Natalie Burris

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.

Don't put me on a pedestal, when you've really locked me in a cage

Southern Baptist Russell Moore posted an article last week that, on its face, sets forth an idea I would applaud.  In Women, Stop Submitting to Men, Moore argues the hierarchy many Christians pratice in the marriage context has been improperly applied to all relationships between women and men.

Initially, I was encouraged by Moore's clarification.  However, something problematic is going on in this article.  The overall tone and reasoning for women to stop submitting to men in general strikes me as paternalistic and condescending to women.

Pastor Todd, after reading my thoughts about news outlets' bias toward white women, sent me an op-ed by Leonard Pitts Jr.: America's obsession with missing white women.  Pitts writes that this bias reflects a paternalistic, property-like view, depicting white women as "damsels in perpetual distress, helpless little things under constant threat from the harsh vicissitudes of a big, mean world:"

To imply it is somehow more important, more heart-rending, when a young white woman is in danger is, at best, a backhanded compliment. The implication is laced with a certain condescending paternalism that finds echoes throughout history, from assurances that women ought not trouble their pretty little heads with voting to debates over whether they belong in the workplace.

When we recall how white men once routinely lynched black ones who were thought to have cast so much as a stray glance at white women, our attention rivets, rightly, on the victims of the violence. But no one ever notes the corollary injustice: the fact that those white men felt they had an absolute, unquestioned right to police the sexuality of “their” women.

This obsession portrays women as "communal property, hothouse flowers in need of constant, vigilant protection," which results in their "competence, independence and self-sufficiency [...] being tacitly demeaned."  Pitts ends his article with this:

Somebody should tell them: a backhanded compliment is just an insult by another name.

Moore's article struck me as a backhanded compliment.  Yes, it's encouraging to see a Southern Baptist leader point out we are all to submit.  It's promising when a conservative evangelical man acknowledges patriarchy's harmful effects.  But, as Dianna puts it, my feminist spidey-senses started tingling as I continued reading:

[T]oo many predatory men have crept in among us, all too willing to exploit young women by pretending to be “spiritual leaders” (2 Tim. 3:1-9; 2 Pet. 2). Do not be deceived: a man who will use spiritual categories for carnal purposes is a man who cannot be trusted with fidelity, with provision, with protection, with the fatherhood of children. The same is true for a man who will not guard the moral sanctity of a woman not, or not yet, his wife.

[...]

Women, sexual and emotional purity means a refusal to submit to “men,” in order to submit to your own husband, even one whose name and face you do not yet know. Your closeness with your husband, present or future, means a distance from every man who isn’t, or who possibly might not be, him.

A good (white) Christian woman must keep herself pure for her husband or future husband. Benevolent fathers, husbands, and husbands-to-be must protect women from predatory, exploitative men, and Moore is doing his part by reminding women they have no duty to submit to a man who is not her husband.  Not only does Moore render invisible women who do not have fathers in their lives or who are single, he also sets forth a troubling paternalism under the guise of honoring women.

This dependence on men is common in romantic paternalism, a concept in critical race feminism. Under romantic paternalism, white women need white men to survive educationally, politically, and economically.  Once white women obtained the right to vote in the 1920's, white men could say, at surface level, that women's rights had achieved a victory.  But, hidden paternalism still lurking under the surface keeps white women dependent on men, regardless of voting rights or other advances.  

In the church, when a woman's worth is tied solely to her role as a daughter and wife, she is still dependent on men.  My intent is not to demean stay-at-home mothers or women who have not pursued a career - the competency and complexity of all women are at stake here.  Paternalism, under the guise of keeping women pure and in-waiting, puts women on a pedestal while locking them in a cage. When viewed solely in relation to their submission to fathers and husbands, women are prevented from being the full persons God intended them to be. Women are restricted from full intellectual participation, whether we're wrestling with theological ideas or ministering to others.

Some Christian men might find it an honor to put women on a pedestal, protecting them from deceptive men.  Some men might find it an advancement to remind women we are only to submit to our husbands or to the men we'll marry someday, rather than all men.  But I find it a backhanded compliment and an insult.  

