Natalie Burris

This is never neutral

"When I first started appearing before a judge, I kept being reprimanded from the bench. I was losing my cases and I couldn't understand why. Then I realized the following: when some floppy-haired chap from Surrey stands before these judges, all his passionate arguments read as 'pure advocacy.' He and the Judge recognize reach other. They are understood by each other. Very likely went to the same school. But Whaley's passion, or mine, or yours, reads as 'aggression.' To the judge. This is his house and you are an interloper within it. And let me tell you, with a woman it's worse: 'Aggressive hysteria.' The first lesson is: turn yourself down. One notch. Two. Because this is not neutral" She passed a hand over her neat frame from her head to her lap, like a scanner. "This is never neutral."

--a veteran black woman attorney giving advice to a black woman in law school, from Zadie Smith's novel NW.

A consequence of "men are people, women are women"

When a Christian man discusses theology or the church, to men at least, his gender disappears. He is simply a neutral human being pondering God, hermeneutics, etc. 

But when a Christian woman discusses theology, her gender often becomes front and center. To many, she is not a human being pondering theological or eccelesiological matters, but rather her woman-ness takes precedence. The common assumption is that she has some sort of feminist or otherwise non-"neutral" bent to her thoughts.

Dianna Anderson recently wrote a great post about this phenomenon. Like many women who are interested in theology, Dianna often felt dismissed and "expected to exist apart from and without my womanhood in order to participate in those abstract discussions." She continues:

By my very existence as a woman in theological studies, I insert gender into a discussion that has been previously dominated by a homogenous group of straight, white, cisgender men – men for whom questions of gender and patriarchy were not relevant or pressing in their lives. I, by the very act of being a woman existing in the theological realm, frequently bring to the table a different perspective that is colored by my gendered existence.

Unfortunately, by allowing this experience to play a part in how I approach theology, I am told that I am playing identity politics, that I am failing to participate in the abstract, that I am inserting subjectivity into a previously objective realm.

Dianna points out that a man's objectivity and neutrality simply do no exist. 

I believe this illusion of men-as-people, women-as-women is a huge hurdle for Christian women who want to engage in conversations about theology and the church. Over at the excellent blog Women in Theology, Julia points out the speech patterns of many women who speak up. A graduate student in theology, Julia shares:

I wished someone had told me earlier in my graduate career to stop commenting in class like a girl.  When “girls” ask a question in class, they preface their inquiry with a qualification like, “This may be a basic question but…” or “I’m not really sure, but it seems to me…” or “Maybe everyone one else got this, but…”

Julia frames the issue as self-sabotage and lack of self-confidence, but I also see a woman's hesitancy to speak confidently and with authority a product of our culture. Many white U.S. men do not feel the need to use self-effacing hedge words; rather, they are comfortable in their own already-represented, established skin. I see this in the courtroom all the time.

When I was an undergraduate student, an anthropological study of gendered speech patters in a non-U.S. culture opened my eyes to the way in which language creates and reinforces gender roles. English-speaking (white) men tend to be more direct in speech, as compared to women who use "hedge words" like "well," "sort of," "maybe," "perhaps," etc. English-speaking men also tend to interrupt more often and are more successful at changing the topic of conversation. A look at Malagasy language (in Madagascar) reveals that women use direct and open speech, a behavior that is a sharp contrast to men. Women are known to be more straightforward, while men tend to use "hedge words" and subtleties.

Sadly, the U.S. church is no different than the broader U.S. culture. A few weeks ago, John Piper reinforced our culture's persistent view that women's voices should be minimized. Piper gave the go-ahead for Christian men to stop reading a commentary written by a woman if her femininity was too present. Rachel Pietka likened Piper's views to nineteenth century oppression of U.S. women, during which time women had to minimize their physical presence and remain seated if they spoke out in the public (read: white male) sphere. Rachel notes that Piper encourages the belief "that men have a God-given right to employ forceful, in-your-face rhetoric, both to each other and to women." Women, on the other hand, should keep their voices indirect and impersonal.

