“Accepting gals into a lead teaching position…”
April 11, 2005
Oh, how wonderful to see a reference to women in ministry as “gals” (oh, don’t we all remember the "girls" scandal of February ‘04, courtesy of TallSkinnyKiwi); this is an excerpt from an email from someone at Westwinds Community Church. Blogger Ann (her post is here) received this email while inquiring about a teaching position at a church that has the following job description online at their website:
You probably connect with today’s culture if your iPod is part of your wardrobe; if your play lists include U2, Black-Eyed Peas, Moby, and Coldplay; if your library shelf contains N.T. Wright, Leonard Sweet, Bill Easum, Jim Collins, John Grisham and John Steinbeck; if your DVD collection goes beyond Disney to Cohen brothers, Oliver Stone, and Mel Gibson; and if you can successfully order at Starbucks without tripping over your tongue or holding up the line.
Westwinds Community Church is seeking a strong teacher/communicator and team player who connects with the inquirer as well as the seasoned Christ-follower and who accurately and passionately exegetes Scripture and culture. This catalytic leader must guide the ongoing theological and cultural dialogue while exploring different approaches to ministry. Five years experience in an emergent church would be ideal as well as a master’s degree and/or seminary training.
Anyone else wondering how one could have 5 years experience in an "emergent church" when the word really hasn’t even been around that long…? Just checking. At any rate, this is just sad and another reason why the whole issue of women in ministry needs to become a non-issue NOW for Emergent. I understand that it is hard for some emergent churches that are coming out of a more fundamentalist background, and in their desire to maintain unity, know that they need to take some of these things slowly…making slow changes here and there. But I think that there is a time, a breaking point, at which one needs to stand up and proclaim and loud "No" in the face of injustice and wrong-doing. I have a hard time, as does Ann, in seeing how a church that is apparently claiming to be "Emergent" would still be stuck in this rut. If someone can convince me as to why this should be acceptable among churches that are seeking to be progressive, or "emergent" - let me know. Otherwise, I think it is time to proclaim a loud "No."
Tags: Emergent, Women-in-Ministry
Posted in 
Adam Walker Cleaveland: 
April 11th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
i’m failing to see how the job description applies to women in ministry, but i do think it’s a bunch of crap that churches that have only been around 5 or 6 years want people with 5 or 6 years of experience in the emerging church. i’ve not sent my resume to tons of places that were young and wanted people that had as much or more experience than they do…what is really up with that…
April 11th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Whats wrong with this add? I guess I am not seeing the problem.
April 11th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
Frankly, I’m surprised by this from Westwinds. I live close by and I’ve been to Westwinds many times. They have been an “Emerging” church for many years, before the term was even used. From everything I could see I wouldn’t have guessed this from them. They have a female worship leaders and several other women on staff. I don’t understand…
April 11th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Perhaps it’s time for the emergent conversation to engage in some serious introspection on women’s issues. Stuff like this makes want to back far, far away from the whole thing.
April 11th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
Karen, and the only thing I’d suggest we try and remember is that these are people who Emergent would have a problem with (I’m guessing). It’s hard at times, but we have to separate what “Emergent” stands for and what those who have taken on the name (for good and for bad) stand for…and many times, these things are drastically different.
April 11th, 2005 at 7:34 pm
okay…i see…you have to read ann’s post.
sorry…i understand, and am totally with you.
April 11th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
True, Adam. We’re not dealing with a monolithic theology here. I guess the messiness is part of the journey, eh? Still, stuff like this raises my she-wolf hackles. :)
April 11th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
Okay, so bear with me. I am trying to understand something here. Let me first be open in saying that my view of women in ministry is diametrically opposed to those of Westwinds Church (or whatever it is). I have had women ministers since I was a child in the Episcopal Church and later in the Presbyterian Church. While involved with a variety of Evangelical ministries I have always argued for women in ministry. Just so you know where I stand.
