The Hyphen House

It has been a while since I followed up with my previous hierarchy post, but these issues have remained on my mind. I just have been too busy to write anything lately. Strangely enough, a couple of weeks ago, our pastor preached a sermon about Matthew 23 where he discussed this exact topic. It has been mentioned frequently lately in our church, which means God is probably preparing us for something. I find when God repeats himself that he usually really wants me to pay attention, and this is a message that God keeps sending me. In fact, I encountered the exact same passage two other times later in the week.

In Matthew 23, Jesus addresses the crowd by remarking, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not practice what they do, for they do not practice what they preach" (2-3). This is a provocative way to start a sermon, and Jesus continues for the rest of the chapter by condemning the Pharisees' self-interest and hypocrisy. I was struck by this first statement for a few reasons. First, I am interested in where the Pharisees have obtained their authority. Jesus claims they "sit in Moses' seat," which seems to me somewhat vague. Moses was not a king and did not have a throne, but Jesus has created an image of the Pharisees occupying a non-existent throne. Moses had authority, but there is no clear direct line of authority from Moses to the Pharisees. Instead it seems the Pharisees have in essence claimed Moses' authority as their own on the basis of their adherence to Mosaic law (and their fondness for adding to it). In this sense, Jesus seems to be mocking their authority by pointing out that they merely "sit" in Moses' seat. After all, it is still his seat.

Jesus then follows this statement with the conclusion that the people must, therefore, obey their religious leaders. However, I can't help but feel he is merely mocking the Pharisees by echoing their faulty claims: "Follow us because we sit in Moses' seat." Jesus then comes right to the heart of where Christian authority should come from by urging the people not to follow the example of the Pharisees who "do not practice what they preach." It seems then that true authority comes from action rather than rhetoric. I am reminded how many contemporary preachers have a gift for gab without really living out the Gospel. Jesus leads through example rather than fancy claims. He has no seminary degree, no formal training in the Jewish law, no political connections, no money, no influential friends, perhaps not even a home. While his true credentials dwarf any other human being, it is amazing to me how little he claims them in the Gospels. In fact, he spend much of the Gospel of Mark telling people to keep quiet about who he really is.

Jesus then hits the point home later in the chapter:
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers and sisters. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (8-13)
Although he began by telling the people to obey the teachers of the law, this statement makes his previous remarks seem quite flippant. Now he has basically taken all the power out of the titles the religious leaders typically used. I am amazed at how much we have missed this point in the modern church. We have taken his command literally, so in most Protestant denominations, we refuse to call pastors by the title "Father." However, we treat them with the kind of authority that title denotes, which seems to me to be the real issue Jesus addresses here. Ultimately who cares what titles we use or what we call each other. The real issue is about whom we see as our leader, a human or Jesus. We have one Father, rabbi, and teacher, yet we cannot help but substitute humans into those positions rather than going to the true source of authority.

My favorite verse in this passage is 13; it spells out a sentiment that Jesus echoes throughout the Gospels, that "the first shall be last and the last shall be first." Why do we so consistently underestimate the importance of this statement. If it was worth repeating multiple times in the Gospels, it must be a crucial point. I think one of the reasons we so often ignore it is because it is so at odds with Western culture that encourages competition and winning. How can we Christians really win if the last are first? I think in order to make us feel better about ourselves, we cast ourselves as persecuted underdogs and pretend that we have it so difficult. We act as though we are martyrs and treated as outcasts by the secular world. Then we will be exalted. We don't have to pay attention to our ridiculous wealth and prodigality. We can ignore the influence we wield in American politics and culture. We can pretend that we are just poor servants of Christ who are embattled and persecuted and deserving of God's blessings. We have no idea what it means to be last, what it means to suffer and face persecution. The older I get, the more convinced I am that my lifestyle could not be more different than Jesus'. I am just kidding myself if I think otherwise. I think I could say the same about most Christians in the Western world. We are like the "rich young ruler," holding on to our privilege, wealth, comfort, and reputations, refusing to give it up.

I think this is part of the reason we exalt pastors too highly. We set them up as exemplars, role models, saints. We praise them for what they accomplish, for their eloquence, for their knowledge. We have it so backwards. We should be praising them for their shortcomings because it is in these flaws that we see God's grace most clearly. A good pastor should be humble enough to let us see the work of grace in his or her life, and I am talking present tense. Too often we Christians talk about how we "used to be" sinners and "used to be" last, without admitting our current faults and our daily need for God's mercy.

