An Invitation To Women

Clawson’s point brings to mind Walter Benn Michaels‘ critique of diversity in The Trouble with Diversity, a remarkably controversial book that asks deep questions about “How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality” (his subtitle). While I don’t want to go as far as Michaels does and suggest that active diversification ignores systematic economic disparity, I do want to further challenge Clawson and ourselves by asking, how can our cohort(s) converse across economic and identity markers and in so doing contribute to their undoing?

I first weathered the gender wars in the legal field when I became a young attorney in the late ‘70s. That area changed pretty quickly; by the late ‘90s, being a woman lawyer was hardly an anomaly, and we were evaluated by what we did, not the kind of underwear we wore.

Imagine the sinking feeling I had when I became an Episcopal priest in 2001 and once again had to interact with peers and colleagues (both in my denomination and in others) who thought I ought not be who I am because of my plumbing.

Sometimes women don’t come to the party because they aren’t invited – and so I thank you for the invitation! But it is sometimes so disheartening to deal with sexism – again, still – that it’s simply easier to avoid the whole party and lend our voices only in those places that we KNOW are going to be safe for us.

I realize this can seem like cowardly self-protection, and that’s never a good thing. But there’s only so many times you can have 1 Cor. 14:34 grenades lobbed at you before you automatically take evasive action when you get around men you don’t know.

Becky,

Thanks for sharing the reality of how you feel. We need to hear that more often so we can remind ourselves of what it feels like to be considered second class because of our “plumbing.” Love that.

I’ve always felt that being a woman was no barrier to anything – & in many areas of my life I’m sure that has proven true, however reading your article has been quite timely for me, as recently I realised that the one area I have felt reticent because of my gender, is Church.

I’m Australian, so I don’t know if this is exactly the same elsewhere, but a typical Aussie social gathering, Church included, usually involves the women in one area (usually there’s a fair bit of discussion around babies, children, food, fashion – but this by no means defines the entirety of the conversation!) & the men in another area having “men’s talk” – sport, fishing, etc. (I guess) but in Church circles – that’s often where the real “meaty conversations” about God are happening, too. What’s with that??

I find myself (& I can’t possibly be the only one!!) wanting to be in on THAT conversation, but somehow it seems a little inappropriate to bust in on a group of guys with my theological take!

So anyway, thank you for the invite… I may just “bust in” one of these days – or perhaps I’ll just instigate some meaty stuff in the middle of the “girl talk” so that it gets so interesting you guys will want to bust in on that!!

Hmmm… food for thought, anyway.

Kerry, I for one think you should instigate. Nice.

In the western world, where thankfully women are gaining on the scale of equality in almost all vocational and educational arenas, there still remains a hesitation to extend a full invitation to women in the field of leadership in church and ministry. As a ministry worker, I’ve all to often experienced the half-invite to a discussion that is usually wrapped in a, “By the way, if you come to the meeting will you take notes for us?”
Thank you, thank you, thank you for taking the time and making the efforts to include, support and foster and equal the plane on discussions on church leadership, ministry and the like. Your invitation really feels like an invitation, without having to play secretary to attend the gathering.
It’s necessary for all of us to be present in these kinds of discussions, there is no me without you; no matter the gender of the me or the you.

Tara

I am sorry to read again an article by a man about what a woman should and should not do to have her voice, place, and space. The assumptions about gender are expressive of standard patriarchal power structures – the same structures, in fact, Emergent leaders are supposed to be working against. Inclusivity is not inclusive at all when it is on the terms of those on the inside who have set up the power structure in which someone can (or not) be included. What is suggested in this article requires conforming to the standards of the power-holders. The lack of awareness of oppressive power structures and how they function is stunning but not at all surprising to hear from Emergent Village. This past weekend I heard Tony Jones critique oppressive church structures, and what I read here has exactly the same dynamic as Tony was speaking against. What we see going on in mainline churches, which at least have some form of accountability, clearly continues to function in more covert and insidious ways in the Emergent Village. If you want to “extend an invitation” maybe reading some feminist theology like Elizabeth Johnson (She Who Is), or Foucault, for a start. Also White Theology by Perkinson, for its analysis of power. Or, for something more pastoral but ultra clear and insightful, check out anything Eric Law has written. I hope you will before another article like this is published on your blog, which so clearly lacks any sophistication in how power and structure work to keep those who are out, silent, and those who are in, powerful.