The "consequences" of women having a voice in the church is not limited to the conservative branch of the U.S. church. The different ways in which the progressive Tony Jones and Rachel Held Evans are treated, for example, is quite revealing.

Rachel is one of the most gracious and patient U.S. evangelical voices online and in print. She writes with confidence, does not "hedge" often, and is a competent, intelligent woman who discusses theology and the church. Despite the fact that she takes great pains to act charitably and respectfully toward those with whom she disagrees, Rachel is often accused of making a mockery of Scripture, and has really ticked off many white male evangelical gatekeepers. In contrast, Tony Jones has a very abrasive, dismissive, and often petulant voice online. He is often not gracious toward his critics - see Exhibit A and Exhibit B.

Yes, Tony is criticized by the same camp that criticizes Rachel. But imagine if Tony were a woman. I am certain that the response to his writing would be wildly different. Or, imagine if Rachel behaved the way Tony acts. Many baseline responses to Rachel are that she is shrill, emotional, and polarizing -- or even a manipulative Delilah. Imagine the outrage if Rachel were to respond to a commenter with a brusque "bullshit", or were as combative as Tony is in his blog posts and comments section. 

Backed by the U.S. culture and church's belief that Men Are People, the objective neutral against which all Others are compared, Tony can employ as much forceful, in-your-face rhetoric as he wants, with impunity. But women who dare discuss theology with confidence, be careful not to poison the conversation with your feminist bent...lest we be deemed silly women.

Photo credit

Some thank you's...

In 1873, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court's decision prohibiting a woman from practicing law. The Chicago woman, Myra Bradwell, had applied for a license to practice law, the first woman in Illinois to do so. However, both courts agreed that she was not guaranteed this right under the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court found that a woman did not have the right to engage in any and every profession, occupation, or employment in civil life. 

Justice Bradley, in his concurring opinion, decided to elaborate why women are so unfit to practice law:

[C]ivil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life.

Justice Bradley emphasized that women properly belong to the domestic sphere, to the domain and functions of womanhood. The family institution itself is at risk if a woman adopts a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. Justice Bradley made sure to point out that English law, upon which U.S. law is based, held that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband.

In fact, in 1873, a woman was still prohibited from making contracts without her husband's consent. Therefore, women--especially married women--were considered incapable of becoming attorneys.

Thankfully, the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court have changed course over the last 140 years (while, oddly enough, a wing of the evangelical church still espouses these gender roles...).

Today I receive my oath of office from the Supreme Court of Illinois. It is a privilege, and I'm indebted to the women who fought tirelessly to have the right simply to pursue a profession of one's choosing. 

I am also indebted to my family. It is incredible to think that I, a great-granddaughter of a peanut farmer in rural Oklahoma, somehow ended up practicing law in a thirty-story courthouse with a Picasso sculpture in its plaza! My parents and grandparents ensured that I would have more opportunity than they ever dreamed of -- regardless of my gender. They never led me to believe I was limited in any way. I can't adequately express how thankful I am for their love and support.

And of course, I can't leave out my longsuffering husband! My diploma arrived last week, and I told him his name belonged on it alongside mine. A "thank you" just isn't enough. 

There are many more people who have been wonderful support along the way. Much love and gratitude to you all!

"Me too:" an affirmation for Rachel Held Evans

Dear Rachel,

I hadn't gone to church in awhile, much less read my Bible. I was done with gatekeepers decreeing who was in and who was out. But last year, with John Piper's proclamation bidding "Farewell" to Rob Bell, I jumped back into the fray. Perhaps it was Bell's courage to question the evangelical establishment, or his critics' shrill response, but I no longer wanted to give up on my faith. I found an amazing online community of Christian bloggers, who shared my struggle with the contemporary North American evangelical church. I even found a local church and joined the community there. 