I have been struck by some of these issues recently because our church is going through an interesting period of growth right now. We are the only church in our circuit that has any young people. We are looking for ways to reach out more in the community because of our unique position, and for a while, the church just hoped a pastor would come along and light the needed spark. This posed a problem because when our new pastor came on board last year, he did not feel a particularly strong calling to build up such an outreach ministry. This led to frustration for some people, but a few weeks ago, we had a conversation about who is ultimately responsible for the ministry of the church, and we felt convicted that we were so dependent on someone else to do the work God had called us to do.

Our pastor was quick to encourage and provide support despite this not being an area he felt passionate about leading. He very clearly pointed out to us that his job was to shepherd and to guide, and that in the Methodist church, laypeople were tasked with the majority of the responsibility for outreach and ministry. This is one of the things I have loved most about the Methodist Church in England. It is empowering and depends on the active involvement of laypeople to function properly. The pastors rotate throughout the circuit, so on a practical level, they just cannot meet all the needs of each church they oversee. It reminds me of Acts, but I will speak more about that later.

Our pastor was extremely supportive in our efforts to make changes to the church services and to make a more serious attempt at outreach. He has reminded us throughout that God works through all of us, not just him, and that we should seek God's leadership in this endeavor. Thank God for such a humble leader who is willing to set his ego and his agenda aside to see God's will done. I have been truly humbled and amazed by how gracefully he has handled the church's decisions when most pastors I have known would have been upset that the Church was not going in the exact direction they wanted or was not depending on them enough. Given some of my very negative experiences with ego-driven pastors and church leaders, I have been blessed to see such a Christ-like example of leadership. Our pastor truly exemplifies putting himself and his desires last, and I cannot wait to see how God uses this to fulfill his plans for our community.

I have been looking a bit at the Old Testament pondering this whole hierarchy issue. Specifically I have been examining the book of Judges and 1 Samuel. As a kid, Judges was one of my favorite books of the Bible. I appreciated its ironic sense of humor and surprising depictions of Israel's heroes. I always loved the way God used the least likely people to deliver Israel from destruction. I always liked the Old Testament as a child because of the narrative nature of much of it, but as I have matured, I have tended to stick more to the New Testament. I find now that when I revisit the Old Testament, I am often frustrated by the depiction of God as a tyrant who demands that heathen nations be annihilated and that those who disobey him be punished. I just have a difficult time reconciling this image of God with the image of God Jesus illustrated in the New Testament. Given the importance peace has played in my spiritual journey, it is especially hard for me to read about the constant holy wars fought between Israel and its neighboring kingdoms.

But that is somewhat besides the point. The point is that I read through Judges and the beginning of 1 Samuel because I was interested in what they had to say about hierarchy. I just happened to be distracted throughout by the graphic violence in Judges. From my limited understanding of Hebrew society during this period, it seems to me that the twelve tribes formed a loose confederation of mostly tribal societies. The Israelites seemed to have a great deal of autonomy during the period of the judges. They would go about their business until they started to do bad things and were consequently conquered by a rival nation until God called a judge to deliver them from bondage. The judge would lead Israel until his or her death, and then the cycle would begin again. This kept going until eventually Israel demanded that their final judge Samuel appoint a king to rule over them instead like the neighboring nations.

There are some fascinating aspects to the ruling system in Judges. Israel is basically a theocracy but not ruled by a priestly class. Rather they seem to be mostly self-ruled except in emergency situations when a judge takes over. These judges are not elected nor appointed. They have no training or qualifications. None of them are priests or Levites. They come from various places and backgrounds. If there is a common factor, it seems to be that they are all surprising people for God to use. Gideon is overly cautious. Samson is overly proud and stupid. Deborah is overly female in a patriarchal culture. Yet God chooses them to lead.

The Hebrews seem determined to establish a monarchy for one clearly stated reason - they want to be like the nations around them, which never turns out well for Israel. I suspect on some level they imagine a king will bring them greater political stability, unity, military glory, and wealth. However, the Bible makes it clear in two places that this is not God's first choice. The people in Judges attempt to make a monarchy out of Gideon's line, but he refuses. Later they demand a king from Samuel, and Samuel reluctantly agrees only after God tells him to. However, what God says when he conceded to the Israelites demands is particularly telling. He says that in establishing a monarchy, they have rejected him. This makes sense because the judges were chosen by God and more or less seemed to follow his commands directly. Now the Israelites would prefer a human king rather than being essentially ruled by God. Samuel warns the Israelites that they will regret this decision, but he goes along with their demands and anoints Saul who turns out to be a pretty terrible king in the end.

