Julie Clawson - onehandclapping

Action Movies and Gender Roles

Posted on August 21, 2007July 9, 2025

So I actually got the chance to get out and see The Bourne Ultimatum. Fun movie, this one speaks to issues of our day but with a lot of crazy camera angles. One element that stood out to me was the implicit gender role assumptions present in the movies. In the Bourne universe, the guys are always the kick-butt action figures. They are the ones with the skills, the ability to fight, and the driving urge to win. The women, although generally intelligent, are weak and in need of protection. In this latest installment the weakness of even the intelligent women in positions of power is preyed upon by the men’s need to win. Granted in the end the “emotional weakness” of the women proved beneficial for they were the ones who demonstrated a conscience and chose to do what was right (as opposed to what gave them power). Although full of assumptions and stereotypes, I found it a telling commentary on the need for a balanced perspective that men in violent positions of power often lack.

But I was also reminded in contrast of the typical role women play in action movies. Rarely are women recurring intelligent characters. Instead women are often portrayed as the kick-butt hero who is exceeding sexy. The appeal is the sex factor and the novelty of a woman doing what is assumed to be a man’s job. Far more common though are women as helpless, disposable, love interests sex objects. They add some emotional content to the plot, stretch the story a bit, but mostly serve as eye-candy. And there is a new pretty face of the moment by the time the sequel comes out. I remember as a kid wondering what happened to the female characters in movie sequels. Why did Indiana Jones have a “new girl” in each movie? Are women really that worthless that they can be discarded at will?

I do see some changes beginning to occur (not that I watch all that many movies). Sometimes the love interest is drawn out over multiple movies (Spiderman or Pirates) – but this may be more the result of studies signing multiple movie deals upfront than a step towards equality. And I’ve heard a rumor that the new Indiana Jones movie is bringing back the woman from Raiders of the Lost Ark (not that I even remember her name). We shall see. I know one really shouldn’t expect much from action movies, but I get sick of constantly seeing negative stereotypes being reinforced in the name of entertainment. Of course there are “intelligent” movies out there that do a much better job at demonstrating women as more than sex objects, but are those who could benefit from more respectful portrayals of women really watching those movies?

Varuna, Paganism, and Numbers 5

Posted on August 20, 2007July 9, 2025

As I recently read Richard Foltz’s Spirituality in the Land of the Noble: How Iran Shaped the World’s Religions I came upon a paragraph that gave me pause. It was a short paragraph in the introductory section on the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) influence on the ancient Near-East, but it connected me to themes I have wrestled with for some time now. The paragraphs reads –

One type of pact performed by the PIEs was the mithra, a covenant between two parties, the other being a varuna or individual oath… In keeping with their belief about the supernatural inhering in abstract notions as well as in material things, Indo-Iranians personified the spiritual qualities (mainyus) of these verbal pacts as powerful and important dieties. The veracity of one’s oral proclamations could be put to the test, through fire ordeal in the case of mithras ans water in the case of varunas, which may explain why Mithra and Varuna, who were responsible for sparing the truthful and punishing the unworthy, became such important gods.

Now I was familiar with Mithra – he only became a major deity in a number of the cultures influenced by the Indo-Europeans as they spread across the ancient Near-East. You know stuff like being subsumed into Zoroastrianism as the savior figure who was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave witnessed by shepherds. But this was the first I had ever read of the ancient concepts of oath taking that evolved into personified deities. I was especially intrigued by the water ordeal to test the veracity of a personal oath. Apparently this ordeal involved either immersing a person underwater (if they survived they were innocent) or forcing a person to drink the “golden oath water” which brings out the truth by causing jaundice. An ancient practice common in the cultures that settled the ancient near-East, predating Zoroaster, Moses, and possibly Abraham.