One of the most grace-filled, honest, and articulate bloggers I found during this time was...you! You're deftly able to communicate what many of us spiritual refugees and internally displaced persons feel. You've amassed a much-deserved readership because your writing resonates so well with a lot of people's experiences. I often find myself remarking, "Me too!" in response to your posts.

Growing up as a young woman in the Southern Baptist church, I too experienced the Bible being used as a weapon against me and my calling. I too have been accused of being a “bitter, angry woman” intent on destroying the Church with my “radical feminist agenda.” And I know I'm not alone. That's why your writing has been such a valuable ministry to women like me (and men, too) who have been wounded by the church and whose questions have been shot down with appeals to concepts such as "inerrancy" and "complementarianism." I'm sure I'm not the only wanderer who's been encouraged to return, and who joins the chorus of "Me too!"

Like so many evangelical women, I've faced hurtful accusations when I push back against the status quo. Sometimes I don't have the words or the grace-under-pressure to articulate what I believe. And many other people in the church who are not white straight men fight a similar battle. Thankfully, you do have the ability to speak so clearly when others are still tending to their wounds and can only offer a quiet "Me too."

What a great example you've served to those of us who get frustrated, and who often fight the urge to respond with biting sarcasm. You've lived out how a gentle answer turns away wrath, avoiding harsh words that stir up anger. 

At one time or another, I've faced criticism too. Mine is nowhere near as public, but it stings nonetheless. And I've faced the assumption that we women don't know what we're talking about. That's why I want to offer encouragement, and who better to borrow from than St. Paul? 

Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. Do everything in love.

Fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel.

Let your gentleness be evident to all.

Fight the good fight; finish the race; keep the faith.

 

_____________________________

Read more from people sharing how Rachel has influenced their thinking or writing, or link up your own post at love is what you do.

Systems, privilege, and the "Top 200 Church Blogs" list

The Church Relevance blog recently compiled a list of the "Top 200 Church Blogs," which raised concerns over the overwhelmingly white, straight, and male nature of the list. The mechanics behind the creation of the rankings are a great illustration of systems and privilege. 

Critical race theory does an excellent job of exposing racism in social systems and groups. This field's most basic tenet is that race is an integral part of social organizations, and racism is an  institutionalized, ingrained feature of social systems. Critical race theory holds that everyone in a social system furthers that system through social practices, reproducing the power and prestige of the system. Those with the most power and prestige are the most privileged, which means they have the most advantage over others, even if this advantage was passed down through generations. (For more on privilege, check out Dianna Anderson's great series, starting here.)

Systems (including religious, legal, and academic systems--and even the blogosphere) tend to be affected by inertia. Most systems, by their very design, are resistant to changes to their usual state. This means it is exceedingly difficult to push against the norms inside the system. The system itself does the work for the privileged individual.

With discrimination, for example, an institution can be raced and gendered in ways in which the institution appears to be race- and gender-neutral, but in reality is dominated almost exclusively by white men or other groups who enjoy privilege. The system works in such a way that the institution discriminates on behalf of its individual members against women, LGBTQ people, and people of color, while favoring white, straight men. The individuals themselves do not have to be racist or sexist in order to perpetuate inequality. In fact, most participants in a system would vehemently deny that they intend to focus exclusively on white, straight men. They are nice people for crying out loud!

For instance, when Kent Shaffer at Church Relevance describes his efforts to compile a list of "top 200 church blogs," he points to seemingly objective measures, such as Alexa Rank and Google Page Rank. While Shaffer acknowledges that his criteria are flawed and subjective, the mechanics behind creating the list reveal that those who have power and prestige will continue to have power and prestige. The "system" reinforces, reproduces, and perpetuates itself, the "system" here being networking and influence of white, straight, Christian men. Claiming to look at the blog-world in a purportedly "neutral" way, using traffic and subscription numbers, masks the fact that one group of people holds the most power and prestige in Christian blogging. One does not have to be a blatant racist, sexist, or homophobe to create a list consisting almost exclusively of white, straight, Christian men - the system works it out for you.