I find some parallels between this political situation and our current religious institutions. Basically it seems to me that we like the Israelites are afraid of the uncertainty of following God directly. We would like a more stable situation, one that gives us a sense of security. We want a hierarchy because it makes things easy for us to understand. Rather than following God's often strange requests, we would like to just set up an institution and system or rules. There is a certain logic here that is seductive. We also want to set up these hierarchies because that's what everyone else does. Everything in our culture is run by some sort of hierarchy. As a teacher, I answer to a department head and various deans who in turn answer to our division head who then answers to the headmaster who must answer to the board of directors. Every institution has a hierarchy, so it seems natural that the church would be no different. We imitate what we know and are comfortable with, but that doesn't mean our hierarchies are divinely instituted. Yet there are many who would claim so.

I wonder what it would look like if we allowed the church to work in a way that is similar to Judges. What if we let God call people to fill particular positions rather than depending on trained leaders to do all the work? What if we let pastors pastor rather than expecting them (or allowing them) to rule? I imagine on one hand we would have a total mess on our hands, but I think it would be a beautiful mess, the kind of mess where people meet God directly rather than following orders or programs or human leaders. On the other hand, these hierarchies are a mess in themselves. They divide us into denominations, sects, and factions. It is absurd the number of denominations we have. Even more absurd is the number of sub-denominations and the number of churches of the same denomination who cannot work together for some small reason. Then within the churches there are factions constantly arguing and fighting. This is often a result of hierarchy, a leader saying something another disagrees with or offending a follower in some way. Without hierarchy, we might still have a mess, but I would rather have a mess where God calls the shots than an institution ruled by bylaws and committees.

An elder at a former church of mine once said that the leadership at the church did not allow women to be elders or pastors because the church leadership modeled itself after a "Biblical" marriage. In other words, women in the church must submit to male leadership (not the other way around) just as wives should submit to their husbands. These men are then to lead the women in love (presumably the same way a husband should lead his wife). It should come as no surprise that I disagree with just about every part of this idea, but I mention this merely to illustrate the connection between gender issues and leadership issues within the church.

Lately I have been considering the issue of hierarchy in general within the church. The more I think about it, the more I believe that the gender hierarchy in the church is only part (a crucial part) of a larger problem within the church. That problem - hierarchy. I intend to write a series of posts exploring this issue, but for today I just want to talk about why this is so important to me personally.

LKH and I have spent the last year in a Methodist congregation in England. Here Methodists still operate under the old circuit system, meaning our pastor shepherds four congregations but that each operates mostly independently and the churches depend heavily on lay preaching and leadership to operate. Our pastor only leads services once a month, so it is necessary for us to take responsibility in meeting the basic needs of the body, especially because each congregation is small. This means that often times we don't get what we want. I don't know what to expect on a weekly basis. Some of the preachers prefer old hymns, and some prefer contemporary worship. Some preach with visual aids, some lecture. They come from varied theological backgrounds. Many Christians would find this alarming. However, I wonder if the early church did not operate in a similar manner. Sometimes Paul would stop in and preach, sometimes it was Priscilla and Aquila, or sometimes Apollos. Regardless of who was preaching, each church was responsible for keeping its affairs in order during the meantime. This is often a messy practice. It requires us to communicate and compromise and engage with each other. What is beautiful about it though is that we don't need to seek a pastor's guidance, we need to seek God instead.

It has made me reevaluate the hierarchical structure of most churches. Most Evangelical churches have a pastor (mostly men) who is the ultimate authority. There may also be a group of deacons or elders (again mostly men) who hold other various leadership roles. Then in a less formal sense depending on the size of the church, certain church members may run certain ministries (and isn't this usually the most effective part of the church - notice here that women often participate freely). What you have is a hierarchy that gradually distances us from God's leadership. In order to make a decision, I must first contact the person in charge of the ministry who then must go to the pastor or in larger churches an elder or associate pastor who then answers to another authority who ultimately answers to God. Isn't it a structure like this that Jesus continually challenged and ultimately made irrelevant when His death caused the veil to tear?

