Jesus Was a Feminist

Everyone. Not one group. Not some groups. Not even most people. All people.

I thought this conversation was antiquated. I thought it was a no-brainer. Why would we be having this conversation now? Why is it even an issue? I don't know, but apparently it still is. I am thinking in particular about sexism, though it is also an issue with sexuality, race, and socio-economics (why do we have to talk about this again?).

Let me first present the Christian argument for equality.

Whatever argument one makes about the Old Testament scripture is invalid. Remember that was the Old Covenant and Jesus' message is the New Covenant. Therefore Jesus' message supersedes any law or principles in the Old Testament.

Now, let's also consider the fact that the Bible is a collection of texts deemed important by a group of men during a time when equality was an incredibly radical concept. Let's also remember these texts a're translations and some words have been extrapolated or reinterpreted and many translations borrow cultural concepts from previous ones.

So...with all those caveats...

Jesus, during a time when men were considered more important than women, spent time with women. The woman at the well is often cited as the first missionary. Women stayed at the cross when the male disciples fled. Women went to the tomb and saw Jesus first. Jesus held up the marginalized as important - as worthy of attention and value. He spent as much time with children, lepers, and women as he did anyone else. His actions say it all - we are all equal in the eyes of God. We all are valuable and deserving.

Some will say, but Jesus was a man. Yes. Jesus did have a penis. But let's remember the time - would a Jesusita been received as well? Had as great an impact? No. A woman wouldn't have been listened to in the same way as a man during that period. The argument that because Jesus is a man that leadership should be male is based on false logic.

And this is a different day in a different age.

So I say again, why are we even having this conversation?

I'm Not a Minister, I Just Act Like One

I'm not a minister...I'm not a minister...I'm not a minister.

Right.

As I've said many times, in many places, I am not a minister. Except, I am.

Damn it.

I'm not a minister...I'm not a minister...

In the past few months I came to a strange conclusion, and it's not exactly an easy one to admit. It might even sound strange to someone who doesn't have any ministers in their family.

I've been acting like a minister for my entire life.

You see, ministers and their families live incredibly political and highly scrutinized existences. When you grow up as a pastor's kid (or PK) you internalize (or rebel against) all the accompanying expectations of being in such an environment.

While I was anything but perfect, I did a good job of towing the family line. In fact, I did such a good job, I ended up taking on the role of minister without realizing it.

I'll give you a few examples.

I'm interested in religion, always have been (probably would have been even if my parents weren't ordained clergy). I have a couple shelves worth of books devoted to religion generally as well as religious texts. I know a fair amount about the subject. As such, people ask me questions. I end up giving impromptu lessons on the differences between protestantism and Catholicism all the time. I teach people the differences between Southern Baptists and American Baptists regularly. I can explain the similarities between the big 6 (the six most influential world faiths), and on a good day, the differences.

But that's kind of expected. That's not the worst of my informal ministerial role.

The worst is I don't have close friends. I mean, I do. I have people that I consider close to me, and people who are important to me, but I never reveal myself completely to these people. There are always pieces of me that are hidden. No one knows the whole story (I mean, if you want to get technical no one can, but you understand what I mean?). I hide things. It's not that I don't consciously trust them. I do...consciously. It's just that subconsciously I'm acting as a minister. Ministers don't become "friends" with people in their churches. They are "friendly." There is always a barrier between ministers and their congregants. They are always professional, even as they behave in friendly ways. They are counselors, advisors, teachers, and guides, but never - never are they "friends."

The problem is I don't have a church...so...I act that way with everyone (except my family).

I've had people call me after years of not speaking asking for advice. I even slip into the role of counselor with people that I've known for years. I do it without thinking about it. It's only when I'm half done giving advice that I realized what I've done.

And before I know it, I've taken on that role with that person.

It sucks.

Now that I recognize this in myself, I'm not entirely sure what to do. It is a natural state for me. I do it well (I mean, I was sort of bred this way). Taking down walls with people who I feel close to is difficult. I've been doing this for so long it's a struggle to bare my vulnerabilities and concerns to people I would call close friends. I'm not sure when I should turn this state "on" and when it should go "off." The whole thing is scary.

I wonder now if the personal difficulties I've had this summer are a way for me to learn how to be close to people - to let someone else take care of me in the way I've been caring for others all my life. It might be one of the lessons I'm supposed to learn (though Lord knows it's hard). Even if it's not the main lesson, it is certainly something I need to practice. Who knows? I might actually figure out how to be a regular person. What a thought!

Titles Don't Make Leaders

"What does it take to be a leader?" This could easily be an opening line of a college business 201 class, however leadership isn't something reserved for business. It's something that has a place in social, political, and cultural life as well. Leadership is most especially something important to communities of faith.

In the past weeks my own spiritual journey has brought me into contact with several leadership styles and conflicts in leadership. It reminded me that faith communities need to remember several things.

Just because you have been given a leadership title does NOT make you a leader. You are not entitled to respect because you have the title. I can be given the title of CEO at a tech company in Silicon Valley, but believe me, I would have no idea the specifics of that company's needs and therefore could not lead effectively.

