What the hell, I could use the hits.
I get several emails a week from folks wanting to know about the Emergent Church, postmodernity, Monkfish Abbey, and what-the-hell-is-an-Abbess. A while back I got an query from a fellow, Scott Collins, who was working on a paper on “Women and the Emergent Church.” I finally got around to answering the poor guy, who’s email had gotten lost in the shuffle. My delayed answer is probably not going to do him one iota of academic good, but it I did spend quite a bit of time typing it, and it’s not a bad assessment, if I do say so myself.
As regular readers know, I do get tired of debating these things on line, but every once in awhile I get a spurt of energy in the “hot button issues” direction. I guess now is one of those times. So here’s my two cents…argue at will.
P.s. Oh, and here are some kudos to the men of Emergent who have won my good will by treating me as an equal: MarkO, Ryan Bloger, Dwight Friesen, Will Samson, Bob Carlton, Charlie Wear, Jason Evans (who even sought me out and apologized for missing the gender point!), Paul Roberts (UK), and of course, the godfather himself, Brian Mc Claren.
______________
Scott,
Good assessment. In the U.S., Emergent as an organization is largely male-run. The men idealogically support women being in all aspects of ministry, but in my experience (and in the experience of many of the other women I know in the Emergent world) they don’t understand what that means pragmatically. Some male emergent leaders are really trying to understand the systemic shifts that must be made in order to make space for women (and ethnic leaders.) Others are unwilling to give up the power and authority (and money) that must be released in order to faciliate such a shift.
For instance, one of the big problems is that many of the predominate male leaders came from paying ministerial positions, or are still in paid ministerial positions. In contrast, most of the women leaders are unpaid and are primary childcare providers in their families as well. Meanwhile many, though not all, of the men have wives who manage their home and social lives, freeing them to work, pastor, write, teach, travel, and network. This wage/responsibility gap makes it difficult for the women to travel to on-your-own-dime gatherings; to attend the conferences and planning meetings that are the core of “getting in” to the Emergent leadership circle; or to spend time pursing the speaking-writing-publishing cycle that is the authority-giving stamp of the Emergent movement. (Just as it is the stamp-of-approval in Evangelical circles.) In general, the men are having a difficult time grasping this, and/or are uninterested in sponsoring women to be able to do these things with the big boys.
Another gender gap in Emergent is that the men seem more interested in theological reading and discussion (orthodoxy) while the women tend to value actual action and practice (orthopraxy.) (Of course, this is a huge generalization — generalization being the bee in the bonnet of all gender discussions!) As in Evangelicalsim, theology is honored over praxis, so the theologians/writers have more authority and sway. Also, it is helpful to keep in mind that Emergent U.S., being sired largely by Evangelicalism, has a built-in bias in that Evangelicalism doesn’t not have a history of ordaining women–thus fewer women than men have attended seminary, been in ordained ministry, etc. While neither of these are necessarily a prerequiste for being a leader or minister in the Emergent church, we are seeing an increasing number of people pursuing Emergent ministry via seminary degrees and ordination. The men have had a head start in this arena.
In all of this, the U.S. Emergent movement continues to mirror it’s Evangelical forefathers. The U.K. folks claim this is not so in the U.K. Emergent world, largely due to the Anglican/mainline influence among Emergent U.K. — But while I’ve met lots of lovely blokes from the other side of the pond, I can count the U.K. women leaders that I’ve personally met on two fingers. (I don’t even need a whole hand!)
My personal take on all this is that it’s not going to change anytime soon. The men at the helm need to have fundamental perspective shifts around power (who gets it, who yield is, and how to give it away); authority (who gives it, who has it, and how it’s come by); epistomology (how do we know what we know?, is there something beyond reason?, what are feminine and male ways of knowing? Which ways of knowing do we typically favor in our “leaders” and is their a gender bias there?); and success (what is it, who gets to define it, how might people on the margins define it.) While many of the Emergent U.S. leaders are intrigued by the possiblity of such a shift, only a little actual shifting has occurred. What can I say? Emergent U.S. was by and large birthed out of Evangelicalism, and when it comes to leadership, the apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree.