I am not a helpless little thing who needs my sexual and emotional purity policed and my sanctity guarded (Jamie the Very Worst Missionary recently pointed out that all this purity talk is usually aimed at women and girls only, not men and boys - why's that?).  I, and other women in the church, am a complex, multi-dimensional, capable human being, who also wants to wrestle with theological insights, to be a mom, a wife, and a full participant in the Body of Christ.  At the foot of the cross, there is neither male nor female, so please don't tell me you've put me on a pedestal, when you've really locked me in a cage.

The concept of pedestal and cage, as well as the definition of romantic paternalism, is drawn from critical race feminist and law professor Patricia J. Smith's article, PART I--ROMANTIC PATERNALISM--THE TIES THAT BIND ALSO FREE: REVEALING THE CONTOURS OF JUDICIAL AFFINITY FOR WHITE WOMEN, 3 J. Gender Race & Just. 107, Fall 1999.

The dilemma of evangelical feminists

"If you would just submit to your husband, God would take away your desire for a Ph.D."

"I don't see how any self-respecting woman could associate with such a repressive, patriarchal religious subculture."

Patricia Hill Collins, a sociologist whom I have mentioned before, translated her experience as a black woman into a helpful concept called "intersectionality:"

black women are uniquely situated in that they stand at the focal point where two exceptionally powerful and prevalent systems of oppression come together: race and gender. Being able to understand this position as something [Collins] calls “intersectionality” opens up the possibility of seeing and understanding many more spaces of cross-cutting interests. (Source)

Although I certainly don't think (mostly white) evangelical women experience the same level of oppression as black women, I find Collins' intersectionality useful in negotiating my identity as a feminist Christian who has remained within evangelicalism.  

Anna Blanch at Goannatree linked to a Christan Century article by Diana Butler Bass, from which I pulled the first two quotes above.  Although the article, Between two worlds: evangelical, female --and a scholar, is almost twenty years old, it still applies today to the intersection between evangelicalism and feminism. 

An evangelical woman with a Ph.D. in religion, Bass shares her struggle in navigating the academic world, which at times is not welcoming to evangelicals, and the evangelical world, which at times is not welcoming to women academics.  The intersection between the bias experienced by evangelical scholars and by women within evangelicalism results in a life on the boundary. 

Bass writes she is a committed feminist evangelical who desires to make "women's voices heard from the history of Christianity and in theology, speaking against the ways that the orthodox Christian tradition (which I deeply love) has oppressed my own gender," "despite the probability of being shot at from both sides" (232).

Bass' remark about being shot at from both sides applies to many evangelical women, not just those in academic theology.  Rachel Held Evans unintentionally demonstrated the difficulty in navigating between evangelicalism and feminism in a recent blog post, "13 Things that Make Me a Lousy Feminist."  Evans incisively critiques the notion of biblical womanhood, so as a result, some conservative evangelicals have dubbed her a “dangerous feminist.”  

Evans intended to point out she is not what many view as a traditional feminist: she honors homemaking as a profession and is pro-life.  However, feminists critiqued her post for furthering stereotypical ideas about feminism (feminists don't in fact hate men or disparage homemaking, etc.).  While Evans' post sparked an excellent, clarifying discussion of the nature of feminism today, her original post still stands as an illustration of the instant labelling that occurs when a woman points out evangelicalism's problematic beliefs about gender roles.

It seems many an evangelical woman has to trot out her evangelical credentials and assure others she isn't a radical godless liberal when she points out women's silencing in the church.  It's discouraging that women who would otherwise be evangelical theologically are marginalized by their faith tradition if they bring up women's issues.  The choices left for those who are evangelical theologically and also feminist are either to leave evangelicalism altogether or navigate the trickiness of a life on the boundary.

