The Paris Project

47 Comments:

• funny you should mention that, Jenell. I bring it up in the third installment.

  By  tony, at 7:09 AM  

• yes. great post. thanks for saying it out loud.

  By  Anastasia, at 8:34 AM  

• Thank you!

  By  Heidi Renee, at 8:39 AM  

• "if your movement excludes women from full equality with men, then just call it a men's movement and don't try to make me pay attention to it."
  
  i love this line and think it hits the nail right on the head jenell. brilliant. i also think you're spot on when you dismiss distinctions between "hard" and "soft" lines on this issue; like you say: it is what it is. it's something i'm constantly working over in my thinking and practice. i'd be interested in your critique and insight on this http://tinyurl.com/28qcsh - a piece i wrote a while back on the same issue.

  By  shane magee, at 8:48 AM  

• Great, Tony - I'll look forward to that installment, and hopefully my blog can direct some readers to it, as well. Keep on truckin'.

  By  Jenell, at 9:19 AM  

• I was turned on to your blog by a friend, and wow am I thankful. It's so good to read your thoughts, and know there are others in pursuit of truth in church movements!

  By  Anonymous, at 12:21 PM  

• You made me look up the definition to the word 'adiaphora'; congrats.
  
  Mark (Van Steenwyk, from Jesus Manifesto/Missio Dei) and I were talking about that as well; how do you ensure that women have a voice, feel comfortable, etc. It can be difficult to foster an environment that allows women to open up and build into what should be 'their' community but often ends up being 'yours'.
  
  Slowly Jesus Manifesto is seeing a balance of gender in submitted writers, and we'll see how this month's Christarchy meeting goes, but it's a difficult, process that one must always be conscious of. Thank you.

  By  hewhocutsdown, at 1:19 PM  

• hewhocutsdown,
  That's a great question and one that I face in hiring situations in Christian higher ed with respect to race. Here we are in a hundred-year-old institution embedded within a European immigrant tradition, and wonder why it's difficult to get people of color to want to come join us.
  
  That should not be the challenge with respect to gender in new religious movements. If your movement/organization is less than 10 years old and you're already a circle of white male founders trying to invite others to join you, why?!?!? Look what happened when I asked for great women speakers - got a list of 40 in less than a few hours. The women are there, but if you've already written the rule book and played a few scrimmages before you contacted them, don't be surprised when they are reluctant to join the game.
  
  We need to learn from recent centuries and decades, and get our new movements on the ball from the very beginning.

  By  Jenell, at 1:25 PM  

• "If your movement excludes women from full equality with men, then just call it a men's movement and don't try to make me pay attention to it."
  
  "If your movement/organization is less than 10 years old and you're already a circle of white male founders trying to invite others to join you, why?!?!?"
  
  I heart you, Jenell.

  By  Christy, at 1:44 PM  

• "If your movement excludes women from full equality with men, then just call it a men's movement and don't try to make me pay attention to it."
  
  Wow that is quite a claim. A false one, but an interesting claim. The young reformed movement is about the equality of women. Submission is when one equal voluntarily decides to submit to anothers decsisions. Look at the Trinity.
  
  Also the emergent movement may say that they are about the equality of women yet most of the major leaders in the emergent movement are white males. Explain that one to me.
  
  Lastly, may I suggest that we go to the Bible is we are claiming to be Christian and ask "what does the Bible say about women and their role in church?"

  By  M. Van Drie, at 3:28 PM  

• Personally, I see Jenell's note as equally indicting nearly EVERY church movement, particularly the new reformeds/emergent streams, as you are quite right: they are both heavily male-dominated.

  By  hewhocutsdown, at 3:31 PM  

• First, excellent post Janell. I too love the "if the movement excludes..." line. Very well put.
  
  Now, M. Van Drie: I admit ignorance about the young reformed movement. So I will refrain from calling bs on your post and simply ask: if yours really is a movement about the equality of women as you say, are there examples of men, as one equal to another, who "voluntarily decide to submit" to women? Or does it only work the other way?
  
