12 Angry Men and One Confused Professor

Okay, I'm not really into feminism.  I don't get the gender thing - not used to it being an issue but lately I'm getting pissed off.

I'm in class when we talk about how to measure the spirituality of a congregation using this as the too:

"People have frequent, meaningful conversations about their spiritual journey"

The prof said he had asked this question of other groups of pastors and they said that this did not describe their church.

So then one of the students mentions that a Barna study noted that many men (I think it was 60%) do not have close friends that they can talk with.

So I'm thinking - churches generally have more women then men, men have difficulties in finding other men to share with, churches seem to have a problem in nurturing spiritual conversations.  In one of those moments of clarity I blurted out - "Then why are churches mostly led by men?".

Silence, tense clearing of throats. The guy next to me says that the comment is "gender politics".  What does that mean?

We are urged to get back on track.  Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that my questions was unrelated to the question.  There are 12 men in the room and the 13th is the prof.  This course is open to anyone.  No women were available or felt the need to attend.  I was expecting someone to explain to me their motivation for ministry - no one said "I was called because I saw a gap in helping men express their spirituality"  or "the way church currently addresses spirituality is too _____".

The prof also kept forgetting I was in the room.  To his credit I did miss part of the lecture as I was only dropping in.  But to keep using the term "men....and ladies" or my favourite "guys...and Victoria" was annoying.  Whether I am in the room or not use the general form.

So I realized that I hit a nerve and vowed to myself to be more careful with these shrinking violets  (really I'm not bitter :)

The next day we had a discussion about how to take the Kingdom of God story down to an elevator conversation so that if we were on business we could give a quick explanation to those that ask.  I asked why we wouldn't just listen and ask questions of the person seeking the need of the person and tie their story to God's story - I don't use memorized "elevator" speeches.  As the conversation progressed we were trying to find the magic bullet.  I said that I wonder if this is a male thing - I really don't feel pressured when I am asked about Jesus, salvation or anything to come up with a tidy quick answer.  I explained that I understand that women complain when their husbands give them an answer rather than engage them in conversation.  I've been accused of doing the "male" think of trying to fix rather than listen so I figure this is safe to say.

Again there was discomfort.

One of the students then said  "What about women who have lots of friends...and it gets them in trouble!".  Then he made an exclamation like he had won a point - that I had lost the arugment.

Now years ago I wouldn't have even understood what that meant.  Women don't often see themselves as corrupted by other women rather the stereotype is that women have it in for other women like cats fighting.  But in the Christian stereotype women get together to gossip and mislead:

1 Tim 5:13  Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also busybodies who talk nonsense, saying things they ought not to.  (NIV)

The class laughs, a few go "ooooh" and someone suggests we get back on track.

I was really angry but what am I going to say?  I've already antagonised this group by asking gender questions which I guess is not allowed.  If I say anything in anger it looks like I'm defensive.  I just shut up for the thankfully short time left and didn't rejoin the group.

In speaking to someone the next day about what to do we agreed that it was probably a missed moment to address this - it was late in the week and I would likely not gain anything by walking into a room of 13 men and telling them I thought the joke was in poor taste.  

What has really pissed me off is that in the room were two people that I have supported one in class in defense of his denomination and the other with support both personal and financial when he was just starting out.  Neither would stick their neck out and yet they say their wives are important to their ministry.

What really surprised me is the person that said it allows women to preach.  I now understand that someone can agree theologically with women in leadership but still have hurtful stereotypes that they think are funny.  The "gossipy, trouble making woman" is still alive in the minds of people - not just men - think of Helen Lovejoy on the Simpsons.  She has her batch of church cronies that she hangs with, she gossips continually and she creates trouble for other characters.  She is a carricature of the gossipy woman just as Ned Flanders is a carricature of the holy man.

I never fought for my right to preach.  I have listened with respect to those who hold a different theological point of view making sure to never put my foot forward where it will offend.  However, if men can't or won't lead other men to a deeper place of relationship then get out of the way and let someone else who gives a darn do it.  As a woman I have read up on the feminization of the church in order to be sensitive to the complaints that men say they do not relate to the sermons - why can't male leaders do the same - it is their call as much as it is mine.