toward lasting peace. Conflict is not good if the result is replacement of one dominant party by another dominant party. (Think rival gangs in NYC, ruthless tribes in Africa, corrupt regimes in the Middle East.) The goal of "just" conflict is to establish equality and freedom, not further domination.
No matter with whom we have relationship, we must avoid scarcity thinking, which only feeds our human tendency to dominate others, and prevents us--and them--from experiencing the "abundant life" that Jesus offers (John 10:10).
Jesus deliberately shook up the status quo, but Jesus never tried to dominate others. The more we embrace Jesus' way of thinking and treating others, the better our chances of achieving peaceful, satisfying, "category 4" relationships as we help bring about God's peaceable kingdom on this earth.
Human relationships are complicated. Each of us is uniquely endowed with particular strengths, weaknesses, desires--and peculiarities. The very nature of being human is that we are created to live not only in relationship with God, but with all those other "peculiar" human beings. That's where things get messy.
For humans to live together peacefully on this planet, we must constantly make adjustments in order to get along with each other and achieve satisfying lives.
No matter what the connection--within families, with coworkers, friends, neighbors or people groups--human relationships are in a constant state of flux. We ebb and flow between conflict and resolution, brokenness and wholeness, anxiety and serenity, dissatisfaction and contentment.
Too often we get so stuck on the negative that we have little time or energy left to enjoy the positive aspects of our relationships.
One negative factor is our tendency toward "scarcity" thinking (your gain is my loss) rather than "abundance" thinking (plenty for everyone). We come by this naturally, entering this world as egocentric infants, assuming that everything revolves around our needs and wants.
We grab all we can for ourselves; we have to be taught to share. Unfortunately, many adults--even nations--never fully outgrow their egocentricity.
Scarcity thinking is hierarchical thinking. It's "who's on top," rooted in lack of trust in oneself, others and God. It's "if you win, I'll look or feel like a loser"; "if I don't control you, you will control me"; "if you get lots of praise and recognition, I'll look or feel stupid and insignificant"; "if I don't dominate or intimidate you, you will take advantage of me."
Domination issues underlie much of human conflict: bullying, gender inequities, racial unrest, economic gaps, abuse, war. To the degree that one party in a relationship is allowed to dominate, the other party is proportionately submissive.
Adult relationships tend to fall within one of four categories, each with predictable results:
1. Dominant party + submissive party, both parties comfortable with their roles = generally peaceful relationship.
2. Dominant party + submissive party, one party (usually the submissive one) uncomfortable with role = generally conflictual relationship.
3. Belief in equal parties, but difficulty working out roles in cultural context, one or both parties uncomfortable with role = generally conflictual relationship.
4. Equal parties, successfully working out details of roles, both parties comfortable with their roles = generally peaceful relationship.
Human relationships in category 1 rarely stay there very long. There is something innately human that resists being dominated by others, whether it's slaves seeking freedom, women seeking equality, or the poor seeking economic parity.
At best, category 1 relationships only maintain the status quo--a very tenuous "peace"--because what appears to be willing submission is often only passivity.
In category 1, relationships may outwardly appear to be peaceful because the submissive party has low self-esteem or is too weak or intimidated by the dominant party to protest the inequity.
Or the submissive party may have been indoctrinated, with not enough education or life experiences to discern unhealthy relationships. I once read of a girl who "accepted" incest throughout her early life because trusted relatives had convinced her that it was just "something girls do with fathers and brothers." She didn't know it was unacceptable until she went away to college.
Sometimes the submissive party in category 1 is unwilling to shake up the only way of life she/he has ever known. At the end of the Civil War, some newly-freed slaves begged their former masters to let them stay on as indentured servants because launching out on their own was too overwhelming.
Females growing up in male-dominated homes often enter into male-dominated relationships when they date or marry. For them, it's a familiar way of life, usually reinforced by patriarchal religious beliefs.
Some females, especially those who marry young, transfer directly from supervision by their fathers to supervision by their husbands. They don't comprehend that only God--not any other human being--is automatically qualified to be anyone's "boss."
Dominance is often characterized as being brutal or overbearing toward others, for whatever reason. But dominance can also be subtle--perhaps just an underlying attitude or assumption of entitlement due to being wealthy, male, Caucasian or American.
I once heard a church member proudly say, "My ancestors were good to their slaves," as if that somehow exonerated his family's slave ownership. "Goodness" is not the issue; domination is about lack of freedom, equality and opportunity.
Conservative groups such as Promise Keepers teach that male domination is inherently God-ordained in church and home. Their premise is that men are to be "in charge" of women (whom God expects to submit graciously), but must treat them "lovingly."
Besides this misapplication of Scripture, the problem is that within human relationships, power and authentic love cannot co-exist. Even a kind, gentle, "loving" ruler still retains power to control the direction of others' lives. Again, the real issues are lack of freedom, equality and opportunity.
Some may ask, "How can the conflictual relationships of categories 2 and 3 be preferable to the peaceful relationships of category 1? Isn't peace, even a tenuous "peace," always better than conflict?"
For one thing, there is a difference between the peace found in category 4 and the "peace" found in category 1. Category 4 relationships are justice-based; category 1 relationships are not. In category 4 both parties--not just the dominant party of category 1--have God-given freedom and opportunity to thrive as individuals.
Conflict—especially sustained conflict--is always difficult, and conflict for its own sake is never justifiable. But conflict can sometimes be valuable. Just ask any civil rights advocate if progress made in race relations has been worth decades of struggle.
When the goal is justice and equality for everyone, rather than dominance by some, then non-violent conflict is good. For those who are willing to struggle through categories 2 and 3 in order to achieve category 4, their reward is a lasting, satisfying, "just" peace.
However, scarcity thinking ("who's on top") can thwart progress toward lasting peace. Conflict is not good if the result is replacement of one dominant party by another dominant party. (Think rival gangs in NYC, ruthless tribes in Africa, corrupt regimes in the Middle East.) The goal of "just" conflict is to establish equality and freedom, not further domination.
No matter with whom we have relationship, we must avoid scarcity thinking, which only feeds our human tendency to dominate others, and prevents us--and them--from experiencing the "abundant life" that Jesus offers (John 10:10).