  Finally, can we please stop pretending that the Bible speaks with one voice about this, or most anything else? E.g. you say 1Cor 14 (women should be silent); I say 1Cor 11 (women praying and prophesying in worship). You say Eph 5:22; I say Phil 4:2-3, etc., etc.
  Yes, it was a patriarchal society so women had to, at least officially, submit to men. But also women clearly were leaders in the early church, including in worship. So why exactly is it so obvious that women should submit to men now? And who or what is served by insisting on that standard now?

  By  Rev Dave, at 4:17 PM  

• I believe what m.vandrie alludes to is the complementarian idea of subordination within the trinity.
  
  This is an idea of "equality" that is based upon one of the members remaining eternally subordinate.

  By  grace, at 4:26 PM  

• hey jenell, way to go addressing this. i know it's been said before but it needs to keep being said until something shifts. i have heard some speak publicly when pressed about the lack of emergent women's leadership/voices and the comment back was "well, a lot of us came from an evangelical background so it'll take a while to shift." my question is: what are you doing intentionally to shift it? i have seen more women's voices at conferences, etc. but they do still tend to be on the smaller, more focused topics instead of the bigger picture. those spots tend to be reserved for the ones with the most power. i know some would say "well, don't blame me, i didn't mean to get the power" and i'd say back "it's no problem to have it, just recognize you do and start to give it away..." then others will see "wow, they really are the real thing." otherwise, it's just the same ol' same ol' unjust, unequal system--new wine getting poured into old wineskins.

  By  kathyescobar, at 4:28 PM  

• well, don't blame me, i didn't mean to get the power" and i'd say back "it's no problem to have it, just recognize you do and start to give it away..."
  
  I love it. Despite being white, Canadian and male, I've been on the short end of the stick due to race and religion (Arab/Muslim countries) and now being in the States it's a bizarre truth. You have power, admit it, and explicitly give it up to others. That takes a degree of enlightenment, deliberation, and commitment to constant action that most of us lack. I manage sporadic bursts at best thus far.

  By  hewhocutsdown, at 4:38 PM  

• Grace, I understand the allusion to the Trinity - but isn't it awfully convenient that such a view always gets applied women to men but not the other way? Strange understanding of "equality" that.
  
  But hey, I'd love to be wrong about this. I hope I am wrong, I hope there is a movement out there trying to reverse the church norm, intentionally trying to place women at the "head" rather than trying to keep them subordinate. Hence my questions for M. van drie.

  By  Rev Dave, at 5:05 PM  

• Rev Dave,
  Yes, but in that view, there is no possibility for women to be anywhere but the subordinate position. Yes, it is a strange understanding of equality with quite a bit of verbal gymnastics required to support this interpretation of "equality."
  
  From the creeds, co-equality among the trinity is the more orthodox doctrine. Subordinationism has only recently become popular again with the complementarian theology of Grudem.
  
  Sorry to intercept and interfere with your questions to m.vandrie.
  I wanted to respond to the allusion to the trinity as if it were some sort of proof for the subordination of women.

  By  grace, at 6:08 PM  

• this is what i am talking about...you nailed it.

  By  rose, at 6:48 PM  

• Thank you so much for addressing this. I was just having this discussion with coworkers in regards to Wallis and Claiborne.
  
  Thank you thank you

  By  jadedjabber, at 7:25 PM  

• "what are you doing intentionally to shift it?"
  
  There have been and are women in the emerging church who have tried (or are trying) to create this shift. I for one have quit trying to work with the men of the Emergent thread of the EC. They seem to be the most sexist of the bunch.
  
  But I don't see that the men in general are even aware of the hundreds of us out here who are talking, blogging, writing, speaking, holding conferences. We are invisible, even in the soft patriarchy. We get patted on the head and sent on our way.
  
