'You can't be what you can't see' - or why gender parity at conferences matters

In 2011, Jennifer Siebel Newsom's documentary Miss Representation captured the imagination of those who are passionate about seeing girls and women reach their full potential. Despite the advances made in recent decades, women are still subject to messages from society that tell them their worth lies in how they look, assigning them a narrow set of priorities and limiting their horizons. That year, the motto "You can't be what you can't see" was everywhere. As I wrote at the time:

"Even if you haven't watched the trailer yet, with its footage of bikini-clad women in music videos interspersed with derogatory newspaper headlines about women politicians, you can probably reel off a list of the ways the media and popular culture makes it abundantly clear what us women are good for. We're the eye candy, the gender whose worth is bound up in how sexy we are. We're the bitches and the backstabbers and the lovers of catfights. The yummy mummies and the slummy mummies. The bosses from hell and the boardroom ballbusters. When we go into politics, the newspapers run stories on our dress sense and cleavage rather than our achievements. Men turn up at our public appearances holding banners saying 'Iron my shirt'. 

"How is this making the women of the future feel and what's it doing to their ambitions Miss Representation reveals all. It reveals how such toxic imagery is making girls and women feel devalued and ignored - as one teenager says, it's as if no-one cares about their brains, only their looks. It reveals how girls' dreams and ambitions change over time, as they find themselves trapped in stereotypes of what a woman should be and treated accordingly by boys, trapped by the perception that 'feminine' or 'like a girl' means 'inferior'." 

In recent months I've had cause to look back at my diaries from years gone by, and what has struck me more than anything else is the sense of alienation that I felt from the church as a young woman who didn't feel like she conformed to the popular stereotype of 'Biblical womanhood'. When I finally found women 'like me', particularly women who I could see doing the things that I felt I was gifted to do, I knew that they were my people. They were mentors and cheerleaders and role models for women like me, and they gave me hope that contrary to the impression I'd been given, there was a place for me in the church.

At the end of 2013, I was involved in the initial conversations that grew into what is now known as Project 3:28. These conversations were inspired by the discussions about that year's The Nines conference, which began with a tweet from Rachel Held Evans: "More than 100 speakers and four of them are women. This is not what the church looks like." We wanted to take a look at the UK Christian conference scene and see if we'd fared any better than The Nines. In our first year of analysing conference line-ups, we found that although it's claimed 66% of churchgoers in the UK are women, they make up just 34% of speakers at conferences.

Last week, we released the statistics from 2014's conferences, and it was encouraging to note that several organisations had been encouraged to think about gender parity in their line-ups that year. The report, once again, prompted plenty of conversations. There has been news coverage, and there have been blog posts. Some people think that the report is a terrible waste of money (hint: it didn't really cost anything at all), and others have argued that it's obvious that women are underrepresented - why should we need a report to tell us that? I would argue that a report was needed because it has spurred people into action. It has recognised the efforts of organisations trying to be inclusive, and in giving people the figures, it underlines the extent of the issue. The vaguely negative accusations levelled at those of us involved in the project have been interesting and frustrating, not least because they're no different from the stock responses that those passionate about gender and the church have to deal with every time they stick their heads over the parapet.

Nobody's saying that we should prioritise a 50:50 ratio of speakers over gifting, knowledge, and experience. 

What we're simply saying is that the gifting, knowledge and experience of the body of Christ is often not reflected in who gets to speak, who gets to lead, and who gets to be considered an authority.

Yes, women sometimes have different styles of leadership to men. And they often make different life choices due to lack of confidence. 

But as Miss Representation told us, you can't be what you can't see. I speak from personal experience when I say that many of us who are underrepresented in leadership benefit from having people like us to model it for us before we can believe it's something we can do, something that would be possible. That doesn't just go for women and the church - we're talking about all minorities here, in all areas of life. If women aren't stepping up to speak at conferences right now, that's not to say things can't change if they start to see a better way modelled.

Women are mothers. And?

Some of the women who have been the greatest influence on me in recent years are mothers. And they're doing what they're doing despite being mothers. It's my firm belief that mothers who are called to lead can do so with the right support, whether that's more equally shared parenting or conferences and organisations being considerate of their needs and helping out with childcare, or enabling them to bring along another adult to watch the children while the preach happens. It is simply not true that the secular feminist movement, the Christian feminist and egalitarian movements and conferences with a commitment to gender parity have little interest in promoting a more equal approach to parenting. It's one of the keys to women realising their full potential, And we must continue to advocate for it.

If women feel that their children take priority over ministry and career, so be it. That's their prerogative. But it's not the whole story. To say this is the case for the majority of women is incorrect - and it casts a disapproving eye on women who feel otherwise: women like me, and so many other women I know, who don't feel that a few hours of evening preparation and a day spent at an event means our children are worth less than profile and accolades.

Lack of gender equality isn't the problem. Conferences and high profile speakers are the problem, apparently. 

All that scoffing at Christian events and 'well known speakers' and snide little 'ughs' at the very idea of desiring to hold a leadership position or stand on a platform or teach people looks a little bit suspect when it's coming from people who are the leaders and the speakers and the high profile names, by which I mean white men - sorry, but that's exactly who I mean. It's all right for you, isn't it? You can scoff, and talk about how Christian culture needs to change, but come conference season everyone on the line-ups will look a bit like you, sound a bit like you - and they'll probably include some of your friends as well.

Project 3:28 didn't spring up when a bunch of people in thrall to the idea of helping women to become 'big names' and 'Christian celebrities' decided to try to make it happen. We'd all agree that a culture of Christian celebrity and waiting for conference season for a yearly spiritual high at the expense of the local church, of building relationships and grassroots organisation is inadvisable and can be toxic. But at the same time, we know that events and conferences are important to many. People go to them in order to be fed, to be inspired, and to grow in their relationship with God. We all need a balance - and while we know that Christian culture can be problematic, there's no reason we should seek to model gender justice in this very visible sphere.

How is making women more like men the answer to inequality?

Let's get one thing straight: appealing to the 'why should we squeeze women into a male mould?' school of thought doesn't wash. If you think the 'masculine flavour' of church leadership and speaking is a problem, why seek to uphold the status quo and fob us off by pretending we're better off out of it? Let's challenge inequality together, not by keeping men and women in separate spheres. Change the 'flavour'. if women lead and speak in different ways, let them do it.

What about [insert issue here]? Isn't that far more important? 

Maybe it is. But gender justice is my thing and I'm going to stick to it, for all the women who have ever felt they can't be the person they want to be because they can't see anyone like them paving the way.

On equality and power: a post about a post

This is a post about a post. It is unfortunate; as combative blogging is somewhat looked down upon by much of the Christian blogosphere these days. But if this post makes people disappointed, or saddened, so be it, because there are things that need to be said.

Alastair Roberts has been writing a lot about gender, power and equality recently. I respect Alastair and what he brings to the table, even though I don't agree with many of his conclusions on these particular subjects. He's absolutely right to point out that a narrow definition of feminism based on a shallow sort of 'equality' that favours the privileged - 'equality', for example, that cares a great deal about getting more women in boardrooms but little for women on the breadline. But in saying that "there is an implicit class opposition within equality feminism that is seldom adequately addressed", he is wrong. While it may be seldom addressed by the mainstream media, the examination of liberal feminism and what it offers (or doesn't offer) to the majority of women is a key topic of discussion within the movement and has been for years.

