Intellectuelle

You outlined a definite need, one that is coming to the front burner of visibility for many.

Do you have some practical suggestions for healing some of the misunderstandings? It seems that in many areas of life Christians want to help a situation they see is in need of concern and change, but are at a loss how to start.

This is where we start, by talking about it here and encouraging this: "And women's ministry leadership needs to be reshaped to include more personalities, characteristics, gifts and talents so as to identify with our contemporary landscape."

Once the women's ministry leadership begins to reflect (somewhat) what the landscape looks like, then there will be opportunities for real mentoring and authentic relationships....and ultimately a less segmented Christian worldview.

Sarah,

Your post seems to invite us to do two things—one is to see vocation as calling (for women) and the other is to make women’s ministries open to all types of women. Both are important goals.

This may not be entirely on point, but I would add that I think there is a meaningful distinction between lay ministry and career ministry. I think our secular careers are a way to serve God—in both seeing our workplaces as mission fields and performing the work well and in a way that honors God. And I think that, as Christians, we have opportunities to minister to one another, regardless of whether we have an official role or title. But, still, I would say that some people, both men and women, have a specific calling upon their lives to serve God and to make ministry a full-time career. Maybe the distinction is not as firm, maybe it’s more fluid.

As to your second point, I think there are ways to include women from all different backgrounds and experiences. Women’s ministries tend to attract women who fit into the “church lady” mold—which makes me think of tea parties, arts and crafts, and women who are bubbly, smiley, and superficially happy all the time. The problem is that the church has a very narrow idea of what a godly woman is supposed to be like and it perpetuates that stereotype in its women’s ministries. That needs to change.

The churches that have diverse women’s ministries, I think, are the ones that offer substantial and intellectually challenging studies. Often the only thing that I have in common with most women is that I love the word of God—so, while I can’t relate to women in other areas—I’ll always be drawn to the serious study of God’s word.

I think you’re right in noting that we need to see diversity in leadership specifically—that too will draw women with different life experiences. If you have a leadership team of stay-at-home-moms, they’ll attract other stay-at-home-moms (or similar types). And they’ll have difficulty offering ideas that would attract women with other life experiences. But if the team had female stay-at-home moms, doctors, nurses, engineers…, they’ll bring a broader perspective to the group and likely attract a more diverse group of women.

What a great discussion. There's a lot along these lines percolating in my brain (and has been for a long time) that I plan to mention in my talk at the GodBlogCon.

Chong, this absolutely cracked me up:

Women’s ministries tend to attract women who fit into the “church lady” mold—which makes me think of tea parties, arts and crafts, and women who are bubbly, smiley, and superficially happy all the time.

I can't say "amen" enough! Oh my goodness. Reminded me of (among others things) a MOPS (mothers of pre-schoolers) meeting I went to once. MOPS meetings all follow a scheduled, prescribed mold, which includes making a little craft -- honestly, it was like a preschool class, except for adults! I felt so out of place there I couldn't believe it. The program is very well-meaning and, I'm sure, benefits a lot of women, but...

The problem is that the church has a very narrow idea of what a godly woman is supposed to be like and it perpetuates that stereotype in its women’s ministries. That needs to change.

You are so right, at least in my observation of the churches I've been involved in. But I honestly don't know if we'll ever completely change this, because many of the human and societal factors that perpetuate it will likely never change. And perhaps the stereotype does have its place. BUT women like us can try to develop alternatives for other women like us who want and need them.

First, I think we are discussing an idea of "officially recognized" ministry, not all definitions of ministry.

Second, we are not speaking of "stay-at-home moms" at all. That is just the impression from a professional career view, not the reality. The leadership, by very definition of full-time ministry, does not consist of full time stay at home moms. It does, however consist of what is being termed "church lady"types.

I would like to say that I don't think that ministries in the Church attract this type of woman so much as creates her. This is why getting the doctrines right is so very fundamental. I have seen lots of potentially, or actually!, godly women break down under the pressure that this stereotype Christian ( and it isn't just epidemic in the woman's world but among us all) is burdened under.

The fakey smiles rather than the true joy of Christ is a hard row to hoe in the longterm. But that is what we are given to reward... and emulate. In spite of recognizing this, it is still an individual choice of whether to follow the reality of Jesus Christ or this false worldly religious form often presented. Both exist in the reality of our Church lives.