  Fortunately, there are some wonderful men who want that to change. We need to find a way to get THEM labeled as the "elder statemen" of the movement...or something less offensive, as they would hate a title like that! I think of the men who joined the women at Glorieta last fall, of sitting in a coffee shop with Julie's hubby Mike, of my friend Dan in Texas who is appalled by the way women continue to be treated in a movement that is ostensibly about equality.
  
  And while I appreciate the attempts of men like Andrew Jones to be self-deprecating about the white maleness of this movement, I do think that needs to end and a real heart change needs to take place. As a strong and subversive woman, I see my role as continuing to be one that rubs the powers that be very wrong! And I will continue to do so until they get the hell out of the way!

  By  Sarah, at 11:41 PM  

• So according to the Bible, what are the qualifications of an elder aka a pastor?
  
  Now I believe that a woman can teach and lead. The only thing that the Bible prohibits a woman from doing is being an elder.

  By  M. Van Drie, at 1:02 AM  

• to m. van drie. how about we do away with the term "elder" since no one knows what it does anyway and since, according to you it doesn't have any special hold on teaching and leading. then we can move on with life and go teach and lead.
  -chrissi

  By  Anonymous, at 2:13 AM  

• Great conversation! Thanks for being civil, even while critical. Sorry I can't keep up with comments very well, but no one's really asking me to, so just keep talking amongst yourselves.
  
  I appreciated Sarah's comment about the invisibility of women under soft patriarchy -- amazing to me how, in a totally democratized field like cyberspace, men's networks continue to be exclusionary even in things like citations and links -- arenas of inclusion where to include a woman would not exclude or take away resources from a man. Nothing is at stake there but power and ego and comfort/familiarity, which are still difficult to release.
  
  I also agree with Sarah that spaces in which men and women work well together probably don't need 'elder statesmen'!...how about we continue to network and partner together whenever possible, even in movements with exclusionary theologies and policies, and call each other friend.

  By  Jenell, at 6:22 AM  

• One more, sorry. While I think the conversation about whether or not women should be elders is important, it is also important not to reduce gender issues to that point. I don't mind if people talk about it here, but I personally don't want to leave our good conversation to rehash that one. I'll happily do it some other time, but just now we managed to start a conversation that got off that dime, which I'm enjoying very much.

  By  Jenell, at 6:25 AM  

• Jenell,
  I too long for the conversation to get past "permission" and on to real change and inclusion.
  
  May I ask you a few personal questions. Do you attend a faith community that gives women equal access?
  
  I am wondering what keeps women in systems that would not allow equality.
  
  Your thoughts?

  By  Rose, at 12:00 PM  

• "how about we do away with the term "elder""
  
  Why don't we get rid of the Bible to while we are at it.
  
  Let me explain my last comment a woman can teach at a church and lead programs but not an elder. Now an elder/pastor is the role for the males who are in charge of the church. So they are in charge of the preaching and responsible for the decisions made at the church.

  By  M. Van Drie, at 12:48 PM  

• Jenell,
  
  Greetings. I'm here via Grace's blog and am a first-time visitor. Forgive me for jumping into the part of the discussion you were trying to move away from, but I just had to point this out...
  
  m. van drie wrote:
  
  Why don't we get rid of the Bible to while we are at it.
  
  and then wrote, regarding "elder/pastor":
  
  [T]hey are in charge of the preaching and responsible for the decisions made at the church.
  
  It looks like m. van drie might have already gotten rid of the Bible.
  
  Where does the Bible say that "elder/pastors" (already a shaky position to defend) are "in charge of preaching and responsible for the decisions made at the church"?

  By  Steve Sensenig, at 2:55 PM  

• 1. I go to a Brethren in Christ church, which does affirm women's leadership. I think there are lots of reasons why women stay in restrictive churches - Christians for Biblical Equality is a great resource for reading around that issue and finding support.
  
  2. Steve's comment is great to van drie. My original post called for what Steve does - critical reflection on how we produce knowledge, ways in which gender affects even how we read the 'plain' meaning of scripture.
  
  3. A few posts down, Bob C. writes a great comment about women's leadership in emergent, listing a number of women who are willing, available, and engaged in leadership.
  