Movement women are very aware of the fact that the idea of "equality" has not so much advanced the lives of all women so much as the lives of a privileged few. At Greenbelt festival last weekend I spoke on feminist activism and made a point of talking about this very problem, highlighting it not as a reason for feminists to be discouraged and dismiss the idea that the movement could have something to offer all women, but as a reason to work for greater inclusion, giving space to the voices of the marginalised.

Yesterday, some of Alastair's comments on equality and power were reposted by Andrew Wilson at the Think Theology blog. The debate that ensued encouraged me to write this, because of how incredibly disappointing I found it that Alastair's words were posted with very little context in what looks very much like complementarian point-scoring to me. What can be taken from the post is a description of the feminist movement as focused on equality of outcome above all with value on the most the privileged, when society could do with more focus on, as described:

"...robust and accessible universal healthcare, better maternity leave and more provision and flexibility for part time workers, equitable wages, secure jobs for their husbands and partners, a strengthening of marriage culture, the deepening and enriching of local community life and its groups and institutions, a society that is more mother and child friendly, action and stigma against domestic abuse and such things as street harassment..."

I don't think that anyone could argue that society could benefit from increased focus on achieving these goals, which is why feminists have been working towards them for decades. And if these things could be more successfully achieved without the banner of feminism to hold them back, I'd be interested to know where the pushback, where the actual work on these issues is coming from outside the movement at present? Is the example being set by the complementarian gatekeepers? Walk the walk on gender issues if you believe it's important; without succumbing to benevolent sexism; without denying women the place to speak from their own experience.

I realise that might be difficult, if you're generally in agreement with statements such as:

"...the entrance of women into new spheres has often led to a weakening of the social power of those spheres, as women are often more vulnerable and easily exploited..." 

and

"In Scripture, this priestly role is often associated not merely with men, but with ‘alpha’ men. The Church is strengthened as a body when it is led by persons with steel backbones, principles, and nerves, persons that can withstand others in more confrontational situations." 

It helps no-one when men's reactions to the absolutely justified pushback against such statements is described as "emotive", "all the shouting", and "brouhaha". Egalitarian and feminist women and their allies as pawns while the gatekeepers believe they're above such displays of emotion and subjectivity. As I mentioned to someone on Twitter earlier today, I do not wish for the experiences of individuals to be paramount at all times and at all costs, but yesterday's post was a prime example of when the experiences and intepretations of individual women are important - women for whom this is not theoretical; women for whom this is their life, their calling, their gifting. While complementarian gatekeepers discuss their theories about what we're good for and what we're allowed to do in closed circles and echo chambers, women are representing more than half of the church, leading, pioneering, keeping on keeping on. And they're doing it regardless of whether these gatekeepers believe a church with women in leadership is an "increasingly impotent institution".

They're also well aware that the majority of Christian women don't aspire to be bishops. When I helped found the Christian Feminist Network, we agreed that one of our aims would be to take the conversation on Christianity and feminism beyond women in church leadership and women bishops, not because we believe it's not important but because we believe Christian feminism is for the mothers, the grandmothers, the CEOs and the entrepreneurs, the women on the breadline and the women who have been abused and the women who don't want to lead from the front but support from alongside. If people like Andrew Wilson were more willing to dialogue with us then they'd know that. But I'm not sure that the activities of grassroots women's groups figure much inside the echo chamber.

Yesterday's post, with its out-of-context remarks on caring more about the marginalised, "alpha male" leadership and the reasons why women are supposedly unsuited for certain roles was published at an inappropriate time, with the scandal of child abuse in Rotherham making headlines. The scandal of child abuse - an appalling misuse of power carried out on vulnerable young people and ignored by powerful men. An inappropriate time, too, as the saga of noted alpha male Mark Driscoll continues and the sagas of abuse of power by patriarchal church leaders - Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, pastors involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries - continue to make headlines in the USA. Those who want to uphold the dignity and equality of women without the banner of feminism would do well to walk the walk regarding these incidents. And yet, so often, what we see instead are calls for "grace", or indeed, complete silence, as the echo chamber of privileged and powerful men with little personal interest in those they so enjoy theorising about  - remains immutable.

Talk to us. Listen to us. It's a year now since I made the decision to stop justifying myself to anyone in the name of egalitarianism and feminism, so if that's what you want, look elsewhere. But don't attempt to portray a political movement as irredeemably blinkered to suit your own ends, then act surprised when people aren't happy.

Read more:

Equality is not always about numbers - Jenny Baker

Are women really "less ambitious" than men?

The results of an exclusive poll conducted for The Telegraph claim to show that women are less ambitious than men and that we're facing an "aspiration gap" between men and women in the business world.

The findings are the subject of a couple of stories published in the paper's newly-launched women's section called "Wonder Women", which is being billed as content that this generation of women will actually enjoy and identify with, rather than consisting of the usual "lipsticks, handbags or BMW - bitching, moaning and whining" (more on this later).

1,000 18-35 year olds were surveyed and it was found that just 16% of young women aspire to run their own business one day, and just 3% want to be the chief executive of a company - compared to 22% and 6% of men. It also looks like women aren't as concerned by earning a high salary, with 16% aspiring to take home £100,000 a year compared to 20% of men. 16% of those surveyed said they were happy to take home £30,000 a year, compared to 12% of men.

This, apparently, is indicative of the fact that women are less ambitious and less concerned with "climbing the corporate ladder" than their male contemporaries. But is this a bad thing? The article happily details the fact that a "surprising" percentage of both men and women have no desire to become a line manager or head of department - so is it a case of unambitious women, or both sexes being disillusioned with the traditional concept of "success"?

The idea that women are "less ambitious" than men is problematic from the outset, because it equates "ambition" with wanting to earn a high salary and become a chief executive. This leaves no room for the fact that there are many, many ways to be ambitious, and that money isn't the most important thing in plenty of people's lives. Andrew Hunter, co-founder of the company that conducted the survey, said he thought that young people "would have a little more aspiration than this". Surely it's not difficult to understand that the corporate world isn't everyone's thing?

More and more, it's being reported that people will take job satisfaction and a good work-life balance over pots of cash and an important-sounding job title any time. In my experience, the current economic climate coupled with 21st century workplace culture has made people reassess their priorities - and while everyone wants to make enough money, that's as far as it goes for a lot of people. We know that the job opportunities of years gone by aren't there any more, which is probably why so many of those surveyed were keen to work freelance or set up their own business.

It's also possible that people aren't interested in working their way up to management because they're unwilling to become part of a power structure they're not totally comfortable with. Leadership can be worked out in many other ways.

So is it cause for concern that women, in particular, don't seem so interested in that sort of life? No, not really. As someone who has plenty of ambition but has never aspired to corporate glory and a six figure salary, I can't see what all the fuss is about. It's suggested that we should be doing something about this supposed lack of drive in young women. By all means, we should be offering encouragement and resources if they need help realising such ambitions. But otherwise, I'm not so sure.

What the survey actually appears to suggest is that women are more interested in other career paths, and don't see business and cash as their route to "having it all", something I know is true for me and for many of my friends. It found that careers in the public sector and charity sector are the most desirable, followed by those in the IT and digital sector, and the media.

Speaking of which, you'd think that a so-called "sassy" new women's section would avoid going down the cliché-ridden route of stories about "Having It All". The same goes for illustrating said stories with stills from The Devil Wears Prada and pictures of Sarah Jessica Parker. It would be nice to see a move away from all that nonsense and towards a more up-to-date take on these issues, a take that doesn't see the woman who "has it all" as a woman with several children, a job in banking, the perfect relationship, and a house worthy of Elle Decoration. I'll be interested to see how Wonder Women pans out in the weeks to come.

