Tour de Kabul
Afghanistan is not an easy place to be a woman.
Indeed, though the situation is changing as the nation emerges from the Taliban era, today only 15% of women in Afghanistan are literate and only 37% of the nation’s grade school students are girls. Further, patriarchy is entrenched by laws that dictate that husbands can divorce their wives without her voice being heard and, of course, the cultural practice of women wearing burqas when out in public. To put it mildly:
Male privilege dominates Afghan culture.
Which makes the story of the Afghan women’s national cycling team all the more incredible. Enjoy the the story, excerpted from this article:
Challenging the long- held cultural belief that a woman cycling is offensive, these dedicated young athletes are standing up to social norms and becoming vehicles of change.
“Daily in Afghanistan, girls risk their lives to go to school, women risk their lives to work in government, the police forces, and even the army. Women activists march in the streets to fight for their rights, knowing that they are making themselves targets,” says Shannon Galpin, currently producing a documentary film about the team. “The women cyclists are doing something very simple that we take for granted, but making a huge statement in a country that doesn’t allow their women to ride bikes.”
In Afghanistan, it is very rare to see a woman on a bike other than sitting sidesaddle behind a man. According to Mountain2Mountain, there are currently only about 60 to 70 women cyclists in the entire country. However, the newly created women’s team has around 12 members who are passionate about their sport and about changing the lives of women in their country.
Currently, the women on the team train once a week, due to safety concerns. Riding at the risk of their own lives, members of the team train in the back roads and highways outside Kabul. They ride borrowed, donated, and scrapped-together road and sport bikes. Their gear is mostly donated. Their lone sponsor helps pay for their jerseys. Despite opposition and social taboo, however, these women ride their bicycles as a statement of freedom.
In 1896, Susan B. Anthony, iconic American reformer said: ““The bicycle has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world. It gives a woman a feeling of freedom and self-reliance. The moment she takes her seat she knows she can’t get into harm unless she gets off her bicycle, and away she goes, the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood.”
Thankfully, step by step, this vision is becoming true in today’s Afghanistan.
In an NBC News piece here Shannon Galpin is quoted as saying: “If they are willing to take the risk, then the least we can do is support them.” Indeed. Let’s celebrate their story, and if you’d like to contribute to the cause you can do so here and here.
This Stuff Matters
This week, Tertullian and I are taking our show on the road. Together with a good friend and co-worker, I’m teaching a week long seminar on the topic of “Women in the Bible.” 14 college students will be taking the plunge with us.
So this week we’ll be opening the Scriptures, watching some videos and reading some articles. Along the way we’ll have some intense conversations I’m sure. All with the goal of helping these students think through what the Bible has to say about women in general, and the relationship between men and women in particular.
Last night we started by having a time to articulate our questions. And after listening to their questions, let there be no doubt:
This stuff matters.
Here’s the list of the questions that our students are bringing into the seminar this week:
Is there a hierarchy of gender in God’s eyes?
Why are men represented more than women in the Bible?
What exactly are the roles that each gender has in the church, in ministry and in the home?
Why is there God the Father only, if both men and women are made in God’s image?
How do men and women work together peacefully?
What are some common problems between men and women in ministry?
How do we figure out what is from God and what is influenced by culture?
Why don’t churches discuss this topic?
Simple, huh? Now to seek some answers! If you’re the praying type, we’d appreciate them! And I’ll give an update in the Thursday post.
On Really Mourning with Someone
Note: this is the seventh post in a series exploring how Jesus related with women in his day. Find the introductory post here, and the previous posts here, here, here and here, here and here.
If you spent any time in Sunday School when you were younger, you probably know the answer to this question:
What’s the shortest verse in the Bible?
Got it? Yep. John 11:35. “Jesus wept.” When I was younger, and snottier, I would boast about how I had memorized Scripture, only to trot out this verse when challenged.
The context surrounding John 11:35 is fascinating. Lazarus has died. The text tells us that he had been in the tomb for 4 days by the time Jesus arrives. Previously, Jesus had promised that Lazarus would be alright. In verse 4 he says, ““This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God’s glory so that God’s Son may be glorified through it.” So, by the time we get to verse 17, here’s the issue: Jesus said Lazarus would be fine, but clearly he’s not.