  4. Looking forward to Tony and Collin's thoughts on gender, perhaps that's coming out Monday at ctonline.

  By  Jenell, at 7:22 PM  

• "Yes, it was a patriarchal society so women had to, at least officially, submit to men."
  
  So all of the cultures that the Bible was written to were dominated by men?

  By  M. Van Drie, at 11:24 PM  

• At least the initial audiences, yes.

  By  hewhocutsdown, at 4:53 AM  

• M VanDrie ...
  
  I hope you've done some homework if you're going to make the argument that it's Biblical to keep women out of eldership, but not teaching.
  
  First, in Greek households (to which Paul wrote his original letters) women were expected to remain behind closed doors unless accompanied by an adult male of the house. That was the cultural standard of the day. Women were not educated in any form. They were merely considered vessels for passing on the genetic lineage of the males. And they kept their husbands fed and clothed. Life was nasty, brutish and short, in the words of Thomas Hobbes.
  
  Now, if you're going to quote chapter and verse about how we're to conduct ourselves in church ... I hope you're willing to use it all. And I do mean ALL. Because once you start down that road, you can't get choicy. Who decides what's in and what's out? Funny how it's always been the men ... hmmmm ... that's interesting to me. Go figure.

  By  sonja, at 9:24 AM  

• "I hope you've done some homework if you're going to make the argument that it's Biblical to keep women out of eldership, but not teaching."
  
  Well a simple reading of the text without having to do hermeneutical gymnastics, would force one to at least deal with the fact that Paul limits the role of elder to males.
  
  Now show me Biblically where this is not true and how you deal with the text that gives the qualifications for elder that include the person being male.

  By  M. Van Drie, at 10:06 AM  

• It seems to me that the topics of conversation here are more about biblical authority and interpretation in general than about the issues of gender in specific. The issue is.. Can we really trust and believe the scripture? Or must we do a end around every text that rubs against the western view of gender?
  
  If you place your absolute footing on the sociologically constructed version of sex and gender in the first century (and before) and every century since then as being all jacked up and are not actually a ground to stand on that is fine. The problem is in doing that you are at the same time elevating the culture (modern/postmodern western cluture) as the correct culture in which we are to measure standards of truth and how things should be. So when you write off sections of scripture so quickly that talk about gender roles (issues of submission/equality/leadership and the likes) to be culturally bound and should simply be thrown out as it just does not make sense in your mind, then you have just decided in your mind that that passage of scripture is not really valid any more. Thus at the same time you have not applied the same level of critique to your own position and culture in your.
  
  
  This is such a true problem with some of these emergeing conversations, that so often hands are just thrown up in the error saing "I guess we just don't know" yet at the same time each person is truly operating on the assumption that they do know and hold to be the measure by which other things are judged.
  
  I would most clearly like to assert that the issues of gender do not hold their biggest distension in the New Testament, but in the first 3 chapter of Genesis. Equality in worth (creation out the woman out of the man from his side), difference in authority (Man naming the woman), and their joy together in that relationship (the man's joyous song to his new bride).
  
  This all fell into chaos in Chapter 3 when the frist human sin occured. Eve first took the fruit, while Adam stood by and watched and did nothing. God came calling for them and he went straight to the one who was given the authority (loving responsibility), Adam and held him firstly accountable (notice I said firstly) for the sin of the woman. (If you can not hold this position, then you must also reject Romans 5 on Adam's federal headship of all humanity as "in adam ALL sinned) I would actually argue that the very first human sin was not Eve's taking and eating of the fruit, but of Adam's sin of passivity and not using the responsibility given to govern and protect.
  
  This to say that the issue of gender equality and male authority is God given and goes back before sin and the curse distorted it. So the place to begin the discussion about what the world is supposed to look like must begin before sin tainted everything. Surely there is a bent in the history of humanity for men to take their God given authority and turn it into a devise for oppression of women and this continues to this day, and if I am honest in my life I see this tendancy as well. But the answer to this is not to try to re-write the biblical narrative of what God has revealed, it is to seek proper confession and repentance of these sins and a trusting in the work of Jesus on the cross to forgive these many sins and from that point to live out the proper male/female relationships in light of the cross.
  