One of the better points raised by The Telegraph's coverage is that childcare arrangements and attitudes towards mothers remain a major barrier to women achieving their career ambitions, and could explain the difference in aspiration between men and women. The cost of nurseries these days is the highest in Europe, which means it's not economically viable for many women to return to work, even if they're keen to do so. In my opinion that's worth addressing and something the government really needs to act upon, because it does affect the lives and careers of many, many women. Maybe then we'll see a change in the disparity between men's and women's ambitions.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Image via victor1558's Flickr.

Perspectives on egalitarian relationships: @god_loves_women

This week's guest post comes from someone who really inspires me with her passion and motivation. @god_loves_women tweets and blogs about her faith, her convictions for overcoming gender inequality and injustice, and gender issues in the church and scripture. She is married, and has two children.

What does egalitarian marriage look like to me?

Beautiful, challenging and working through problems

Nobody top, nobody bottom

Living life in the tension, that neither is fully right

Neither of us having a full line of sight

We both can speak and both learn and both get it wrong

It’s part of the rhythm of marriage’s song

I pray to God for answers, as does he

Neither assuming the other better hears the Almighty

God created me with a mind, voice, soul and heart

My husband he created with the same

Together we’re better, stronger, lovelier

It’s not him being in charge…it’s not me being beneath

Because when it becomes about who makes the decisions

Or whether we get a blue or green car

When it’s one way or the high way

We can be sure that we’ve lost the way

Because love is too big for someone to be in charge

It’s not me or him but rather He, the Creator who commands our way

His will is highest and all that we desire

Not my way, or his way, but His way forever

Perspectives on egalitarian relationships: Alan Molineaux

It's been great to feature some wonderful guest posts over the past few Mondays. Today's contribution to my series on egalitarian relationships comes from Alan Molineaux. Alan combines his work for the church with running training courses in business management. Having originally studied electronics he went on to complete an MA in Pastoral Studies with The Cambridge Theological Federation. He lives in Bingley with his wife Beverley. They have four grown up daughters. Alan's blog can be found here.

Rooted in an Egalitarian way of life.

It is very difficult to consider a subject like this without projecting ones own prejudices upon the topic. Perhaps, however, a healthy starting point is to acknowledge the drivers of these possible projections in advance.

I am a man; I am the husband of a very capable wife; I am the father of four excellent daughters.

I became a Christian in a denomination that had egalitarian roots (although in practice this was not always actively encouraged).

These factors probably fuel my passion for the subject, yet I have genuinely tried not to let them blinker me from seeking an honest answer to the question of male and female relatedness. Evangelicalism tends to be drawn towards the making of definitive statements. Indeed the consideration of orthodoxy often hangs upon the making of, or agreeing to, such statements. I am happy to say that I no longer feel the need to make such definitive statements the starting point in such matters. Indeed it seems that such a position, heavily dependent upon definitive statements, could be prone to its own amount of projection.

My starting point, however, is the journey to find the question rather than the need to make the right statement. To my mind it is the search for the correct question that should be our goal. In this regard I feel comfortable putting aside such questions as 'should women be elders/preachers/bishops' in the search for a deeper ontological question such as:

'What is to be found in the biblical narrative the reveals the very nature of personhood?'

There is much we could say in this regard but I will focus in on the revelation of God as Father and at sometimes Mother (Consider Jeffrey A Benner's work on translating el Shaddai as 'mighty teat').

The climax of this revelation is seen in the teachings of Jesus who encourages us to pray 'Our Father'. None of these representations seem to indicate a different approach to, and relationship with, God for men and women. In fact the very notion of Fatherhood gives way to the picture of us as children. In this regard it does not seem wrong to declare that our gender is not a defining factor. The kingdom of God, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, does not allow for anything other than equality.

For sure, in his ministry Jesus used the cultural language and norms of his day; he adopted a rabbinical position and drew to himself a group of men to learn his new teaching. Yet for every social norm that Jesus seems to adopt he brings a challenge to the very core of local sensibilities. We could look at the honoured place of Mary and Martha, and the former's lead role in proclaiming the good news of the empty tomb; but that would be to become too mechanical.

It is the ontological truth of personhood revealed in God as divine parent, and we as his children in the Kingdom, brought through Jesus, that is the marker for how are to move forward. Whatever the difficult passages mean, they cannot mean a change to the equality revealed in the gospel. It is at this point that we have a choice. We can either chose to approach such passages by seeking to implement seemingly restrictive roles upon women, or we can hold on to the motif of equality as we seek to understand them.

I feel comfortable that scholars have shown that the texts can be read in a way that does not contradict the equality brought by the gospel. I am comfortable that this is the bigger story and that the other verses are representing some cultural context that our distance can only glimpse.

In light of this I choose to be part of the call for liberation. And personally, to continue my cry against voices that seek to confine women in the name of Christ (or any other name for that matter). In this context my wife and I, and my four daughters for that matter, can approach the Father God, revealed in Christ, as children without reference to our gender.

I could break my own rule at this point and make a definitive statement, but I would rather ask a question: What would it look like if we tried to live out the equality brought about by God being our Father?

Perspectives on egalitarian relationships: Jenny Baker

Today's guest post - on the theme of shared parenting - comes from Jenny Baker. Jenny is the director of the Sophia Network and has been married to Jonny for nearly 25 years. They have two sons.

Sharing work and parenting

I grew up in the Brethren church which had very clear divisions of labour along gender lines – men made the decisions and women made the tea. My mum and dad had a very traditional, and very happy, marriage with mum giving up her job as a teacher when she had children and dad working long hours as the breadwinner. As a teenager considering what was modelled at my church, I found myself on a pendulum swing – one day thinking ‘if that’s what God wants for men and women I don’t want anything to do with God’, and the next thinking ‘if that’s what God wants then I’ll put up with it because I want to follow Jesus.’

At university when I was in a relationship with Jonny, who is now my husband, someone gave us a book called ‘Marriage as God intended’ which had incredibly prescriptive roles for men and women. That was the clincher for me; it just made me determined never to get married because I knew that constraining myself into those roles would make me slowly die inside.

Fortunately, the church we were part of put on a series of evenings exploring what the bible said about men and women, which made me rethink all I’d previously taken in through osmosis as a child. It was really liberating to discover the full equality and partnership that’s described in the bible and to think through what the redemption that Jesus won on the cross meant for relationships between men and women. It also transformed my thinking about marriage much to Jonny’s relief and we’ve now been married for nearly 25 years.

We talked a lot about what a marriage of equals would look like in practice, and from the start shared all the domestic work that comes with being an adult, as well as both finding work. After all Jonny had cooked, cleaned, washed clothes as a student and it seemed bizarre that I should suddenly do that for him once we were married as if he were a child and I was his mum. We decided that if and when we had children, we wanted to share work and parenting too. I think it was really important to make those decisions early in our relationship and to be intentional about sticking to them. I can remember feeling incredibly guilty when Jonny ironed his shirts because something in my gut said that I ‘ought’ to be doing that for him, even though rationally it made sense that we should each do our own ironing as both of us hated doing it. That feeling soon went away, but it would have been easy to give in! As one of the slogans of second wave feminism says, the personal is political – what we do inside our homes and the way we organise our relationships does affect the time and energy and attitude we have to engaging with the world outside it. So many women do the ‘double shift’ of being employed and running the household and then wonder why they are exhausted.