My question is really about “Emergent.” Over the last two years I have read a variety of books, blogs, articles, and engaged in many discussions about “Emergent.” To put it mildly, I am still not sure what the heck it is all about, and as far as I can tell those involved in it are fairly poor at articulating “Emergent” too. This is not meant to be an insult or slight, only a perspective from a muddled onlooker who is curious. There are some salient features of “Emergent” that I have noticed/perceived and that I respect and hope to integrate (at least at some level) in my own ministry. Here are several that pertain to this discussion. I think these are some characteristics of “Emergent.” (Correct me if I am wrong.)
1. High respect for contextuality.
2. A High level of humility when it comes to making Truth claims. Because we all have great difficulty laying claim to Truth.
3. A willingness to listen and even perhaps integrate a variety of voices into the church’s mission to the world.
Now, the problem that I see here is that in reading Adam’s posts, links to posts, and reply comments is that these three claims seem to have largely been sacrificed. If Emergent is about communities being able to self determine what is proper practice of faith in their own context, then why should Emergent move beyond or break free of the thinking of churches that can’t see clear to ordain women? Are they not able to apprehend the Truth about that issue properly? It seems as though a whole lot of Truth claims are being made regarding women in ministry (all of which I agree with). Is Emergent suddenly now willing to articulate what it believes without reserve? Have you cornered a Truth? It sounds to me like a church calling itself “Emergent” is suddenly on the outside if it does not tow a certain theological line. Does “Emergent” in fact have doctrine that it stands on? Why, on this one issue is it not okay for a church to have a different perspective regarding women in ministry? But, on other issues, all perspectives are supposed to be welcome. What are the criterion for such a judgement?
Again, I agree with all of what has been said regarding the ministry of women. I personally would want no involvement with any church or community of faith that would not allow women in ALL positions of ministry. It seems silly to me too to even be discussing it at all. But, the above discussions seem to have some serious lines drawn in the sand. I love the lines, but does that fit in with the overall goals of “Emergent?” How does “Emergent” define what it is open to and what it is not open to? Please inform my perspective. I apologize for the lengthy post.
April 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
This stuff is so prevalent in (what I am starting to really feel is becoming a bastardized term, movemnet…) the emergent or pseudo-emergent church. About four years ago,at what many in the area would have deemed quite the progressive church, my wife was the only female in leadership with a degree (the classic BA in Christian Leadership from Azusa Pacific). She was incharge of all the youth ministries small groups and was part of the teaching team. However, after numerous times in which the lead pastor had claimed he wanted to ordain her (there is an entirely different topic here), he finally tacitly questioned her motives subsequently down playing its validity. Nevertheless, in the midst of a Sunday morning service, the lead pastor incorporated into the service her youth co-worker’s (Mike) ordaination, lauding him and the incredible opportunity it was to be ordained. Needless to say, this hit her HARD, and in the middle of the service we left. Today’s leadership has a long way to go in regards to women. It made me sick then and this makes me sick now. Perception, it seems to always come down to perception. Churches, as long as they exude that perfect image, that Sunday morning smile, they are set.
This patriarchal discourse within the context of these post-modern churches must continue. Perception is slowly killing the church today. We are so much more about protecting our image than exemplifying Christ…
ok, I am done.
April 11th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
If you want to vent direclty to the church…
norma@westwinds.org
April 11th, 2005 at 9:49 pm
good resource on this:
Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry
By: Stanley J. Grenz, Denise Muir Kjesbo
mark
April 11th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
I really sympathize with where Matt is coming from. This is what, as an advocate for Emergent, continues to throw me for a loop. How do we say, “It’s just a conversation” and then all of a sudden say “We believe you MUST believe women should be pastors, etc.?”
I’m not blaming you for saying that, Adam. I happen to agree that women should be pastors, just like Mike. But what is this thing called Emergent? I think I’ve got my finger on it and then it slips away.
