Seven questions for men and women on platforms
It's been very interesting to collaborate with Steve Holmes on the question of men and women as conference speakers. Steve posted about Project 3:28 on his blog, to which I offered some comment, and Steve offered a response to my observations which I reposted here. I offer here some reflections and questions which come up out of this discussion.
My outset question is: where do nosotros find our unity every bit Christian sisters and brothers? Steve opens his response with some warm comments which I appreciated:
Before I get-go, I should say that I respect Ian profoundly, that nosotros agree on most subjects … and have made common cause together before now… Ian has been a committed and effective campaigner for female person leadership in the church, and has done much expert equally such, for which I honour him. If we disagree, it isen famille.
Only the comment provoked me to inquire whether we shouldn't be able to say that to any Christian, even if we profoundly disagree on a particular field of study. I am aware that the question of unity and separation is complex, and will be tested particularly on the upcoming debates on sexuality in the C of E. Even so in the fragmenting world of social media, information technology seems to me nosotros are in serious danger of returning to the world of the Corinthian church: 'I follow Brian'; 'I follow Rob'; 'I follow Steve.' Was my previous post, even so impuissant, so bad to warrant the term 'Icky' from one commentator on Facebook? Should we ever exist using such language of sisters and brothers in Christ?
Secondly,can we have seriously the crusade of patriarchy and bigotry whatever our view on women'south ordination? As Kate Kirkpatrick demonstrates, media portrayal of women is systematically prejudiced—something that has no connectedness with considered reflection on men's and women'due south roles. In Facebook word, Stephen Kuhrt explains some of the things that happen in Christ Church, New Malden, which includes recruiting women besides as men to 'techy' roles such as operating the sound desk, once a calendar month having 'men only' serving java, and ensuring women and men lead services together. (You cannot disagree with anything in a church that has a Fun Committee, surely!).
Near of these things accept zilch remotely to do with whether or not women tin exercise a teaching authority in the church—so why aren't we all doing them?
Thirdly, tin we recognise that problems which look like a problem for women are in fact a problem for all?A couple of years ago, one of the plenary sessions at the British New Testament Briefing was given over to a fence on why there are so few women in biblical studies equally a subject field, when theology is a popular choice for women at undergraduate level. I of the issues that emerged was that, in social club to get a PhD in the subject and find a task, you really have to put upwards with a lot of what Paul would call 'skubalon' (Phil 3.eight). Rather foolishly, men put up with information technology; rather sensibly, many women remember there must exist a amend manner to live. In many places where women are under-represented, what really needs to change is a system that damages people, often continued with an unhealthy workaholism. The absence of women points to a deeper angst.
Fourthly,can we make proper space for parenting? In his response to me, Steve argues that speaking and parenting is not a 'zip-sum game', that y'all do not merchandise one off against some other in a binary way. Related to that, he explores the reality of travelling and family life, and suggests that the best leaders are able to do both. My worry with this arroyo is that it reflects a contemporary cultural tendency to turn down human being finitude. There is a potent narrative that 'nosotros can have it all'—only that narrative really penalises those who put a premium on parenting, and privileges those who don't, whatever the context. If I accept an invitation to speak, it means I take to sacrifice something else. Deciding to practise one thing means deciding non to do another. Even though our children are teenagers, I need to plan very advisedly when I am away, because if I am not home, someone else has to be.
In this, I greatly disagree with Steve's comment almost gifting:
The point seems to me straightforwardly transferrable: if God has gifted a adult female to teach, and she is being prevented from full exercise of that ministry by family responsibility, there is a gospel duty on the church to find means to relieve that responsibility and so that she may build upwards the church building through the exercise of her gift.
As someone commented, would we say the aforementioned near men? And what if both parents in a couple were so gifted? It is not just about gift; it is too virtually calling. I might have many gifts, merely I just have ane life, and I demand to mind what God is calling me to practice with it—and ane thing is for sure, it isnotto utilise every 1 of my gifts! I treasured the annotate of Holly on my mail service:
Equally a woman, no matter how gifted I might be, my children and my connection and my input into their daily lives is more than important (not to me, but *for* them) than any representation I might take in any sphere…whether that is local church building or on a briefing level.
