Jenell Paris has expressed dismay that the Evangelical Manifesto, which purports to speak for evangelicalism as a whole, was composed by 9 white men, and only 6 of the 72 charter signatories were women. She also noted that the 9 men, while solid evangelical leaders, are of the same general theological persuasion. Further, she lists some things that the Manifesto could have done that it didn't, including dealing with gender identity as more than an "earthly" issue. Yet she supports the document and added her signature.
In the comments to Jenell's post, Carla lists some cogent reasons why it is difficult for those who have something valuable to say, especially women, to find a podium from which to speak.
when these sorts of manifestos and conferences, etc. are put together, the organizers try to get a certain level of expertise or recognizability in the people they include. And since so few women are at that level, the representation is skewed.
In some ways, the problem here is that evangelical culture has certain ideas about what makes a person "important" enough to be included in conferences and statements and publishing contracts. Lived experience certainly isn't part of the equation. But books published, talks given, churches planted, degrees earned, these are the benchmarks of importance. And we should be honest about the fact that most of us wouldn't pay for a conference where the speakers were people we'd never heard of no matter how diverse the group might be. This evangelical manifesto wouldn't have made any kind of ripple if it were written by people no one had heard of. So there's a whole system in place that creates a cycle of exclusion.
I don't know what to do about that. But I think there's something broken in the book and conference model of building credibility.
The blogosphere has, fortunately, enabled many individuals to build credibility, yet there is still the difficulty of follow-through. If a person is not constantly kept in the public eye or kept upon a podium in some way by those persons or means which have the power to do so, said person will likely be forgotten. Without a following, it is difficult to maintain enough of a presence to be heard.
Carla also mentions that women are often relegated to "women's issues" when invited to address others, or merely given token treatment. But she supports, as I do, the notion that women's voices ought be heard for the same reasons a man's might -- because they have something worthwhile to say.