"I would add that I think there is a meaningful distinction between lay ministry and career ministry. I think our secular careers are a way to serve God—in both seeing our workplaces as mission fields and performing the work well and in a way that honors God"

Having said, and recognized that, I would like to say this. The "Church lady" in the sense of creating a hospitable and serene home, of organizing fellowship activities, of manning many ministries that require sacrificial volunteerism and gracious welcome ( in the line of Edith Schaeffer's writings) are a necessary and beneficial part of ministry of the body in hardened and cruel world. It is a band of women who provide "home" in the midst of a broken society. that is something I have come to understand and desire to more emulate in my own life, even though I have always ranted about the tea party mentality promoted in churches.

I think we have to be careful of both our terms and attitudes when discussing this part of the problems we see.

I'm so glad each of you are adding things to this discussion. As a church district women's ministry leader, I am immersed in this topic on a regular basis. And as a thinking Christian woman, my head is spinning constantly because I know that there is more for women than what they are getting and because I find the current model of women's ministry destructive to the discipleship of women.

I should probably state what I see as the current model. There is a book recently written that addresses the different models, but I don't agree entirely with their assessment. I think there is primarily one model and it is this: event driven women's ministry. This model sees fellowship as a primary means to addressing women's primary need (as many in ministry see it) and that is the need for encouragement. (The dreaded E word). I'm not against events, I like doing things with other women, but fellowship as an end and not a means is disastrous.

I'm not sure that I'm speaking of "officially recognized ministry." But I'm not exactly sure what that means in light of the fact that most women's ministry leaders are volunteers and are often stay at home moms. These positions attract those who can squeeze a few hours a week to fulfill the mission of the ministry. I think many of these women are doing all that they can, but they've bought and perpetuate the stereotype because they know no other way. Bonnie, yep, women like us can develop alternatives.

Brilliant comment, Ilona.

Thank you for clarifying and fleshing out the distinction between "fakey-smile ministry" and that of a hospitable spirit. When I said, "Perhaps the stereotype does have its place," I meant to suggest that there are genuine old-fashioned church-lady types who function well in and are perfect for these hospitality roles in the church (and elsewhere).

And there are nice younger women who have little interest in work that involves, say, philosophizing or analyzing or theologizing, due to the way they are wired. They may be the ones to carry on that necessary "homey" ministry you speak of. (Not that the two need be mutually exclusive!)

So in some ways I think it's OK that the church breeds these things, except when there's no other model or example to follow, or other programs and structures in place that allow women (and men) to lead and serve in other ways.

I don't know what it's like in more contemporary churches for women because most of the churches I've ever served in were quite traditional, with womens'-ministry roles (and other roles) that have been in place for, you know, ever. Even churches like mine, which, while very traditional, also allows women leadership positions on par with men's, still function according to a structure of pre-determined positions to fill.

"Theology of work" -- excellent. I'm sure this has been written on already; perhaps we could research and develop it further?

The leadership, by very definition of full-time ministry, does not consist of full time stay at home moms.

Certainly there can be part-time leadership teams where there is recognition that a (nearly) full-time SAHM like me can still devote a portion of her work-time to leadership or other ministry outside of home. I think many, many moms are looking for this.

Theology of Work:

read Dorothy Sayers, Michael Wittmer, Henry R. Van Til. There is a rich legacy of this topic in the reformers.

"I'm not sure that I'm speaking of "officially recognized ministry." But I'm not exactly sure what that means in light of the fact that most women's ministry leaders are volunteers and are often stay at home moms."

Officially recognized: given the imprimatur by the leadership such as pastors and given a place in the church, proper. Unofficial, but still ministry, is the homegrown type where a woman feels called of God and might have anything from a mercy ministry to evangelistic type. There is a lot of under the radar ministry. Not recognized. To be officially recognized means to conform to what the leadership is comfortable with and admire in terms of personality and relating to the group.
===
Ok. I think we've run into denominational differences for one thing. I have come from Charismatic and Pentecostal churches for the past thirty years- there are many positions filled by women ministers, trained -often in Bible schools and paid a wage by the churches. I had also been in the Presbyterian Church previously - but as a youth. The Youth ministry was led by a woman minister. Yes, many women volunteer to lead the ministries geared toward women or what is acceptable for women. I don't know about your experience, but I just don't know a majority of women who are stay-at-homes. It had a brief blip maybe fifteen-twenty years ago, but since then most have entered the workforce.

"Certainly there can be part-time leadership teams where there is recognition that a (nearly) full-time SAHM like me can still devote a portion of her work-time to leadership or other ministry outside of home. I think many, many moms are looking for this."

I have to ask you a question, Bonnie. Do you have this in your church? Many are looking, but few are finding... if you know what I mean.

