emerging women leaders

by holly rankin zaher

From time to time, I receive emails that ask questions such as the following:

"What does emergent think of women in leadership positions?"

"What is emergent's position on the role of women?" and even,

"What does emergent think about women?"

I must admit, I'm usually baffled when I see the last one.  I know the intent is to ask, "What does emergent think about the role of women in ministry."  But I'd rather answer the obvious, "Well, I'm pretty sure emergent thinks lots about women.  Many involved are women and, well, many are men who are married to women.  I'm pretty sure almost everyone involved knows at least a few women.  I assume that means that they think about women alot."

But the fact of the matter is that for many people, the role of women in leadership in the church is a huge issue.  I received yet another email today detailing a painful story of a women who was working in the church and hit the glass ceiling.  This is reality.  This is still an issue.

Just what does emergent think of women?  I want to answer that they don't, meaning that the hope of emergent is that this would become a non-issue so that we can continue to push into the dreams of the kingdom. 

I also want to answer that they do: this is still an issue.  Because of that, emergent is also committed to creating space for women to be included into this conversation. 

We need women in this conversation.  In our current context, where there is lots of talk about those who have been previously excluded from the conversation (whether it be women or many other neglected groups) being included, it is imperative that women are part of this conversation.

Because of this hope, several of us started the emerging women leaders initiative.  It has been a gift to be involved with this creative, diverse group of women as we've gathered our hopes about what the church might look like if women were truly included.  We've received seed money, grants, and gifts that have assisted the first couple of phases of this initiative to soar: we've hosted two breakfasts and a lunch at the last three emergent conventions, a consultation for thirty women leaders last June to explore new forms of leadership, and, most recently, a critical concerns course called New Forms of Leadership for New Forms of Church at the most recent emergent convention.  There is more in the works: a publication and another offering of the critical concerns course at the emergent convention in Nashville. 

My personal dream is that this will become more and more of a non-issue in the emergent context, that we will find many men and women who are about ushering in and being a part of kingdom.

Please continue to check in with the emerging women leaders initiative to see what's going on!  And maybe together we can dream new dreams...

holly rankin zaher

Comments

[Danny]

Wow, you could have saved yourself a few minutes of typing by saying: I won't give an answer.

Of course women should be a part of the kingdom. That's not the issue. The issue is feminine church leadership. A lot of us still want to be true to the text, you know?

Denny

[tony]

"True to the text"? That's a phrase rife with an agenda. The leadership of women in the church is something that Emergent promotes unequivocally. If that means you want nothing to do with Emergent, so be it.

If, however, you disagree with us on this issue, but you still want to be involved with Emergent, then there is more than enough room for you.

But it's not going to be an issue that Emergent will be baited into debating.

[Danny]

Hey Tony.

No agenda here. But remember that we are still in the process of emerging. And it's a question a lot of us have, you know what I mean? I wouldn't say that I either agree or disagree, because I don't know where most of you guys (and gals) stand concerning the issue.

My question was relating to the article: If I were to say that I reject women leadership or whatever - does that automatically mean that I would exclude her from 'the kingdom'? Of course not. That's my point.

Enjoying emergent-us from Germany,
Danny

[holly rankin zaher]

Thanks, Danny, for pointing out that I wasn't exactly clear. Honestly, that was intentional - for those of us who have decided to call ourselves part of emergent, the issue of women in leadership is a non-issue. Leadership and influence (and whatever other words which everyone thinks they know what they mean but in reality have a variety of definitions) belong to all people - male and female. I feel no inclination for debates or conversations about whether or not women can lead (from a pragmatic or a theological standpoint) - that is not my battle- but rather I want to be a part of creating space for women and men to lead/pursue being part of the kingdom of god/influencing the kingdom/dream the dreams of god and their place in this world (however you and yours might define "leadership").