Jesus deliberately shook up the status quo, but Jesus never tried to dominate others. The more we embrace Jesus' way of thinking and treating others, the better our chances of achieving peaceful, satisfying, "category 4" relationships as we help bring about God's peaceable kingdom on this earth.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Pitfalls of Hierarchy: Racial & Gender Superiority
(3rd in a series of articles exploring how hierarchical paradigms negatively impact culture)
Those of us who advocate egalitarianism, working for justice worldwide, may consider ourselves to be enlightened, inclusive and progressive. But hierarchical thinking can linger subtly in our own lives, manifesting itself as racial or patriarchal attitudes of superiority.
For a few months in 1973 I rented a room from a widow in South Georgia. "Miss Ida" was a friendly, genteel, Caucasian woman with one of the most distinctive southern drawls I've ever heard.
Miss Ida* was nearing retirement, but still worked full-time at the local Neighborhood Services Center. There she distributed food and clothing, taught life skills and planned fun events for poor people, most of them African-American clients. She delighted in her work, finding it very fulfilling; I admired her dedication and generosity.
One week Miss Ida hired an African-American woman to help clean her house prior to hosting a party. The woman was as jovial as Miss Ida; from my room I could hear them laughing as they worked together. For some reason the woman wasn't paid that day, but was asked to come by for her earnings later in the week.
A day or so later I was talking with Miss Ida in her living room when the front doorbell rang. She opened the door, had a friendly exchange with the cleaning woman and handed her some cash in an envelope.
Closing the door, she wheeled around and muttered scornfully as she briskly walked by me, "Now they're coming to the front door!" I was speechless, totally shocked. I never expected to hear those words, especially from her.
Apparently, as long as Miss Ida played the role of benevolent white woman everything was fine. But let any of the blacks get "uppity" and presume to act like her equal, then her inbred assumption of superiority quickly kicked in.
A similar situation sometimes occurs when Baptist churches overcome internal political barriers and begin ordaining women as deacons or ministers. Admirable intentions aside, there is a big difference between allowing ordination of women and embracing women as church leaders. Congregations don't always understand that ordination is only the beginning, not the climax, of women's full inclusion into the life and ministry of the church.
Some churches consider themselves to be progressive simply because they ordain a woman or two here and there as deacons. But this can be a mere nod to egalitarianism if these women are perceived primarily as tokens, not functionally equal to their male peers.
In such churches women deacons may serve communion and attend deacons' meetings. But the unspoken assumption is that they will mostly serve quietly behind-the-scenes, still following the leadership of male deacons or ministers in important church matters.
Things will go smoothly for a woman deacon until she starts to act as if she were as capable a leader as any man in such a church. Once she begins leading, voicing her opinions, lingering patriarchal assumptions of superiority quickly kick in. The status quo is threatened. She's soon discounted, labeled as "uppity," "difficult," or worse.
More progressive churches may ordain and/or hire a woman as children's minister or youth minister, perhaps even as minister of education. Some churches perceive of these as mostly behind-the-scenes positions heavily involving the teaching/activities coordination of children and youth.
[Please note that I personally am not critiquing or ranking ministry positions, only observing the thinking of some misguided congregations. Ironically, when it comes to impacting a church's ministry and influence in the community, a strong case could be made that the children's minister position is more "important" than all other ministerial positions. Yet children's ministers--so many of them women--often have little power and receive the least salary.]
For many congregations, the last bastions of male leadership are the "platform positions" (minister of music and, of course, pastor). Churches tend to reserve these up-front, worship-leading positions for men. Even among the most progressive congregations, outspoken about equal opportunities for women, so many prefer hiring males as their primary worship leaders.
It's one thing to invite a woman to preach occasionally; it's quite another to hire a woman as senior pastor. No one is saying that only churches with female pastors are fully progressive and egalitarian. And every pastor--female or male--is not necessarily the right match for every church.
However, it seems obvious that the deck is greatly stacked against women pastoral candidates. Overall, words of affirmation for women ring hollow unless ministerial search committees are intentional about giving serious, not just token, consideration to female candidates.
Those of us who try so hard to live egalitarian lives that embrace women and minorities are sometimes surprised to discover lingering hierarchical, "superior" attitudes, subtly inbred by our culture, in ourselves and our churches. At the Holy Spirit's revelation, it is incumbent upon us to dust out these corners of our spiritual lives, that we may see each other as God sees all of us.
(*pseudonym)
(Upcoming: My next article will deal with hierarchical attitudes in domestic relationships.)
Those of us who advocate egalitarianism, working for justice worldwide, may consider ourselves to be enlightened, inclusive and progressive. But hierarchical thinking can linger subtly in our own lives, manifesting itself as racial or patriarchal attitudes of superiority.
For a few months in 1973 I rented a room from a widow in South Georgia. "Miss Ida" was a friendly, genteel, Caucasian woman with one of the most distinctive southern drawls I've ever heard.
Miss Ida* was nearing retirement, but still worked full-time at the local Neighborhood Services Center. There she distributed food and clothing, taught life skills and planned fun events for poor people, most of them African-American clients. She delighted in her work, finding it very fulfilling; I admired her dedication and generosity.
One week Miss Ida hired an African-American woman to help clean her house prior to hosting a party. The woman was as jovial as Miss Ida; from my room I could hear them laughing as they worked together. For some reason the woman wasn't paid that day, but was asked to come by for her earnings later in the week.
A day or so later I was talking with Miss Ida in her living room when the front doorbell rang. She opened the door, had a friendly exchange with the cleaning woman and handed her some cash in an envelope.
Closing the door, she wheeled around and muttered scornfully as she briskly walked by me, "Now they're coming to the front door!" I was speechless, totally shocked. I never expected to hear those words, especially from her.
Apparently, as long as Miss Ida played the role of benevolent white woman everything was fine. But let any of the blacks get "uppity" and presume to act like her equal, then her inbred assumption of superiority quickly kicked in.
A similar situation sometimes occurs when Baptist churches overcome internal political barriers and begin ordaining women as deacons or ministers. Admirable intentions aside, there is a big difference between allowing ordination of women and embracing women as church leaders. Congregations don't always understand that ordination is only the beginning, not the climax, of women's full inclusion into the life and ministry of the church.
Some churches consider themselves to be progressive simply because they ordain a woman or two here and there as deacons. But this can be a mere nod to egalitarianism if these women are perceived primarily as tokens, not functionally equal to their male peers.
In such churches women deacons may serve communion and attend deacons' meetings. But the unspoken assumption is that they will mostly serve quietly behind-the-scenes, still following the leadership of male deacons or ministers in important church matters.