Bass' article and Evans' post reminded me of Nicola Hoggard Creegan and Christine D. Pohl's 2005 book, Living on the Boundaries: Evangelical Women, Feminism, and the Theological Academy.  In Chapter 1, Creegan and Pohl point out that 1 Peter 2:11 describes Christians as aliens and exiles in the world, and throughout the Bible, Christians are called to view themselves as strangers and sojourners.  

Our identity as Christians is wrapped up in being not quite sure where our "home" is.  For evangelical women specifically, "[l]ife on the boundary provides the kind of critical distance and alternative perspective that challenges assumptions and practices, institutional arrangements and authority structures." (13).

Already knowing what it's like to live on the boundary and not feel quite at home, evangelical women can bring a valuable critique to our faith tradition, just as Collins notes that black women are uniquely situated due to their intersectionality.  

Rather than dismissing evangelical women as radical feminists, perhaps our sisters and brothers could recognize these critiques not as an imposition of radical feminism, but as a prophetic word coming from aliens and sojourners, living between two worlds.  And my hope is that we evangelical feminists can turn our dilemma into a recognition of other groups who struggle along that boundary-line...

Are you an insider in the church? What's your responsibility?

Last week I mentioned I've been introduced to critical race theory, which I learned about through a seminar that fulfills my final legal writing requirement.  I've attempted to translate this critique to the evangelical church context because I think white evangelicals could benefit from taking a closer look at the church's structures and established behaviors.

Sociologist and African-American studies professor Patricia Hill Collins produces truly challenging work in this field.  While reading her analysis of black women sociologists' experiences in Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought, I couldn't help but think of women (of all races) and people of color (of all genders) in the evangelical church.

(A quick clarification: when I mention that white male dominance in the church results in both racial and gender discrimination, I don't think a white woman experiences the same discrimination as a person of color, for example.  I don't want my references to both race and gender to come across as equalizing all groups' experiences.  Similarly, I don't want my references to "women and people of color" to render women of color invisible.  Language can be a minefield sometimes!)

Collins describes the field of sociology as a community of practitioners.  The "group insiders" have similar worldviews: they graduated from the same schools and have similar class, racial, and gender backgrounds (middle- to upper-class white males).  

These men end up defining the group's values, behaviors, and culture.  Their shared experience produces a "taken-for-granted knowledge," which becomes "thinking as usual" (27). 

Deciphering the "unwritten grammar of conduct and nuances of cultural idiom" requires an immersion similar to what's required in cross-cultural immersion (26).

To become insiders, then, black women sociologists must assimilate to foreign views.  White males are the dominant group, so of course the sociological worldview reflects white male concerns.  But most white males have not intentionally kept out non-whites and non-males.  Instead,  their dominance is tacit or de facto.  They simply follow natural patterns of behavior rather than engage in blatant racism or sexism.

As a result, outsiders are more likely to remain outsiders, because they don't want to simply assimilate to what the dominant insiders decide is most important.  Outsiders begin to question the taken-for-granted thinking as usual.  They point out what are labeled neutral observations or interpretations are actually influenced by white male subjectivity, and tend to place "the other" on the margins.

I appreciate Collins' emphasis on the de facto nature of dominance and that insiders are simply following natural patterns .  I hope I've never made anyone feel this way, but perhaps white males get defensive or feel attacked by the critique that women and people of color are marginalized in the church.  

My critique doesn't mean I think white Christian men are intentionally excluding non-whites and non-males (well, aside from complementarians who only allow male leadership, I suppose).  Rather, I critique those natural impulses to congregate with, converse with, and read only white middle-class men, which then results in believing white, middle-class, male-centric values and behavior are the norm in the church.  The challenge becomes unmasking this nuanced, unwritten grammar of conduct.

A common response, in the gender context, is that conference organizers and search committees can't find enough women to agree to speak, sit on a panel, or join their staff.  That's understandable.  However, the lack of qualified and willing women should sound the alarm that, institutionally and structurally, insiders have been tacitly unwelcoming to outsiders.  