Tony Jones just wrote a post mentioning that more and more of his time is demanded by Emergent…something about how they need to take things to the next step. What the heck is the next step?!? I’ve been following this thing as closely as I can…I’ve been to the Cohort meetings, to a convention, read the books…but I still don’t get it. What the heck is the next step for a conversation that doesn’t want to be a movement?
Okay…I’m breathing again…rant is officially over!
April 11th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Directing my comment at Matt a bit here…
What does Emergent stand for? Well, it’s difficult to determine because it encompasses many faith traditions, from (recovering) fundamentalist evangelicals to Episcopalians and a lot of stuff in between. Numerically there are probably way more evengelical types than others, but we’re all here.
So there is no “one way” that everyone would subscribe to. It’s as simple as that. It’s an open, inclusive conversation, and a loose coalition of lots of faith traditions, but one thing it isn’t (or at least trying hard not to be) is an exclusive boys club.
Women in leadership is a particular hot button issue because of the desire to be inclusive rather than exclusive. Those of us who are from mainline churches have thirty years or so experience with ordaining women to the priesthood. It has been a long, arduous struggle (for them, not me) and continues to this day.
The evengelical side of the house has a long way to go to get anywhere close, and Ann’s situation just points out how far.
April 11th, 2005 at 10:55 pm
It seems to me that Emergent is essentially a spiritual reform of humility, sincerity, passion and utter openness. The flesh sees it as a new style to do the same old stuff with new pizazz. Both the ad and Norma’s email reflect a preoccupation with the externals only, whether it’s Ann’s genitalia, or having an iPod.
Where is the Spirit?
jon
April 11th, 2005 at 11:09 pm
Matt, I think you’ve raised some good questions and I appreciate being given the opportunity to think about the issues you’ve brought into the discussion. The incident that Adam brought up is one of those instances when I think engaging in sound theological work and asking hard questions is what helps guide us into responsible decision-making around issues like the role of women in the church.
I like to think about issues like this not only in their biblical context, but also in its historic application and to note where change has taken place. Then I can remember that not too long ago there were Christians who didn’t think black folks could be in church leadership because they carried the curse of Ham. Would we find this theological reasoning acceptable today? If not, why not? Can we then begin to think about prayerfully applying the same theological discernment on the issue of women’s leadership?
For me, one of the most exciting things about Emergent are some of the things that Matt mentions, especially humility around making truth claims. However, that doesn’t mean we’re free of the responsibility of making decisions that have the power to impact the conversation in an immediate way; issues of gender and race come immediately to mind. This is why we need constructive theology, carefully and respectfully done in context. Otherwise this great experiment may end up being a bunch of white guys sitting around talking about Jesus. That’s OK, but the conversation would be a lot more exciting spiced up with women’s voices and the input of people of color.
Sermon over. :)
April 12th, 2005 at 12:24 am
I have to agree with Matt I am very confused how truth claims on how church leadership roles “should” be is against the whole idea of emergent. McLaren even says himself that we are to redeem the culture and not try to change it. What if we are to reach out and force women in preaching on a Muslim community, this would once again be methods and our values before the Gospel and that culture. We have to get over thinking that just because we find something to be narrow minded or a “good ol boys club” that it is against the way of Jesus. When we do this we are no better than the talking heads on Fox News who use Jesus as their political flag, in this case I do not want to see Jesus wrapped into a certain culture or a certain way of church.
April 12th, 2005 at 2:33 am
It seems to me that Matt’s comment is amplified by the fact that the criticism of the church in question has been directed to the messenger, Norma, who wishes that her church was in a better place than it actually is. She is in a much better position to judge whether or not her church is “fundamentalist” and has a real issue with sexism or is just going through a transition time in which a specific kind of person (in this particular case, a man) would bring more of something needed by this particular church at this particular time and place.
April 12th, 2005 at 8:33 am
Thanks for the replies. They are fairly helpful. Here are two quotes that ignited further questions. Someone said:
“So there is no “one way” that everyone would subscribe to. It’s as simple as that. It’s an open, inclusive conversation, and a loose coalition of lots of faith traditions, but one thing it isn’t (or at least trying hard not to be) is an exclusive boys club.”