Things will go smoothly for a woman deacon until she starts to act as if she were as capable a leader as any man in such a church. Once she begins leading, voicing her opinions, lingering patriarchal assumptions of superiority quickly kick in. The status quo is threatened. She's soon discounted, labeled as "uppity," "difficult," or worse.
More progressive churches may ordain and/or hire a woman as children's minister or youth minister, perhaps even as minister of education. Some churches perceive of these as mostly behind-the-scenes positions heavily involving the teaching/activities coordination of children and youth.
[Please note that I personally am not critiquing or ranking ministry positions, only observing the thinking of some misguided congregations. Ironically, when it comes to impacting a church's ministry and influence in the community, a strong case could be made that the children's minister position is more "important" than all other ministerial positions. Yet children's ministers--so many of them women--often have little power and receive the least salary.]
For many congregations, the last bastions of male leadership are the "platform positions" (minister of music and, of course, pastor). Churches tend to reserve these up-front, worship-leading positions for men. Even among the most progressive congregations, outspoken about equal opportunities for women, so many prefer hiring males as their primary worship leaders.
It's one thing to invite a woman to preach occasionally; it's quite another to hire a woman as senior pastor. No one is saying that only churches with female pastors are fully progressive and egalitarian. And every pastor--female or male--is not necessarily the right match for every church.
However, it seems obvious that the deck is greatly stacked against women pastoral candidates. Overall, words of affirmation for women ring hollow unless ministerial search committees are intentional about giving serious, not just token, consideration to female candidates.
Those of us who try so hard to live egalitarian lives that embrace women and minorities are sometimes surprised to discover lingering hierarchical, "superior" attitudes, subtly inbred by our culture, in ourselves and our churches. At the Holy Spirit's revelation, it is incumbent upon us to dust out these corners of our spiritual lives, that we may see each other as God sees all of us.
(*pseudonym)
(Upcoming: My next article will deal with hierarchical attitudes in domestic relationships.)
Monday, 31 January 2011
Pitfalls of Hierarchy: Is Change Even Possible?
[Note: This article was written just prior to the upheaval in Egypt and is not intended as political commentary on that situation, though much of the article may/may not be applicable.]
(1st in a series of articles exploring how hierarchical paradigms negatively impact culture)
Hierarchy is the primary foundation of the world's systems. Military model. Corporate model. Winners vs. losers. Rich vs. poor. Powerful vs. weak.
The reason hierarchy prevails is because it works so well for us. It's what we're used to. It's what we know. We're so wrapped in our hierarchical, pyramid-like thinking that it's difficult for us to conceive of, much less implement, a different paradigm.
Throughout history, hierarchy has most often manifested itself negatively as patriarchy, with racism and economic inequities running close behind. Males of all races, rich or poor, generally have more power and status than females throughout the world, with few exceptions. Hierarchy pervades all societies.
As our world keeps evolving, some progress is being made towards leveling the gender and racial playing fields in parts of the world, but economic equity still lags far behind. When Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you" (Mark 14:7), perhaps he knew the hardest thing for humanity to overcome would be the greed and narcissism that sustains unjust hierarchical systems.
Pockets of egalitarianism do thrive here and there, however. And the movement against patriarchy and racism seems to be gaining some ground, in spite of major setbacks.
Most of the progress that's been made can be attributed to Jesus' influence upon humankind. Without Jesus, egalitarianism and mutuality would have little hope of existence. Women, minority races and the poor would have little chance for equal respect, freedom and opportunities.
Jesus initiated an egalitarian movement, showing people how to live and love without dominating each other. But Jesus--and courageous others since his time--paid the ultimate price for challenging the status quo. Progress is rarely achieved without conflict and casualties.
Amazingly, some modern Christians are among those thwarting progress toward egalitarianism, all in the name of biblical fidelity. Fundamentalists and inerrantists keep trying to push society backwards to the hierarchical world of the Bible, where women basically had no rights and slavery was common.
An exaggeration? Perhaps. But even if societies only reverted to the attitudes of the 1950's, not the first century, the world definitely would be headed in the wrong direction. Pushing backwards is futile, anyway. The egalitarian cat has worked its paw out of the proverbial bag; there's no going back to the way we were.
Hierarchical models of adult relationships are especially problematic at the top and bottom tiers. People at the bottom of the pyramid constantly struggle to improve their status, often looking upon those at higher levels with envy, sometimes hatred because they feel trampled upon, hopelessly stuck near the bottom due to a system over which they have no control. They are determined to rise higher than the bottom tier.
People at the top of the pyramid often have a sense of entitlement that accompanies their elevated status. They sometimes think they deserve to be at a high level because they are smarter or work harder or are simply destined to be in that position.
Many are grateful to God for their high status. Some even believe that God placed them at the top just because they are male, or white, or good, or American, or… While they enjoy power and privilege, their biggest struggle is with constantly having to scramble just to keep their place on the pyramid. They are determined to perpetuate the hierarchical system that keeps them at the top.
In her wonderful allegory, Hope for the Flowers, author Trina Paulus tells of Stripe, a caterpillar who tries to climb a huge pile of caterpillars, all trampling on each other in their blind quest to reach the top of the pile. Ultimately, Stripe reaches the top and discovers that there's "nothing there" except other caterpillars struggling with all their might to maintain their high position.
Stripe finally quits playing the game, gets trampled to the bottom, crawls away and eventually is transformed into a beautiful butterfly, able to soar above meaningless caterpillar piles everywhere.
Like Stripe, in order for all of us to be transformed and have a better life together "more than we can ever imagine," we must somehow find the courage to move beyond hierarchical systems and work towards implementing better relationship paradigms. Difficult? Extremely. Impossible? Not with God helping us.
[Upcoming: The next article in this series will explore alternative paradigms and the unique perspective of the middle class.]
(1st in a series of articles exploring how hierarchical paradigms negatively impact culture)
Hierarchy is the primary foundation of the world's systems. Military model. Corporate model. Winners vs. losers. Rich vs. poor. Powerful vs. weak.
The reason hierarchy prevails is because it works so well for us. It's what we're used to. It's what we know. We're so wrapped in our hierarchical, pyramid-like thinking that it's difficult for us to conceive of, much less implement, a different paradigm.
Throughout history, hierarchy has most often manifested itself negatively as patriarchy, with racism and economic inequities running close behind. Males of all races, rich or poor, generally have more power and status than females throughout the world, with few exceptions. Hierarchy pervades all societies.