To fight this inertia, I hope one realization that results from rankings like these is that people with the most power and prestige must make a conscious effort to ensure that the voices of women, LGBTQ people, and people of color are heard. If you are a white, straight, Christian man, please take a look at the blogs you read and the people you follow on Twitter. Do they look like you? Take a look at the books you read on theology and ministry. Do their authors look like you? If so, would you be willing to join with me and fight the inertia?

Photo source

Mohler and the threatening papyrus fragment...

One of the more intriguing news items this week is the discovery of a fourth-century papyrus fragment that suggests that Jesus had a wife, or at least that some early Christians believed that Jesus had a wife. The fragment also suggests the existence of a woman disciple.

When I listened to NPR's segment on this exciting revelation, I got the first hint of conservative Christians' reaction to the suggestion that Jesus may have had a wife and a woman disciple. Barbara Bradley Hagerty pointed out that "the reference to a female disciple goes to the heart of a worldwide debate about the role of women in the church." Darrell Bock, New Testament scholar at Dallas Theological Seminary, made sure to minimize this new finding:

It's a small, extremely fringe, light text with no context, and so to think about doing something about a tradition simply on the basis of, of that kind of a text, it's making a change on the basis of an asterisk.

Cue Southern Baptist Archbishop Albert Mohler. Even before clicking over to his article on the fragment, I could already tell on Twitter that Mohler was on the defensive:  

@albertmohler

The real agenda behind "The Gospel of Jesus's Wife." It is the rejection of normative biblical Christianity. http://ow.ly/dQVOm 

In Mohler's panicked post, which exhibits a characteristic fear of non-evangelical scholars, he accuses Harvard Divinity School professor Karen King of "over-reaching." Delicious irony, indeed. Mohler himself seems to be over-reaching--and overreacting--to minimize the notion that Jesus could have had a wife or a woman disciple. 

Brian LePort rounded up some reactions to this discovery (including Bock's reaction), and no one seemed as riled up about it as Mohler. So why does Mohler use such dramatic language, like "sensationalism," "heterodoxy," and even calling King's work "an effort to replace biblical Christianity with an entirely new faith"? I am intrigued that Mohler feels so threatened by this tiny piece of papyrus, which is nowhere near conclusive proof that Jesus was married or had called a woman disciple. 

Perhaps I found the answer in Mohler's characterization of the "ambitions" that drive so-called heretic scholars' efforts to study ancient texts:

Feminists have sought to use the Nag Hammadi texts to argue that women have been sidelined by the orthodox tradition, and that these Gnostic texts prove that women were central to the leadership of the early church, perhaps even superior to the men. 

[...]

Professor King, along with Princeton’s Elaine Pagels, has argued that the politically powerful leaders who established what became orthodox Christianity silenced other voices, but that these voices now speak through the Nag Hammadi texts and other Gnostic writings. Writing together, King and Pagels argue that “the traditional history of Christianity is written almost solely from the viewpoint of the side that won, which was remarkably successful in silencing or distorting other voices, destroying their writings, and suppressing any who disagreed with them as dangerous and obstinate ‘heretics.’”

Although the evidence weighs heavily in favor of Jesus not having had a wife, Mohler's fearful reaction is telling. The suggestion that a woman disciple may have existed is threatening to Mohler's carefully-constructed "biblical, orthodox Christianity." Even if the evidence is scant, it seems Mohler feels he has a duty to dismiss an alternative theory of Jesus' life and ministry. It comes across as offensive to Mohler that a woman would be central to the leadership of the early church, perhaps even superior to men.

Perhaps King is right. The powerful have silenced those voices on the margin. In immediately and strongly dismissing the suggestion that Jesus may have had a woman disciple, Mohler places himself squarely on the side of the powerful, the side that won.