Because of this, Lazarus’ sisters Martha and Mary (remember them?!?) have two problems. First, their brother is dead, and that of course is cause for mourning in and of itself. But, perhaps worse, their convictions about Jesus are on the line. In other words, their grief at their brother’s passing is accentuated or deepened by their feeling that Jesus had not delivered on his promise.
In the midst of this, what is Jesus’ initial response to the women’s grief?
To weep.
He weeps. Sure, later in the passage Jesus will do the miraculous and the women will indeed see a resurrection. He’ll make good on his promise. But, make no mistake about it, Jesus’ first step is to mourn alongside them.
And in doing that, he validates their grief.
I’m not a huge fan of generalizations. You know, statements like “all Californians know how to surf.” It’s because often I feel like the generalization doesn’t apply to me. On the other hand, generalizations can provide helpful ways to talk about bigger issues, and so here’s a gender generalization for you this morning:
In our culture, men are action-oriented problem-solvers.
That is, by nature and/or nurture, men are conditioned to jump in, take action, and solve a problem. In our minds, as men, we’re all Bruce Willis in DieHard.
And, heck, whether or not this is generally true, it’s specifically true for me. Have a question? I’ll answer it or find the answer. Need help? I’m your guy. Struggling? Find me and I’ll make it better. Broken? I’ll fix it. Honestly, I can’t wait to solve your problems!
This “jump in and solve it ” masculine drive gets me a lot of advantage. It reinforces my privilege. After all, the world needs leaders who take action and solve problems.
And right here is where Jesus really challenges me.
Was Jesus an action guy? Yes. But was he also reflective? Yes again. See Mark 1:35-36. And, more to the point, Jesus was willing to first meet Martha and Mary in their grief.
Sometimes people don’t need a problem solved; they need someone to share their mourning.
Friends, my male identity compels me to act, and I get privilege because of it. Surrendering that privilege to Jesus can mean that I sit first and act later.
Because, sometimes, the right response is to just weep.
What about you? How have you seen this generalization be true or not true in the men around you?
On Really Respecting Someone
Note: this is the fifth post in a series exploring how Jesus related with women in his day. Find the introductory post here, and the previous posts here, here and here.
In case you missed it, and I’m not sure how you could have, yesterday was the Super Bowl. Every year the Super Bowl is a lot of things: championship football game, excuse to throw a big party, must-see commercial watching, a great time to shop in normally busy stores, etc.
Unfortunately, the Super Bowl also represents an annual crescendo in our culture’s habitual exploitation of women.
The folks behind the A21 Campaign are dedicated to abolishing sex trafficking and human slavery in the 21st century, and according to their website, the Super Bowl is “the single largest human trafficking incident in the United States.” Indeed, according to this Christian Post article, the 2010 Super Bowl saw an estimated 10,000 sex workers brought into Miami ahead of Super Bowl XLIV.
Sadly, in this the Super Bowl is not alone. I recently saw this report that describes how prostitutes in Brazil are taking English classes ahead of the 2014 soccer World Cup, in order to be able to service the clientele arriving for the tournament.
Clearly, we have a problem when the world’s greatest sporting events are linked with the exploitation of women though prostitution and sex trafficking.
But it’s not just prostitution that makes the Super Bowl so tragic in this regard. It’s also those famous commercials. You know, the ones where the women dress in skimpy frocks to essentially serve as the object of male desire. Yesterday, the people behind the Miss Representation film encouraged twitter users to call out sexism in the media by slapping the twitter hashtag #notbuyingit on on Super Bowl ads that they found to be offensive.
For instance:
Silly me, I thought women could be sexy and smart. Oh wait, they can! @GoDaddy, change all your ads to respect women or I’m #notbuyingit
Really disappointed with your Super Bowl ad, @CarlsJr. Please try to sell your burgers without selling out women and girls. #notbuyingit
Whether it’s through pornography, prostitution or the more subtle influence of advertising, the objectification of women is endemic in our culture, and it’s a key way that male privilege is propagated. Heck, while I’m at it, how these ads depict men isn’t so great either!
In John 8, Jesus faced a situation where a woman was being exploited. And I mean really exploited. The kind of exploitation that involves having her sexual sin publicly exposed in order to serve as a pawn in someone’s personal vendetta. Here’s the story:
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman,where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Don’t you just love how Jesus turns this situation on its head?