Why did this brief paragraph give me pause? Because it addressed the cultural underpinnings of a Biblical practice that I have struggled to understand. When I first encountered the description of “the test for an unfaithful wife” as described in Numbers 5:11-31 I was appalled. Here is a ceremony that reeked more of magic than faith and seemed to be extremely arbitrary and unfair to the woman. I just could not understand how this was a God given law. To have a woman whose husband was jealous drink a strange mixture and if she was guilty she would waste away and if she was innocent she could have children didn’t fit even within the Old Testament worldview I knew. I recall being involved in numerous discussions about this particular passage a few years ago. Many people took the – “it’s in the Bible so God must have put it there so I can’t question (or be bothered by) it” route. Others tried to reinterpret it as being a completely meaningless ritual that could never work and would therefore always prove the women innocent. God obviously couldn’t change the culture and stop making men be jealous and possessive of women, or improve conditions for women who are thrown out or stoned for adultery (or suspicion thereof), so he gave the Jews this pointless test to protect women – just another way that God is actually pro-woman. But it still didn’t make sense.

So I find it helpful to see that this practice has its roots not in some God given new mandate, but in the common cultural rituals of the lands the Jews inhabited. Of course it seems magical and pagan because that is what it is. That leaves the issue for those who do think the Bible is inspired to understand why God would want his people using a ritual that derived from animistic deities. But even still, I find the ideas of this being a “redeemed” practice less disturbing than the assumption that this is a God given practice. But maybe that’s just me coming to terms with letting go of my evangelical conceptions regarding scripture.

Historical Point of View

Posted on August 19, 2007July 9, 2025

“Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.” – Obi-Wan Kenobi

I have that quote on the water bottle that I carry around everywhere. It summarizes what I’ve been learning over the last 5 years or so and is a good reminder as to how I should be engaging with the world. Plus it’s a Star Wars quote (need I say more?).

My reading over this past week has forced me to recall that quote numerous times. This sounds pathetic, but I really have never studied history outside of the Western/Christian mindset (and I majored in history!). My studies focused on European and American history or on other parts of the world as they related to Europe and America. Beyond that, most of my studies (academically and personally) were done to understand the roots and development of the Christian faith. That included studies of Egypt and the Ancient Near-East that were done only to gather trivia to shore up my belief that events in the Bible really happened the way the Bible presents them. My point of view determined what I studied and how I interpreted the facts once I encountered them. In all a very narcissistic approach to history.

Within my myopic interest in history, I recently started reading about the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism and Christianity (which is absolutely fascinating by the way, more on that another day). But in the process, I have started reading histories of Iran and the Proto-European Aryan tribes which is something I have never done before (honestly, what schools teach the history of Iran, the ancient history of Iran?). So in the process I am encountering history done from point of views that I knew were out there, but never took the time to explore before.

But beyond my being reminded of my narrow view of history, I have been amused by the historical points of views of others. Amused not in an attempt to ridicule others, but in seeing in other cultures the same ignorant syncretisms we find so common in our own. For while I have known about how most of our Christian holidays are just baptized versions of older Pagan celebrations (not that I find anything wrong with that), I never thought about that happening in say, Islam. While I am familiar with the story of my own faith and (some of) its evolution through time, I guess I always viewed Islam as more rigid and static. But to see cultural examples among Iranian Muslims of Zoroastrian influence took me by surprise (while it retrospect it should have been obvious). New Year festivities that have no root in Islam, wedding traditions that still involve fire ceremonies, and Mosques that have Zoroastrian symbols (this is Islam remember) on them – and all of them have been “baptized” with Islamic meaning. To them it is just another part of “orthodox Islam” and how dare anyone suggest otherwise (while the government continues to stamp out such practices…).

Our stories and perspectives on history are influenced by what we already believe and expect to discover. Our myths of nationality and religious superiority crumble under the slightest soundings of history. Not that it’s our faith that is changed (usually), but it is how our faith colors how we see everything else. As I continue to read about Zoroastrian influences on my faith (especially on the eschatological perspective), I am reminded that there are those out there who would be eager to discover “pagan” roots for Islam (in order to further criticize and dismiss it), but who will refuse to admit the cultural influences on Christianity. How we view our faith and how we view history depends greatly on our point of view.

Personality

Posted on August 17, 2007July 9, 2025

So I got to spend the day wandering around a Pioneer Farm/Fun Park with a bunch of toddlers. With train rides, hay rides, and other such activities the kids had a great time. Emma decided that she liked the fake horse on the carousel better than the real pony ride horse (the carousel one apparently goes up and down in addition to going round and round) – it was a tad disturbing. So then I just got to spend a full two hours trying to get the overtired little one into bed (an hour later she is still singing songs to herself). So given that my brain is on full mush mode and can’t think of any of the stuff I meant to write tonight, I’ll finally get around to doing this personality test thingy I’ve been seeing everywhere.