As our world keeps evolving, some progress is being made towards leveling the gender and racial playing fields in parts of the world, but economic equity still lags far behind. When Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you" (Mark 14:7), perhaps he knew the hardest thing for humanity to overcome would be the greed and narcissism that sustains unjust hierarchical systems.
Pockets of egalitarianism do thrive here and there, however. And the movement against patriarchy and racism seems to be gaining some ground, in spite of major setbacks.
Most of the progress that's been made can be attributed to Jesus' influence upon humankind. Without Jesus, egalitarianism and mutuality would have little hope of existence. Women, minority races and the poor would have little chance for equal respect, freedom and opportunities.
Jesus initiated an egalitarian movement, showing people how to live and love without dominating each other. But Jesus--and courageous others since his time--paid the ultimate price for challenging the status quo. Progress is rarely achieved without conflict and casualties.
Amazingly, some modern Christians are among those thwarting progress toward egalitarianism, all in the name of biblical fidelity. Fundamentalists and inerrantists keep trying to push society backwards to the hierarchical world of the Bible, where women basically had no rights and slavery was common.
An exaggeration? Perhaps. But even if societies only reverted to the attitudes of the 1950's, not the first century, the world definitely would be headed in the wrong direction. Pushing backwards is futile, anyway. The egalitarian cat has worked its paw out of the proverbial bag; there's no going back to the way we were.
Hierarchical models of adult relationships are especially problematic at the top and bottom tiers. People at the bottom of the pyramid constantly struggle to improve their status, often looking upon those at higher levels with envy, sometimes hatred because they feel trampled upon, hopelessly stuck near the bottom due to a system over which they have no control. They are determined to rise higher than the bottom tier.
People at the top of the pyramid often have a sense of entitlement that accompanies their elevated status. They sometimes think they deserve to be at a high level because they are smarter or work harder or are simply destined to be in that position.
Many are grateful to God for their high status. Some even believe that God placed them at the top just because they are male, or white, or good, or American, or… While they enjoy power and privilege, their biggest struggle is with constantly having to scramble just to keep their place on the pyramid. They are determined to perpetuate the hierarchical system that keeps them at the top.
In her wonderful allegory, Hope for the Flowers, author Trina Paulus tells of Stripe, a caterpillar who tries to climb a huge pile of caterpillars, all trampling on each other in their blind quest to reach the top of the pile. Ultimately, Stripe reaches the top and discovers that there's "nothing there" except other caterpillars struggling with all their might to maintain their high position.
Stripe finally quits playing the game, gets trampled to the bottom, crawls away and eventually is transformed into a beautiful butterfly, able to soar above meaningless caterpillar piles everywhere.
Like Stripe, in order for all of us to be transformed and have a better life together "more than we can ever imagine," we must somehow find the courage to move beyond hierarchical systems and work towards implementing better relationship paradigms. Difficult? Extremely. Impossible? Not with God helping us.
[Upcoming: The next article in this series will explore alternative paradigms and the unique perspective of the middle class.]
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
Baptists and Ordination: Would Jesus Qualify?
Christians, by definition, are followers of Christ. They just differ on “how." How should Christians walk daily with Christ? How closely? Every Christian falls in a different place along a wide spectrum of discipleship practices and intimacy with Christ.
Churches, by definition, are groups of Christ’s followers, disciples supporting each other and joining together for worship and ministry. Again, they differ on "how." What Christian practices should churches follow? How strictly?
Historically, Baptists have valued priesthood of believers and autonomy of churches. As individuals and churches forge unique paths of worship and discipleship, problems arise when some confuse authentic Christian practices (following Christ) with mere religiosities (patriarchal traditions).
Ordination of women has long been a source of controversy among Baptists. Some churches believe there are no gender barriers to ordination. Others believe that ordination is reserved for males, only.
For centuries, Baptists have laid aside their differences, cooperating to facilitate larger ministries together. However, divisions over women's roles (among other issues) have recently prompted fundamentalist Baptists to disfellowship from associations and state conventions any churches who ordain women.
The only “autonomy” evident among these ousting churches is that some object to ordination of women as pastors; others draw the line at women ministers; still others object to any women being ordained, beginning with women deacons.
The word “deacon” comes from the Greek “diakonos,” meaning “servant.” In the early church, deacons were chosen by their peers in recognition of their gifts of servanthood.
Baptists' perception of ordination has become skewed over time. It has shifted from a recognition of humble servanthood to a position of authority and power, perceived as an election into a class of spiritual elitism.
I once witnessed a misguided deacon candidate "campaigning" for ordination, approaching church members with, "I hope you'll vote for me." Ordination candidates should be selected, not elected. Ordination is not an admission requirement into an exclusive club of elevated spiritual status.
Baptists have never had consistent criteria for ordaining deacons, ministers or pastors except for a sense of calling by the candidate and an affirmative vote by a congregation. The process has always been up to the ordaining congregation.
Baptists have no age or education requirements for ordination. Candidates in individual churches may be ordained pre-seminary or post-seminary, or with no education at all. I know of some pastors who were ordained in their early teens.
Some ordination councils grill candidates about doctrine; some question candidates' stances on hot-button issues. Others simply say, "Tell us your story of how you've followed Christ."
Oddly, though the IRS recognizes both ordination and/or licensing as credentials for professional ministers (pastors/ministerial staff), many Baptists make a big distinction between the two. Both licensing and ordination require an affirmative vote by a church, recognizing a candidate's spiritual gifts and calling. Ordination adds the laying on of hands.
All Christians are ministers. Professional ministers, licensed or ordained, are those called to vocational ministry. They make all or part of their living doing ministry with churches, denominations or other Christian-related institutions.
Some Baptist churches hire licensed ministers as clergy, not requiring ordination. Others regard only ordained ministers as clergy, whereas licensed ministers are considered laity, reflecting hierarchical thinking that considers ordination a "higher calling" than licensing.
Ordination itself is not divine; it is a human tradition of affirmation. Technically, the word "ordination" does not even appear biblically in the context of choosing deacons.
As far as we know, Jesus was never ordained by humans, just chosen by God. And the disciples whom Jesus chose (including some women) were never formally ordained, just chosen by him to help with his ministry on earth.