We had children quite early in our marriage when we were both youth workers with YFC. Although I loved my baby, I struggled with being at home on my own with him on maternity leave. So when Joel was about three months old, Jonny and I started to job-share. We ended up working three days a week each, and found a child minder for one day a week so that we could have a team day for the meetings we both needed to be at. Harry was born a couple of years later and slotted into the pattern. We had quite set routines which suited us; whoever had been at home would cook the evening meal so that we could all eat together early evening then the parent who had been at work would bath the boys and put them to bed. We were fortunate to have a management committee who gave us a six-month trial to see if it would work, and having made the decision to rent rather than buy a house, we were able to live off one salary between us. Both of us benefited from being fully engaged parents and having the stimulus of work, although I know Jonny was lonely at times as there weren’t many other dads doing the same.

We moved to London when the boys were three and five, and as they went to school we changed jobs and increased our hours until eventually we were both working full-time but in flexible situations which meant that one of us could always do the school run while they needed that. Working in the Christian charity sector has given us more freedom than other sectors so we’ve been fortunate in that sense. We had to be very organised about our diaries and discuss trips away before committing to them, to ensure that one of us was able to take care of the boys and at times we did do the ‘tag-team’ parenting thing where one of us would get home just in time for the other to go out. For us, mealtimes were really important as a foundation of our family life and we’ve really valued the discipline of sitting down together around the table every day, taking time to talk to each other. And we had to recognise that there would be seasons when one of us was incredibly busy at work and the other would need to pick up the slack at home; but then a few months later it would work the other way round.

And the boys have turned out fine. Now 19 and 22, they haven’t grown up confused about what it is to be men as some people predicted. They are both quite different in terms of temperament and interests, and I am hugely proud of them. And very grateful that we made those decisions early and stuck to them.

Perspectives on egalitarian relationships: Ruth and Nick Wells

This week's guest post on egalitarian relationships comes from Ruth and Nick Wells, who are both youthworkers living in Bournemouth. Ruth and Nick have been married for nearly 10 years and have two children.

"But who wears the trousers?"

It seems to be a trend to write about marriage as a couple, and so as those who would not want to shirk away from what is trendy (!) we have decided to follow suit. We write as a couple, approaching 10 years of marriage, who met as young people and are both Christians. We also write as people who both hold an egalitarian view of gender and marriage. We are both youthworkers and have two beautiful children. This post is anecdotal rather than an over-arching theological exposition of egalitarian theology – it is our story.

It is not uncommon for the issue of how we ‘do’ our marriage to come up with various people. From the ‘oh so Nick looks after the children too’ to ‘what, Ruth was once your boss Nick?’ we are often met with looks of incredulity! To us this is how things work best, and how we believe we are both able to outlive what it means to follow Jesus.

When people have been able to move on from the fact that we both work, and believe that Jesus, not one of us, is the ‘head’ of our marriage, the inevitable discussion is around ‘but who makes the final decision?’ This question goes something like ‘but the buck has to stop with someone doesn’t it?’ Well we are happy to report that there have been no occasions at which one of us has had to ‘pull rank’ so to speak, and at which we could not reach a decision through negotiation and that mysterious art-form ‘talking to one another’. It isn’t that we always agree - we don’t - but we have never got to the point where we couldn’t resolve something through being together and chatting it through. We have been best friends for over 15 years and as such we find that we have some understanding of how we work.

We believe that marriage isn’t a relationship bound together through the subjugation of one party to another, but is one of mutual submission, respect and love. We also find it hard to imagine that if someone has to always ‘pull rank’ on decisions or forcible stop the buck, that there isn’t something fundamentally at odds in the relationship. It seems plausible to us that no-one needs be assigned the ‘in-charge’ monitor of the marriage. Just as Israel in the Old Testament sought to replace God with an earthly King, we believe that people sometimes mistakenly feel the need to replace Jesus, as the over-seer of the marriage, with man.

So what does our marriage ‘look like’? Well, following having our children we decided to both continue working part-time jobs to not only ‘provide’ financially, but to pursue our callings as people, and also parents. Our children get to see each of us as parents with roles within the home and as providers with our work roles – demonstrating that it is important to have dreams and aspirations and to seek to step into what God has gifted each of us in. We believe that our children do not have pre-scripted roles as they grow up, but are free to explore their own God-given gifting regardless of their anatomical make-up. It is not always easy to maintain this balance of life, work and children, but it is something we strive for and something that others find difficult to grasp.

A case in point would be following an interesting conversation about gender roles one New Year, when we found out that some other local Christians had reported that they knew who ‘wears the trousers in that relationship’! It wasn’t meant as praise for us both feeling able to be articulate opinions as part of dialogue. It was derogatory and hurtful. It suggested that because we both had a say about things, because we were both comfortable and confident to look after our children and because we did not fulfil stereotypes of ‘firm husband’ and ‘demure wife’ there was something wrong. It is saddening to us that the utter joy, love and freedom we find in our marriage is not found by others. It is tragic that so many women feel they have to put their own callings on hold for the sake of their husbands. It is sad that so many men miss out of being ‘Dad’ because they dare not shy away from the crippling shackles of over-working in order to be seen to ‘provide’.

So we want to give Jesus the trousers, if that’s not some kind of blasphemy?! He is the one who heads up our marriage and it is to him that we are accountable. We will continue to try and hold each other in love, respect and mutuality whilst trying to find fun, adventure and joy in the journey.

UniLad: when "banter" crosses a line

Today's Twitterstorm of Hysterical Outrage concerns a website called UniLad. In typical Twitterstorm fashion, the site was actually taken down while I was in the process of writing this post, but here's the rundown on what's happened so far.

- Horrendously misogynist website runs post insinuating that rape is acceptable and to be encouraged.
- Woman challenges them about it. Retweets galore. Twitterstorm ensues.
- Offending post is taken down.
- Apology about "cleaning up our act" issued, made reasonably pointless by every other post on the site, photo on UniLad Facebook group etc.
- Twitterstorm continues.
- Offending site is taken down. Victory for the Thought-Policing Pitchfork-Wielding Twitter Mob. Sort of.

Almost a decade ago, I was an innocent sixth former, looking forward to going off to university and meeting lots of amazing new people who would be "more mature" and "have more in common" with me. Then I went off to university, and I met Unilad. Unilad was often the most 'popular' guy in the hall. He had a crew of identikit unilads. He was obnoxious and offensive, intimidating and pathetic at the same time. This was 2003; the word "banter" wasn't widely used and I think you could say that the UK was still experiencing the glory days of the lad's mag, before circulation figures started declining and titles started folding and Maxim was still in print and running articles entitled "How to cure a feminist". Sadly for lad culture, however, Unilad was doing a really good job of making feminists and activists out of the young women he targeted.

Unilad cracked jokes about my friend's appearance - and called me "ugly" when I told him where to stick his opinions.

Unilad groped me umpteen times on nights out and laughed in my face if I reacted.

Unilad wrote misogynist articles for the student magazine and responded with something about "stupid humourless feminists" when he was challenged about it.

Unilad put all his support behind a Playboy-themed RAG week.

Unilad made me feel like I was the one in the wrong for feeling uncomfortable about a social event being held at a lapdancing club.

Unilad stood in front of the stage at the union, leering, cheering and filming on his his phone as a young woman was goaded into stripping as part of a "dance contest" to win drinks, before she ran from the room in tears.

Unilad told my boyfriend to dump me so he could have some fun and stop having to hang around with a "bird" who was anti-porn.

