Lisa at splagblog posted links to this site and the Postmodern theology blog and added the following pertinent comment:
‘A lot of online involvement here is male, and I don’t know if that’s because of the techy world being male-dominated or Christ-follower leadership being more heavily male-oriented (???). Maybe a little bit of both so that women’s web presence in this area isn’t very prominent?’
This bothers me. Why is it that these postmodern / emerging church conversations are so male dominated? Ironic, eh! Is it that women simply have better things to do? Is online discussion too geeky? What are women thinkers and theologians saying to the church at the moment? ‘I told you so’? Perhaps men are just playing catch up.
re: Women and emerging church
I thought I would reply on opensourcetheology regarding Andrew’s comment on spagblog. He asked [paraphrased/quoting]: what should be done to encourage female participation in these online discussions? They are reasonably important in defining the nature of ‘emerging church’. Does it matter that so few women’s voices are being heard?
My answer seems to have more questions in it than answers. Yes, I would say that women are obviously important in defining the emerging church. But are women defining it in other ways than in online participation? I admit I haven’t explored your (and other) sites enough to attempt to make a diagnosis. It might be the types of discourse that women feel comfortable participating in—which is a gross generalization that may (unintentionally) exclude female theologians and religious scholars. It might be that in general women are serving the church in different ways. It could also be that women are affected differently by postmodernism and thus respond differently to the emerging church phenomenon.
For me, as a new believer (well, a new practitioner of Christ-following is perhaps more accurate) who is female, I would appreciate reading more about women’s experiences and thoughts on the emerging church, so in that sense I think it does matter that there seems to be a small representation of women.
Regarding the encouragement aspect, I can only speak for myself in saying that it’s a combination of being engaged intellectually with the emerging church and what’s happening culturally in addition to a pre-existent online presence.
What women want
There’s fascinating discussion about women and emerging church on Jonny Baker’s blog. Well worth looking at.
I'm not sure
Somehow somewhere along the way I seem to be heading towards emerging church. This article has challenged me to try and express what I think, but I will need to read and think for a long time before I will contribute anything useful.
I have noticed that alt.worship forum I participate in is at present women dominated. The talk now seems to be practical rather than theological.
I do not know what the cultural thing that is going on. Is it difficulty getting a theological education (mine is very none standard but I will cope), is it relationship things, or is it that women’s culture has always done theology differently (e.g maybe they tend to think of theological issues largely insitu with having culturally to deal with a three things at a time?) Is there an unexplored power thing going on. Women are used to shaping things very firmly behind the scences in Church, are we carrying that over into the emerging Church?
What I do notice is a lack of engagement with ecclesiology by many women. Not all women I can name notable exceptions but that is it, they are exceptions.
No clear ideas yet but will continue to ponder.
Oh one more thing please do not refer to me as a church leader, I need space to think that does not give me.
Jengie
Women and emerging church leadership
Jengie, thanks for your comments - please keep pondering. In response to your plea not to be labelled a ‘church leader’ and the suggestion that women are more accustomed to working behind the scenes: I think it’s probably true to say that emerging church tends to disapprove of traditional autocratic leadership styles, preferring instead models of covert influence – sporadic, shared, diversified, dispersed patterns of leadership – both within the community of believers and as an approach to mission. Of course, this is often more of an ideal than a reality, but it really should mean that there is greater to scope for women to become significant and effective agents in this whole process.
Woman in church - biblically
Lisa’s saying was somehow thoroughly commented from political and secular points of view on church. I however want to add a theological comment. I’m also interested: does anyone except of me here has theological point of view?
For us an interesting issue which I would like to discuss is: whether only married or all women are not allowed to speak in church (as Holy Spirit deprecated in the text of Bible through st. Paul). He (Holy Spirit) has said “Let your wives keep silent in churches and all gatherings of saints”. From that I conclude that unmarried women (as they are not “your wives”) and also wives of unbelievers seems to be allowed to speak in church. (But they are indeed are disallowed to preach: “I disallow a woman to teach”.)