Leadership requires knowledge. You need to know something about the area your group is addressing. So if you're the chair of the stewardship committee, you should probably have at least have a vague understanding of where revenue streams come from in a faith community and how you might go about getting more.

But this isn't the only kind of knowledge you need to be a leader. A leader needs to be able to command people. This means they should know how to facilitate a meeting, for example. They should know how to direct people to a task and keep them on task.

Additionally, a leader often has certain qualities that distinguish him or her from the group. They likely have charisma - something that automatically draws people in. Often times when a leader walks into a room, you know it. Their presence speaks before they open their mouths.  Leaders have confidence. They make decisions, delegate, and execute. They don't hem and haw and waste time. If a mistake is made, they accept it, re-evaluate, change and move on. Leaders are assertive. They see something that needs to be addressed, and they take initiative and get it done. Leaders need to be comfortable addressing a group of people. A certain amount of extroversion is useful. How can you expect a group of people to follow you if you won't get up in front of people and be the example?

Now these qualities are of a natural leader. Let's face it - some leaders are born. They grow up with the ability to command and can do nothing less than dominate a room. But what about those who aren't bred to lead? Well unfortunately charisma really can't be taught. Confidence, however, can be practiced and learned. Presence can be feigned. To some extent, initiative can be learned. Extroversion can be faked, or at least practiced. Knowledge, of course, can be acquired.

So it is possible to fake it til you make it, so to speak. But many people don't bother developing these qualities in themselves. They don't seem to find it necessary. They think they have what it takes without those qualities.

It bothers me when I see people in faith communities assuming that because they have passion for an area of ministry that somehow qualifies them to be leaders.

No. Passion is good. Calling is good. But you need more than these things in order to lead a group of people and earn their respect enough so you can get something done. You cannot be a shrinking violet and hope that people won't ignore you, but will allow you to lead. Seriously...allow you to lead???

That is not leadership. I'm not sure what that is. A hot mess. A leader doesn't wait for permission. A leader executes. A leader speaks, and the masses listen. A leader delegates, and followers do. This is the way of things.

So when a person with a leadership title who is NOT ready to be a leader asks a natural leader to come on to a team, yes, it will cause problems. The titled person will wonder why he can't get a word in while everyone stops talking as soon as the natural leader opens her mouth. But we know he didn't spend any time on leadership skills and she was born that way.

To him I say, want to lead a meeting? At least read Robert's Rules for GOD's sake!

Starting Over in a Church: What Happens When Pastors Leave

Recently the church I have been attending lost their pastor. Well, technically he resigned (and with good cause). The massive hole he left in his wake has been difficult for the congregation to deal with. He was there a long time (22 years!) and many parts of the church depended on him to function effectively.

As a child of 2 ministers, I had never been the one to stay when a pastor left. I was always part of the family leaving. I never saw the aftermath of even an amicable parting, let alone a difficult one. I had no idea what to expect or exactly what the process would be like. I don't even know everyone's name yet. I've only been going to this church for 2 months.

And somehow I'm on the worship committee.

Sigh.

One of the things that I discovered in my short time sitting in on worship committee meetings is the necessity for sustainable structures in a community of faith. A danger for smaller faith communities is relying too much on any single person for ministries or knowledge. In a small church, it is easy to heavily rely on the knowledge, skills, and experience of the pastor. But what happens when the pastor leaves? He or she takes that body of knowledge, skills, and experience with them, leaving a gaping hole in the middle of the church, which the community has to scramble to fill.

Instead, it is better to train church members in various skills in order to make them more self-reliant. A pastor should be a guide, not the whole show. Yes, this is difficult to do when the community is small, but delegating tasks to various church members isn't an impossibility. Fostering leaders within the church in different aspects of worship, care, and other areas benefits everyone. Not only does it take some of the burden off the minister, which prevents burn out, but it also prevents that gaping hole from occurring when the pastor leaves. This means the church doesn't stop or regress when the pastor leaves, which benefits the community as a whole because it maintains community health.

For example, this particular church in question had a pastor who was very musically inclined. When he left, the music went back to hymns right out of the hymnal and most of them were written before 1932. No one knew what to do. It was like this person hadn't been there for 22 years. Suddenly the mantle of worship music had to be taken up by someone else, and no one knew exactly how to do that or where to access new songs etc. No one had that knowledge and no one had been trained to maintain the ministry of music in a way that spoke to this particular congregation.

In short, it was a huge blow.

Having more members in the community with that knowledge and wherewithal would have prevented this abysmal regression from taking place. Fortunately most of the congregation is very gracious, and it hasn't been horribly hurtful (though I'm reserving my judgment for September when attendance typically picks up again) but it could have been.

Obviously it is important to rely some on a pastor's skills, knowledge, and experience. These people are trained to lead communities of faith. There is a reason we pay them (and not just because hopefully they preach good sermons every Sunday morning). That said, the pastor should not be the only leg on which a church's ministry stands. Leadership must come from within the community if the community is to be healthy. Likewise, pastors cannot hold their knowledge hostage, but must share with their church leaders in order to ensure ministries persist despite personnel changes.

Though it should be noted, the same could be said for other church leaders holding their knowledge hostage...

So have you experienced a gaping hole when church leadership changed? What are some lessons you learned from the experience? Please leave a comment below!