It goes beyond ensuring more women and people of color are in seminary and are encouraged to lead.  Challenging "thinking as usual" requires us to carefully examine who we're reading, networking with, and allowing to shape our thinking.  For example, I did a quick google search the other day after I re-read the parable of the talents, looking for commentary or interpretations of this text.  All of the top search results produced commentaries exclusively by European or North American men, such as John Calvin and N.T. Wright. 

We're missing out by not pushing against the white evangelical church's natural patterns and homogeneity.  We have a wealth of resources in those we've relegated to the margins.  

Rather than get defensive if an outsider questions the dominant worldview, why not look around to see if we've surrounded ourselves with only those who belong to our class, race, and gender?  (Or, if we have welcomed outsiders, are we only "allowing them space" on our own terms?) 

And perhaps many ideas about Scripture and church we've taken for granted are actually more a result of our shared insider status than anything else.  Any thoughts?

What do we tell our little girls they can be when they grow up?

I had a unique opportunity on Friday night - I got to hear Stanford law professor Ralph Richard Banks speak about his controversial new book, Is Marriage for White People?.  While the main topic of his book is another post for another time, Banks mentioned something about gender roles I felt worth mentioning.

Banks remarked that rarely does our society tell girls growing up that they need to go to school and find a profession, so they can support their husband and children.  It's sort of odd to think of saying such a thing to a little girl or a young woman.  On the other hand, this is often the message we send to boys.

I was blessed with parents who encouraged me to be whatever I wanted to be - even a profession that would be considered "male."  However, I don't think that encouragement--either from family or from society in general--was framed in terms of making sure I could support my family.  Implicit in the notion of a woman developing a profession is that she can stop at any time to stay home with her children, while her husband continues working and providing, at least monetarily, for the family.  

I absolutely do not see anything wrong with women staying at home once they have children.  But, the reality is that a lot of women have become successful and have risen professionally, with plans to continue working even after having children.  Specifically in the African-American community, women are becoming lawyers, doctors, and other professionals at much higher rates than men.  This inevitably means that many women will end up as the higher earners, or even sole earners, in relationships.

Because of these implicit ideas about gender roles, and the reality that many communities face, it can become somewhat awkward or challenging if a wife is more "successful" professionally than her husband.  I have more schooling than my husband, and a friend from law school works while her husband (who also has less schooling than she does) stays at home to care for their children.  Does this mean our husbands failed to fulfill their roles as men?  Of course, I don't think so, but society and the things many tell their children growing up would say otherwise.

On a related note, given that today is Halloween, I wanted to share this ad I saw on Sociological Images.  Gendered Halloween costumes tend to pigenhole little girls as fairies, princesses, and ladybugs, while boy costumes allow for more job-related themes (although Batman and Harry Potter aren't "real" jobs!):

And though these aren't Halloween-themed images, these toys and the labels for children's suitcases also demonstrate the messages we send to little girls.  Girls are babysitters, while boys are scientists.  The boy's suitcase is labeled "pilot," but the girl's is simply "pilot's assistant."  So girls can't be scientists or pilots too?  

Racism is not only a heart issue

Unless I have bad intentions today, I shouldn't have to pay for the church's racist past.

I wasn't even alive during the slavery and Jim Crow eras, so what do I personally have to do with racial reconciliation today?

If everyone would repent of their sins and stop acting racist, we would see racial reconciliation.

Racism is a heart issue - so why should the church force racial reconciliation?

I often hear these thoughts expressed about racism.  Many white U.S. Christians see racism only as an individual moral failure, but it's also a social failure, for which we all share responsibility.

A common definition of racism is limited to racial slurs or white supremecy.  This article illustrates many white people's definition of "racist."  A professor asks her white students to raise their hands if they're racists.  An awkward silence follows, and no one moves.  However, when she reframes the question as, "You've never had a negative thought based on racial bias?" hands slowly rise.

If we're all honest, no one would continue to insist she or he is free from negative racial thoughts.  But even if we all had perfect attitudes, racism persists in the church without purposefully racist individuals.  Though our intent is no longer racist, the effects still are.

You personally do not have to be racist.   Our system works so that, if you participate in the system, it will be racist on your behalf.  