Different questions than I typically encounter, but the results are the same. While I was still in school I always tested as an INFJ, but since leaving the structured world of education I have consistently scored as an INFP. “The Dreamer. INFPs are introspective, private, creative and highly idealistic individuals that have a constant desire to be on a meaningful path. They are driven by their values and seek peace. Empathetic and compassionate, they want to help others and humanity as a whole. INFPs are imaginative, artistic and often have a talent for language and writing. They can also be described as easygoing, selfless, guarded, adaptable, patient and loyal.” Accurate in many ways although that last sentence sounds more like they are describing dogs instead of people.

According to their stats, my personality is the same as the fictional characters of Anne of Green Gables and Dr. Julian Bashir of Star Trek: DS9 (my favorite ST character ever) and historical figures such as William Shakespeare, A.A. Milne, Mr. Rodgers, J.R.R. Tolkien, and apparently Mary mother of Jesus (how they figure that is beyond me). And for those of you who know him, I had to laugh that Mike’s (INTJ) was the same as Gandalf and C.S. Lewis. And according to my multiple intelligences apparently my career choices should be Psychologist, Philosopher, Writer, or Theologian. Interesting.

Eating Ethically

Posted on August 16, 2007July 9, 2025

I just finished reading The Ethics of What We Eat by Peter Singer and Jim Mason. Even though the book deals with issues that I already cared and knew something about, I was still overwhelmed and greatly challenged by what they wrote. I’m still processing most of it and examining my philosophy of ethics in response to the really hard questions they ask in the the book. This is a disturbing and necessary book. If we are to be truly ethical people, our ethics must apply to how and what we eat. I think this book should be required reading for anyone who, well, eats food.

To comment on one small aspect of the book – the general complaint that to eat ethically (or healthy for that matter) is just too expensive. The average person can’t afford to be ethical excuse. Here are a few quotes from the book that put that into perspective –

“The cult of low prices has become so ingrained in the consumer culture that the deep discounts are no longer novelties. They are entitlements. Bargain-seeking seems to be such a basic aspect of human nature that to question it can appear quixotic. But… the bargains hide costs to taxpayers, the community, the animals, and the environment.”

“Organic food costs more partly because … intensive industrial agriculture leaves others to pay the hidden costs of cheap production – the neighbors who can no longer enjoy being outside in their yard; the children who cannot safely swim in the local streams; the farm workers who get ill from the pesticides they apply; the confined animals denied all semblance of a life that is normal and suitable for their species; the fish who die in the polluted streams and coastal waters (and the people who previously caught and ate those fish); and the unknown numbers of low-lying lands in Bangladesh or Egypt who will be made homeless by rising sea levels caused by global warming. It is understandable that people on low incomes should seek to stretch their dollars by buying the lowest-priced food, but when we look at the larger picture, the food produced by factory farming is not really cheap at all.”

“Americans spend far less of their income on food than people in other countries … we spend a smaller proportion of our income on food now than we used to – on average, only 6 percent of our total income goes toward buying groceries, down from 17 percent fifty years ago. In fact, we probably work for fewer hours to feed ourselves than people have anywhere, in all the millennia of human existence… if Americans want to eat better quality food, most of them have the means to pay for it.”

“The price of food should reflect the full cost of its production. Then consumers can choose whether they want to pay that price. If no one does, the market will ensure that the item ceases to be produced. Meanwhile, if the method of producing food imposes significant costs on others without their consent – for example, by emitting odors that make it impossible for neighbors to enjoy living in their homes – then the market has not been operating efficiently and the outcome is unfair to those who are disadvantaged. The food will only be cheap because others are paying part of the costs – unwillingly. Any form of food production that is not environmentally sustainable will be unfair in this respect, since it will make future generations worse off.”