This might seem like a moot signal, in that, I'grand *not* famous and I've not been asked. I'm not uneducated, even so, and I'1000 theologically driven. I'thousand clear. I've got a skilful personality. The point is, that had I deemed leadership at any level worth more than than my children, I have the skills and would have pursued it.
At present, I would be very happy to hear both men and women clear this. But any the reason (and Steve and I are probably going to agree to disagree on the reasons just now), more women than men will feel this at the moment. Tin we requite the space for them to articulate it?
Fifthly,tin can nosotros admit that the nature/nurture argue has not been resolved? Some of the comments I received in response to my previous mail seemed to assume a. that all gender differences were socially constructed, and b. that this was clear to anyone with any sense, too as c. if y'all did not believe this, y'all were an enemy of the gospel! I have previously posted on this, and Alastair Roberts added a lengthy comment on my last post which merits careful reading.
Social constructs don't just fall down from on high, only tend to issue from the crystallization of typical patterns of behaviour in a given environment. Alternatively, they tin can exist seen as the ruts that are driven past such behaviour, which make non-typical behaviour increasingly difficult. Social constructs are often unhealthy and demand to exist changed. All the same, although the behaviour that underlies them tin can frequently be redirected past strategic changes, the behaviour itself will e'er tend to push button in some directions rather than others. In short, social constructs cannot be divorced from or escape underlying biological and other realities.
Sixth, tin we admit that certain aspects of this Christian subculture need reforming? Jon Kuhrt offers a trenchant critique on Facebook:
Ane big consequence underlying this whole event is the obsession in Christian circles with platforms – it is a breeding ground for a deeply un-Christian civilisation of status seeking, hero worship and envy which deeply damages the church. One associated issue is the insecurities that Christian celebrity culture engenders within those seeking to cling onto their status every bit a big acme speaker or meridian writer…So I concur that there should be equality but we should all be far more suspicious of how platform civilisation has warped perceptions of what Christian leadership looks like.
David Shepherd, a regular commentator on this weblog, says something like:
When I call back of large-scale religious celebrations similar Spring Harvest and the Big Mean solar day Out, I am reminded of the banquets of the Jewish calendar and the shameless cocky-marketing of the teachers of Torah.
'"Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of award at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they honey to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to exist chosen 'Rabbi' past others.
"But you are non to exist called 'Rabbi,' for you take i Teacher, and you are all brothers.' (Matthew 23:5–9)
Seventh and terminal: can we be clear virtually this equally a mission event? John Drane commented on Facebook that this is a mission issue, a phrase that gives weight and priority to it—but what exactly does this mean? There is no doubt that unthinking patriarchy within the church has damaged and angered women in the church building and put off many exterior information technology. Simply in what sense is this a mission consequence above all the other issues that the church must engage with? I am in no uncertainty that Scripture conspicuously supports the change made in the C of E to admit women to all orders of ministry—merely there doesn't appear to be whatever evidence that the C of E now has more than credibility or effectiveness in missional terms.
In respond to my question, Stephen Kuhrt stated that Christ Church New Malden is about divided about sixty/forty between female and male person membership. This ways the church building is roughly l% more effective at reaching women. Many Anglican churches are divided 2/3 to 1/3—pregnant that they are already twice equally attractive to women every bit to men.
If nosotros are going to pick ane issue which should be central to mission above all others, information technology is probably our very modest appeal to working men. This is somewhat ironic given the make-upwardly of Jesus' first disciples.
I work freelance. If you accept valued this post, would you considerdonating £1.20 a month to support the product of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my folio on Facebook.
Much of my piece of work is done on a freelance basis. If you have valued this postal service, you lot can make a unmarried or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Adept comments that appoint with the content of the postal service, and share in respectful contend, can add together real value. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view fence equally a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/gender-2/seven-questions-for-men-and-women-on-platforms/
0 Response to "Seven questions for men and women on platforms"
Post a Comment