The accusers become indicted. The accused becomes pardoned. The objectified becomes free.
It’s beautiful, isn’t it? When we talk about how Jesus treated women in his day, we have to talk about how he respected them, how he resisted allowing them to become objects, and how he defended their honor and removed their shame.
May it be so with us.
What about you? What did you think about the Super Bowl commercials?
Jesus the Gamechanger
Several weeks ago, I was troubled–no, that’s not strong enough–horrified, to read this story on the web. Let me sum it up for you:
Dentist in Iowa, a man, fires his long-time hygienist, a woman. Why? Not because she was bad with tartar. Not because of her gruff manner with patients. Not because she was chronically late. Why?
Because he was attracted to her. Because he found her “irresistible.”
It’s true. He fired her because he was worried that to continue working with her would lead him astray. That’s horrific, right? Well, it gets worse, for two reasons.
First, because following her lawsuit, the State Supreme Court, made up of–you guessed it–7 males, sided with the dentist. Yes, at least in Iowa, it is legal to fire someone because you have romantic feelings for them, because you find them to be “irresistible.”
But here’s the second reason why it gets worse, and honestly this is the one that gives me the biggest headache. Because, before he decided to fire the woman, the dentist visited his pastor for counsel. And the pastor counseled him to fire the woman. Not only that, the pastor was present when the dentist did the firing.
Don’t get me wrong, fleeing temptation can be right. Caring for your marriage is always right.
But not at the expense of another person. And not without a careful examination of what’s happening in your own soul. What ever happened to self control? Or accountability? Or confession? Or confronting your brokenness head on, in the context of a loving Christian community?
Do people still wear those “WWJD?” bands these days? Because I think it’s a good question to ask in this case. More to the point, I want to know, “Would Jesus handle this like that pastor did?”
Friends, I submit to you that the answer is an emphatic no. Why? Because Jesus is unafraid to call someone out on their personal brokenness. Because Jesus has a knack for changing hearts not situations. Because, and this is big, Jesus cares for and defends the powerless, the defenseless and those who’ve been wronged. And, from all that we know, this woman fits that bill.
So, let’s talk about Jesus. For like the next 4-5 posts or so. OK with you?
Because in thinking about what it looks like for men to respond to the reality of male privilege (my framework of “admit, submit and commit”), we must take our cue from Jesus. I’ve already shared some thoughts about how Jesus viewed power. Also, I’ve talked about Jesus as Lord here and here. Now, for the next couple of weeks, I want to make some observations about how Jesus interacted with women in his day.
So, together, let’s meet this Jesus:
Truth teller. Sin confronter. Healer. Protector of the weak. Defender of the “irresistible.”
Game changer.
What about you? What “Jesus and women passages” stand out to you?
More About Our Church Mothers
Have you ever had the experience where everywhere you turn you encounter the same teaching? Like the Sunday sermon will be about a certain passage, then a friend will randomly share it with you the next week, then you see it on a wall hanging in a receptionists office, etc., etc. You know what I mean?
Ever since my post from Monday about the Church Mothers, I’ve had that same experience. So, as a follow-up, let me share two postscripts.
First, several friends sent me the link to this article by former President Jimmy Carter. The article, entitled “Losing My Religion for Equality,” begins with the story of Carter’s decision to sever ties with the Southern Baptist Convention after 60 years of membership, based on the Convention’s decision to declare women as “subservient” to their husbands and unfit for pastoral ministry. That’s where his article starts, and the whole article is brilliant, but check out where his article finishes:
I am also familiar with vivid descriptions in the same Scriptures in which women are revered as pre-eminent leaders. During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.
The truth is that male religious leaders have had – and still have – an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world. This is in clear violation not just of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but also the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions – all of whom have called for proper and equitable treatment of all the children of God. It is time we had the courage to challenge these views.