  I would personally like to confess that as a man I have often sinned in how I relate and think about women. I am sorry for so many who will read this who have had experiences with men who have taken this authority and used it more to curse your life than to be a blessing. Those men have sinned against God and against you and that is not to be excused.
  
  I only hope that you would read this would consider that the way to grow im our sanctification with one another is not to reject God's design in light of another design that we think is better. If we do that, we will only be shown how our wisdom for designing a humanity is inperfect and highly distorted.
  
  Regards,
  
  Pete

  By  Pete, at 10:23 AM  

• m. van drie,
  
  You didn't respond to my last comment/question to you, but you continue to post questions to others.
  
  I would like to clarify one thing with you: In addition to an elder being male, do you also hold that an elder must be married and must have children?
  
  Is it permissible for an elder to be single and/or childless?

  By  Steve Sensenig, at 3:59 PM  

• "Where does the Bible say that "elder/pastors" (already a shaky position to defend) are "in charge of preaching and responsible for the decisions made at the church"?"
  
  Wow a shaky position, that is why Paul wanted elders at every church. Also if you read through Paul's letters and even most of the epistles. They are to be the teachers, the rulers. The word elder in of itself to being limited to male.

  By  M. Van Drie, at 11:54 PM  

• i am glad i am not alone in wondering where the emergent movement/conversation or whatever stands on gender issues. seeing that every book i read is by white males and every pic i see of emergent conferences are led and attended by white males, i have to admit that i don't have much hope that much has changed. pessimistic or realistic? or maybe just not accurate?

  By  Mentanna, at 2:52 AM  

• I am a faithful reader of this blog, though I have never posted anything yet…I was intrigued by the number of comments on this post, so I came back to read everything and was interested to note the inconsistency between these three statements by M.VanDrie:
  
  “The young reformed movement is about the equality of women. Submission is when one equal voluntarily decides to submit to another's decisions.”
  
  “Now I believe that a woman can teach and lead. The only thing that the Bible prohibits a woman from doing is being an elder.”
  
  “They [male elders] are to be the teachers, the rulers.”
  
  While I am not expecting to convince you of anything in this short comment section, M.VanDrie, I simply want to point out how quickly you moved from claiming equality between women and men to stating that men are to be the “rulers” in the church, a word which does not imply any sense of equality. I have wrestled with this same problem as I have read some of Grudem’s books and as I have dealt with some of my colleagues in seminary. I am just unable to truly believe you when you talk about the equality of women and then allow your vocabulary to shift so drastically into terms of “rulership” (which implies one who is ruled over). In the kindest possible way I ask you to please consider your argument and recognize that despite what you may have been told, it is impossible that anyone can be considered “equal” when another is deemed a “ruler.”
  
  ~ali

  By  Anonymous, at 3:30 AM  

• "I am just unable to truly believe you when you talk about the equality of women and then allow your vocabulary to shift so drastically into terms of “rulership” (which implies one who is ruled over)."
  
  So in my church where my elders have "rulership" over the church including me, that does not make me not equal. I am equal to my elders yet they have the God given authority to rule over the church including me and the women in my church. Even though we are all equal. Now has this been abused before yes, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong. They are to lead/rule the church.
  
  It is human to hate the idea of someone having authority over them. Why, because it is because we are sinful beings.

  By  M. Van Drie, at 8:11 AM  

• Or perhaps it is because Jesus said we are not to rule over one another.