Someone somewhere is paying the cost for low price. If we care about being ethical (instead of just saying screw you), we have to be willing to pay a fair price for our food. That may mean getting over our sense of entitlement to a certain lifestyle (meat at every meal, or even everyday) in order to afford better food. And it isn’t just about passing the costs on to others, they do eventually catch up to people. Tax dollars that go to cleaning rivers, insurance costs that rise as more people get sick from the toxins used to produce our food. For example, I personally have spent thousands of dollars this past year (above insurance) to figure out what is making me ill (I have had a constant swollen throat for 7+ months). Having gone through the “it might be cancer” or it “might be this” tests, the thought is that since moving to a rural area, I have developed chronic allergies to the massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers I am surrounded with. I am constantly sick so that cheap corn can be grown so Americans can eat more crap full of high fructose corn syrup. And I am just one small example of the collateral damage of cheap food where the full cost isn’t assumed by the producer or the consumer but is passed on to others. Can we really be ethical and continue to do that?

Speaking of God

Posted on August 14, 2007July 9, 2025

In the recent discussion on Women in the Emerging Church, the issue of gender pronouns for God arose and I was asked to clarify my thoughts on that topic. I’ve discussed this issue often over at the Emerging Women blog and my contribution to the Faith in a Dress edition of the Porpoise Diving Life ezine provided a brief overview as well. But I’ve never really addressed it here on my personal blog. Why? Because this is an issue that freaks a lot of people out. They think that to even discuss this topic implies that one has left behind any traditional construction of Christianity. I thought that way for a long time. But this is a topic that is a given for many in mainline churches and has started to become a serious issue for women from evangelical backgrounds. I’ve been forced to wrestle through it. So to add another long and controversial post to this week’s offerings (and in no way do I claim to even attempt a comprehensive treatment of this issue), here we go.

The issue at hand is the names we use to refer to God. The majority of the names we use as English speakers are gendered masculine. Although we are generally okay with some of the neutral names and metaphors for describing God, people often get very offended when God is referred to using the feminine names and images (even though such are present in scripture and church history). How we speak about God is a topic that has received a lot of attention recently. With Peter Rollins’ well known book How (not) to Speak of God and Bruce Benson’s lesser-known (but more in-depth) Graven Ideologies, the concepts of what we know about God and how we express that have become popular topics of conversation. The ideas those authors present (based on the implications of postmodern philosophers such as Derrida, Levinas, and Marion) revolve around the idea that any attempt to speak of God is idolatry – conceptual idolatry, but idolatry nonetheless. We are not God. To claim to know or understand (or even fully name) God is an act of idolatry. Since we cannot have absolute knowledge of God (that would in fact make us God), we attempt to describe God using the things we know (language, images, metaphors). All of those attempts at comprehending that which cannot be comprehended must be held lightly. Any attempt to assume that our names or metaphors for God actually define God become idolatry. We start to worship our idea (name, image, metaphor) for God instead of actually worshiping God. Of course we cannot not speak of God, so we must make use of metaphors and names. The Bible is full of descriptions for God – some we have turned into names but they are all simply descriptions of God – small attempts to understand aspects of the incomprehensible. Creator. Light. Shalom. Midwife. Provider. Father. Potter. Refuge. Sustainer. Mother. Healer… None of those names from scripture define God. To choose one as the God we worship is to choose to worship an idol of our own creation. But we use the multitude of names to describe God – to describe that which we cannot grasp but are compelled to worship.

To assume that God is gendered – that God is either male or female – turns God into an idol. God is neither and yet God can be described as both. Of all the ways that we speak of God this is the one that carries the most emotional weight. Rollins brushed aside this issue in his book, saying that it has already been addressed well by others. I found that infinitely frustrating because while this idea has been addressed extensively in mainline circles there is hardly anyone talking about it in evangelical and emerging circles. But to only see God as Father and to deny that God is also Mother not only ignores scripture and creates an idol in the form of a male, but it reinforces negative stereotypes about women. Why can’t we discuss God’s feminine characteristics? Is there something wrong with women? Are we inferior to men? Are we somehow more sinful or more sexual or less intelligent than men? If the metaphor of Father can be used for God what does it reveal about our underlying assumptions about women if we cannot also use the metaphor of Mother?