Racism is not only a heart issue.  Individual repentance isn't the last and only step - it's the first step.  Using the Southern Baptist Convention as an example, publicly apologizing for racist acts and electing a person of color as vice president of your denomination are great first steps.  However, it doesn't mean racism is no longer an issue in your institution.  

Systemic racism, without intentional individual action, is highlighted in Efrem Smith's review of John Piper's book, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian.  I'm not reviewing a book I haven't read, but wanted to share Smith's portrayal of Calvinism as Eurocentric.  Although Smith applauds this well-known evangelical for tackling racism, he takes issue with Piper's solutions:

Dr. Piper presents Calvinism as the theological framework for living into racial reconciliation biblically. I must respectfully disagree with him. He states in the book that Jesus deals with ethnocentrism, but then presents a theology rooted in Eurocentric ethnocentrism as the solution. In Dr. Piper’s commitment to racial reconciliation he can’t just have great love for theologies developed by European men. By presenting Calvinism this way, he actually goes against what he is writing about. Structural racism exists in the church in the United States because theology is dominated by White theology. 

[...]

Piper also only offers politically conservative and Republican solutions to dealing with structural racism.

Smith's critique teaches us that theology is not race-neutral.  Theology is rooted in a specific context, which includes race.  Whites may not think our views about church have a racial influence; rather, we consider them race-neutral.  Imposing what we consider harmless, raceless ideas on people of color at the foot of the cross, then, is problematic.

Reformed theology has not been race-neutral in the U.S.  Many Calvinist missionaries paved the way for white settlers and the U.S. government to take lands from its indigenous inhabitants.  (Here's an example out of Hawaii.)

Of course, most Calvinists today are not white supremacists and do not intentionally use their theology to oppress people of color.  Smith notes some people of color are Reformed.

The problem arises when Calvinism is viewed as race-neutral and the only proper form of Christianity.  Calvinism is inherently individualistic, so it's understandable that Piper and others omit structural reconciliation.  But, racism is too complex for solutions to come only from a homogeneous subculture like white Calvinists, who gravitate toward well-meaning but one-dimensional solutions.

Soong-Chan Rah has discussed white evangelicals' individualistic view of racism.  Again, no one considers themselves racist, so Rah frames racism as one ethnicity having hegemony over another.  Thus, in racial reconciliation contexts, elevating white theology is itself racist, albeit unintentional. 

Rah and Smith's critiques remind us we cannot frame racism solely as a heart issue.  It is not enough for individual Christians to repent of their sins and expect marginalization of people of color to stop.  Even after repentance, if white Christians go with the flow, sticking with what's natural and comfortable, racial reconciliation will not occur.

Networking is another example of structural racism.  In the gender context, I see prominent evangelical men conversing with, linking to, and promoting only other men, even if they self-identify as egalitarian. (Although Scot McKnight provides space on his widely-read blog to women, which is nice.)

Similarly, many white Christians promote and network exclusively with other whites.  It does not occur to them to reach outside their comfort zones to connect with people of color.  To extinguish systemic racism, it takes intentional, structural-level, often uncomfortable efforts. 

European theology has made incredible contributions to North American evangelicalism, but omitting non-white theology is a form of racism, even if unintentional.  Institutional apologies help reconciliation, but it takes continual efforts to fight racism.  And, while repenting of racism in your heart is humbling, it's only the first step.  If white Christians are not willing to recognize structural racism and to listen to people of color, we might as well display Jim Crow-era "whites only" signs over our churches.

Credit - Second Photo

Who gets to be the arbiter of gender roles in the church?

I'm looking forward to Rachel Held Evans' book based on a year-long project of following Scripture's instructions to women.  Some with traditional views of biblical womanhood have criticized the book, even though it's not yet available.  While I don't believe time travel is possible yet, some critics have brought up arguments that are common when defending traditional gender roles:

No serious effort was being made, as far as I could tell, to truly translate into our day and time something that may have made perfect sense to people living in those conditions 3,000 years ago but leaves US scratching our heads. And so Rachel camps out, constructs sashes, and stands in front of the city limit signs with a placard saying what a great guy her husband is -- because the Bible supposedly says she should. I am left scratching my head at what anyone is supposed to learn from such antics.  