“I often wonder if men’s one true weapon in the oppression of women is the lie women themselves hold that their voice doesn’t matter. As long as women hold this lie, then men won’t have to do much to keep the “boys club” alive.”

Men are actually working rather hard to keep the boys club alive in religion. The Catholics automatically excommunicate the women who have the courage to get ordained, and they excommunicated no-longer-father Roy Bourgeois a few months ago for participating in the ordination of a woman. The Orthodox church shows no sign of changing their position on ordination. The Protestants’ record is only slightly better: The Southern Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Primitive Baptists, PCA, Lutherans, Missouri Synod, Calvary Chapel etc. – all have a hard line and absolutely refuse to even consider ordaining women. 95% of evangelical senior pastors are male, and the vast majority of non-denominational evangelical churches do not ordain women either.

I counted it up for an article once, and by my calculations, more than 3/4 of American church-goers currently attend churches where women are outright barred from certain roles, purely on the basis of gender.

All that to say, I fully understand Melissa’s irritation. While it’s true that most (but not all)Emergent-y groups/churches set no official limits on women’s participation, everyone – male and female – are living and interacting within the context of a very male-dominated tradition and theology, a context that most Christian institutions and leaders are working VERY hard to maintain.

Yes, as women, we absolutely need to work through our internalized oppression, but there’s all kinds of overt and covert sexism (and racism and classism) built into the very structure of the Emergent “conversation.” (and conference and book publishing machine…)
That doesn’t mean men in general or you in particular need to feel bad and guilty, just that, if you really want to have a conversation that includes everybody, (and I’m choosing to believe that you really do), then it involves a hell of a lot more than extending an invitation on a blog (as well-intentioned and good-hearted as that is.) And women in the church have to fight a hell of a lot more than our own personal insecurities – we’ve got 2,000 years of patriarchal theology and structures (and John Piper, John Eldredge, Mark Driscoll, James Dobson, etc. etc.) to contend with. This is a systemic, not just an individual, issue, and we need to talk about whose party it is and why, not just who’s on the invite list.

Hey Melissa and Christy,

Thanks for these comments. I agree that “a hell of a lot more” needs to be done, and I hope you’ll see this blog post is just one small part of what is happening …

Several emerging women (e.g., Kelly Bean, Danielle Shroyer, Julie Clawson, etc.) have books coming out this year that you’ll be reading a lot more about on this blog.

We’ve had a number of great women writing for the EV blog over the past year—and there’s an open invitation to you and others (this includes you: Becky, Kerry, and Tara!) who would like to contribute, as well. We need to hear more from you! (Please email me – knightopia AT gmail.com)

I’m also excited to see that more women’s voices are being given a prominent place at Emergent-related events (e.g., Christianity21).

I’d say all of these things are part of an intentional, comprehensive effort by many of us to address this, because there is a real recognition of how systemic this is and how important it is that we each do our part.

Shalom,
Steve K.

Melissa, this invitation was in response to Julie’s article. I took what she said very seriously. Much love.

Melissa, you said:
“I am sorry to read again an article by a man about what a woman should and should not do to have her voice, place, and space.”

Perhaps you didn’t mean it as such, but this comment comes across rather condescendingly considering that the original article whose ideas you are reacting to was written by a woman, not a man. You might disagree with what Julie wrote, but you can’t just dismiss these ideas by saying “Well you’re a man so you don’t have a right to say anything to us women.”

Also, how do you know which feminist theologians or postmodern philosophers Julie or Jonathan have or have not read?

In a situation where there has been injustice, what are our options?

In “inviting” a previously or currently oppressed party, we run the risk of being seen to be continuing to patronise. But the invitation is an invitation not just to fit in with the existing order, but to be given space to be part of shaping that order.

Venting our suspicion is natural given the depth of the injustice. But we need to move on, and by communicating, let healing come to the myopia on both sides: both the arrogance and self interest of oppression and the anger of the oppressed are concerns to address.

Unless anyone can see a better way forward?