It is generally at this point that many people respond – “Of course God has no gender, and I see how feminine terms could be used to describe God, but I’m really just more comfortable continuing to use the male names and I don’t want anyone to think I’m into that whole Divine Feminine/Goddess worship stuff that’s so popular these days and it’s not hurting anyone right?” But, would it change things to know that there are many many women out there who have rejected Christianity because all they see represented is a male God? They do not see themselves relating to a male God and they do not see themselves as being created in God’s image if God is male. Then there are those women in the church who see themselves as inferior to men because they are female and are not made if God’s image. The logic goes – if God is male then male must be better. I just finished reading a book, When God Was A Woman (full of serious issues, but interesting nonetheless) that is a diatribe against the domination of the Hebrews and their male God over the goddess cultures in the Ancient Near-East. This book is over 30 years old and is still considered a classic among feminists. The gender of God is a big issue for a lot of people. My question is whether our comfort is more important than truth or more important than all those people who have rejected Christianity for unnecessary reasons?

This is a topic that I have personally struggled through over the last couple of years. I went from thinking that using feminine names for God was just a silly (and offensive) game for extreme feminists, to seeing the need to question my default names for God. This isn’t just about equality, this is much bigger than that. It is about avoiding conceptual idolatry and naming God rightly (while being aware of the tension that we can never actually do so). To default to male names for God limits my understanding of who God is and unintentionally excludes some from the communion of believers. It isn’t a game or a side issue or a red herring, it reflects the center of my faith – the God I believe in. It does take effort to not just use my default name for God (father). It isn’t comfortable to say mother or healer. But I’ve realized that I have to – for my faith and for the faith of others. It’s scary. It makes some people angry. But it also opens doors to those who have been left on the outside for far too long.

Synchroblog: The Narrow Door

Posted on August 13, 2007July 9, 2025

Luke 13:22-30 (New International Version)

The Narrow Door
22Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?”

He said to them, 24″Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’

26″Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’

27″But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’

28″There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”

When I preached on this passage last year as part of our journey through Luke, what struck me most were the wide variety of interpretations I encountered (and most everything here is gleaned from encountering and assimilating others). This passage is a battleground for drawing lines and telling the world who exactly is in or out of the Christian faith. The exclusivists rejoice that only a few will be saved (go to heaven) and the rest will perish (go to hell). But who the few are and what exactly comprises the narrow door differ from group to group. Some of the interpretations include to be a Catholic who takes Eucharist, or to invite Jesus into your heart, or to be saved in spirit and especially in Truth, or (for women) to bear children. Then there are the Universalist interpretations. They say that pretty much everyone gets into heaven. The narrow door for them is the way of love and universal acceptance. If you fail to love and think you get in because you belong to some elite club, you will be excluded – i.e. everyone gets in except the exclusivists. It’s a game – whose definition of the door will win? How inclusive or exclusive is our faith? Who can we point fingers at and say “you’re different, you’re wrong, you’re not welcome”?

But then we look at what Jesus actually says in the passage. The guy asked the question, then Jesus starts talking. Jesus starts off talking about a “narrow door” and about “many” who will strive to enter it and won’t be able to get in. His questioner probably would have liked where that was heading. He’s being invited to think of himself as an insider – a very select group of insiders. And those on the outside are left weeping and gnashing their teeth. The guy must be thinking, “This is sounding good.” Then Jesus flips the script as he is so prone to do. He talks about people coming “from east and west, from north and south” to eat in the kingdom of God. And he says that “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”; and I’m sure the guy is thinking, “not so good”. He’s looking for an either/or answer and Jesus gives him a both/and, while at the same time not really answering the question the way he wants him to at all. In fact, Jesus didn’t at first give numbers. He essentially said “Bad question. The real question is whether you are striving to enter through the narrow door.” Essentially, to quote Jesus’ words on another occasion, “What is that to thee? Follow thou me.”

But what if this passage is not talking about salvation from sin and going to heaven when we die? What if it’s not about drawing lines and pointing fingers or deciding who is in or who is out? When the Jews of Jesus’ day talked about being “saved” it was in reference to being delivered from Roman oppression. They were looking for a Messiah who would come and lead a new Kingdom. The general idea was that the Messiah would use force to overthrow the Romans and establish a Kingdom of the Jews for the Jews and only the Jews. But Jesus’ recent comments as recorded by Luke didn’t really seem to support that idea. Jesus was calling for a way of peace and love – not violence and destruction. He made it sound as if his kingdom would be encompassing all sorts of people. And Jesus gave warnings that those who didn’t follow in the way of the kingdom – the way of love, peace, inclusion – would find destruction.