First Timothy 3 is the passage most often quoted by inerrantists as the primary guideline for selecting deacons for ordination. Verse 12 (KJV) states that deacons “must be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,” a statement often used to disqualify women, or men who are divorced, or married to divorced women. [I once heard of a Baptist congregation that even rescinded the ordination of a deacon who remarried after his first wife died--he was no longer "husband of one wife."]
A closer look at verse 12 reveals a huge dilemma for inerrantists. A strict, literal interpretation would disqualify even Jesus, the ultimate personification of a servant leader, as a candidate for ordination, because Jesus is thought to have been single, having no children. What a loss for any church.
[Jesus probably wouldn’t be ordained or hired by a church, anyway. His treatment of women and his style of ministry were anathema to the hierarchical, patriarchal systems that have prevailed for thousands of years.]
When it comes to disallowing ordination of women, inerrantists must rely on increasingly elaborate theological gymnastics in order to justify their patriarchal practices. Baptist autonomy notwithstanding, when such religiosities prevail, Jesus’ way of leading, thinking and living becomes less and less evident among some who call themselves Christians. What a loss for everyone.
Friday, 3 September 2010
Church Wives and Middlemen: Stories from the Trenches
In the late 1970’s the Georgia church I served as Minister of Music decided to host a Sunday School Leadership weekend. Someone from the state convention office recommended a motivational speaker from a large Atlanta church. His visit with us was memorable.
The man was highly polished, physically fit, disciplined and certain that his method was the only way to increase Sunday School attendance significantly in any church. Everything about his presentation was regimented. No church was supposed to begin step G without first completing steps A through F in exact order. He even advocated a precise way to distribute Sunday School records. When someone offered a suggestion for adapting his ideas to our church situation, he dismissed them with (sic) “Do you want to grow a Sunday School or not? My way works.”
He and I were invited to join the pastor’s family for a meal at the parsonage. The table conversation drifted towards his personal health regimen, a program that included not drinking any beverage at the table until after he had consumed all of his food. (I have no idea the health or digestive benefits of that practice, but I can’t imagine enjoying any meal under those circumstances!) There were also some tense moments as the pastor's youngest son had a behavior meltdown during dinner, requiring strong parental intervention under the ever-intimidating eye of our guest.
Mostly, I remember him standing in the center aisle of the sanctuary after the final session. Expressing his appreciation for the weekend, he shook hands with the pastor and me. Then he turned to the pastor’s wife, a diminutive woman with a quiet smile and sweet spirit--also a highly competent high school math teacher. Putting his hand on her shoulder he leaned down to her and said, (sic) “I really like you. You’re the perfect pastor’s wife--so ‘teachable.’”
She flinched but kept smiling graciously and didn’t offer a reply. He certainly struck a nerve with all of us. The next day as the pastor and I reflected on this man’s arrogant, condescending nature, we realized that our church likely experienced more negative than positive outcomes after his weekend with us.
Fast forward a decade or so.
Sometime around 1990 I attended a conference at Kentucky Baptists’ Cedarmore Assembly, near Louisville. At breakfast I sat with a group of women--mostly church musician friends from moderate KBC churches--around one of the long tables in the dining hall. We introduced ourselves to the other women around the table as we ate.
At some point the conversation turned to the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) controversy over women’s ordination and women’s “place” in church life. The controversy was hot and heavy at the time, receiving lots of national press. My friends and I began grousing aloud about the unbelievable statements making headlines from SBC leaders and conservative pastors.
We had already been introduced to a younger woman sitting at the end of the table; she had come across the river from Indiana to attend the conference. As the conversation evolved about our moderate churches’ stance on women’s inclusion, she suddenly blurted out, (sic) “You’re kidding!! Why, at my church we women don’t even give our own WMU (Women’s Missionary Union) report in business meeting. We have to give a written copy to one of the men to read aloud!”
I’ll never forget the wide-eyed, teary look on her face as she spoke. She was having an epiphany, a life-changing revelation about the world she thought she knew, an awareness that was simultaneously upsetting and mind-expanding for her.
The irony was, my friends and I were having a similar epiphany as we listened to her outburst. We'd had no idea that extreme situations like hers existed in churches today.
Fast forward another decade or so.
Several years ago a friend recommended to me a book about women and the church: Leading Women: How Church Women Can Avoid Leadership Traps and Negotiate the Gender Maze (Carol Becker, Abingdon Press). At first I was put off by the title, thinking disdainfully, “Oh, here we go again. Still another author is telling women we must keep a good, submissive attitude so we can be ‘led‘ by men in order to stay in the center of God’s divine plan.”
Was I ever wrong! Becker’s book is not about women being “led” or “taught” by men in church and home, but more about women who lead, despite having to maneuver in a patriarchal church environment. I found her book totally captivating--read all 206 pages in one long sitting. Her experiences and observations as a woman minister so closely paralleled mine, at one point I found myself musing that I could have authored her book.
Through Becker I was first introduced to the term “church wife,” a paradigm of a typical 1950’s woman who does the main work of keeping a home or church running efficiently, but is never allowed a leadership role or title--head of household, deacon, ministerial staff, pastor--all of which are reserved for men. If one looks around, congregations everywhere are overflowing with “church wives.”
Some churches allow, even encourage women to do all sorts of volunteer ministry tasks, but only if they are overseen officially by men. Other churches pay female nursery workers or kitchen staff or janitorial staff, but all other positions filled by women are volunteer, only. Still other churches hire women as “directors,” even those with seminary degrees, while men with similar credentials and responsibilities are hired as “ministers" (with higher pay, of course).
A Georgia Baptist church once told an acquaintance of mine, a female musician with an advanced music degree, “You can direct the children’s and youth choirs because that’s just girls and boys, but not the adult choir, because there are men in there, and a woman shouldn’t be over a man.” A Methodist friend resigned from teaching her Sunday School class because men started attending, and she believed that “a woman shouldn’t be over a man.”
Fast forward to the present.
A couple of weeks ago I saw an article in the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader by Catholic activist Janice Sevre-Duszynsky in response to a recent Vatican ruling. Apparently Catholic priests “involved in the ordination of a woman will now suffer greater penalties than priests who abuse children. Anyone involved in the ordination of a woman will be automatically excommunicated. …The new edict places the ordaining of women called by God to priesthood on the list of grave sins next to pedophilia, heresy, apostasy and schism.” Patriarchy is alive and well in Catholic circles.