Unilad made me really upset, then he made me really angry. The anger took on a whole new dimension when I found out that two of my closest friends had been victims of rape and I understood how this had changed their lives. These days I know that Unilad usually hasn't had the chance to form meaningful relationships with women yet, especially sexual ones. It's obvious from the way he talks about it - just look at UniLad Magazine's neverending posts on the subject. It's a bit tragic. But his mindset still persists on campuses across the country.

No wonder I found so many blogs speaking out about this sort of culture when I got understandably riled by all this and started looking into gender equality issues. There were a lot of young women about who felt the same and wanted to do something about it. And there still are. When I go to conferences and look at blogs, I meet - and read the thoughts of - young women who are having their own gender equality awakening because their eyes have really been opened by incidents like this and the fact they're still apparently acceptable. Of course it's not the only reason we come to feminism and activism, but it's a major concern among most of the young feminists you'll ever meet, because it affects us all.

For me, it happened in 2003 and you'd think things would have moved on. "Lad culture" wasn't the "in thing" the last time I checked. The majority of men I know - and the majority of the men I've spotted on Twitter talking about this today - have serious issues with it all. They don't want to be associated with it. But it's still around, and it still leads to straight-up regressive and vile websites like UniLad having nearly 70,000 "fans" on Facebook. Websites where every other post appears to be about rape - making jokes about it, attempting to dress it up with euphemisms and pretending it's "just a laugh".

Last week, when I came across UniLad for the first time, reading the famously deleted post "Sexual Mathematics". I was confused, because it seemed like the site was supposed to be all about the banter. All about the banter, yet strangely lacking in anything remotely resembling "banter", and instead full of the sort of stuff that no-one could actually find amusing. Mostly a lot of jokes about rape and sexual assault, if you're wondering. If you fancy letting yourself in for a treat, you can read the cached version of the post here. That is, of course, if you're up for reading such gems as:

"And if the girl you’ve taken for a drink happens to belong to the ’25%’ group and won’t ‘spread for your head’, think about this mathematical statistic: 85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems to be fairly good odds."

Damn, I just love the stench of rape apologism. Especially deleted rape apologism that then becomes the subject of a half-arsed "apology" ("Sorry that people were offended. It won't happen again.") that's rendered totally pointless by the fact the site is crammed full of posts making jokes about raping women AND men, making unpleasant comments about the way women look at the same time as being apparently unable to refer to them as anything but "wenches" who need to "get back in the kitchen". Oh, the fact that posts with titles such as "The Angry Shag" end with sentences like this:

"To finish off, I doggy-style her head into the wall attempting to knock some sense into her."

UniLad's readers weren't happy with this "apology". Concluding that it must have been a woman who forced this apology from the site's creators, they're on fine form. "Rape the bitch," says one. "Fucking PC faggots," says another. We've even got "Slap a hoe like a true lad" and "Whoever complained should be raped". Doubtless all those comments are Just A Joke, from Average Guys Just Having a Bit of Fun. And let's not forget Average Girls Just Sticking Up for The Guys. The ones who say things like: "Girls complaining about this article are probably closet lesbians". Which, funnily enough, is the same sort of thing the UniLad account tweeted at the woman who started all this off by challenging them about that post.

"Are you a dyke?" they asked. Because at the end of the day, next to "fat" and "not in the kitchen" it's the worst thing we can be.

Maybe they just need to grow up. Let's hope that when they do, they leave all this behind them. I wouldn't bank on it, though, because these attitudes stick around, They work their way into relationships and the way people treat women. I probably just need to lighten up, though, because it's all about the banter, right?

Are women deserting the church - and what can be done?

If you mention the issue of gender differences and church attendance to a group of Christians, chances are they'll start mentioning how congregations generally have far more women than men; how men have left the church in droves in the past couple of decades; they'll mention "the feminization" of the church.

Back in June when I attended the conference on gender and the Bible put on by the Sophia Network, I was surprised to hear one of the speakers talking about the major problem of women in their 20s and 30s leaving the church, and going through some of what she believed were the reasons this is happening. I was surprised, not because I didn't believe her, but because it's not something you hear a lot about. What we've seen in response to the alleged "feminization" of the church is teaching and events which glorify masculinity, promote traditional gender stereotypes with a "trendy" edge, and go out of their way to appeal to the modern man and what he feels comfortable with.This isn't always helpful. I think it can and has led to some problematic ways of doing things and reaching out to communities taking hold. It's high time that we saw some deeper analysis of what's really going on in the church today with regard to gender disparity and the appeal different ways of "doing" church holds.

Yesterday I found out via a post by Sharon Hodde Miller on the Her.meneutics blog that his month has seen the publication of a report on gender and religious belief by The Barna Group, part of their State of the Church series which has examined trends in religion over the past 20 years. Although this is a small survey which obviously shouldn't be used to pass judgment on the church as a whole it's really interesting to note what the research found.Among those surveyed, church attendance had dropped by 11 percentage points since 1991 for women, but by six percentage points for men. And while the proportion of "unchurched" men was found to have risen by nine percentage points since 1991, the increase for women was 17%. Bible reading among women had plummeted by 10% among women, so that 40% of those surveyed read the Bible at some point during a typical week, compared to 41% of men (showing no change from 1991 and 2001).

The survey also detailed the fact that although women were at one time relied on as the "backbone" of church life, volunteering, helping out and providing hospitality, this is no longer the case, with a 9% drop in women volunteering at their church.

I wonder to what extent statistics like these are influenced by the drive to get men back into church - and the resulting books and articles we've seen which have criticised churches for being "too feminized", encouraged leadership to focus on building up and empowering men and displaying a scornful attitude towards all things "girly". I also wonder to what extent a drop in attendance and volunteering has been influenced by greater demands on our time ("having it all" takes up most of the day, don't you know), meaning that people want more of their free time to themselves, or don't want to get up early at weekends.

But let's say there is some truth in these statistics, that the church has lost male and female members but that women are now leaving at a greater rate than men. How could this be addressed? Miller rightly says:
"The decline of one gender in the church should not be the catalyst that launches concerted outreach."

While looking to appeal to a certain demographic, the church should not run the risk of excluding others in the community. So how can this be done without shutting people out?

1) Appealing to women from all walks of life, accepting different personalities and giftings. At the Sophia Network conference, providing networking and support to women working in the City through groups that meet or breakfast or at lunchtime in Central London was mentioned as just one example of this, just one example of working with the free time that people have. Miller's post brings up an important point in relation to this issue - "...in order to communicate with increasingly educated and professional women, Christian women must be able to articulate what they believe and why. How is the church equipping women for this?". There must be efforts made not to bring down and disapprove of women who have "a career" and enjoy their job, which is liable to happen in churches which are more conservative on gender roles. It's also useful to consider the different things extroverted and introverted people might be looking for in a church.

2) Showing a commitment to including the generation which is supposedly leaving the church - those in their 20s and 30s - and investing in their talents. Many women in this age group are neither married nor mothers and an incessant focus on marriage and children is particularly alienating. Trying not to focus all women's events and Bible studies on "family and home" is a good start - we do have other interests and areas of gifting! An outlook which leaves unmarried women unable to lead or take initiative in any way is also unhelpful here, as is a focus on marrying as young as possible. As Miller says:"How might a newly converted, female CEO find her gifts expressed in an evangelical church? How might a woman with financial savvy or her own law practice be able to serve her local congregation? Will these women be welcomed as resources, or ignored and untapped?"