This passage, I think, is another of those warnings. The kingdom Jesus initiated is an upside down kingdom – it is counter-cultural. One has to be deliberate about following its ways – a better word would be strive or agonize. It would be easy to pursue other paths, to not care for what God cares about, to continue in the way of violence. But Jesus warns that the day of destruction will come and that for some it will be too late to choose the way of peace. Even if someone was a Jew who ate with Jesus and listened to him preach, they can’t be saved from destruction unless they enter through the narrow door and actually live in the ways of the kingdom. And he was right. The Jews didn’t choose the upside-down kingdom of love. They continued to rebel, and in AD 70 they saw their temple defiled and torn down, their city destroyed, and what was left of their people scattered. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth. The destruction of Jerusalem wasn’t a divine punishment. It was just the natural consequence of their actions (violent rebellion against empire). So were many or few saved from Rome? Jesus urged the Jew to strive hard to make sure he was saved – to fully follow Kingdom values. But because the way of peace was not chosen, the early Christian Jews were scattered and were able to bring the message of Christ and his kingdom to all the earth. So in the end many were saved and all the nations became part of the kingdom.

So instead of dwelling on who is in or who is our, instead of creating labels of exclusive or inclusive, why don’t we try to follow Jesus’ admonition to make every effort to enter in by the narrow door. To strive to live out kingdom values and to follow in the way of Christ?

Women in the Emerging Church

Posted on August 12, 2007July 9, 2025

To clarify my post below and to address (some of) Brother Maynard’s good questions (since this is way too long to post in the comments). Yes, the last post was a rant and therefore did make use of hyperbole. I know that there are men in the EC who do support women (and there are some who don’t). But nevertheless there is still an ongoing perception by women that the Emerging Church doesn’t support women. I’ve somehow stumbled into a strange position where I think I hear more about that than many people (which of course influences my perception). Because of my involvement with Emerging Women a lot of people seem to think I’m an authority on women in the emerging church. So I get emails, questions about women in the EC, confused inquiries about what is going on, and complaints, lots of complaints. Responding to the women who contact me is weird because I am not the authority (not that one exists) and the EC is such a fluid thing that one can never give a definitive answer for why things are the way they are. That being said, I do try to respond, but often in responding I feel torn. Half the time I do my best to defend the EC and explain that anyone who wants to step up to lead is more than welcome to and all that. But the rest of the time I find myself sympathizing with the frustration and confusion these women are expressing.

So what am I hearing and who am I hearing it from? First I should say that I have had good conversations with women in leadership within Emergent (all from mainline backgrounds) who don’t think there are any problems at all. I respect their experiences, but also hear too much from women who do think otherwise. From other mainliners who have already been through the fight to gain respect as women in the church and who have pushed for inclusivity in the church, I hear a good deal of shock at how patriarchal the EC is. They only see male figureheads, male authors, male bloggers, male speakers, and worse yet only hear male language used in reference to believers and to God. To them that is really offensive and implies that women are not wanted or valued. They have been through the struggle before and as much good that they see in the EC, they aren’t sure if its worth it to join in with a group that is so far behind in regards to women. Why go where they are “obviously” not wanted? Then there are the evangelicals. Many of those women are just beginning to believe that they can have a voice in the church and are still being met with much opposition in their churches and families. They want to find a place to belong in the EC because it has helped them so much, but are often afraid to join what looks like the typical boys club they are used to experiencing or are unsure if they are even welcome in that world. They want to know before they sign on that they will be accepted for who they are (and not condemned because they are female) and that the invitation to join is for them as well. So while the official message may be that yes of course women are respected and welcomed, if they do not hear that message or see it displayed (actually lived out) then they do not feel like they are wanted. This of course does not apply to all women interested in the EC, but is a theme I’ve heard too often to ignore.