Yup, you read me right. :)

the holly

[Whitewave]

lol

Thanks for bein' a stand-up guy tony. That's pretty cool. XO But be careful of using numbers as leverage. That's a power move that we need to outgrow. I have the same tendency. I consider myself a demographic quite often, and sometimes use it to make room for myself amongst the beautiful people. I have to really watch it.

AND

Thanks for insisting that Emergent maintain integrity towards the text, Danny. That's a major thing that's gonna keep us from gettin' all squirrelly down the road.

Why does no one else mention the book, "Slaves, Women and Homosexuals" by Webb? The first 2/5 of the book lay out his idea, and the last 3/5 prove it for all the modern, text-worshippin' (not sayin' you're a text-worshipper, Danny) folk who won't step off the firm foundation because they don't know how to walk on water yet. Very helpful book! Very! Read it, plz.

Holly,
Did the idea of making hierarchy structures flatter and thereby dissolving the issue of women in "authority" ever come up? If so, how far was that taken and what were some of the ideas? Is there a place where they've been posted?

[kyrie66]

I'm curious about this entity called "Emergent". Who is he/she? People are writing things like, "what does "Emergent" believe about women in the church?" Is "Emergent" like the new Protestant pope of really hip, young Christians? Does "Emergent" issue edicts? This whole "emergent" thing is hilarious. Supposedly smart, jaded 18-35's are rejecting the formulaic Disney mega-church model for something really genuine and authentic in worship like channeling the spirit of St. Francis while drinking 40 of OE and skateboarding off the roof of the local pub. Gee, now there's a real example of following in the bloody footsteps of Christ. Take Connection Church in Maryland, for example (www.connectionchurch.com) They are such a cool, "Emergent" church that they feature a menage a trois on their homepage website. No kidding. One sexy woman and two men, snuggled up on a couch. That's their church's homepage photo. Cool Christianity, sex, great coffee, 20-somethings in sleek black turtlenecks and spikey hair. Sheesh, this thing is as contrived and artificial as anything Rick Warren ever came up with. Just a different sideshow, all of it ultimately stupid and meaningless. Jesus is now a revolutionary, an AIDS activist, an environmentalist. Yawn. The mainline churches have been doing this for 50 years or more. Now the evangelicals have caught on and they think they're being original. I like this quote: "Evangelicalism now resembles the breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia over the skies of Texas. Nothing but wreckage from one end of the horizon to the other, with each flaming piece trying to outdo the other in brightness before disappearing forever..." That about says it all.

[Mark]

First of all, that last comment by kyrie66 was a bit sarcastic but brilliant all the same. Thanks for a refreshing perpective. It helps all of us "emergents" not take ourselves so seriously.

And to Holly, I wonder what creating an emergent women's leadership thingy does to the pursuit of making it a non-issue. It sounds like a good idea at first, but I wonder what clustering groups of women together apart from the rest of the "Body" does to the process of having women seen as an intrical part to the Body's leadership.

Isn't a leader simply someone who is leading others towards Christ? And aren't all followers of Christ called to do that regardless of gender? So why separate yourselves into an "initiative" when your goal is trying to be included?

[Whitewave]

kyrie66 should so write for Rolling Stone.

De-escalating conflict is tricky business. I agree that pointing at something is not a good way to get people to stop talking about it. But the reverse isn't very effective either. So we've gotta start somehwere, but have the finish line in full view on our way.

[susie albert miller]

While it would be awesome for gender not to be an issue in leadership, i think there will always be an issue or at least a discussion about gender itself and how that impacts or influences leadership, and rightly so, given that there is such a difference between male and female at a core level. The ideal would be to come together and recognize those differences, honor them and give voice to them, rather than avoid or deny them, be threatened by them and refuse to engage in what Buber so eloquently phrased, an "I/Thou" relationship which engages the other with reverence and respect, with an openness to learning and being impacted by the other...
while my teenagers have been raised in world that does not question the validity of women in leadership positions, there are still many 'traditional' voices, especially in the church, that extend the discussion into the present and thus we must engage and respond, especially to the women caught in the middle between the old hierarchy and the growing push for flattened structures. imagine...