3) Making an effort to include more women in church activities. I can't tell you how much my heart sinks when I see that the only options for learning together and socialising as women in a church are through mum-and-baby/toddler groups or Bible study/prayer groups which meet only during working hours. My heart soars when I see events scheduled in the evenings or at weekends, because although baby groups and daytime events are great (and an opportunity for friendship and support which I will no doubt avail myself of in the future, should I find myself able to), women like me - and the women who are my friends and colleagues - can't go to them. Similarly, if there are weekend or evening events, they don't always need to involve cupcakes and manicures. I have said this before, but I'd love camping trips and curry nights too.

4) Respecting female members of the congregation (and potential members of the congregation) by not preaching that being "like a woman" is synonymous with "traits which are undesirable or worthy of mockery". I cannot stress the importance of promoting equality and standing against misogyny. Today's 20 and 30-somethings have also been made wary of the church by scandals, spiritual abuse and lack of integrity, which is worth remembering. It's one of the cheesiest and overused clichés, but being authentic and operating with integrity is vital.

Some of the comments on Miller's post provided examples applicable to these points and are really worth reading. Women cited a pressure to marry and have children, male-dominated church culture, busy lives, churches trying to pigeonhole them into certain areas of serving, being introverted, and not wanting their daughters to be made to feel inferior due to their gender as reasons they had been "burned" by the church. One commenter noted sadly that this research had been interpreted by some bloggers as showing that now is the time for men to "take back the church", seeing as women are leaving it. This could not be more wrong.

Image via Beaverton Historical Society's Flickr.

Created or Constructed? Part One

In my post on Mark Driscoll's response to the 'effemigate' furore, I briefly discussed the statement he used as a standfirst. When Driscoll wrote:

"Gender. Is it a socially constructed reality or a God-given identity?"

he started a lot of discussion about what it means to be male or female. Although he acknowledged that it's a very complex issue, the feelings he outlined about the debate appeared to be insinuating that this is a mutually exclusive dichotomy and that he firmly believes that gender roles are God-given. I don't entirely agree. While I agree that our gender identity is God-given and that the Bible does have plenty to say about men, women and the church, I do not believe that this brings with it specific desirable personality traits, emotions and skills, rather that the majority of those promoted by Driscoll and others who are strong on 'traditional' gender roles are heavily influenced by society and cultural trends. Indeed, perceptions of gender roles and responsibilities within Christianity differ, as can be shown by comparing official statements on three main strands of teaching.

Contrasting perspectives on gender roles:
Patriarchy (typified by Vision Forum) - The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy
Complementarianism (typified by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) - The Danvers Statement
Egalitarianism (typified by Christians for Biblical Equality) - CBE Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality

So, to what extent are Christian views on gender roles and gender-appropriate behaviour defined by cultural factors? It's obvious that there is major influence, whether we're talking about the hold the 19th century 'cult of domesticity' or 'cult of true womanhood' still has over society, the hyper-masculine all-American action hero (with added super-Godliness) promoted by Driscoll or the crusading warrior/waiting for Prince Charming stereotypes of books like 'Wild At Heart' and 'Captivating', which tell us:

"Little boys want to know, Do I have what it takes?...Little girls want to know, Am I lovely?"

Some who believe in distinct gender roles and behaviours feel it is important to emphasise these when raising children - for example encouraging girls to enjoy personal grooming and wearing 'feminine' clothes, or encouraging boys to play sports and take 'leadership' roles - so that they will grow up with an awareness of what it 'means' to be male or female. This is echoed by our society in general, which stereotypes children from almost the minute they are born, judging every movement, cry and aspect of behaviour as evidence of being a 'proper little boy' or 'proper little girl'. Despite the case against so-called 'hard-wired' gender differences, explored by Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender, society dictates that even as babies, girls and boys and to be treated according to socially constructed ideas about what it is to be male or female. Before the recent birth of the Beckhams' daughter, the BBC ran a feature which showcased all the old stereotypes to the extreme.

Describing girls as 'manipulative', 'evil' and 'hell-bent on showing off' while underlining a predilection for all things pink and princess-related. Referring to boys solely in conjunction with mud, football and dinosaurs while discussing their lack of 'hidden motives'. Thankfully we also hear from those who believe such differences are mainly the product of parents' imaginations:

"According to Dr Helen Barrett, developmental psychologist and research fellow at Birkbeck College, University of London, studies suggest even when baby boys and girls are lying in a cot kicking their legs at the same rate, boys are seen as more energetic.

And a newborn boy's cries are seen as more forceful and may be responded to quicker, even when there is actually no difference."

Undoubtedly, Christian thinking on gender is influenced by 'the world' in this respect - and we can see further parallels with views on 'roles' in the family, the home and the church. In US Christian culture, it's more obvious that some aspects of these views are a direct response in opposition to what's seen as the un-Biblical and nefarious influence of feminism, which if you believe some critics is directly responsible for promiscuity, failed marriages, deadbeat dads, emasculated men, manipulative women, domestic abuse and indeed the majority of social problems you can think of. The traditionalist view of gender roles is not only 'Biblical', but if accepted by society in general might herald a return to happier and more righteous times, when 'men were men and women were women' (and presumably, marriages were blissful, homes were happy and everyone knew their place). The anti-equality perspective is obviously present in other countries, but it's the US which seems to have spawned the majority of the backlash.

There's a real resistance to the word 'equality' in a way which makes me uncomfortable. Equality as the way of the devil, if you like, because it 'denies difference' and shockingly, emphasizes similarities. I find it incredibly hard to get worked up about this denial of difference, possibly because I'm one of those feminist egalitarians, but I think it's also because I don't believe equality 'denies difference', rather that it describes worth and purpose, male and female being created 'in his own image'. Equality is not an insult, or a dirty word, as I have seen implied. I wonder, when I read comments to that effect, just how deeply certain gender roles have been ingrained so that despite clear teaching on equality of worth in God's eyes, there is real horror at the suggestion of 'sameness' between men and women. I often wonder if it has much to do with the same views on gender roles which lead people to say "Well I LIKE cooking and babies and shaving my legs so I am HAPPY to be a REAL woman, thank you very much, feminists!'

I think it's very easy to get bogged down in perceived similarities and differences which actually have little to do with relationships, gifting and a call to ministry - and are not hard and fast to begin with, easily dispelled by countless people who do not 'fit the mold'.

As part of this ongoing exploration into gender in the church, I've ordered a copy of Elaine Storkey's Created or Constructed? The Great Gender Debate, which I've been meaning to read for a while. I'll be reading and discussing it here.

Image via Steve Rhodes's Flickr

Mark Driscoll responds to 'Effemigate'

Well, I have to say that I'm surprised. As a result of Rachel's post, I think Mars Hill Church must have received a lot of emails this week - not to mention the many blog posts I've spotted in addition to those I linked in my previous post. What I'm surprised about is that we have a public response, of a sort.

It's not really an apology. It provides an 'explanation' of why Driscoll asked that question on Facebook last week and I think it does miss the point a bit in doing so. So a man explained to Driscoll that he was put off church because the worship leader at one he visited was "effeminate". To put it bluntly, in my mind that doesn't point to problems within the church. Why treat so many in the church with disrespect in order to fall in line with cultural stereotypes of masculinity? Such behaviour isn't consistent with Jesus's attitude towards ingrained cultural norms. As well as a reinforcement that Driscoll feels distinct gender roles in the church, society and the home are important, the post is also a major plug for his upcoming book and website.