Myopia now...empty pews later

Scot McKnight shared an observation yesterday from historian David Hempton about the evangelical awakening, an 18th-century movement that formed the basis for modern evangelicalism in the U.S. and the U.K. 

One of the prominent features Hempton noted about this awakening is that  “… most surveys have shown that the majority of the rank-and-file was female. … One does not have to burrow very deeply into the archives of Evangelical awakenings to detect the ubiquitous influence of ‘pious women’ over siblings, husbands, children, parents and friends..."

This observation stood in great contrast to Slacktivist's post, also from yesterday, about People Who Don't Listen to Women, specifically John Piper and the U.S. Catholic bishops:

[O]ne big problem with not listening to women is that there are several billion of them not to listen to. If you choose to ignore them, they may return the favor, but only for so long as you’re not actively harming them. Once your ignorance leads to harm, they’re likely to remind you, forcefully, that they do in fact exist and that they don’t in fact have to take your abuse.

[...]

A long history of not listening won’t be easy to overcome. And much of what the bishops are about to hear will be silence. The silence of empty pews. The silence of the empty spaces left behind by the women who used to belong to their churches.

Those women will leave because they’ve been told one too many times that they’re not wanted there. They’re listening, and they hear exactly what the bishops are telling them.

I agree - evangelicals and Catholics who marginalize women may soon find emptier pews.  But I would extend this even further.  Just as women revitalized the church in the 18th century, people of color in the U.S. and the global south are the next wave of Christianity.  Those who see no value in listening to minorities (and soon-to-be majorities) will be...left behind.

Eugene Cho explains:

Our nation is moving rapidly towards racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity, and American Christianity is bearing witness to these dramatic changes. Workplaces, congregations, conferences, and readerships are all changing to reflect this reality, but Christian leaders are lagging behind in attaining the cultural intelligence they need in order to navigate through this multi-cultural reality.

The old guard would prefer not only white women to remain silent, but also women and men of color. The whiteness of many movements who in fact speak out against the likes of Piper and the U.S. Catholic bishops demonstrates that a low "cultural IQ," as Cho calls it, is pervasive in many wings of the church.  I couldn't help but think of Andrew Walls' The Missionary Movement in Christian History, where he writes:

The exponential growth of the Christian faith in the African continent in the past century or so seems to me to raise the question whether this massive encounter with a new body of thought and network of relationships may not be as determinative of the future shape of Christianity as was the encounter with the Greek world. (xviii) 

Perhaps if we only read, interact with, and agree to learn from North American and Western European men, we're missing out on an influential and historical movement, and may soon find that our myopic behavior translates into empty pews.  Walls later discusses the difference between reading the Bible in Zulu in South Africa versus reading it in a "comfortable bourgeois congregation [who] meets in some Western suburbia" (15).  It makes me wonder if we would gain another perspective in our debates here in the global North about biblicism or gender roles, for example.  

Walls points out that "[t]heology in the Third World will be, as theology at all creative times has always been, about doing things, about things that deeply affect the lives of numbers of people" (10).  

Guardians of patriarchy and a white status quo, as well as those who work to keep women of faith from having access to health care: your theology deeply affects the lives of all women and of all people of color.  You may be winning the "culture war" now, but a church that continually marginalizes people based on their gender and race, either implicitly or explicitly, de facto or intentionally, will struggle to see another "great awakening." 

"That's a lot of code": conservative rhetoric on welfare

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Newt Gingrich's Poverty Code
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

 

In response to Republican presidential hopefuls' rhetoric, I'm posting portions of a paper I wrote last semester.  Here are parts one and two.

Like slavery, welfare's history informs "family values" rhetoric.  While conservatives promote family values, their policies ultimately help few low-income families of color and employ racialized rhetoric.  One initial goal of federal housing programs, for instance, was to encourage morality in families.  

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (“TANF”) favors heterosexual married couples.  Marriage promotion as welfare policy is a modern reincarnation of the “civilization” of “unruly” slaves.¹  Just as slave marriage was promoted at masters’ convenience, marriage was used post-bellum to privatize freed blacks’ economic mobility, minimizing government responsibility. 