I see a few disturbing consequences of this hierarchy. One, it makes us lazy. We expect our leaders to do the grunt work. They will take charge of even the most minute details of running the church. Most of us will just sit in the pews. Second, it creates divisions. We speak at length about how it affects gender relations in the church, but it also affects relations between the young and old, established and new members, people who focus on different ministries, and the doers and pew-sitters. Third, it has created a new high priestly order, a set of various cults of personality. We have given pastors far too much power and authority simply because they have a seminary degree. I don't say this to undermine the pastoral calling or the importance of pastoral gifts. I just want to draw attention to how we have twisted the role of pastors. They are no longer shepherds; rather they are mini-gods. This is part of the reason we have televangelists and megachurches. It is why people like John Piper, Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, and Brian McLaren have become famous and controversial to some. We have given these mere men far too much authority. We depend on them for our understanding of God, and I have seen firsthand how the kind of power these men have can destroy them and the people around them. Fourth, it puts more distance between God and us. We have essentially repaired the curtain that guards the Holy of Holies.

So I have decided to write some more about this issue because I think it is one of the most crucial problems the church faces. I believe we have created an institution that falls far short of the body of Christ, which only has one Head. I will be looking at some of the places where the Bible deals with this issue somewhat directly in both the Old and New Testaments, and I will also relate some personal anecdotes.

I don't know how I missed this great book idea/experiment by Rachel Held Evans, but it's fascinating. She's taking a year to live the "10 Commandments of Biblical Womanhood" literally... not cutting her hair, keeping her home, etc. I'll be following the Womanhood Project closely now! As an egalitarian, I'm quite interested to see what she finds through this journey.

One thing she's exploring is domesticity. I want to capitalize on this aspect because there seems to be an assumption that feminist/egalitarian women don't know how to cook, have perpetually messy houses (or spotless ones that other people clean), and turn their noses up at crafts and household projects. That, or they have "un-manly" husbands who just do all the housework.

I'll admit, I gave myself the moniker "domestically challenged" throughout much of my teenage and college years. On the rare occasion I attempted cooking, there were mishaps (in case you are wondering, you cannot substitute water for oil in a cake). I started and abandoned many crafting projects. And I certainly did not volunteer for kitchen work at church events (do you boys need a hand carrying those chairs?).

Much of this was self-imposed. Did I know how to cook? Yes, and I made more meals than most of my college friends, experimenting with recipes on my roommates. Was I capable of crafting? I've got 15 years of scrapbooks to verify that yes I was. Did I do housework? I could sure tidy up quickly, and do mountains of laundry at once.

But somehow that domestic stuff felt weak to me. Like I couldn't be good at it and also pursue a career. Or I couldn't broadcast it because it would look like I was husband-hunting for the kind of guy who wanted a stay-at-home wife/mom.

When I finally decided that cooking, cleaning, and crafting could actually be acts of independence, and I didn't have to do them b/c of cultural expectations but because I wanted to, my outlook changed quite a bit. And when Eric and I got married and moved in together, dividing chores, learning to cook challenging things together, and using crafts as a way to pursue creativity in my own space felt really empowering.

Sometimes when I talk about doing Eric's laundry, or when I clear the dishes after hosting dinner, or when I mention my love of scrapbooking and making things out of found objects, people raise their eyebrows at me. As if any domestic act interferes with my empowered, egalitarian persona. At this point it's all part and parcel. I'm just a woman taking care of myself and my home. When I was single, this was important. And in marriage, having a partner to help makes it no less important.

How about I cook you dinner, serve it to you at a table I've dressed, and we can talk about men, women, and domesticity? Don't worry, dessert will be pre-made.

I am a feminist because of, not in spite of, my Christianity. I was brought up in very conservative churches when it comes to the issue of women in leadership, Roman Catholicism and Lutheranism (Missouri Synod). The first female pastor I met was not until college at the Methodist church I joined. At that point, I was still opposed to the idea of female pastors, but it was an issue that bothered me in the back of my mind.

I remember as a kid how active women were in shaping my faith. Most of my Sunday school teachers were women. In the Lutheran church where I spent most of my childhood, my mom and other women were active, visual, important leaders in the church, even if they did not have official titles. My mom regularly spoke in front of the church. These were not "sermons" but were rather "comments" on the Scripture readings for the week. We were an unusual Lutheran church with a great deal of lay involvement, but my mom was one of the most frequent contributors. She also wrote regularly about different spiritual issues in our version of a weekly church newsletter. Men and women, including my mom and dad, led worship together at our Wednesday night Bible studies and sometimes even in church on Sundays. Even though I was taught that women should not be leaders over men, it is not what was ever illustrated to me.