In asking "Gender: Is it a socially constructed reality or a God-given identity?" he seems to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive. I disagree and believe that while it is a God-given identity to the individual, many facets of what we see as 'gender' and what it means to us are socially constructed. I also believe that it is not wrong to challenge translations of the Bible which refer only to men and do not use language inclusive of humankind when this is plainly what is intended. Looking to what the Bible says about gender identity and God should enable us to see through societal constructions and I really hope that in exploring the issue further on his new website, Driscoll will look into this (I have a feeling this may be a hope too far).

So what's good about it? I'm happy that he admitted he has been spoken to by elders in the church and told to address these issues more effectively, because it's important that leaders are accountable and can be encouraged to change problematic behaviour by those they work with. I know that accountability was a concern for many who have been upset by his remarks. I was pleased by the acknowledgement of the enormity of gender issues in the church and in theology as a very wide-ranging matter which needs to be taken seriously, not reduced to throwaway comments on Facebook. There was also acknowledgement of the cultural problems on which he bases many of his opinions - that according to some studies and reports, young men today are allegedly slow to take responsibility, immature and unreliable, contributing to toxic relationships, shirking the duties of fatherhood.

I don't think it's wrong to want to address this and I absolutely believe that churches should be encouraging maturity, responsibility, Godly behaviour and respect for women in men. But I don't believe that this has to go hand in hand with reinforcement of 'roles' and stereotypes which, when it comes down to it, are rooted in modern American culture. I think it is possible to do this in a positive way. Interestingly, Driscoll asks:

"How can the church compel men to rise up without pushing women down?"

I think many people would welcome deeper dialogue from him regarding this as it's been a sticking point in the past. It's also one of the most important questions facing Christianity today, with the patriarchal movement gaining adherents and the continued marginalization of over half the church. I know I probably won't agree with many of the conclusions Driscoll will come to when he goes into more detail about gender issues, but I hope for a more measured approach on his part.

Mark Driscoll, the Facebook status and the blogosphere fallout

I thought I'd do some sort of post collating all the posts written over the past few days in response to the latest controversy involving Mark Driscoll and his interesting beliefs about gender roles and stereotypes. On Thursday he invited fans on his Facebook page to engage by telling him about some of their experiences of church. Namely, "So, what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?".



So this is the man responsible for gems such as:

"In Revelations, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up."

and

"Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality."

and

"After church tonight you will go home and you will eat chicken, not human, because of the spread of Christianity... go to a country where there hasn't been the spread of Christianity and they're having human for dinner."

And it aggrieves me, no matter what people say about his supposed skills with leadership and preaching and getting people, particularly young people, engaged with God. It makes me profoundly uncomfortable that he happily talks about vetting his wife's emails and the anger he has felt towards other men who so much as go near her or look at her. His entire approach towards gender aggrieves me and I know it gets a lot of other people wound up too. That's why it was so interesting to read the varying responses to that Facebook post, which ended up generating over 600 comments before it was eventually removed at some point yesterday.

It started with a fantastic post from Dianna Anderson for Jesus Needs New PR.

Do you think those archaic gender roles, which aren’t even clearly laid out in the Holy Scriptures of your religion, might just be wrong? Do you feel like who you are as a person is being ignored because of what you happen to have between your legs?

If you actually followed that thought process all the way through, you have just a little, tiny sliver of how it feels to be a woman in the church. When you say to the men in your congregation, “being womanly is wrong,” the men aren’t the only ones listening. Yes, be bold, preach the gospel (or what you think is the gospel), but be aware: there are others listening, and they are not liking what they hear.

I loved Dianna's post; she gets right to the heart of why Driscoll's schtick on men and women is so offensive - firstly because it relies on stereotypes very particular to his own culture and place in history rather than anything Biblical, and secondly because he consistently implies that anything 'feminine' or 'womanly' is a bad thing, something to be mocked. Of course, he would probably reply that that doesn't mean it's bad for A WOMAN to display 'feminine' characteristics, because that's what she's supposed to do. It's only bad if a MAN behaves like that. This doesn't make it any less offensive and negative about women and only serves to promote the extreme anxiety you see in many Christians about the word 'equality'. You know - "But equal means 'THE SAME'! And men and women are NOT 'the same'! Therefore equality is wrong."

Dianna Anderson - A Jesus I Can Beat Up

"If you are a mainstream Christian, then you assert that Jesus WAS beaten up. One whole hell of a lot (pun intended).

He was whipped. He was forced to carry the instrument of his own death. A crown of thorns was shoved onto his head, to the point that he bled.

While you may not like it, the fact remains: If you believe that Jesus died and rose again – in other words, if you profess the Christian faith – you ALSO must believe in a man who was beaten to a pulp, a man who took a massive beating and who did not praise the violence."

Dianna is now doing a series of follow-up posts about gender and the church which I'm very much looking forward to - the above is one of them.

Elizabeth Esther - God DOESN’T hate gays–but pastors mocking them is A-OK!

"Honestly, how can ANY pastor justify publicly inviting people to publicly humiliate other Christians? As a Christian I feel embarrassed and grieved by this kind of public display of graceless behavior."

Joy Bennett - Don’t Take Pot-Shots at Worship Leaders, er, I Mean, ANYONE

"Whether or not you believe that men should dress and act a certain way, you cannot dispute the clear commands to Christians to speak kind grace-filled words. We are to use our words to build up, not tear down. Romans 1:29 and 2 Corinthians 12:20 and 1 Timothy 5:13 all state that gossip is a sin, included in lists alongside envy, murder, deceit, jealousy, and anger."

Elizabeth and Joy talk about one of the other main points to have come out of all this - that the very act of a high profile megachurch pastor inviting other Christians, on a public social networking page, to tell mocking stories about the way other Christians look and behave purely because they don't measure up to his macho ideal of what a man should be, is spectacularly un-Christlike.

Brian Wooddell - A Letter To Mark Driscoll

"I’m a man, Mr. Driscoll. I’m a man because I do everything in my power to help the less fortunate and the downtrodden. I’m a man because I respect and love others. Most of all, I’m a man because I spend every day striving to be how God wants me to be.

And I refuse to let you or any other bully with a pulpit tell me otherwise."

Tyler L Clark - Mano-a-Mano: A Letter to Mark Driscoll

"When you put out a call on Facebook for people verbally attack “effeminate anatomically male” men, I find myself back in high school—shoved against a locker, with the bullies calling me a faggot."

Brian and Tyler write as Christian men who don't live up to Driscoll's stereotype of the ideal man - due to their interests, their clothing choices and their personalities. Both speak of feeling 'bullied' by other men and church leaders in the past about such issues - and the effect this has had on them.

Are Women Human? - Dianna Anderson: Dear Mr. Driscoll

"Try to see, just try, how this kind of daily, ceaseless attack on femininity makes the many, many people who don’t fit into the patriarchal model of gender feel. Try to see how it makes us feel like we have to embrace an identity of inferiority to be part of the church, or leave."

Grace says that Driscoll sends out a clear message that he believes anyone who does not place patriarchal masculinity above all else in their views on gender and the church is to be mocked and shunned - and how this impacts Christian women.

Rachel Held Eavns - Mark Driscoll is a bully. Stand up to him.

"Godly men imitate Christ — who praised the gentle and the peacemakers, who stood up for the exploited and abused, who showed compassion for the downtrodden, who valued women, and who loved his enemies to the point of death.