I hear the heart of what you are saying and that is great. But, it is the intellectual content that I find to be paradoxical at best. How can you have an open, inclusive conversation and say some (perhaps from a different context or gospel understanding?) are in some sense on the outs? It would seem then that you have replaced an exclusive boys club with some other sort of exclusive club. I think we all genuinely hope for something new.
The second quote was:
“This is why we need constructive theology, carefully and respectfully done in context. Otherwise this great experiment may end up being a bunch of white guys sitting around talking about Jesus.”
First, let me say that I would prefer to pass on the history lesson regarding African Americans and the Church that was included earlier in that post. I think it is a crime to associate the experience of African Americans who dealt with fire hoses, lynchings, attack dogs, slavery, Jim Crow, etc. with the issue of women in ministry in the “Emergent” discussion. If we are going to be contextual than we ought not pull things ought of context and slap them onto another historical era. It’s always dangerous to draw historical parallels. It makes for really bad history.
Here is the main idea. I hear in the quote the desire to affirm constructive theology being done in context. But, whose context? Clearly a context that has issues with women in ministry is denegrated to being just a bunch of “white guys.” I’d like to see “Emergent” test that attitude in South America, Asia, or Africa. Some of those cultures would voice the same concerns about women in leadership. Certainly they have a context that needs to be respected. Right? So, who determines context? Is it Western predominately white North Americans who are dissaffected Evangelicals and Episcopalians, or just the West in general? Should that small group dictate how the other cultures approach the gospel? And if we can’t make such claims upon Asians, Africans, and Latin Americans, then how can we make claims upon a group at West Winds Church who are operating out of a more fundamentalist or evanglical context?
It seems to me that Emergent is running right into the issue that it will have to become “a something.” When it begins to confront these issues, issues of specifics (women in ministry etc.), it is going to have to take a stand. Otherwise, it will have to just be open to whoever wants to use its title “Emergent.” “Emergent” cannot be open to all contexts and viewpoints on the one hand, and on the other hand malign those who take an “outdated” viewpoint.
So, the question is…will Emergent emerge as a new movement. Will it become a group that has either written rules or unspoken ones about what it believes. And do we really need yet another movement? Is that really something new? This is what I struggle with.
April 12th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
Matt,
Let me come at you from another perspective: Are we to regard everything about another cultural context as necessarily positive? For example, where women have been treated basically as slaves or burned alive with their dead husbands, should we simply say that’s what’s good for them?
I understand where you’re coming from. I really do. I just think there are two sides to this issue. But if you’re saying that we have to be cautious about what we try to impose cross-culturally, I agree.
April 12th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
No, we are not (I am not saying anything of the sort) saying that. In fact as I said repeatedly earlier I am so incredibly for women in ministry. I don’t know how else to say that! It is not even a question on my screen. I hope people can sort out my opinion from a basic question I am asking about Emergent. How do we embrace contextuality and then reject specific positions that are based on context? I need to understand how that deliniation can take place. This is precisely where I run into difficulties with Emergent. Where are the borders of contextuality?
April 12th, 2005 at 10:36 pm
women in leadership, as well as the inclusion of people of different race, socio-economic status and age, at the leadership level- will continue to be an issue until we examine our theology of power and how it informs our practice. The church as it emerges is dealing with these issues, even it is in silence; it is an inevitable part of engaging the culture, and The Emergent Conversation has a unique opportunity to address and example the way in which these issues can be handled in theological dialogue and practice. Until the difficult issues of power and position are addressed, women in leadership will remain and issue.