[Dick]

thank you, Kyrie66. You are right on the money. As someone who is definitely not part of the monolith known as "the Emergent", I can tell you that from the ouside it all looks so sophomoric. Also, the question of the roles of men and women depends on Scripture. There can be differences of opinion among us all but the differences must be based on different conclusions about God's word, not on whether someone thinks it is a "non-issue" based on who knows what (the culture, personal preference, political correctness, etc).

[susie]

jesus made many things in the law and the prophets a non issue, as did paul. he also confounded the religious folks with making the culture, personal preferences and politics relevant at times..he refused to be boxed in by legalistic readings and interpretations of the scriptures that denied the dignity and value of any man or woman, jew or greek, samaritan, pharisee or zealot...and we who are seeking to live and walk in in the way of Jesus be any different?

[StorminNormin]

great post. I am new to emergent, or should i say, "emergent" is new to me." That is, i am not a practiving emerger, but i've just learned of this church and now i am in the process of investigating it. There is a conversation developing on my blog about what exactly emergent is. i figure you wise emergers may want to head on over there and confirm comments or reject heresies. My blog is:
http://blogsdosuck.blogspot.com/

great post
thanks again
you pal,
-norm

http://blogsdosuck.blogspot.com/

[poodlegirl]

Just wanted to jump in on the thoughts of women in leadership. I won't get into much detail of my own bias's/disjust with the modern church. Also I am not convinced that the Emergent is the only way, but as soon as I found this site I was drawn to see what was being said about "women in leadership". As a ( in the process of )healing woman, who left years of evangelical "moderness" while constantly being reminded of my gender, I have a strong leadership personality and very interested in helping people on their faith journies. I would have assumed, quite frankly, that this post modern thinkers site would not even discuss this topic only because it ( simply via discussion) places a statement of inequality out there. It would be the equivalent of saying " we will decide whether to discuss whether or not aboriginals can be emergent leaders!" that would be appalling to most people. But because of the very nature of the abuse of women within the church, this kind of discussion is only allowed within christian and other religious circles. I am wondering if any of those who still think it is a debatable topic have asked what other genre of life allows the discussion around gender? army's, jobs, education, public places, politics, none of those places do. If you want to be " post modern" on your thoughts you absolutely need to ask first and foremost, about how your process of thoughts may affect anothers sense of self and developement. I tell you as a women who has seen more then I need to of well meaning yet sexist people both men and women,hurt others deeply through their "discussions", this is not a conversation to pursue. Be people of compassion, acceptance and love, leave the gender discrimination to the old church goers, there is plenty of that out there already! And if you are still wondering how that coincides with "sticking to the original text" there are some fabulous books out there that 'debunk' the theology in a modern evangelical way, that a post modernist should be very aware of.

Just my thoughts of the day!
Great site by the way!

[tooaugust]

Ahh yes, here we go again with the brilliance of ec. To say that you are making something, that a part of the Church has deemed important, unimportant or a "non-issue" is to already have decided one way or the other on the issue. If women are being included into leading the "conversation," then you have already assumed that they can lead. Don't pretend that your not going to answer and just "do." One does what one believes is OK to do. So it will never be a non-issue because one always has to conclude one way or another in order to "do" what they do. For instance, I can say that I don't allow an abusive person to watch my kids, but someone might say, "Well, that is a non-issue for me"---meaning that he or she would allow them (or one who was not--it would be a non-issue, so either way). The question is simply this, "Do you accept women as leaders in ec or do you not?" You'll answer it by what you do, thus proving what you believe.

Susie, don't play the "Jesus did this" trump card when in fact all you're doing is importing your ideas of Jesus on Him. He really did none of those things you said He did.

