Whenever I read about some church- or faith- based organization that is deep in the throes of community service in an effort to be "missional" - feeding the hungry, helping homeless families, or advocating for children - the first thing I do is visit the website of the organization. Now, that in and of itself probably isn't that strange. In today's technologically advanced society, the first thing many people do when hearing about something new is to visit the website of the new thing. It's a great way to get information, find out locations and times, or find contact information.
However, those aren't the reasons I do it.
I do it to look for ONE thing:
Are there any WOMEN on their pastoral staff, leadership board or as deacons or elders?
Because in my somewhat heretical mind, I struggle not to see the group as hypocritical, regardless of what kinds of good they do in society, if there are no women seen in a distinct leadership role. If they marginalize half the population, I see their good works as something less than missional if they can't be that in their own midst.
Now, whatever good they are doing is good. There is no doubt about that in my mind. However, looking deeper at the belief system of the group is something I cannot avoid. How is it that a group can see their goal as being outreach to the marginalized of our society (meaning impoverished, hungry, abused, homeless) if they cannot see that the largest minority population in the world is being treated unequally right there in their own organization.
I don't know if it is only my twisted mind that sees this...but it equates to me the same as a church that spends thousands of dollars sending mission groups to third-world countries, yet ignores the hungry who belong to their group or live in their community. It seems entirely like grandstanding to me. 'Look at us, look how great we are for the good things we do; don't mind the man behind the curtain, he means nothing.'
On another level, but something that is far more difficult to see evidence of by looking at a website, many of these same organizations who are serving meals to the homeless have members of their church whose children are eating nothing but ramen noodles, or who are on the brink of homelessness, or who are abused in their own home. For a church not to be caring for it's own before it cares for the world, well, that's a shame.
Sigh, I don't know. It's just broken.
I don't know if it is only my twisted mind that sees this...but it equates to me the same as a church that spends thousands of dollars sending mission groups to third-world countries, yet ignores the hungry who belong to their group or live in their community. It seems entirely like grandstanding to me. 'Look at us, look how great we are for the good things we do; don't mind the man behind the curtain, he means nothing.'
On another level, but something that is far more difficult to see evidence of by looking at a website, many of these same organizations who are serving meals to the homeless have members of their church whose children are eating nothing but ramen noodles, or who are on the brink of homelessness, or who are abused in their own home. For a church not to be caring for it's own before it cares for the world, well, that's a shame.
Sigh, I don't know. It's just broken.
well, if you are twisted, so am I. We left a church that had planted itself in the heart of the inner city here, had several duplex houses given to them, were renovating them for single moms in the area, in a nutshell, this church was living out the very heart that we were wanting to be a part of. However, their ideas and beliefs about women were so archaic that I couldn't stand silent. Then when I spoke out, it got really awkward. The disrespect that was shown to me and to women was so loud, we just couldn't stay there.
ReplyDeleteI was chastised for saying that by leaving women out of the leadership discussions, they were missing half the heart of Godde. Ugh.
Count me in on the twistedness, too. I will see you that and raise you - if a lot of the web site is dedicated to "personalities," i.e., who the leaders are, lots of pictures of them (in their cool hipster rectangular glasses), with pointers to the books they've written and the seminars they give (and charge for), then regardless of the gender mix of their leadership, I think "grandstanding" and "product to sell" and move on. I happened across one like that just yesterday, and it was with a woman in charge, but by the time you had hit two pages of that site I bet her name had been mentioned five times.
ReplyDeletePer the churches where there may be needy within their own walls, well, sometimes I wonder if that is the fault of the needy themselves. I mean, it would be REAL HARD for me to admit a need for help to our current church, no matter how dire the circumstances. I wouldn't want the ongoing looks of pity (and judgment) from then on for asking for help.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. People cling so tightly to this, and I don't understand why. With all the other evils in the world (like hunger), why can't churches see the idiocy of misogyny? There are bigger fish to fry!
ReplyDeleteJim - RE:your last paragraph...I think it IS the fault of the church for creating an environment where there is shame in the need that exists within their walls, even as they take to the streets to fight hunger (makes you wonder if they pity the homeless they feed, too). Your last sentence speaks volumes.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you about the "personalities", and I do run into that from time to time. In this case, I didn't see that...just three male pastors and 8 male elders and lots of back-patting for their new ministry to the hungry. In the newspaper, no less. Sigh.
For the same reason they can't see the idiocy of homophobia. "It's in the Bible, so we have to follow it." Which makes me wonder why these same people get divorces (Jesus says that's adultery), or for that matter don't stone the adulterers in their midst. That's in the Bible, too...
ReplyDeletePlus, let's face it - some people get a charge out of bossing other people around, and that sort of doctrine gives a built-in population of 50% to boss around - in the church and in the home. Some people (men) don't want PARTNERS, they want SERVANTS. Sucks to be their wives.
It's true...no matter how "bible believing" a church claims to be, they still pick and choose.
ReplyDeleteServants, yes. I'm hoping that is on the way out. It might take generations, though.
Funny thing is, when we were enchurched, my husband never got that whole thing. He couldn't figure out how he was supposed to "cover me" or whatever other nonsense. He didn't like it when I tried to suppress my natural self to be the "godly woman" I was being taught to be.
Our denomination (LCMS - actually, my WIFE'S denomination, I am only in it because she was raised in it) has the "man is the head of the household" doctrine, too. Every once in a while for a joke I will say, "This is me, putting my doctrinal foot down." But I usually have to make sure I am outside of kicking range when I do. :o)
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I want a life partner, not a slave.
Your post prompted me to take another look at the website for the church we are currently attending. I've always known there are women pastors and elders, but I found out that the church was actually started by a group of women. Right now there is only one woman pastor, but when we started going there, there were three. I was actually SO incredibly happy to see women serving communion on our first Sunday there I almost cried! Then, the 2nd time we went, a woman was preaching. That kind of sealed it for me. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's a rare and amazing church to me just because of the role of women.
ReplyDeleteAh, evangelical Christianity. The last domain (in the West) where people accept the absolute power of the Old White Guys.
ReplyDeleteErin, if a ministry/church comes across my path that actually gets my attention for more than a second or two, the FIRST thing i do is look at their website/liturature... that's exactly how you see if they are full of it or not.
ReplyDeleteThe sad part is that there are hundreds (or evcen thousands) of little kingdoms of men out there and many of them don't even know they are building their own kingdom and not God's.
Reminds of me of something Jesus said... there will be those who come to him boasting aobut all the great God projects they sponsored and all the amazing things they did in his name... and he says he will tell them to take a hike - that he doesn't even know them...
Kari - I think that's awesome...now I understand better why you are still in it. There are maybe two places I know of around here that have women in a prominent role (and aren't Unitarian Universalist).
ReplyDeleteKind of crazy, isn't it, Barry? I think the Catholic hierarchy is the biggest problem for me...and almost every institution of Christian religion seems to be modeled after it, in practice if not specifically doctrinally.
ReplyDeleteKatherine, I LOVE what you said about building their own kingdom....so true!
ReplyDeleteI am at a point where if a church, organization or other group marginalizes women, I won't have anything to do with them no matter how "good" they are. This is a big deal to me, because it evidences where a heart really lies...and that is a place where men still say they are the boss. Not OK.
A my feminist friend. OK, not feminist. Equalist? But I agree, it takes the whole church, not just half of it.
ReplyDeleteEqualist is far better for me. Feminist denotes some kind of hope that women will one day be superior. That won't work, either.
ReplyDelete