Then, while channel surfing last week, I stumbled upon a Lexington cable TV broadcast of “The Bryant Station Baptist Hour.” The church choir loft was filled with women and men, young and old, all wearing modern clothing and sporting stylish haircuts. Yet the women all wore head coverings, either scarves or hats. I was intrigued that several even wore wide-brimmed hats as they sang.
The stout young pastor--wearing one of the worst toupees I’ve ever seen--was preaching that day on “The Christian Home.” Mostly his sermon was directed to the women. After a few minutes of astonished listening, I found a pencil to write down several quotes from his sermon: “Ladies, you have an obligation according to the scriptures to have a well-kept home.” “Older women have a calling to teach younger women to submit to their husbands.” “Husbands, you must love your wives into submission; wives, you must submit to your husband until he loves you more.” Patriarchy is alive and well in Baptist circles, too.
Now take a leap backwards to the time of Jesus.
Once again, we look to Jesus to help us understand what God really intended for human relationships.
Through the years I’ve heard numerous sermons based on the story of Mary and Martha (Lk. 10; Jn. 11 – 12). In every one of them the only person who always ends up looking bad is Martha, the one whom Jesus gently reprimands for not keeping her priorities straight.
I’ve always felt a little sorry for Martha. After all, she was just doing her best to fulfill the role that society expected of her: housekeeper, cook and waitress--all "wifely" tasks. For all we know, her sister Mary may have been a "flower child," a wandering airhead like Prissy (Butterfly McQueen’s character) in Gone with the Wind, who had to be monitored constantly in order to keep her on task.
Nevertheless, Jesus elevated the social status of both Martha and Mary. We don't know if other men were present every time Jesus visited in their home, but Lazarus was their brother and likely lived with them. And the disciples usually traveled everywhere with Jesus.
Hospitality to guests was (and still is) an important part of Middle Eastern culture. Society typically relegated household tasks to the women while the men sat and socialized together in a separate area. (Reminds me of some Southern dinner parties I've attended.)
Jesus defended Mary on more than one occasion when she (gasp!) forsook her "wifely" tasks and boldly entered a roomful of men to be near Jesus. He invited her to have conversations directly with him, and, in a culture that didn't allow women to be disciples of any rabbi, he even made her one of his disciples. A middleMAN was not required for her to have a personal relationship with Jesus and become his disciple.
And—I love this!—Jesus freed Martha from the kitchen. He invited her also to be daring, to abandon society's "wifely" expectations of her so that she could have a direct, personal relationship with him and be his disciple, too.
The scriptures don't relate any of the men's responses to Jesus' bold moves. Perhaps they were too stunned to respond. I can just imagine them thinking, hungrily, "Now wait a minute, Jesus. If both Mary and Martha are sitting here talking with us men, who's doing the cooking? Who's going to serve us some tea?"
Jesus was willing to wait on his dinner as he taught important relationship lessons to everyone in the room...and to us:
To the men: The world does not revolve around you; it revolves around the kingdom of God. Your assumptions of superiority and entitlement are not pleasing to God. Let go of some of your power and become real men—you will be much happier.
To the women: Be bold, but without malice in your hearts. I will give you courage to challenge those who try to stand between you and me, or try to keep you from following me. I am your teacher; you learn directly from me; I will lead you. Keep working to become all that God created you to be.
“Women’s place” in church and home has been an issue far longer than just the past few decades. Despite Jesus' influence, patriarchy continues to exist after thousands of years. At our current rate of progress, it may take another thousand years for all women to be fully accepted as equal to men in both church and home. That's discouraging sometimes, but it doesn't prevent us from pressing toward such a worthy goal. May God bless our efforts.
The man was highly polished, physically fit, disciplined and certain that his method was the only way to increase Sunday School attendance significantly in any church. Everything about his presentation was regimented. No church was supposed to begin step G without first completing steps A through F in exact order. He even advocated a precise way to distribute Sunday School records. When someone offered a suggestion for adapting his ideas to our church situation, he dismissed them with (sic) “Do you want to grow a Sunday School or not? My way works.”
He and I were invited to join the pastor’s family for a meal at the parsonage. The table conversation drifted towards his personal health regimen, a program that included not drinking any beverage at the table until after he had consumed all of his food. (I have no idea the health or digestive benefits of that practice, but I can’t imagine enjoying any meal under those circumstances!) There were also some tense moments as the pastor's youngest son had a behavior meltdown during dinner, requiring strong parental intervention under the ever-intimidating eye of our guest.
Mostly, I remember him standing in the center aisle of the sanctuary after the final session. Expressing his appreciation for the weekend, he shook hands with the pastor and me. Then he turned to the pastor’s wife, a diminutive woman with a quiet smile and sweet spirit--also a highly competent high school math teacher. Putting his hand on her shoulder he leaned down to her and said, (sic) “I really like you. You’re the perfect pastor’s wife--so ‘teachable.’”
She flinched but kept smiling graciously and didn’t offer a reply. He certainly struck a nerve with all of us. The next day as the pastor and I reflected on this man’s arrogant, condescending nature, we realized that our church likely experienced more negative than positive outcomes after his weekend with us.
Fast forward a decade or so.
Sometime around 1990 I attended a conference at Kentucky Baptists’ Cedarmore Assembly, near Louisville. At breakfast I sat with a group of women--mostly church musician friends from moderate KBC churches--around one of the long tables in the dining hall. We introduced ourselves to the other women around the table as we ate.
At some point the conversation turned to the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) controversy over women’s ordination and women’s “place” in church life. The controversy was hot and heavy at the time, receiving lots of national press. My friends and I began grousing aloud about the unbelievable statements making headlines from SBC leaders and conservative pastors.
We had already been introduced to a younger woman sitting at the end of the table; she had come across the river from Indiana to attend the conference. As the conversation evolved about our moderate churches’ stance on women’s inclusion, she suddenly blurted out, (sic) “You’re kidding!! Why, at my church we women don’t even give our own WMU (Women’s Missionary Union) report in business meeting. We have to give a written copy to one of the men to read aloud!”
I’ll never forget the wide-eyed, teary look on her face as she spoke. She was having an epiphany, a life-changing revelation about the world she thought she knew, an awareness that was simultaneously upsetting and mind-expanding for her.
The irony was, my friends and I were having a similar epiphany as we listened to her outburst. We'd had no idea that extreme situations like hers existed in churches today.
Fast forward another decade or so.