A Baptist Press article I've previously linked to notes, "Today's young men need to hear the words of King David to Solomon, 'Be strong, and show yourself a man,' (1 Kings 2:2) and today's young women need a generation of modern-day Abigails to emulate (1 Samuel 25)."

The article also refers to John Piper, who says a godly man is "sensitive to cultural expressions of what is considered masculine, and mature masculinity adapts its behavior to fit what is culturally masculine."  It's clear most complementarians acknowledge that Scripture must be translated to our current setting. 

However, why do many Christians feel they have a copyright on what these modern cultural expressions look like?  How can they have so much certainty when defining gender roles?

For instance, Al Mohler unequivocally stated, "Those who believe that the Bible is indeed the inerrant and infallible written revelation of God are obligated to perpetuate and honor the pattern of leadership ordered within the text of Scripture."  And the Unlocking Femininity website states, "Because God is good and only does good, if we believe that hierarchy and patriarchy are evil, then we’re saying something about the character of God."

Complementarians tie traditional gender roles to a faithful reading of Scripture, so to question them is tantamount to questioning the Bible and God's goodness. Interestingly, it is exclusively male denominational leadership, seminary graduates, and pastors who determine these non-negotiable gender roles for the North American church.

I wonder whether there has been thorough reflection on biblical definitions of gender roles translated into today's terms.  I wonder whether North American cultural norms have been uncritically adopted, which then gets clothed in biblical language, immune from criticism as it's been equated with Scripture itself.

Perhaps holding up a sign at your town's entrance that praises your husband is not required of Christian women today.  I doubt that is Evans' point.  Hardly anyone thinks we should literally follow every biblical command to women, i.e. wearing headcoverings during prayer or being saved through childbearing.

The question then becomes, what does the role of biblical women and men look like in 2011 in North America?  And who in the church gets to decide these roles?

Learning about non-North Americans has revealed gender as a cultural construct. Biology still plays a role, but what is considered feminine here is often not the case outside North America.

I've shared details before from ethnographic studies.  Among the Mur­ik of Papua New Guinea, women and men are allowed to show aggression. Generally, Indonesian men are viewed as emotional and full of passion.  Women are thought to be more stable, rational thinkers who handle business transactions.

Looking briefly outside our North American context, we learn there is no one, universal definition of gender roles.  Biblical womanhood is expressed differently, depending on the church's cultural context.  Allowing husbands a "trump card" and barring women from leading men may seem absurd in some non-North American cultures.  

Although not all complementarians would agree, Mark Driscoll has said Paul's instructions resulted from women being "unfit," "more gullible and easier to deceive than men."  Driscoll also frequently describes women as emotional. 

Or, when North American Christians oppose anti-bullying measures because they eliminate gender roles, these Christians fail to explain why certain characteristics are male and others female, and to ground this explanation beyond our particular culture's assumptions about gender.  

I know a culture-less reading of Scripture isn't possible.  But perhaps we should more thoroughly look at how and why women and men appear to be different in our culture, and why they should act certain ways to be good Christians.  Perhaps the church should stop painting women and men with such broad brushstrokes.

Rather than marginalizing those who do not fit the North American mold of femininity and masculinity and who have not conformed to particular roles, could the church community make room for them?  As Joy Bennett wrote in a great post over at Deeper Story, "just because a woman's strengths don't fit the typical female patterns doesn't mean she doesn't fit into the body of Christ."

I wish the church would take a closer look at our definitions of masculinity and femininity.  Are they informed more by North American culture than anything else?  Humility on all sides would also be helpful, as it's pretty bold to think your interpretation of gender roles is precisely what God commanded, and questioning this interpretation disrespects the Bible and God's character.

I am left scratching my head when biblical gender roles just happen to match up with traditional twentieth-century North American gender roles, and that one exclusive group has decided to be the arbiter of these roles.  Let's take a closer look (and stop reviewing books before reading them), shall we?