Though my church was unusual in so many ways, I do not believe these experiences to be atypical of those in churches that deny women leadership. The reality is that women make up the majority in numbers and are more likely to be involved in serving than men, so I would be surprised to find a church in which women did not play critical, if unofficial, roles, especially when it comes to Christian education. As a teacher, I can assure you that this is a position of great authority. Growing up in the Church, my Sunday school teachers had a greater influence on my developing faith than any minister. Women shaped my faith in real, tangible, important ways, much more than men did. I believe this is why at the back of mind I always had questions about this area of doctrine.

These questions grew after I finished college. I was in a Methodist church that had a woman in a position of leadership, but she was an associate pastor and had very little responsibility in the areas of the church I participated in. I wish I could say that her example helped to change my mind, but it really made little difference to me. The issue was never really brought up in this particular church, maybe because they took for granted that women could be pastors, but I suspect more likely because they did not want to risk offending anyone with a different view. After college, I joined a Southern Baptist church, where I really started to consider the issue again, still not really changing my views, but still a bit bothered by them in the back of my mind. I struggled with the idea that God chose people for certain roles based on gender, that women were automatically disqualified, particularly when there were examples of excellent women leaders in the Bible like Deborah, Lydia, and Priscilla. I had difficulty with verses that claimed, "The sons and the daughters will prophesy," and "There is no Greek, nor Jew, no male, nor female." Still these questions remained mostly peripheral ones for me.

Towards the end of my time in the Southern Baptist church, I began to undergo a great shake-up in my faith. I was disillusioned with evangelicalism, particularly Reformed theology. I was angry about a lot of hurt I had experienced throughout my church life. I was ready for a change, and I began to question everything. I did not rebel, but I reexamined. Partly because of this, I moved to Houston and began attending an Emergent church (with decidedly Baptist influences that did not become apparent to me until later). I saw this as a place where I could stay plugged into God and other believers, but I knew it was also a place where I could ask difficult questions and be honest about my doubts and struggles. This transformed my life in every conceivable way. I met my wife and some of my closest friends. I rediscovered my faith and my identity. I learned to let go of past hurts and anger and began to find healing.

During this time, I also started graduate school in Literature. Feminism was one of the major components of my academic life, and I began seriously to examine the issue of women in the church. I had worked with women missionaries, been taught by women, had women lead worship in various settings, been counseled by women. The more I thought about it, women had played as critical a role, if not a more critical role, than men in the development of my faith, not to mention in every other area of my life. There was no denying for me that God had gifted women with just as many talents as men in every area, including leadership. All the old cliched excuses about why women were not allowed to lead began to crumble for me. I found them illogical, and more importantly counter to the redeeming spirit of God that sets captives free and empowers us as vessels of the Holy Spirit.

Two other concurrent factors led me to change my views, meeting my wife and starting to receive counseling to deal with some of my past hurts. I will start with the latter. Without mentioning too many specifics, there were some real hurts and issues I needed help with, and partly based on my wife (then girlfriend's) prompting, I started to seek counseling. As I dug deeper into the roots of these issues and began sharing them more openly with friends I trusted, one of the key issues that surfaced was that the majority of the hurts I had experienced could be traced back to places where people in the church, including myself, used religion and the Bible to justify demeaning, limiting, and often hurtful gender roles that are not Biblical, but rather cultural. I have never been the stereotypical alpha male, but subtly, I had been taught that the Bible wanted me to be. I could go on about this, but in short, I had been greatly hurt by inaccurate portrayals of manhood that were endorsed by the church. As I began the healing process, I started to question these gender roles and biases more earnestly. I had seen their destructiveness, and not only in my own life, but more and more frequently in the lives of my friends and family members as I began sharing my own story.

The other key factor in my change was my wife. When we met, she too was questioning some of these teachings. I remember talking about it on an early date and both of saying that we weren't sure where we stood on the issue of women in leadership, that it was an area we were both reconsidering. After we got engaged, we both became more certain that God did not intend for leaders and pastors to be only men. As she already mentioned, a big factor here was that all the patriarchal marriage prep materials we browsed were so irrelevant to us. We found them to be reductive and often just insulting. This is when we came across Christians for Biblical Equality. Their marriage resources were superior to anything we had seen before because it affirmed the importance and worth of both spouses. We had some very emotional conversations during this time. It was very exciting.