I know the men are trying, and they are learning. At least there is a little wiggle room in the Emergent power system, and a good amount of interest in seeking wholeness in their leadership structures. I’ll be interested to see how things progress in the next 2-5 years. In the meantime I enjoy networking with these folks, teaching when I’m able, and learning from any and all who cross my path.
Many blessings to you…and my apologies for a delayed response.
Did you just give two opposing definitions of orthopraxy? What does it mean?
I’ve been reading your blog for a couple of months and this is the first time I’ve commented (I think). I like what you’re doing at the Abbey it sounds really interesting … and nicely organic.
Many thanks for this thoughtful discussion of the gender-gap. I’m also frustrated by it, but am fortunate to serve with a team of people who don’t see gender. It becomes frustrating out in the larger world. Where men still congregate together and don’t quite listen to women the way they do to men.
I think part of the frustration for men is that they are able to compartmentalize their lives. They have their theology and their homes and their sports and their whatever elses. The things don’t necessarily mix. You see this in the blogs. Men’s blogs are usually about one thing and if they want to write about other things they have another blog. Women’s lives are more integrated, so they write about everything they do all mixed up together on their blogs. I’ve seen the comments from men; they get frustrated having to read about kid stuff in the midst of theology. But that IS my theology, dealing with my kids. There are metaphors there I’m sure but I haven’t had enough coffee yet.;-)
Well … thanks for opening the conversation up. I’m looking forward to seeing the comments.
pax, sonja
What is it about this particular Monday morning that is bringing this topic to more than one person’s mind? Sonja in Virginia (US) just posted her thoughts in “What About Women?” at http://calacirian.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-about-women.html. If I may repeat a portion of the comment I left there: I hope I’m not writing anything that would offend anyone here, but more cynical (some might label them “radical”) feminists might be tempted to see a certain phallo-centrism in the choice of the word “emerging” to describe the movement.
Oops–I just noticed! She left a comment here, too. As Gilda Radner would say: “Never mind!”
Rachelle,
Great points about gender.
Beyond that, I wonder how leadership in emergent will avoid falling into the traditional forms of power, influence, and success resulting from recognition and promotion.
Rachelle,
Found this via Maggi Dawn. Very, very thought-provoking & helpful. I come at this as a (male) mainline Prot pastor (ELCA) married to a mainline Prot pastor (also ELCA). My wife and I go to the same continuing ed events, conferences, etc., both with “professional expense” budgets from our respective congregations to support it. So of course it was a “duh” moment for me to read about the travel issue. Of course!
While I’m far too “white bread” to really be “emergent” (whatever that means, grin!), I find great hope and excitement in what God is doing through all of these conversations. One of the challenges that might lie ahead is that while many mainline Prot church bodies (in the USA, at least) ordain women and have done so for a while, many of them did not do the necessary theological groundwork for it, which left the door wide open for others to look at the practice as simply an aberration. Mind you, I think that the theological rationale is there! But articulating it in a compelling way, not only to the abstract-minded theological ivory tower folks, but also to the more praxis-driven folks, remains as an opportunity.
For whatever it’s worth from a random stranger, blessings and joy to you! May the Spirit lead you in ministry that is rich in faithfulness, joy, and servant power.
Peace,
Evers
Rebecca,
Oops. Typo city! Just fixed it. Should have read “Orthodoxy” and “Orthopraxy.”
Intriguing letter, Rachelle, especially for a non-emergent outsider from an especially “patriarchal” Church. But the issue leads me to ask: What would the emergent church movement look like if your aspirations for it were realized? You often speak highly of the Episcopal church, and I wonder if the St Mark’s model, or something very near it, is really your end goal. In many ways, it seems like ECUSA is really marking out the same path, but is just further down the road than you, and your vision for the EM, are at present. How would an accomplished EM church differ from the St Mark’s model? And if there’s little or no real difference, why not become Episcopalian? I ask this in all sincereity and as a former Episcopalian. I really am trying to wrap my head around the emergent movement, to better understand it.
Thanks for the wake-up call.
From NZ and primarily involved in small organic 20-something emerging communities, I have to say this post saddens me. Perhaps saddest is that (like everything in the US?) the words emergent/ing have become inextricably linked with another big organisation which replicates all the things that big organisations do — gender inquality only one. Why not keep it simple?