Credit - first photo

Credit - second and third photos

Rachel has apparently made little (if any) effort to figure out what the various commands she is supposedly implementing actually meant. No serious effort was being made, as far as I could tell, to truly translate into our day and time something that may have made perfect sense to people living in those conditions 3,000 years ago but leaves US scratching our heads. And so Rachel camps out, constructs sashes, and stands in front of the city limit signs with a placard saying what a great guy her husband is -- because the Bible supposedly says she should. I am left scratching my head at what anyone is supposed to learn from such antics. I will not be surprised if a number of people come away with their preconceptions confirmed about what an "outdated" book the Bible is -- and yet, what they will have read is probably not a serious analysis of the questions under consideration.

What's wrong with being a "girly-girl"?

A few months ago I wrote about a common practice in our culture to encourage women to smile and be cheery.  I also criticized the "baby voice" that many grown women use, and how these practices denigrate women.  We are not supposed to be emotionally intelligent, nuanced people.  Rather, we need to be pretty, entertaining, light-hearted objects for men.  

I've noticed that an intelligent woman I know, who graduated from a prestigious university, often "plays dumb."  I know this woman is smart.  However, when she is in conversation with men, she reverts to this "ditzy," silly, valley-girl persona.  

It irks me, because I know she is a sharp person. Sometimes I feel like a Debbie Downer because I don't understand why an otherwise mature, intelligent person would behave this way.  Why should it bother me?  Women who act "girly" like this make people (read: men) laugh, and it's just some light-hearted entertainment.  What's the problem?

I suspect I'm bothered by women who act this way because I know they can do better.  Such behavior is dehumanizing.  Smart women--or any woman--who act this way reinforce the idea that femininity = dumb, ditzy, giggly behavior.  

I recently discovered an excellent blog, What Tami Said.  Tami has criticized the sitcom, New Girl, which stars Zooey Deschanel, as well as the childlike, "cutesy" quirkiness of Deschanel herself.  Deschanel frames these critiques as an attack on "girliness," and thus an attack on femininity.  

But as Tami rightly observes, Deschanel's defense exposes the "the confusion of femininity with childishness. We are wondering at what it means for grown women to adopt perpetually pixie-like personas."  

Tami notes that extreme masculinity means that a man is still very much a man, but extreme femininity tends to paint women as girly and childlike.  Wouldn't it be odd to see hyper-masculinity as "boyish"?  Why then is "girliness" for grown women acceptable?  

If we portray femininity as a "womanly" endeavor, then stereotypically "masculine" features start to appear, such as strength, authority, and wisdom.  Oh no, that doesn't fit our culture's stereotype as a giggly, dainty girl!

Tami continues:

I suppose I do have beef with "girliness," not because of the implied femininity, but the implied submissiveness and dependence; because of how long it took for some women to prove that they are not children in need of care and for some other women, like me, to remind that we do need care as all human beings do. Perhaps I do reject a femininity that turns on being more "girl" than "woman," in part because "girliness" is accepted and abetted by a sexist society in a way that womanliness is not.

I recommend Tami's other post about Deschanel, because she has a great analysis of a racialized aspect of the persona Deschanel has created.  

That said, in spite of the critique of Deschanel, I have a couple of She & Him albums and enjoy them.  I'll just stick with her music for now...

People of color are not merely a backdrop...

A criticism of The Help is that it served mainly as a vehicle for a white woman's development as a writer, who also exposed racist acts.  The one who gets to take the most action is the white woman.  The focus is on Skeeter as the benevolent protagonist who helps tell the black housekeepers' stories.  The domestic workers end up as props for the white character's coming-of-age story.  (This film is also used, along with The Blind Side, as an example of the white-person-as-savior trope).  

I recently saw a preview for The Rum Diaries, which again featured white characters with people of color (Puerto Ricans) as the backdrop.  It's completely acceptable to write a novel or script about a character who grows as a person, but do any people of color get to star in these roles?