After marriage, we realized that our church did not give us good examples of Egalitarian marriage within its leadership (although many of the members were awesome and have continued to play an important role in our marriage and spiritual lives). LKH played a really important leadership role in the church, but any pastoral gifts she had would have to remain unofficial there. We eventually left this church, in great part because of some of these issues and some others. As we started hunting for new churches, we wanted to visit some that were led by women, without feeling the need to be in a denomination that ordained women.

Our church tour was the final step for me in changing my own views. We visited a great variety of churches (chronicled earlier in this blog quite exhaustively). When we practically stumbled into a small Methodist church near UH one day, the pastor was a woman. Her sermon made LKH cry and moved me deeply as well. It was one of the most powerful sermons I had heard preached in all of our visits. The Holy Spirit was clearly at work in so many ways; it was impossible to deny God's presence and blessing. That was the final moment for me. I knew I was wrong before without a shadow of doubt. We visited many other churches and ended up back at this small Methodist church again, this time with a different head pastor, a man (who spoke eloquently in favor of women in leadership regularly). The associate pastor and pastoral intern, both women, preached often, and the intern had clear pastoral gifts. It was such a wonderful place to worship, and I miss them often.

Now we are again in a small Methodist church, this time across the pond. The previous pastor was a woman. The circuit rotation features more women preachers than men. Women basically run the church's daily and weekly functions. It is all so seamless, a non-issue here. Women lead, and God blesses. Period. What more is there to say?

I'm only 50 or so pages through How I Changed My Mind About Women in Leadership but I'm already so inspired. My own story starts when I was a little girl...

(Disclaimer: I'm not pointing fingers at anyone or any church. I simply feel compelled to write my story down and be honest about what influenced, hurt, and encouraged me.)

The eldest child in a committed, church-going Christian family, I sought from a young age to follow God and know Jesus personally. Evangelical Christianity is good about emphasizing the Great Commission and the calling of each individual to go out and change the world. God didn't seem to discriminate in that area.

As I got older, I started to realize the nuances of gender roles. We left a church when I was around 9 and I thought it was because they got a female minister. Turns out there were a host of reasons, but that one stuck in my little mind.

In California, I remember our church had female deacons. That was weird to me. And maybe wrong? But the pastor had a justification for their leadership... provided they weren't full pastors.

In college, I had a feminist crisis and questioned why women couldn't be ministers. How come it was ok for Beth Moore to "speak" but not preach? Some conservative friends prayed for me (one even had her mom praying) to see the light of women's correct roles. I talked myself back into believing that women were meant to be women's ministers, not ministers to all.

Then I became the first female president of the Baptist student group at my university. I spoke at our Thursday night service, although I was encouraged to speak at the lunch meeting where people "shared." I didn't think so at the time, but that Journey was when I preached my first sermon.

Sometimes people said women were equal in worth but different in roles. Some intimated they weren't even equal in worth.

A few years later a woman preached at my church. I was a little scandalized. But it was alright, I reasoned, b/c the male pastor introduced her and re-iterated her points when she finished. It was like she was under his covering.

I wrote an article about women in the emerging church, and started it by saying I didn't agree with women head pastors. I took that part out before it went to print.

I led a small group. People often said Eric and I were both the leaders, although he never signed up for that. I learned in the process of leading that group that I have pastoral gifts. But I was in a church with no female pastors. I was conflicted.

Eric and I wanted an egalitarian relationship but didn't really know what that looked like. Sadly, we didn't see that modeled by the leadership at our church. Slowly we began to realize that if we were to have a marriage based on mutual submission rather than the wife submits/husband leads paradigm, we didn't fit in a church that did not allow women to be ministers.

The final tipping point came when we looked for a new church home, and only felt comfortable in congregations where both women and men were ministers.

I am still healing from much of this. Being in places where it's natural for women to be full pastors and for everyone to contribute based on their gifts has been a big part of it. My own marriage partnership has been a big part of it. Apologies from men on behalf of the fallen world have helped (thanks to Rob Bell, Rev. Georgetown, and Paul, for instance). And reclaiming that my worth is defined by God and not humans makes all the difference.