From the practical viewpoint this seems the correct answer as otherwise unmarried or married with unbelievers women would be unable to speak with a church in Christ at all which seems much wrong.
Also Bible explicitly permits women to be evangelists, chiefs (e.g. presidents) etc., but not any kinds of teachers (not only religious teachers as it is commonly thought).
Lisa, you are allowed to teach in a church being on equal with a male man, that is I mean you would succeed in being on equal with me: never marry with a male, never born children, never use cosmetics, never… Oh, Lisa, why God allowed me to speak in a church? Only because I never do what other men do: never smoke, never go to alcogol trade, never speak with them about sex with two women yesterday…
Do you think that when I preach I’m a male? You mistaken very much about me. When I preach in Christ I’m not a male but a vessel of Holy Spirit. God is not mad to allow to preach a male nature! It is a madness in sin.
You are indeed allowed to teach in a church if you will follow all biblical obligations for a preacher. Yes. We have equal rights before God.
I would also not be allowed by God to preach if I’d use cometics, emphasingly spoke about politics and other wordly matters and did likewise things.
With power of the spirit deny that you are a woman, sincerely say this to your friends and to your heart, and you will be allowed to become a teacher! You have a chance. Just equal with me.
Why you say that women are inequal in rights with men as women married with men are not allowed to speak in church? Do you think that men married with men are allowed to speak in church?
[In the last days (as you see modernism/postmodernism) the meaning of the word woman has changed. Now sometimes it is used in the old sense but sometimes instead means “a femenist woman” where the term femenist has also changed its meaning, before it meant “one who wrestles for equality of juridical rights for womans” but now it more often means “a woman which speak about womans endlessly, insert the word ‘woman’ at every appropriate and not apporopriate case as if somebody would pay she money for using this word, praises womans, and curses men for any kinds of their relation to women”.]
So Lisa is a good example for our case…
Speaking “woman” you mean instead […] To bad, you must not speak about women so bad. You have no such right, Lisa!
But, yes, it was a woman, only real woman may have the idea to post her photo into a theological forum… Oh, our number would be doubled if women also would post theological teachings in theological forums :-)
Women in church
I can recommend a good book on the subject.
I didn't understand Porton's comments very well
but it appeared that he was interpreting 1 Cor 14 in such a way that would make Paul OK with single women and wives of non-Christians speaking in church, but not wives of Christian men. That is the most irrational of any position I have heard. It depends on a very forced literalistic reading of the text and I cannot imagine a purpose which such advice might serve.
I do think the passage in question is intimately related to Paul’s general teachings on relationships between husbands and wives. This particular passage on “silence” is simply an outgrowth of Paul’s recommendation that women be submissive to their husbands. In other words, they should not be questioning and criticizing their husband’s prophecies in public. Do it at home. In that sense, perhaps, it is particularly relevant to married women as opposed to single women.
Whether or not this applies in our day and age is a completely separate question. It is my opinion that Paul’s advice on this subject is very culturally bound. There seems to be a great chasm between the way Paul taught about women in leadership, and the way Paul practiced women in leadership. His teachings are very conservative, his practices seem rather progressive.
It seems that Paul was merely recommending that Christians not show disdain for cultural sexual norms for fear it would create an obstacles for people to come to faith. Paul’s goal was the propagation of the gospel, not a sexual revolution.
Paul’s position on Christian freedom was always very liberal, but also very compassion-oriented. If it is detrimental to anyone around you, you must restrain yourself from reveling in Christian freedoms for their sake.
Paul’s teachings on women fall nicely into this category. Although “in Christ there is neither male nor female,” yet in their culture there were acceptable and unacceptable roles for women. Christians should respect the culture they live in and voluntarily submit to those norms so that the gospel message would not be clouded by what the culture deems inappropriate, immoral, or indecent.
In summary, if a non-Christian man walked into a first-century church meeting and saw women engaged in lively debate with men, he would think that “all hell had broken loose” in the place. For that man’s sake, women should be silent in the churches.
Ironically, to apply that principle in our culture would require us to place women in positions of leadership, for it is exactly our patriarchal system that has become the stumbling block to many in America.