So why isn’t the message of welcome and inclusion being heard (if it does exist)? The most common answer still is because most of the authors and speakers are male – they are the voice that gets heard no matter who else is out there. Even at the recent Midwest Emergent Gathering where we attempted to be very deliberate about giving women a voice, the upfront presence was still predominantly male. And we got flack for it, big time. It’s not that there is anything wrong with the male leaders, they are great guys who have taught us wonderful things and have helped us along on our faith journey. I personally greatly appreciate the work they have done and the contributions they have made. But as popular as they are and for as many people who are desperate to be mentored (in even the smallest ways) by them, we women don’t have a place. We don’t fit in with the boys clubs and the male bonding experiences (which is what even many public events seem to be). There are no female “heroes” that self-identify as emerging that we can look up to and be mentored by. The names that women in the EC look to in respect like Anne Lamott, Phyllis Tickle, Sue Monk Kidd, and Diane Butler Bass do not (to the best of my knowledge) label themselves emerging. So if there is no one to mentor us in the EC (or even to guide and open the doors), then women begin to wonder why they should even want to be a part of it at all.

Then there are the negative messages that (often unintentionally) get sent. And yes like it or not, there are a number of people who still think Mark Driscoll is part of the EC. They hear his sexist comments and assume that the entire EC agrees with him. But less radically there are constant messages that tell women you are not wanted here (even when they do not intend to do so). When the two most popular blogs on the Emerging Church (Jesus Creed and TallSkinnyKiwi) have ongoing debates on not only whether or not women are permitted in ministry but which also imply that the jury is still out on whether women are inferior to men or if we are even made in God’s image, the message gets sent (loudly) that we are not respected, valued or welcome in the EC. When, like at last year’s Gathering (and I’ve heard of similar occurrences elsewhere), women plan a workshop and then a big name male plans the exact same workshop at the exact same time (which then everyone goes to), the message is sent – your voice is unwanted and worthless. When at the Off The Map Conference last year the panel of women leaders were set in front of the crowd so that they could publicly ask questions of the male experts the message is sent – you women are inferior to us men (and granted the conference planers there admitted what a disaster that session was). And when at just about every single emerging event, it is extremely rare to hear gender inclusive language, women who have become used to being included in the broader culture are left feeling very alienated. And I don’t think anyone intends to send the message to women that they aren’t welcome, but that is what is perceived at any rate.

And what helps complicate the negative (albeit unintentional) messages is the silence by the men, the “yes,but…” excuses, the vague talk about Biblical gender roles, and the lack of positive action. When certain prominent leaders take a stand against women, it takes other popular leaders speaking out against hate language for that message to be overpowered. Then, saying “yes, but…” to women is like sending the message that we aren’t worth your time or energy. You want to help us, but it’s too complicated and might take too much work. Instead of dwelling on all the problems that might possibly arise and using that as an excuse to inaction, could you please just give us your unequivocal support for once? And when you mention “gender roles” most women mentally download some version of the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen scenario that has been drilled into us for years. Define what you really mean. And by the way most women do not want to be told what they should be like by a man. We want to be accepted for who we are no matter how closely we fit some system of culturally defined roles. Using language like that is patronizing and demeaning.

So what would actively working to improve things look like? A few biggies that might help – Make sure that women are asked to speak at your events. Get women publishing contracts. Work jointly with women on the big writing projects and event planning teams. Get used to using gender inclusive language. And don’t always refer to God as male (not that you have to go so far as using the feminine names for God, just that you don’t always default to the masculine). Add women to your blogroll. Discuss the ideas women are talking about on your blogs, in your sermons, and in your books. Stick your neck out and publicly stand up against sexism and demeaning language. Publicly admit that you respect women and support them in ministry for that matter. It isn’t “affirmative action” or “lowering your standards” as I have heard it described. And some of it might sound silly if you do it already (but it obviously hasn’t been heard). But it does involve being deliberate about being inclusive. And I know that there are a lot of guys out there who are doing this already. But when there is still an overwhelming perception on the part of women that they are not welcome more obviously needs to be done.

And I will say again, I am not the “authority” to address this issue. I’m just reflecting on my experiences and my somewhat unique position of hearing from a wide spectrum of women involved in the EC. Not all women feel this way or think there is a problem. I know that. But it is for the many that do, that I made the plea to the men of the EC to loudly and without reservation demonstrate their support for women in the Emerging Church.