Several years ago a friend recommended to me a book about women and the church: Leading Women: How Church Women Can Avoid Leadership Traps and Negotiate the Gender Maze (Carol Becker, Abingdon Press). At first I was put off by the title, thinking disdainfully, “Oh, here we go again. Still another author is telling women we must keep a good, submissive attitude so we can be ‘led‘ by men in order to stay in the center of God’s divine plan.”
Was I ever wrong! Becker’s book is not about women being “led” or “taught” by men in church and home, but more about women who lead, despite having to maneuver in a patriarchal church environment. I found her book totally captivating--read all 206 pages in one long sitting. Her experiences and observations as a woman minister so closely paralleled mine, at one point I found myself musing that I could have authored her book.
Through Becker I was first introduced to the term “church wife,” a paradigm of a typical 1950’s woman who does the main work of keeping a home or church running efficiently, but is never allowed a leadership role or title--head of household, deacon, ministerial staff, pastor--all of which are reserved for men. If one looks around, congregations everywhere are overflowing with “church wives.”
Some churches allow, even encourage women to do all sorts of volunteer ministry tasks, but only if they are overseen officially by men. Other churches pay female nursery workers or kitchen staff or janitorial staff, but all other positions filled by women are volunteer, only. Still other churches hire women as “directors,” even those with seminary degrees, while men with similar credentials and responsibilities are hired as “ministers" (with higher pay, of course).
A Georgia Baptist church once told an acquaintance of mine, a female musician with an advanced music degree, “You can direct the children’s and youth choirs because that’s just girls and boys, but not the adult choir, because there are men in there, and a woman shouldn’t be over a man.” A Methodist friend resigned from teaching her Sunday School class because men started attending, and she believed that “a woman shouldn’t be over a man.”
Fast forward to the present.
A couple of weeks ago I saw an article in the Lexington (KY) Herald-Leader by Catholic activist Janice Sevre-Duszynsky in response to a recent Vatican ruling. Apparently Catholic priests “involved in the ordination of a woman will now suffer greater penalties than priests who abuse children. Anyone involved in the ordination of a woman will be automatically excommunicated. …The new edict places the ordaining of women called by God to priesthood on the list of grave sins next to pedophilia, heresy, apostasy and schism.” Patriarchy is alive and well in Catholic circles.
Then, while channel surfing last week, I stumbled upon a Lexington cable TV broadcast of “The Bryant Station Baptist Hour.” The church choir loft was filled with women and men, young and old, all wearing modern clothing and sporting stylish haircuts. Yet the women all wore head coverings, either scarves or hats. I was intrigued that several even wore wide-brimmed hats as they sang.
The stout young pastor--wearing one of the worst toupees I’ve ever seen--was preaching that day on “The Christian Home.” Mostly his sermon was directed to the women. After a few minutes of astonished listening, I found a pencil to write down several quotes from his sermon: “Ladies, you have an obligation according to the scriptures to have a well-kept home.” “Older women have a calling to teach younger women to submit to their husbands.” “Husbands, you must love your wives into submission; wives, you must submit to your husband until he loves you more.” Patriarchy is alive and well in Baptist circles, too.
Now take a leap backwards to the time of Jesus.
Once again, we look to Jesus to help us understand what God really intended for human relationships.
Through the years I’ve heard numerous sermons based on the story of Mary and Martha (Lk. 10; Jn. 11 – 12). In every one of them the only person who always ends up looking bad is Martha, the one whom Jesus gently reprimands for not keeping her priorities straight.
I’ve always felt a little sorry for Martha. After all, she was just doing her best to fulfill the role that society expected of her: housekeeper, cook and waitress--all "wifely" tasks. For all we know, her sister Mary may have been a "flower child," a wandering airhead like Prissy (Butterfly McQueen’s character) in Gone with the Wind, who had to be monitored constantly in order to keep her on task.
Nevertheless, Jesus elevated the social status of both Martha and Mary. We don't know if other men were present every time Jesus visited in their home, but Lazarus was their brother and likely lived with them. And the disciples usually traveled everywhere with Jesus.
Hospitality to guests was (and still is) an important part of Middle Eastern culture. Society typically relegated household tasks to the women while the men sat and socialized together in a separate area. (Reminds me of some Southern dinner parties I've attended.)
Jesus defended Mary on more than one occasion when she (gasp!) forsook her "wifely" tasks and boldly entered a roomful of men to be near Jesus. He invited her to have conversations directly with him, and, in a culture that didn't allow women to be disciples of any rabbi, he even made her one of his disciples. A middleMAN was not required for her to have a personal relationship with Jesus and become his disciple.
And—I love this!—Jesus freed Martha from the kitchen. He invited her also to be daring, to abandon society's "wifely" expectations of her so that she could have a direct, personal relationship with him and be his disciple, too.
The scriptures don't relate any of the men's responses to Jesus' bold moves. Perhaps they were too stunned to respond. I can just imagine them thinking, hungrily, "Now wait a minute, Jesus. If both Mary and Martha are sitting here talking with us men, who's doing the cooking? Who's going to serve us some tea?"
Jesus was willing to wait on his dinner as he taught important relationship lessons to everyone in the room...and to us:
To the men: The world does not revolve around you; it revolves around the kingdom of God. Your assumptions of superiority and entitlement are not pleasing to God. Let go of some of your power and become real men—you will be much happier.
To the women: Be bold, but without malice in your hearts. I will give you courage to challenge those who try to stand between you and me, or try to keep you from following me. I am your teacher; you learn directly from me; I will lead you. Keep working to become all that God created you to be.
“Women’s place” in church and home has been an issue far longer than just the past few decades. Despite Jesus' influence, patriarchy continues to exist after thousands of years. At our current rate of progress, it may take another thousand years for all women to be fully accepted as equal to men in both church and home. That's discouraging sometimes, but it doesn't prevent us from pressing toward such a worthy goal. May God bless our efforts.
Wednesday, 16 June 2010
Language Matters in 21st Century Evangelism
Through the years, Rick Warren has consistently provided food for thought on the subject of evangelism. Agree with him or disagree [which I often do, especially when he links evangelism exclusively with his preferred worship style], his words are difficult to ignore. Sometimes, however, I wonder if he really listens to himself*:
· “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all‘ approach to fishing, and the same is true in fishing for men.”
· “The goal is . . . to make it as easy as possible for the unchurched to hear about Christ.”
· “We will do whatever it takes to reach more people for Christ.”