If this Facebook status were Pastor Mark Driscoll’s first offense, it might not warrant a strong response. But Mark has developed a pattern of immaturity and unkindness that has remained largely unchecked by his church. In evangelical circles, he’s like the kid from high school who makes crude jokes at every opportunity, uses the words “gay” and “queer” to describe the things he most detests, encourages his friends to subject the unpopular kids to ridicule, and belittles the guys who aren’t “macho” or “manly” enough to be in his club."

Rachel encourages readers to take direct action and contact Driscoll's church, talk to him and attempt to start some dialogue on why he continues to feel this sort of behaviour is acceptable. There has been some discussion over the weekend that 'open letter'-style blog posts, while often very articulate and important, are becoming an overdone form of indirect action which achieves little. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I will be emailing Mars Hill Church.

Picture of Mark Driscoll via jgordon13's Flickr. Screenshot of his Facebook page via HomeBrewed Theology.

Digital equality revisited - new report on gender and digital politics

Hat tip to Cath Elliott for alerting me to a new report by the Hansard Society entitled Gender and Digital Politics, published yesterday, which I would have missed otherwise thanks to a certain story dominating the news.

Reading the report reminded me of the post I wrote on debating digital equality at Netroots UK after I attended the conference in January. Cath was also there and I recognised many of the issues we discussed that day in her blog post from yesterday, which covers many of the main points I feel it's important we make here. The way women's voices are sidelined by the 'blokosphere', abusive behaviour below the line and a dismissive attitude towards such abuse, the way many of the things women write about are categorised as 'Life and Style', even when they're actually important political issues (sorry Guardian, I'm looking at you). Is it any wonder that the report identified that the majority of commenting on political blogs is done by men? Not at all, when you get to know about the level of abuse and intimidation leveled at many women who get involved.

As Cath says:

"Until that changes and feminism is recognised as being political rather than seen as some kind of niche lifestyle interest, we’ll continue to see questions like “why are political blogs dominated by men?” being posed, when in reality the question should be: “Why do men always get to decide what is and isn’t politics?"

In the last election we saw how the majority of issues were framed as 'men's issues' while women were portrayed as only having interest in areas of policy such as child benefit and flexible working. Never mind the fact that every other issue affected them too.

Says the report:

"There is also evidence to suggest that women are discussing politics online in places that would traditionally have been perceived as non-political. Mumsnet, which is dedicated to sharing information and tips on parenting, has a campaigning focus, lobbying government and private companies on a variety of issues. This site has blogs from female contributors, and features a talk section, where users are able to discuss issues such as childcare, children’s food and education, lifestyle issues, health and politics."

This was a key aspect of our discussions at Netroots. Many people felt it's important to recognise that there is massive engagement in political issues going on which is not limited to the 'big' political blogs, which are male-dominated and are often a very hostile environment for women. But because these blogs are the ones getting the attention, it's assumed that there is a lack of participation, that women have a tendency to interact on 'lightweight' websites and talk about 'lightweight' issues - when in fact it's more often the case that women are combining discussion of politics with discussion of other topics. The same goes for blogging.

Overall I feel the report missed a lot of important points and that the reasons for political exclusion and how this links in with male-dominated political discussion, with a lot of stereotypically 'female' issues being seen as secondary or 'fluffy', need more analysis.

Men, Women and the Bible

Yesterday I was privileged to attend the Men, Women and the Bible day conference put on by the Sophia Network. Last autumn I undertook Sophia's eight-week theology course on gender in the Bible and having gained so much from it, it was great to see the course finally published as a resource, as well as getting the chance to network, listen to wisdom from three wonderful speakers and just have the opportunity to think so hard about the issues surrounding gender, scripture and the church.

The three teaching sessions - Maggi Dawn on hermeneutics, Howard Worsley on why a theology of gender matters and Lis Goddard on how to engage effectively with those who disagree with us - were very useful in that they gave us plenty of starting points for research, recommended reading and things to consider - in the hope, of course, that we would go away and do plenty of work of our own. There was discussion of particular verses and interpretations and we even had time to have a bit of a chat about privilege. It was so good to discuss the 'dos and don'ts' of debate. As one of those strident wimmin I am a bit confrontational - although I think the same could be said for most people when debating something they're passionate about - so it was interesting to get some food for thought on engaging in a Christlike way.

Overall the day underlined for me just how passionate I am about these issues and how important it is to me to see an egalitarian interpretation of scripture and ministry - or 'restored mutuality' as Lis called it - worked out in a way that can benefit Christian women and enable them to fulfill their true calling, using their unique gifts, in side-by-side partnership with men. An interpretation that takes into account the fact that a hyper-masculine image of God and scripture means that both women and men suffer and are limited. I believe passionately in a Creation/Fall narrative which depicts mutuality, partnership without hierarchy and that we should not live our lives according to the results of the Fall, but strive to emulate pre-Fall male-female relationships.

In an open discussion panel at the end of the day, both panelists and delegates raised incredibly important issues. Over the past couple of years we've heard so much about the 'feminization of the church'. Just type that phrase into a search engine and you'll come across scores of blog posts and articles lamenting what has been happening to Christianity, resulting in men leaving the church in droves, but off by the way it seems to be female-orientated. But Lis said something interesting yesterday. She said that the truth is that the group of people leaving the church fastest and in the greatest numbers are women in their 20s and 30s. And they are leaving because they're disillusioned with church life, confused about what God has for them and burned by being brushed aside.

Let's think about this. Church should be for everyone. But a major challenge for a lot of churches is actually catering to everyone. Women my age are often poorly served in churches where opportunities for women to make friends, get together and grow spiritually frequently come in the form of mum and baby groups, or women's prayer and study groups held on weekdays during working hours. In recent years there has been a big focus on getting men together, hence the breakfasts and curry nights and men's days we see a lot of. And these are good. I do feel that they often rely too heavily on promoting a very stereotypical 'manliness' which is more of today's world than anything and the same could be said for plenty of women's days which focus not just on teaching and worship but also on 'pampering' and eating 'treats'.

It's not always possible to cater to everyone with these sort of events, particularly in small churches with limited resources, but there is a real need to help women find community, a way to serve and a way to develop their gifts. They must not feel that they need to find a husband or have children in order to fit in. They must not become discouraged because they have been told they can't serve in the way they feel called to - perhaps in a position of authority. They must not leave meetings in tears because they've been told they can't speak or make a decision because they are female. They must not feel that it's always right to instantly defer to what men in the church want to do.

They must feel confident in working together with men as a team which works well, not one which is beset by power struggles and dismissive attitudes. And they must feel that if they are worried about one of these things, they can talk to someone about it without being told that it's not important, that egalitarians aren't proper Christians, that gender isn't an issue and that there is no room to discuss it, particularly when this is being said by a man who will not know what it's like to be told that he must limit what he can do for God according to his gender.

Why do I feel this needs underlining? I am part to a church where women are built up, encouraged and given many opportunities to 'do' Christianity the 'mutuality' way, whether that's on a Sunday morning or at home with their husbands. But this is not the case for so many of my sisters. From some churches and groups of churches has come a 'push' towards a more hardline approach to women in ministry and I know for a fact that it is causing hurt and affecting peoples' relationship with God. As I said earlier, this hardline approach doesn't just impact women in a negative way. The stereotypes, the limiting lifestyles it imposes on everyone are not of God and will not, I believe, lead to a fulfilled life.

I can't stand by and watch with an aching heart while high profile Christian leaders say publicly that they would not take a book on scripture written by a woman seriously and while women's concerns are ignored. It creeps in subtly like this, but at the same time we have people believing that God created all women to be subordinate to all men and others using scripture to justify abuse.

So this is me, beginning to take a stand.