We see this in more than just the Bildungsroman genre.  Aydrea Walden, at the excellent blog Sociological Images, viewed several movie trailers to compare white and non-white roles.  Simply viewing a snapshot of a film shows that white characters get to do a range of things, like "be sweet, be naive, be oddly cool, progressive parents, live in a small town, live in a big city, parody Almost Famous, be hot, be regular looking," or "[e]xperience an existential crisis, wrestle, host and attend pool parties, have an iPad, discover their past, illegally adopt children."  You know, all kinds of normal or crazy behavior that a variety of films would exhibit.

However, people of color have very few options.  Walden observed that non-whites in the trailers participated in minor and passive roles, like "be threatening, drive a car."  "Play craps, provide and clarify exposition."  "Believe a stranger."  Or negative things, like being a felon, or as plot-movers, like setting up jokes for the main white characters.  

Of course, skeptics can think of films with nuanced characters of color, but the number of films with multi-dimensional, active stars of color (not just sidekicks to attractive white protagonists!) is disproportionate to the number of films as a whole.  The same goes for TV shows.  Consigning people of color to minor or negative roles is damaging.  This phenomenon also happens with women, of all colors.  Women are often portrayed as passive, naive, unintelligent, and one-dimensional characters who are only physically beautiful.  Walden remarks:

Whew! I was worried that I was going to see examples of myself in various and interesting situations. But luckily, I’ve been reminded that being of color is just not that interesting. Why else would of color folks be kept out of the canon of one of the most powerful industries going?

I’d say this was no big deal and that I and others might accept my blackness anyway. But the repetition of images (or the omission of images) is pretty much what the entire advertising industry is based on. So I guess a message is definitely getting across.

Unfortunately, the white North American church is not immune from this type of behavior, either intentionally or unintentionally.  Jamie Wright, who blogs at The Very Worst Missionary, recently explained how people living in poverty outside the U.S. (who also happen to be people of color...) end up as backdrops for the personal development of white Christians when said white Christians go on short-term missions trips.  

In response to criticism of short-term missions, many well-meaning North Americans are quick to point out that missions trips helped them realize they should be thankful for what they have, or that it was a watershed moment in their spiritual development.  Having gone on countless short-term missions trips as a teenager, I count myself as a changed brat person partly due to these experiences.  In the same way that telling a story to bring racism to light is a noble venture, I do not see missions trips as a necessarily bad thing.  But, as Wright so deftly points out:

As we send throngs of suburban teenagers on short-term missions every year to “learn a lesson”, we have a responsibility to ask ourselves; What are the poor kids learning from all of this?

We're teaching impoverished kids an important lesson, as well, when we wave our arm at a slum and say to our suburban brats, “Don't you see how blessed you are that you don't live here?!”

Poor people aren't stupid people. Poor people aren't less perceptive. Poor people aren't always pleased to be living what we deem “simple lives”. And don't you dare fool yourself into believing that poor people aren't making the exact same lifestyle comparisons you are.

[...]

When we descend upon the impoverished to improve our family's perspective, we may as well be saying to the mothers of these children, “Pardon me, I'm just gonna use your poor kid to teach my rich kid a lesson for a minute. I'll be out of the way in no time – Oh, and I'll leave you some shoes.... and a toothbrush.”

Walden and Wright's incisive, appropriately-sarcastic critiques should make us all think twice about images we see in advertising, Hollywood movies, and yes, even in church settings.  People who also happen to be low-income, or women, or of color, are people, not just backdrops to the development of the main, white character.  As a white woman, I've unwittingly engaged in this behavior, and have also taken the brunt of it.

Many white North American Christians enjoy railing against Hollywood for its liberal, sex-crazed, violent films, but wouldn't it be refreshing if the white Church took notice of another problem in the film industry and in life in general - relegating people of color to the margins?  I'm thrilled that Wright has been brave enough to speak out about this, so it's great to see some in the white Church take measures to stop such a damaging practice.  People of color are not merely props.  We all know this at some level - so how do our actions line up?