Next, yesterday I started reading a book by Peruvian missiologist Samuel Escobar entitled The New Global Mission. In the book, Escobar discusses the seismic shift that has seen the locus of Christianity shift from the west to the global south and its implications for the next generation of missionary activity. In chapter 2, as a part of a historical survey of evangelical missions, Escobar laments the lack of voice, respect and dignity given to women throughout the church’s long history. He writes:
“This loss of memory in the way of telling the story is due to what American historian Ruth Tucker calls a ‘male dominated institutionalized church [that] has deeply entrenched concepts of power, authority and office–and women have not fit into the scheme.’ Tucker wrote her book Guardians of the Great Commission precisely because her research into the history of missions showed how deeply involved women were both overseas and on the home front. However, when she studied the standard English works by well-known authors on the history of missions, women were absent, which reflects an incredible loss of memory…”
Tragic, right?
So, believe me. And also believe a devout former president and one of the world’s most respected missiologists:
The Church Mothers were and are legit.
Don’t let male privilege tell you otherwise.
What about you? How do these accounts challenge your perspective?
What About the Church Mothers?!?
Some twenty years ago, in another lifetime, I studied History. And I liked it. So much so that upon graduation from Cal Poly, I set my eyes on grad school. In particular, I loved learning the stories of the past in order to help interpret the present and plan for the future.
And one thing that any historian knows is that those stories of the past come from storytellers. And, almost always, those storytellers are only telling one half of the story. In fact, paraphrasing one of my old professors:
“History is told by the winners, not the losers.”
Sad to say, when it comes to church history it’s the same reality, and the “winners” of course are male.
I have a dear friend who is just starting seminary. Yesterday I got an email from her with a subject line that read “Dissonance in Theological Education.” Here’s a quote that sums up her experience in her seminary class thusfar:
“I feel dissonance…because all of the theologians I know of from the period of Christianity’s development are men…are there any founding ‘mothers’ of the faith? Sorry for this, it’s just that from the first page of my text I don’t feel, as a woman, invited into the historical conversation, especially since the agreed upon name for the first 100 years of Christianity is ‘the Patristic Period.'”
Friends, this stuff matters.
In her book When Women Were Priests, Claremont Graduate School Professor Karen Jo Torjeson argues that the vital role of women in the development of the first church has been purposefully obscured for centuries. Again, the winners were men. Still, sounding a note of hope, she writes:
“The last thirty years of American scholarship have produced an amazing range of evidence for women’s roles as deacons, priests, presbyters, and even bishops in Christian churches from the first through the thirteenth century.”
So this morning let’s set the record straight. Without question God worked through the Fathers of the Church. Thank the Lord for Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Loyola, Gregory and, yes, Tertullian. More recently, let’s thank him for Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Lewis and Tozer.
And yet God also worked through the Church’s Mothers. And so let’s also thank the Lord for early saints like Lydia from Philippi, Junia from Romans 16, Paula who worked with Jerome and Teresa of Avila. More recently, let’s thank God for the lives, teaching and witness of Catherine Booth, Mary Slessor and Frances Willard.
Jesus is in the business of making so-called losers into winners. And so when it comes to sharing the history of the church with the next generations, let’s be like Jesus. Let’s balance the ledger. Let’s remove male privilege from the history books.
What about you? Which “Mothers of the Church” are you thankful for?
Equal Education, Unequal Pay
I’m not sure when this happened, but somewhere along the line infographics became all the rage. You know what I mean? Sort of a blend between statistics and visual storytelling. The other day I found one describing the wage gap in this country, juxtaposed with the situation in education. It’s from the folks at learnstuff.com. I’ve blogged about the gap before, but here’s a visual way to explore the issue:
Word of the Day: Primogeniture!
I don’t understand the American obsession with British royalty. I mean, Princess Kate gets pregnant and we go gaga on this side of the pond. Sending American news anchors to report live from Buckingham Palace on the status of the princess’ morning sickness? Really?
After all, once upon a time didn’t we fight a war to rid ourselves of the British monarchy?!?
But I digress…
It’s not often that we read about male privilege being codified, but that’s been the reality over the centuries in Great Britain and in other countries as well. Denmark? Yep. Japan? Yep. Spain. Sure.
It’s called primogeniture, the right of inheritance according to birth order. Historically, the law of primogeniture has demanded that female heirs are excluded (or bypassed) from inheritance in favor or their younger brothers. Primogeniture has been the law of the Commonwealth in Britain for generations, and women, like Elizabeth, would ascend to the crown only in the absence of a male heir.
Now, finally, it appears that English primogeniture has run its course. As that tiny baby (Or is it twins? News at eleven!) begins to grow, British Parliament is working to officially change the law so that whether it’s a boy or a girl this future heir will one day become king OR queen.