Hi Rachelle, I;d be very interested to hear how you think things should/could progress over the next 2-5 years?
Thanks, Jason
in regards to the whole gender issue - get over it!! men have been in power positions from the time the world began, and if you can’t deal with that, be thankul that you don’t live in a culture that has yet to be transformed by the gospel. the freedoms you don’t even recognise are only dreams for thousands (or is that millions?) of women throughout history and throughout the world today. if western women want equal rights to men in the whole career/ministry arena, then they might consider not getting married or having children, and thereby retaining the time, energy and freedom to do all the stuff ‘that men do’.
Douglas,
Those are good, but big questions and require quite a bit of unpacking. The short answer would be that the emerging theology I am experiencing is very similar to Episcopalian theology. But my charismatic roots are in there too, and I need a lot of wiggle room in regards to liturgical practices. Also, I’m not quite the sacramentalists that Episcoplain clergy tend to be. If I had to choose one denomination to align myself with, at this oint it would probably be the Evangelical or Anglican tradition. However, I’m glad I don’t have to make this choice, as I would rather be influenced by any and all of the parts of the Body that I might be able to touch or be touched by.
The further I float down this river, the more I admire, embrace, and absorb from my mainline siblings. And I do hope that Emergent U.S., which started out as moving out of primarily Evangelical churches, becomes increasingly influenced by the kingdom-creating work that mainliners–and anabaptists–are doing in the areas of justice and equality.
Karen Ward often describes her self as “post-”. I like that moniker, though it drives many crazy with it’s vagueness. I’m post-evangelical, post-charimatic, post-mainline. This doesn’t mean “anti” or “more mature than.” Not by a long shot! It just means I’m influenced by all of those things, I have been birthed out of those things, but I’m not exclusively alinged to anyone of them.
When trying to get their head’s around the Emerging church, people are often frustrated. It can seem at times as if those involved are being intentionally vague. But it’s a very young, very loosely organized (we’re post-organization!:-), very _emerging_ movement. And we (as much as there is a we) are shaped by the people who gather with us, are shaped by the community that forms.
Post modernity requires us to foster a way of seeing the world that allows us to hold more than one idea at a time in our open palm. This doesn’t lend itself easily to affiliating one’s self with a narrowly prescribed set of beliefs and practices. Rather, it requires a way of being in the world that allows truth to rise to the surface, and creates practices that honor that truth in the cultural langauge of the day (verbal, visual, and symbolic language.) It requires us to be present to that which is being birthed, to how a vine is growing, to which way the river will turn as the rains ebb and flow.
As much as I enjoy my affliation with the Emergent organization, it’s not my primary place of identity. My primary identity, as corny as it sounds, is in Christ — not in any organization, denomination, or title. All those things may change with time, culture, age — but Jesus will always be my lover.
Craig,
Yes, it’s true that trying to organzie things leads to complexity. I think Emergent U.S. emerged out of a group of pracitioners/ministers who needed peer support. How it grows from there is still a mystery to watch for. Will it benefit or harm the move of the Spirit that is so obviously at work in her church? Probably both — like most things we humans tend to do!
Given my health, my family situation, and my income, I myself must choose to “keep it simple” and so I am only tangentally (sp?) involved in Emergent U.S. For all it’s bumps and growing pains, it’s been a priceless gift to me, becaue it’s connected me with most of my favorite loves and co-practioners. So regardless of how it grows, where it goes, or if I’m still along for the ride, I am grateful for what it’s given me thus far.
Thanks for your frank response, Rachelle.
Hi again,
Thanks for taking the time to respond and clarify. I’m glad to hear it’s served you. I’m continuing to ponder big-group vs small-group processes and I appreciate your thoughts from a place that seems sometimes so close and sometimes so far removed from where I am.
i was reading a commentary on the beatitudes the other day. it said that perhaps the right translation of the beatitudes is ‘You are in the right place to receive God’s grace when…”. You are in the right place, rachelle. you are uncovering the depth of truth and wisdom held in the margins that could never be found in the centre.
the church throughout the centuries has rarely had the courage to listen to that truth and wisdom. i hope Emergent realises how desperately it needs to.