Post-emancipation, states used marriage as a so-called “civilization” tool, which forced African-Americans to conform to white family constructs and which regulated black behaviors.  Some slaveowners had disregarded slave families, but now whites suddenly wanted black couples to marry—only within their race.  With black husbands working, there would ostensibly be no need for black women and children to seek government assistance.  This assumption persists today: if black women and children were part of a traditional family, welfare demand would decrease.  

Modern aid for women with children began in the 1920’s, but only for women deemed "deserving."  Participants were 96% white and 3% black.²  Under the 1935 New Deal “Aid to Dependent Children,” the first formal welfare program, white widows were considered most entitled to support, while immigrants, unmarried women, and women of color were reluctantly included.  In 1937, 85% of recipients were white women, while 13% were black women.³  

Women of color now comprise the majority of those on welfare.  Thus, a stereotype of the typical welfare recipient emerged: “a lazy, promiscuous black woman who lives in luxury at taxpayers’ expense.”⁴

Melissa Harris Perry, on the Colbert Report, recently discussed stereotypes of black women, one of which is a "Jezebel."  This stereotype, around since the antebellum area, is similar to the welfare queen and pigeonholes black women as sexually promiscuous, having children with several different fathers.  Meanwhile, a thrice-married white man runs for president nearly with impunity.

With the majority of welfare recipients no longer white, whites' sympathy level has dropped.  States with larger minority populations on welfare impose harsher restrictions.⁵  And using law to promote an ideal of family, similar to post-bellum attempts, has produced a racialized discourse hostile to unmarried black parents.  Debates especially portray women of color as bad mothers, just as in the antebellum period. 

Although 33.3% of TANF recipients are black, 31% white, and 28.8% Hispanic, the image of a “welfare queen” is a black single mother.  No longer focused on “worthy" white widows, TANF discourse casts judgment onto unmarried black women who allegedly won't work and “won’t use birth control.⁶

Candidates rail against those supposedly unwilling to work with a wink, knowing whites are in on the shared understanding of whom is really being referenced.  (see Gingrich's "really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have nobody around them who works" in the above video).

Rather than prophetically critique it, many U.S. white evangelicals buy into this code-speak hook, line, and sinker.  Evangelicals view lack of personal responsibility as the reason black single mothers use TANF.  Grace, in an excellent series on race and gender, discussed some telling data from Michael Emerson and Christian Smith's Divided by Faith.  White evangelicals blame racial disparity on poor choices, such as "having too many children."  Emerson writes:

In their use of these cultural reasons [for racial inequality], white conservative Protestants do not mean patterns of behavior rooted in values (e.g., blacks have many children because they highly value large families), but rather that blacks are making poor choices (e.g., black individuals do not exercise responsibility in child-bearing, faith, or speech).

---

¹ Angela Onwuachi-Willig, The Return of the Ring: Welfare Reform's Marriage Cure as the Revival of Post-Bellum Control, 93 Cal. L. Rev. 1647, 1653 (2005).

² Id.

³ Id.

⁴ Madeline Howard, Subsidized Housing Policy: Defining the Family, 22 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 97, 124-5 (2007).

⁵ Elena Christine Acevedo, The Latina Paradox: Cultural Barriers to the Equitable Receipt of Welfare Services under Modern Welfare Reform, 20 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 199, 208 (2005).

⁶ Martha L. Fineman, Images of Mothers in Poverty Discourses, 1991 Duke L.J. 274, 282 (1991).

Photo credit

When I would rather deal with blatant sexists...

Even where no strict injustice is perpetrated against women, they are often plagued by a vague but persistent sense of homelessness.  The social world which they inhabit is not constructed according to "their measure"; it is a male world and they often feel as aliens in it. -Miroslav Volf in Exclusion and Embrace

Last week, I finished an article for my legal writing class, in which I dealt with Antonio Gramsci's definition of "hegemony."  When power is accepted or legitimated through cultural and political institutions and organizations, a hegemonic force is born.  