  By  grace, at 8:27 AM  

• Recognizing that my understanding of what it means to follow Jesus is clearly vastly different from MVD's, I decided to let this conversation go. Then I read Dawn Turner Trice's column in today's Chicago Tribune (I'd link to it but I'm old and stupid and don't know how, sorry.)
  Anyway it details multiple recent incidents of 12-14 year old girls impregnated by 18-20 year old men. Reading it I thought of this discussion, as it is one of the long-term consequences of the church treating women as less than human for many hundreds of years. Who cares if 20 year olds are abusing 12 year olds? The church does it all the time by continuing to tell the lie that women aren't as valuable or as worthy as men.
  So my latest question for MVD and his ilk (which I imagine will also go unanswered): don't you have a mom or a spouse or a sister or a daughter or some woman in your life that you care about? Who is important to you? Who you love? Why would you insist on a belief system that relegates them to less-than-fully human status? Why stay with a church that treats these women you love inhumanly?

  By  Rev Dave, at 9:33 AM  

• Jenell: Great post.
  
  MVD: I've noticed that men who hold beliefs like yours both misunderstand the egalitarian point of view and have a strong issue for which you wrongly condemn women.
  
  Biblical equality is not really about leadership, once we get down to the nitty-gritty. It requires a complete revisiting of the idea of leadership. We reject the worldly views of leadership and recognize that everything in the church is really about service. We are all servants, we are all to sacrifice for one another, none of us is to lift ourselves over the other. Instead of viewing Biblical equality as an efort for women to climb to the top, it is better to see it as all of us becoming more humble and willing to serve one another.
  
  That leads me to the other point. Because Biblical equality is really about submission instead of leadership, nobody has to tell egalitarian women to submit. We already do, as do our beloved egalitarian brothers and our traditionalist sisters. The people who really have major issues with submitting to others are traditionalist men who believe that the sexual hierarchy exempts them from the clear Scriptural command to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

  By  Lara, at 11:18 AM  

• Lara
  
  I've been trying to phrase a response but yours easily trumps anything I had come up with. Thank you, and kudos.

  By  hewhocutsdown, at 11:48 AM  

• Bravo, Lara and Jennell. This is certainly an issue that will continue to be a hot topic until we can figure out how men, women and children come together to be the church that Christ has called us to.

  By  hannah, at 2:04 PM  

• This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

  By  M. Van Drie, at 9:24 PM  

• Thanks, hewhocutsdown and hannah *^_^*
  
  Hewhocutsdown (and the other men who have supported Janell): Thanks for not being afraid to stand up for Biblical equality. It takes a lot more courage and character to stand for Biblical equality than it does to live with the status quo in conservative evangelicalism, so your actions and words are duly noted and greatly appreciated.
  
  (Hm, let me guess, did I miss a flamethrower aimed at my head last night?)

  By  Lara, at 1:21 PM  

• Lara: It is our pleasure.
  
  Janell: It's unfortunate that you felt the need to remove M. Van Drie's comment. The following is for both you and he.
  
  M., you have put forth some ideas about qualifications for leadership that were being challenged by others in this thread (or vice versa).
  
  Perhaps a thread or two that honed in onto the key points would be more effective: ruling/serving could be one, gender bias could be another.
  
  And while Rev. Dave meant well by his comment, I can almost guarantee that he was not extending this as a personal insult to the women in your life.
  
  I can understand how having a such a 'grey' discussion about an issue that is, to you, very black and white can be frustrating. Please bear with us; some of us are far less certain of our theology, or have found our certainty molded in very different formations
  
  I wrote a satirical piece a month back dealing with one last, critical question. The entire framing of our questions of gender have been binary: either/or. But gender is far more gradient than we credit it. What about the people in the middle? 1 out of 4000 births or so is of indeterminate gender, and the decision to go one way or the other is largely made by parents or doctors in an ad hoc fashion. And how would transexuals who come into the body of Christ fit in? The article is a bit sarcastic, which is why it wasn't published, but if you're intrigued it can be found here:
  
  http://hewhocutsdown.blogspot.com/2008/04/second-attempt.html
  
  Peace

  By  hewhocutsdown, at 1:39 PM  

• Whoops, my comment was too long. The link is here:
  
  http://tinyurl.com/3gbuos

  By  hewhocutsdown, at 1:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home