We all come around to Chong's situation: we aren't really accepted without having the officially acceptable manner. I love what Jesus said to his newly called disciples, He called them by their differing qualities. They were a rock, sons of thunder, and one without guile. They differed in personality, but were uniquely accepted, but the powers that be in todays church are not generous with their honor and acceptance. Give me a strong Chong anyday, I want to see her, and women like her, working together unhindered for the sake of the gospel.
-but I want to see the gentle ones, too, and the sweet ones, and all moving forward together as one body, because we all have gifts and callings and were formed for this unified work.

That is our dream and our vision. We have been hobbled by the narrow views that are not Biblically supported, but personally formed upon preferences.

I am glad for those who are calling for change.-cause I never fit in the status quo;)

To answer your question, Ilona, yes and no. The thing that's lacking, in my view, is women willing to band together and take leadership in establishing something, or enough women willing to band together. I'm guilty of not being able (and sometimes not willing) to do the work necessary for this myself.

Yet I have been able to quietly influence many things at church, myself. I was instrumental (no pun intended :-) ) in establishing a worship planning committee where there was none. This hasn't helped SAHM ministry at my church but it helped one SAHM -- me :-). And it's definitely helped our church.

I also consider this blog, and managing it, a ministry, one that I'm exceedingly grateful for.

I certainly agree with you about "official" recognition, though I think this can change, as Chong suggests, if enough women take leadership for it, initially.

"I also consider this blog, and managing it, a ministry"

Well, it is.
It isn't an official one at this point, and I think one reason I became so - what word? angry-irate- incensed about that well-known Christian blogger who cast aspersions on women bloggers for some vague implication that we were somehow breaching scripture because men might read and then be taught. by women.

That stretch of logic just galled me. And it made many women really second guess themselves, as such things do.

So this form of ministry has a certain flavor of controversy, although I don't think it deserves it, since women have long written on religious subjects.

I just think there is something very backwards about women building something and then men in leadership saying " oh now you are recognized because you made something successful". I don't think that properly reflects how the body of Christ should work. It shows something is wrong with the criteria for discerning what women should and can do, and the role of leadership to encourage and develop.

"It isn't an official one at this point, and I think one reason I became so - what word? angry-irate- incensed about that well-known Christian blogger who cast aspersions on women bloggers for some vague implication that we were somehow breaching scripture because men might read and then be taught. by women."

I missed that one!!!

I referenced this post, What Are You Talking About? by R.C. Sproul Jr. in my post,A Woman's Place

I always get into these conversations late (a certain three-year-old makes sure I don't have a complete thought.)

But cultures and subcultures have always had unwritten rules (act this way, look that way) which dictate . . . and let's face it, most people follow the unwritten rules which afterall, have nothing to do with the inner person.

I'm saying "most people" that's nonChristian and Christian in every culture. (Some cultures are undoubtedly stricter, with more adherants, and maybe the Christian sub-culture is particularly bad about this.)

What I've decided for myself (on the "church lady" or "stay-at-home" steriotype) was that I needed to try to ignore the steriotype alltogether rather than react against it. Yes, I am surrrounded by women at church who seem to try their "darndest" to look and act like their definition of Christian woman should look and act like. And yes, I do feel awkwardly different.

But the day I threw out all of my denimn jumpers, I realized (guiltily) that the steriotype was more insufficent than wrong. I know plenty of women who wear denimn jumpers and one of them is a math teacher, one is a college professor, another sings soprano solos in "The Messiah" and "The Elijah." (These women have intelligence, but no fashion sense.) Some have been, or are now, stay-at-home moms, but all are individually creative and intelligent and even the memory of those I'm no longer in contact with, sustains and encourages me. I perhaps might have missed out on knowing them if I saw only the denimn jumper and not the wonderful person they actually were.

Nevertheless, I find that it's my nature to try to be different and to keep myself on the fringes. I'm something of a bookworm and a non-conformist. I have no idea if this impulse is contrary to God's desire for my life since it does rather separate me from people, who, afterall, we're all called to minister to.

Cheryl- kudos to you, for daring to be different and being brave to cultivate your uniqueness. That takes guts, but it paves a pathway that expresses to others who felt closed off by the stereotype that they have a sister :)

You know, the only note of sadness is that idea of being on the fringes. Spiritually, of course, you are not on the fringes, and as a body we should endeavor to try to make that spiritual reality reflect within the physical. That is our challenge, isn't it? To break down false barriers of appearance and let a koinonia flow.

You also express something so precious: the willingness to see someone for "the wonderful person they actually" are.