I appreciate how power is defined, because harmful forces like racism and sexism are usually only recognized in their most blatant forms.  Defining a damaging power as "accepted" and "legitimated" includes those who promote that power passively rather than actively, which is just as damaging.

Defining hegemony this way has made me realize that sexism, within the North American evangelical church, is most insidious not when bellowed by Mark Driscoll, but when individuals and institutions who claim to make space for women still engage in subtle marginalization or passively accept "business as usual."  

I still find it worthwhile to criticize Driscoll, and institutions like the Southern Baptist Convention who use one's position on gender roles as a litmus test for who is a Real True Christian. But I wonder if I should expend more energy on deceptively hidden, seemingly harmless forces that shut out women, or at least make no efforts to overcome the men-only default.

Eugene Cho shared a post on his blog by Michelle Garred, who pointed out that, even within groups that allow female clergy, marginalization persists.  Garred related her experience at a denominational conference:

“So, what do you do for a living in Seattle?” The man looks intently at my husband Brent across the lunch table, and the two become engrossed in a discussion of green building design. I sit and listen, enjoying the conversation, and anticipating that at some point the same question will be directed toward me. But that never happens. Our new acquaintance, who holds a lot of stature at this conference, does not appear to connect the topic of making a living with me as an individual. I don’t know why – the ‘gender vibes’ feel palpable, but I try not to jump to that conclusion. Eventually the conversation moves on. It moves on to the previous night’s sermon, which given by a female pastor who, our new acquaintance proclaims, “preached a sermon as good as any man’s.” Oof. 

[...]

The next day’s lunch queue is very long, so Brent and the man ahead of us strike up a conversation. Where-are-you-from, and what-do-you-do for a living, etc. After three or four minutes, the man eventually looks toward me…because he wants to know: “Do you have any children?”

[...]

...even within this wonderful group of Christians, which has been making ‘space’ for female clergy since the 1970s, there are many people who do not appear to have much space for female professionals. 

Garred illustrates the battle is not over the moment an institution formally allows women leaders.  It might be more difficult to uproot lingering sexism when a group has taken a stand to allow women in leadership.  

I see a lot of parallels with racism: it does not automatically mean one is no longer a racist simply because he doesn't fly the Confederate flag or use the "N" word.  And perhaps a white person becomes less open to recognizing her lingering, unintentional racism when she has acknowledged her privilege and reads Tim Wise.  

In the same way, I don't think efforts to ensure women are not silenced simply end once male-only leadership is formally outlawed.  I'm tired of seeing church after church say leadership roles are not limited to men, yet their entire staff consists of men.  The faces seen at worship services are entirely male (oh, except for the backup singer in the band).  

I can't hear these churches say they accept women because their actions speak so loudly.  The message is still sent to young women: no theologizing for the womenfolk, and male dominance is legitimated by only presenting male faces.  

That women made up only 10% of the pastorate in 2009 reinforces male hegemony.  When females comprise more than 50% of Christians, yet female theologians are rare, male hegemony is reinforced.  Rachel Held Evans threw out a question on Twitter the other day, "Who would you say is the world's most preeminent (contemporary) female theologian?"  Many responded that a woman didn't easily come to mind.  Despite the fact that women are numerically the majority in the church, Volf is right, it's still a male world and Christian women are often made to feel as aliens in it.

Sometimes, to be honest, I'd almost rather deal with communities who openly exclude women, rather than those who claim to make space for all, but still ultimately present, hire, and mentor all men.  But when I start feeling that way, I remember the women and men who are subversively and creatively fighting against this hegemony, and am encouraged...

Photo credit

Biblicism disguised as colonialism?

In Christian Smith's The Bible Made Impossible, Chapter 6 encourages us to accept complexity and ambiguity.  I have a slight issue with some points, but overall, Smith's critique of biblicism moves us away from marginalizing the other.