April 13th, 2005 at 12:24 am
matt’s question is very good, and very difficult to answer, which is why you haven’t gotten one that you are pleased with yet. your question is of the “how can i know” nature. quite honestly emergent isn’t anywhere on that radar screen yet. my good friend tony has explained emergent using the imagery of your favorite local pub/bar. all the bar provides is the beer and the environment for interaction/conversation. maybe starbuck’s works better for you. the point is, no one looks up the bar’s statement(s) of belief about any issue. people really don’t ask the bartender her beliefs about gay marriage, unless they are really drunk. what the bar does do is offer a space for conversation about these issues. the same could be said of emergent. emergent is about creating space for conversation to happen from many different viewpoints about important issues facing the church.
the tricky thing is that individuals, such as adam and myself and then the big cheeses like brian mcclaren, tony jones, doug pagitt, tim keel, etc make up emergent. we all have opinions. often times these opinions are congruent because of the conversation that has been taking place over the past few years. so in short, emergent really doesn’t want to deal with your question because it isn’t meant to, not yet at least. to do that would assume certain responsibilities and even authority, which emergent doesn’t claim to have.
my thinking on it is that there are certain issues that have been resolved theologically and many that haven’t. for example: the issue of racial equality has been resolved by the christian community in the West. the same cannot yet be said of homosexuals. so those in emergent can be very confident to rip a church’s ass if they don’t hire an african-american man to lead their youth group if he’s qualified. we can’t be as confident if that same person is openly gay. some of us wish we could, but the christian community is nowhere even close yet. i think women in ministry is like the racial equality issue. the christian community has dealt with women in ministry and for the most part has decided that women in ministry is a good thing and very needed for churches to be healthy. so emergent can be a little bit more suspicious of a church claiming to be ‘emergent’ and yet not want to hire a woman.
another way to look at it, would be to look at culture in concentric circles. as you get more and more local with the culture the smaller the circles get. in our example with westwinds church, they are not making a purely local decision. that decision, to not hire a woman, actually fits in the broader circles that would contain other christian communities and the world at large in a negative way, because the church by and large knows we need women in ministry.
i really don’t know if that helps or not. but it’s my limited perspective. i’m sure there is a lot in there that others won’t agree with, but it could be a starting point to deal with this question of contextuality and boundries, because i think it is a very tricky thing.
April 13th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
We’re still ‘conversing’ on issues of interpretation. And there are still a lot of truth claims coming out here that are based on interpretation of context. There are a lot of value judgements being made on these issues by the ‘emergent’ crowd, (with which i thought i resonated until recently, but adam has proven me too conservative), about people who interpret scripture differently. Some people hold scripture in a higher view than others. Some take it contextually, some literally. Unless you can prove that your view of scripture is right, I don’t think these value judgements belong in a conversation. Adam, you are making some very bold value judgements in this post. And I don’t think you can prove to us that your view of scripture is the only ‘right’ one, so how do you really have any more claim to truth, than someone who is very fervantly following the scriptures by their own view of scripture…
And that brings up another question… If emergent values context, and contextualisation of scripture, why aren’t we discussing the many possible interpretations of scripture on these issues. Why hasn’t scripture been looked to in any of these ‘conversations’???
Do you assume everyone knows it so well that we don’t need to bring it up?
April 13th, 2005 at 7:25 pm
Just to circle back a bit and explain my earlier statement a bit further, the underlying philosophy of my position comes from the baptismal covenant we use in the Episcopal church. There’s a line that goes:
Celebrant: Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
Congregation (not just the baptismal candidate): We will.
Now, that may be far from clear to others, but to me it stakes out the broad framework that all are welcome and are valued. When people or congregations deny, in this case, women, the opportunity to serve based purely on gender, that violates justice and their dignity, in my opinion.
Overall, I feel that the people I’ve met IRL and online in emergent broadly feel the way I do (not exclusively, but hey, nothing’s 100%) so Westwinds comes off as not very emergent. But, and here’s a big but, I’m not syaing they’re not Christian, that they might not be doing good things, just that in this case they’re falling short of the mark. As we all do in some way.
The sad part of it is that there seems to be a “we’d like to do it but we’re afraid of what might happen” so the decision to not consider women is based out of fear rather than strong conviction.