So I know this is kinda been and gone already but it is 2 a.m. and I cannot sleep (why my insomnia is timed for the nights my child does sleep is beyond me. Work tomorrow hey-ho), but I've been thinking again about accusations that the Church has become too 'feminised' and that that is the problem with it.
Leaving aside how hugely insulting this discourse generally is to women, men and the mission Jesus gave us I have been thinking about another problem with it. In what follows there is likely to be a lot of assumptions and guess work but I am not putting it forward as fact but as a thought that's perhaps worth investigating. I am also not referencing one church but the collective experience of people I've been talking to from a number of churches as well as my own observations about various churches I've observed through friends and family.
If you took a survey of those churches that believe women can be in positions of leadership I reckon about 70 to 80% of the leadership would be male. However in terms of directional influence I am theorising that this translates into a greater percentage and here's why.
It is the practice of most churches for the catch up coffees, the deep pastoral stuff, the how are you finding church and what would you like doing differently conversations, to happen mostly along single gender lines. So because there are more men on the leadership teams and less men in the congregations generally then every individual man in the congregation gets substantially more leadership ear time than the average woman. All these opinions and thoughts are then processed and brought to leadership team meetings and because there are more male leaders they also get a heavier weight of airing at meetings. So both individually and collectively men's thoughts and feelings hold greater sway.
Women also in general are probably less able to engage in discussion about what they thought about the sermon, give feedback etc. because they miss a greater proportion due to there over-representation on the kids church rota.
And this is in churches where women are officially allowed to lead. The churches in question which are bemoaning the 'feminisation' of their beloved institutions are and have been entirely run by men. It is a very odd thing for a male run organisation to look at itself and proclaim itself feminised. If you don't like where you've got to sort yourselves out but it can't be a product of women if you haven't let them make any decisions. It must be because the church is masculinised?!
Much of the complaint is that Church needs to become more missional, less passive and more proactive. Basically it needs to get on with the job is what these people are trying to say. Thing is when you look around their are lots of people getting on with it, many of them that you are blaming as the rout course of passivity.
I guess the best way to see what a feminised or masculinised organisation looks like is to leave it to be run by one gender and see how it turns out. So as contenders for the men we have a lot to pick from but if we are going to be v. strict and say organisations with no female leadership then that leaves us with um... sections of the church.
So what movement has been entirely led and run by women? Well the women's sector's renowned for its passivity, conflict avoiding, non-adventurous, submissive compliance. No women ever tock punches, went to prison, defied the law, changed the world for this movement did they?
If they want more missional churches then they need, for goodness sake, to give permission for all people to be, to be more fully human and to grow up into Him who is the Head.
If their churches have become 'feminised' then they only have themselves and their male only leadership to blame.
Leaving aside how hugely insulting this discourse generally is to women, men and the mission Jesus gave us I have been thinking about another problem with it. In what follows there is likely to be a lot of assumptions and guess work but I am not putting it forward as fact but as a thought that's perhaps worth investigating. I am also not referencing one church but the collective experience of people I've been talking to from a number of churches as well as my own observations about various churches I've observed through friends and family.
If you took a survey of those churches that believe women can be in positions of leadership I reckon about 70 to 80% of the leadership would be male. However in terms of directional influence I am theorising that this translates into a greater percentage and here's why.
It is the practice of most churches for the catch up coffees, the deep pastoral stuff, the how are you finding church and what would you like doing differently conversations, to happen mostly along single gender lines. So because there are more men on the leadership teams and less men in the congregations generally then every individual man in the congregation gets substantially more leadership ear time than the average woman. All these opinions and thoughts are then processed and brought to leadership team meetings and because there are more male leaders they also get a heavier weight of airing at meetings. So both individually and collectively men's thoughts and feelings hold greater sway.
Women also in general are probably less able to engage in discussion about what they thought about the sermon, give feedback etc. because they miss a greater proportion due to there over-representation on the kids church rota.
And this is in churches where women are officially allowed to lead. The churches in question which are bemoaning the 'feminisation' of their beloved institutions are and have been entirely run by men. It is a very odd thing for a male run organisation to look at itself and proclaim itself feminised. If you don't like where you've got to sort yourselves out but it can't be a product of women if you haven't let them make any decisions. It must be because the church is masculinised?!
Much of the complaint is that Church needs to become more missional, less passive and more proactive. Basically it needs to get on with the job is what these people are trying to say. Thing is when you look around their are lots of people getting on with it, many of them that you are blaming as the rout course of passivity.
I guess the best way to see what a feminised or masculinised organisation looks like is to leave it to be run by one gender and see how it turns out. So as contenders for the men we have a lot to pick from but if we are going to be v. strict and say organisations with no female leadership then that leaves us with um... sections of the church.
So what movement has been entirely led and run by women? Well the women's sector's renowned for its passivity, conflict avoiding, non-adventurous, submissive compliance. No women ever tock punches, went to prison, defied the law, changed the world for this movement did they?
If they want more missional churches then they need, for goodness sake, to give permission for all people to be, to be more fully human and to grow up into Him who is the Head.
If their churches have become 'feminised' then they only have themselves and their male only leadership to blame.
Te he! If you google Feminised Church you get loads about cannabis seeds! And apparently you can get buy muscular church on eBay!
ReplyDelete