· “What matters is that your style matches the people you are seeking to reach.”
With his constant rhetoric about 21st century evangelism techniques, one would think that using gender-inclusive language in everyday speech, song, and biblical translations would be near the top of Warren’s list of ways to attract women to the gospel.
But that’s not the case. At minimum, he obviously doesn’t think gender-inclusive language is important. More likely, he rejects the notion outright. It’s just too much trouble--and highly unnecessary--to adjust the gender-exclusive verbiage commonly found in church circles.
Warren definitely is not alone in his perspective. Throughout history, women have been forced to adjust to “one-size-fits-all” patriarchal language that helps keep women linguistically invisible. Centuries of patriarchal grammar rules have required people to interpret whether words like “man,” “men,” “he,” “him,” and "his” refer only to males or to everyone.
These long-accepted rules allow using masculine pronouns to refer to either a male or a female. But the rules never allow female pronouns in reference to males. “Man" or "he" or "him" can refer to "one man" or to "everyone". "Woman" or "she" or "her" can never refer to males.
Dwight Moody, now Executive Director of The Academy of Preachers, writes in a 2002 EthicsDaily.com article, “The Bible is a Man’s Book“:
“As it is, men controlled the translation, interpretation and proclamation of the biblical message. Only within the last generation have such positions of scholarship and authority been open to women. This heightened awareness of gender is part of a broader cultural shift, of course. Many are now asking: How can a book ‘of the men’ and ‘by the men’ be anything other than ‘for the men’?”
“There is a double standard here built into the prevailing paradigm of masculinity, which allows both men and women to hear male language as neutral and female language as gender-biased.”
Constant, unexamined use of such outdated grammar rules is ultimately inexcusable for modern Christians trying to convey clearly the gospel to today’s world.
Ignoring for a moment that human biblical writers were already influenced by ancient patriarchal, hierarchical society, translations such as the NRSV, CEV, TNIV, et al, are at least intentional about clarifying gender meaning as they translate the so-called “inerrant” Hebrew and Greek source materials into easy-to-understand language. When the source text obviously has a plural meaning, for clarity these translations use words like “people,” “everyone,” or other plural synonyms rather than “man,” “men,” etc.
Yet there is great resistance to inclusive translations. And those who ask why are quickly dismissed as “feminists.” Warren’s own words identify the real problem:
· “The problem with many churches today is that they’re stuck in the culture of the 1950’s—using bait and hooks that worked in that era—and they’re wondering why the fish are no longer biting.”
· “The kind of fish you want to catch will determine every part of your strategy.”
· “Unfortunately, many churches don’t take the time to understand the people they want to reach.”
· “Many churches offer only two choices: Take it or leave it.”
With the SBC's (and others’) continuous, patriarchal pronouncements about women plus the great resistance to inclusive translations and gender-inclusive speech/song modifications, it is no wonder that many women--churched and unchurched--remain uncertain whether or not the whole gospel is truly for them.
* Bulleted quotes are by Rick Warren, from an article by Jon Walker, Western Recorder, May 2001, “Rick Warren Offers Evangelism ‘Fishing Lessons."
· “There’s no ‘one-size-fits-all‘ approach to fishing, and the same is true in fishing for men.”
· “The goal is . . . to make it as easy as possible for the unchurched to hear about Christ.”
· “We will do whatever it takes to reach more people for Christ.”
· “What matters is that your style matches the people you are seeking to reach.”
With his constant rhetoric about 21st century evangelism techniques, one would think that using gender-inclusive language in everyday speech, song, and biblical translations would be near the top of Warren’s list of ways to attract women to the gospel.
But that’s not the case. At minimum, he obviously doesn’t think gender-inclusive language is important. More likely, he rejects the notion outright. It’s just too much trouble--and highly unnecessary--to adjust the gender-exclusive verbiage commonly found in church circles.
Warren definitely is not alone in his perspective. Throughout history, women have been forced to adjust to “one-size-fits-all” patriarchal language that helps keep women linguistically invisible. Centuries of patriarchal grammar rules have required people to interpret whether words like “man,” “men,” “he,” “him,” and "his” refer only to males or to everyone.
These long-accepted rules allow using masculine pronouns to refer to either a male or a female. But the rules never allow female pronouns in reference to males. “Man" or "he" or "him" can refer to "one man" or to "everyone". "Woman" or "she" or "her" can never refer to males.
Dwight Moody, now Executive Director of The Academy of Preachers, writes in a 2002 EthicsDaily.com article, “The Bible is a Man’s Book“:
“As it is, men controlled the translation, interpretation and proclamation of the biblical message. Only within the last generation have such positions of scholarship and authority been open to women. This heightened awareness of gender is part of a broader cultural shift, of course. Many are now asking: How can a book ‘of the men’ and ‘by the men’ be anything other than ‘for the men’?”
“There is a double standard here built into the prevailing paradigm of masculinity, which allows both men and women to hear male language as neutral and female language as gender-biased.”
Constant, unexamined use of such outdated grammar rules is ultimately inexcusable for modern Christians trying to convey clearly the gospel to today’s world.
Ignoring for a moment that human biblical writers were already influenced by ancient patriarchal, hierarchical society, translations such as the NRSV, CEV, TNIV, et al, are at least intentional about clarifying gender meaning as they translate the so-called “inerrant” Hebrew and Greek source materials into easy-to-understand language. When the source text obviously has a plural meaning, for clarity these translations use words like “people,” “everyone,” or other plural synonyms rather than “man,” “men,” etc.
Yet there is great resistance to inclusive translations. And those who ask why are quickly dismissed as “feminists.” Warren’s own words identify the real problem:
· “The problem with many churches today is that they’re stuck in the culture of the 1950’s—using bait and hooks that worked in that era—and they’re wondering why the fish are no longer biting.”
· “The kind of fish you want to catch will determine every part of your strategy.”
· “Unfortunately, many churches don’t take the time to understand the people they want to reach.”
· “Many churches offer only two choices: Take it or leave it.”
With the SBC's (and others’) continuous, patriarchal pronouncements about women plus the great resistance to inclusive translations and gender-inclusive speech/song modifications, it is no wonder that many women--churched and unchurched--remain uncertain whether or not the whole gospel is truly for them.
* Bulleted quotes are by Rick Warren, from an article by Jon Walker, Western Recorder, May 2001, “Rick Warren Offers Evangelism ‘Fishing Lessons."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