Smith wants us to "accept the real scriptures that God has provided us as they are," suspending preconceived notions as much as possible.  This is troubling because no one approaches the text in an unmediated way.  I do appreciate Smith's reminder to read the Bible with humility and to acknowledge its humanness, rather than as an error-free instruction manual.

But, even accepting ambiguity, the text is still shaped by the reader's gender, socioeconomic class, and race/ethnicity.  And even while acknowledging these factors, no one can completely shed preconceived notions.  I wish Smith would have been more careful in this regard, but he later articulates a helpful approach that de-centers those who traditionally control theological discourse.

Also, as I continued reading, Smith notes we can't force out the unambiguous parts of the Bible, quoting Gordon Fee:

God did not choose to give us a series of timeless, non-culture-bound theological propositions to be believed and imperatives to be obeyed. Rather, he chose to speak his eternal word this way, in historically particular circumstances and in every kind of literary genre. By the very way God gave us this Word, he locked in the ambiguity. One should not fight God and insist that he give us his Word in another way or, as we are more apt to do, rework his Word along theological or cultural prejudgments that turn it into a minefield of principles, propositions or imperatives but denude it of its ad hoc character as truly human. 

Despite the impossibility of eliminating "theological or cultural prejudgments," Fee's point is the heart of Chapter 6, and Smith comes close to acknowledging what I quibbled with:

All of scripture is not clear, nor does it need to be. But the real matter of scripture is clear, “the deepest secret of all,” that God in Christ has come to earth, lived, taught, healed, died, and risen to new life, so that we too can rise to life in him. On that, the Bible is clear. But to try to claim a plenary clarity, consistency, and completeness of information for all passages of all of scripture is futile. There are parts of scripture that we do not understand and probably never will understand. We might as well admit that fact.

Greater humility would help recognize ambiguity.  Many evangelicals elevate the importance of their group's doctrines into dogma.  And many elevate their opinions to doctrine level.  I find that lack of humility (and naivete about eliminating all preconceived notions) can be addressed more fruitfully when we de-colonize our theology and build a bonfire of that table where only certain North American and European men can sit.  Smith's sociology background becomes helpful here:

[P]eople predictably tend to inflate the goodness, importance, and credibility of anything associated with the social groups to which they belong (their “in-groups”) beyond what is objectively real and justified; and they predictably tend to depreciate the goodness, importance, and credibility of anything associated with groups that are socially different and to which they do not belong (“out-groups”). It is all unfortunately part of “normal” social-psychological personal and group identity construction and maintenance. But that does not make it right, good, or helpful when it comes to Christian theology and church unity.

Smith unequivocally states that Christians must "stop excluding, dismissing, discounting, and ignoring other Christians who do not deserve that kind of treatment."  To which I say, "Hurrah!"

Smith doesn't explicitly mention post-colonial theory or race and gender, but points out that biblicism's logic sets up the reader as truth-arbiter - "absolutely definite, divinely authorized, universally valid, indubitable truth," which I think results in marginalization of the other.  It's difficult to believe a "biblical" truth tentatively, to recognize one's interpretation might be incorrect, or to concede the plausibility of other interpretations.  

I would add that many biblicists are European/North American and have exported this logic, either through missions or by simply controlling the discourse within the West for so long.  Biblicists are traditionally those with the most power and money.  So, what's actually imposed is what European/North American biblicists deem biblical truth.  When many think they are exporting solid biblical truths, in reality, they're exporting (or imposing on minorities within U.S./Europe) a particular interpretation of Scripture that conveniently shuts out dissenters, even when the dissenter truly wants to follow Jesus.  

Biblicism becomes colonialism in disguise.  It doesn't matter whether the colonized have an alternative perspective, because truth is truth and the inerrant, universal Bible said so.  Thus, I appreciate Smith's suggestions that de-construct harmful ideas about biblical interpretation.