Poodlegirl,
So if God Himself wanted to limit certain things like leadership to one of the roles and not the other, would you be accepting of that? or is that contrary to your view of God? It sounds like you have not really considered what the other side is saying since your arguments are largely strawmen and ad hominem. I'm not sure if one in your emotional state (one who has been burned, or at least felt that you were) can really come to the truth on any issue when to do so would offend them.

Great assessment of the ec by Kyrie66. Hopefully ec people grow up one day and realize that they are destroying the Church with their self-refuting nonsense.

[Jimma]

People in the U.S. have an unhealthy preoccupation with leadership and a legacy of avoiding followership, to the point that few of us have ever allowed ourselves to be under the authority of anyone, anywhere.

This well-founded suspicion of human leadership colors our reading of the text's command to "obey your leaders and submit to their authority." So men work the system to make sure they don't have any human leaders to submit to, leaving them free to either...
1. ...express outrage/astonishment that women won't toe the traditional line, or
2. ...gladly welcome women into "leadership" that carries no real authority.

The thing I can't get away from, though (picking up on the argument over what Jesus did or didn't do), is that our Lord clearly DID obey his leader and submit to his authority.

As a man, I find it a most difficult struggle to learn how to follow AND to lead. And while spiritual leadership is indeed a "noble task," part of me wonders why women wish to add the second burden to the first.

[Dan-D from Canada]

tooaugust-

I've seen your posts here for some time. I know that you believe you are correcting erring members of the church body, treating them as "false prophets" or something in that vein.

However, I am concerned because increasingly your posts are becoming more and more venom-filled. Using phrases like, "Hopefully ec people grow up one day and realize that they are destroying the Church with their self-refuting nonsense" is very provacative.

Another problem is that the internet is largely an anonymous forum. This means that you don't have the benefit of relationship as there was in the NT church examples where they were very harsh with erring members of the body - I've posted before that I would wholeheartedly chastize a member of my care group who was cheating on his spouse, for example, because going easy on them would be lacking in genuine love for the sake of "being nice." And I sense that this is what you are doing here. BUt when you are unwilling to even use your name in your posts, it adds yet another barrier ebtween us - which is why many of these people here react so poorly towards your posts.

My point is this: if you want to be in a position to rebuke these people, I recommend you foster relationships with them. My email is [email protected]. If you want to discuss/debate things emergent and otherwise, give me a shout. While I don't ascribe to all beliefs held by every "member" of emergent, I have found a great deal of hope and renewed faith in some of the ideas of Mclaren and others. I am always open to discussion - let's chat! And perhaps taking it a little easy on the relative strangers here would be a good idea until you know them better. Just a thought. Drop me a line, and that goes for anyone else interested!

[Headless-in-GR]

Wow - Jimma are you serious? If we are striving to be "fully human" in the love of God, then why wouldn't women - and everyone - be upset when the very Body of Christ attempts to prevent this? If leadership is also an aspect of womanhood, then by God, let women lead! We're not "adding" anything - we're trying to live.

[Headless-in-GR]

Oops - I didn't mean to sound so harsh - so my apologies Jimma. I actually agree with you about our rather sick fascination with leadership. To me, the issue of women in leadership has less to do with an actual position on leadership and more to do with who God is and the state of being of women.

The claim against women in leadership suggests either that women are not made to lead - do not have the ability to lead - in a church or a family, or that they do have the ability, but for some reason God, who endowed them with the ability, also permanently denies the exercise of the ability.

It becomes an issue as to who God - hear women asking "why did you do this to me, God?" when told not to live out who they are.

Or, it becomes an issue of the state of being of woman - as in, when it comes to leadership, women are NOT equal. Fundamentally, at the core of womanhood there is a lack of ability to lead and thus naturally following, every woman who thinks she could lead (or in fact is leading) is deluded and sinful.

Which, incidentally, makes it a VERY important question, since half of the world's population are women, the other half are born of women, and the whole lot of us think about God.

It is a question worthy of either an answer...or at the very least, wrestling.