It’s about time.
And yet here’s the thing: lots of people think that boy babies are more important than girl babies.
This is certainly true globally. This heartbreaking article, “It’s a Girl: The Three Deadliest Words in the World,” chronicles the global “gendercide” underway in many countries in the world. Here’s an excerpt:
“The statistics are sickening. The UN reports approximately 200 million girls in the world today are ‘missing’. India and China are said to eliminate more female infants than the number of girls born in the US each year. Lianyungang in China has the worst infant gender ratio on record with 163 boys born for every 100 girls. Taiwan, South Korea and Pakistan are also countries in which unwanted female babies are aborted, killed or abandoned.”
It’s a tragedy, but it’s one thing to see this brand of male privilege in far-flung places. What about closer to home?
Here it’s subtler of course, expressed more in how soon-to-be parents talk about their preference for a boy, or maybe in the slight sigh of relief when the doctor announces their new son. In fact, according to this Gallup poll, if they can only have one child, 40% of Americans say they would want a boy while only 28% would want a girl.
Why do you think this is?
Could it be that because in general our social convention preserves the family/last name though the husband the birth of a male child is seen as a guarantee that a name will perpetuate into the next generation?
Could it be because there’s a word on the street that tells young parents that boys are easier to parent than girls?
Could it be that because of the reality that we live in a society that favors men, we know that our boy children will have it just a bit easier than our girls?
And/or could it just be that as a culture we fundamentally have this internal bias that says that boys intrinsically have more value?
In the Dixon house, our son Josh is our firstborn, and over the years we’ve given him three little sisters. Our girls are perhaps a bit too empowered and I can’t remember the last time Josh got his way.
Come to think of it, maybe Josh should move to England?
What about you? How have you seen some version of primogeniture in our world? In your world?
On The Resignation of Eve
Sometimes, despite that old saying, you really can judge a book by its cover. Such is the case with Jim Henderson’s recent book The Resignation of Eve. The main title is provocative but cryptic. But then check out the subtitle: What if Adam’s Rib is no Longer Willing to be the Church’s Backbone?
OK then. Now we’re talking.
In my last post, I looked at the clerical stranglehold that male privilege has on the church. You and I worship in a church where the vast majority of formal leadership positions are held by men.
But what about the non-titled workers in the church? What of the folks that count the offering? That run the kids ministry? That coordinate the weddings? That greet? That clean? That answer the phones?
You guessed it. Women. In an infographic on women in the church, Evangelical pollster George Barna says, “Women are the backbone of U.S. Christian churches. They are more likely than men to comprise the ranks of churchgoers, volunteers and Sunday school teachers.” Truly, women are the unheralded spine of the American church.
But here’s the problem: according to Henderson, women in the American church are resigning from the church in unprecedented numbers. And he means that in three ways.
First, women are resigning from the church. As in, they are walking away from the church and, in some cases, from God. Faced with the ecclesiastical systemic advantage awarded to men, women are leaving the church.
Second, women are resigning to the church as is. When you become resigned to something, by and large you’ve accepted it but your heart isn’t in it. For Henderson, “this kind of resignation leads a woman to appear to be present when she actually left the building years ago.”
Finally, women are re-signing. Henderson writes, “women who have re-signed either remain active in their own churches even though they disagree with the churches’ stances on women, or they intentionally plug into other churches that provide them with the opportunities they seek.”
However you slice the term “resign,” it’s tragic.
You see, male privilege in the church doesn’t just limit women in the pulpit or the church offices. It also limits them in the nursery, the choir loft and, most notably, in the pews. The bottom line is that if an unchecked male bias continues to drive women from the church in these kinds of numbers, then woe to us as we look to our future.
It doesn’t take a biology degree to know what happens to an organism if it loses its spine.
Here’s Henderson’s verdict:
“This is the resignation of Eve, and it impacts the one group whose loyalty the church can least afford to lose. The people who for the most part run the church, attend church, and pray and serve at significantly higher rates than their male counterparts. Women.”
Lord, help us to rethink the way we do church. In particular, give us the courage to build a church that empowers women, both in the clergy and in the laity.
What about you? How have you seen the resignation of eve in your church?
Challenging Tertullian 