To the Men of the Emerging Church

Posted on August 10, 2007July 9, 2025

So after reading Dave Fitch’s article on why he isn’t an egalitarian over at the Church and Postmodern Culture blog (and then Makeesha’s great response), I am just left wondering what the deal is really with men in the Emerging Church. So you get these high profile men writing stuff that equality isn’t biblical (but that they still support women in ministry) and that women should be allowed to live out their God given roles. One one level that might sound good, but it’s just the same old oppression in a different packaging. Others tell me point blank that they won’t waste energy working to help women in ministry because our ministry structures aren’t biblical to begin with. So why waste time working to get women involved in a system that they are working to change? But the obvious problem is that the system is not changing, the boys keep it going as is, and the women remain on the sidelines. Others give an ample space for the fight over whether women are fully human on their blogs, but never really stick their necks out and actually support women. And then when certain leaders degrade and objectify women as mere sex objects, the men of the church remain silent or pat him on the back. WTF? This is the response we get from men in the Emerging Church.

What are you guys afraid of? Controversy? Having to share power? Having to talk to women? I just don’t get it. When they say they “support” women, but don’t actually ever do anything to about I have to question if they really do respect women. Are we just a nuisance that they can placate with kind sounding words? If they give enough platitudes and asides (I really do support women in ministry, really) will we shut up and pretend that everything is okay? I know a number of women who have given up on the emerging church as a joke because of the way women continue to be treated.

Hey boys guess what. We don’t want to be treated like a piece of meat or piece of art. We don’t want to treated like second class citizens and be endlessly tokenized or debated. We want to be a part of the conversation and respected for who we are. We can have our own conversations, but it would be really nice of you to make just the slightest effort to treat us as human beings and let the world know about it.

So what I would like to see is one, just one, male leader in the Emerging Church come out in complete support of women. No debating our worth. No stereotyping us into assumed roles. But complete and open support with a commitment to action to do whatever you can to help the women’s voices be heard. That isn’t too much to ask is it?

Poison Me Elmo

Posted on August 9, 2007July 9, 2025

If you are at all aware of the news or have children and have received emails from 50 different friends about it, you have heard about the recent recall by Fisher-Price and Mattel of over 1 million toys due to excessive lead content. Then today the Chicago Tribune reported on some toys that are just now being recalled even though the company has known for over 5 years that the lead content in them was 40 times the safe limit. I looked at the Fisher-Price list, given that most of the toys on there are Sesame Street and Dora toys, we own a number of the ones on it. But since we got them all before May 1, 2007, they are apparently perfectly safe. Sure, whatever.

One of the most common responses to my recent justice bra story was that it was absurd for me to care about chemicals used to make my clothing. The comments ranged from stating gross misconceptions like if we don’t use fertilizers and pesticides people will starve to the old adage that everything causes cancer so why bother caring. The everyday exposure to dangerous chemicals has become so accepted that people no longer care. We expect it to be plastered all over the news if really dangerous stuff (lead in our child’s Elmo karaoke machine) gets out. Then there will be an outcry, a full recall, and we can all be safe. No need to worry, no need to care. But as the book Fast Food Nation pointed out, just because there are no reports of danger does not mean the danger doesn’t exist just that they aren’t bothering to test for it. Which is what gives me so much confidence that our copious Elmo and Dora toys are “perfectly safe.”

But how does one proceed? I don’t think that I’m going to throw away Emma’s favorite toys. And I know that there are tons of other unhealthy items in my home – toys and otherwise. But I am also not a fan of the type attitude that states, “well everything causes cancer (or whatever), so why waste your time caring?” If “everything” is harmful why in the world would I just want to expose myself (or my child) to as much of it as possible? Wouldn’t it be smarter to avoid what can be avoided and advocate to reduce the use of poisons in other areas? There are alternatives and contrary to popular belief those alternatives aren’t that hard to find (or that much more expensive). So perhaps getting rid of everything one already owns isn’t the best response, but changing one’s habits from this point forward is. It just takes being willing to stop exposing oneself to poison. But as I am discovering, that isn’t something that most people are willing to do. It’s too much work or something like that.