As a sports fan and male feminist, I have been very interested in women's sports and the way they are covered. Sports entertainment has been largely male dominated until the introduction of Title IX gave women equal access to athletic scholarships. Since then, women's college basketball and softball have risen in popularity. Still coverage of women's sports still only amounts to less than 5% of all sports covered on American television, less during non-Olympic years. While I don't have official numbers, it is apparent also that the women athletes who receive the most attention do so not only for their athletic ability but also for their sex appeal. While some of these sex symbol female athletes also happen to be among the best at their sports, it is clear that many of them would just be exceptional athletes no men had ever heard of if it weren't for their physical appearance.

Well, just this week ESPN has announced its newest marketing campaign, espnW. This brand will aim to attract a larger female fan base to the largest American sports network. This is probably the last straw with me and ESPN. I had all but stopped watching it even while I was still living in the US. I still check website regularly, that is until learning more about the new campaign today. Here is why as a male feminist sports fan, espnW bothers me so much.

ESPN has had its fair share of problems with sexism, some of the cases highly publicized. Because I don't work there, I can't really say how well they have addressed these problems, but many of them have been quite disturbing. Furthermore, while ESPN has hired more women to cover men's sports, such as Suzy Kolber and Erin Andrews, many of the women they hire, serious sports journalists as they may be, are hired for their attractiveness as much as their sports knowledge, and both the aforementioned women have been the target of sexual harassment related to their employment. It is no surprise that any television network would hire attractive people to be on the air, but I find it interesting that ESPN regularly hires overweight, traditionally unattractive male sports personalities.

ESPN regularly irritates me, mostly because of its corporate nature and repetitive, often annoying and gimmicky programming. Still, I have put up with these nuisances. I even had a long subscription to their magazine until they came out with the laughably pretentious attempt to outdo the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue with their own "Body Issue." The cover (at least the one I was sent) featured one of the Williams sisters naked. While I admit the poses weren't overtly sexual, their sales went up because of the naked woman on the cover, and ESPN's excuses that they just wanted to show a variety of athlete's body types surely fooled no one. This was an attempt to gain readers, pure and simple. It worked. I applaud ESPN for featuring a pregnant woman on one of its covers. I wish it would do this more often, but profits are more important than integrity and quality in the journalism world. It is a shame because ESPN really does some high quality work.

Knowing ESPN is one of the few sports networks that gives women any attention at all, I was willing to give espnW a chance. My first reaction was negative. The sports world is very misogynistic in general; it doesn't take a feminist to see this. Just watch the Dallas Cowboys play on Sunday or listen to talk radio for 30 minutes. If you make it out without seeing/hearing women objectified or stereotyped at least once, I would be surprised. As a male sports fan who respects women, I find this disheartening. Because my options are so limited, I wanted ESPN to be progressive. I wanted to like espnW even though I was skeptical.

espnW is not overtly sexist from my limited observations. It employs respected women sportswriters. The colors are orange, not pink. It is not even immediately clear that the site is designed for women. Bravo! Many of the things that the editors and journalists are doing for the site are also innovative and encouraging. They want to spend more time looking at health and fitness, rather than just competitive sports. I am very much in favor of many of the things they are promoting. However, I can't shake the feeling that this is money driven.

ESPN can't possibly expand anymore into the male demographic unless they start showing competitive video gaming tournaments (which they sort of already do at least with the Madden games). It only seems natural that they would do more to target women. I won't fault them for that. Every major corporation wants to reach new consumers. At least they aren't exploiting children yet. I am not bothered that ESPN wants to profit and expand their market. I am bothered that they think the best way to do that is to create a separate network for women.

If I were a current female sports fan, I would be insulted. As a fan of women's college basketball, I am insulted a little. My first encounter with the new brand came when I was reading about the Baylor women's basketball team (currently ranked 1st and one of the only consistent bright spots in Baylor's athletic program). It insults me that ESPN thinks that if I am reading about women's college basketball, I am likely to be a woman. It insults me that they think women are interested in yoga rather than football, partly because I have a family full of women who are very passionate about the Green Bay Packers, and I like yoga. While I and my friends and family might not fit into the average market demographics, I find the idea of a "separate but equal" site for women to be insulting. The last thing America needs is another corporation telling us what each gender should find interesting. This is just another example of the retroactive Martian men and Venusian women crap that just needs to die a quick, bloody death.

If ESPN wants to attract more women viewers, there are some simple things it could do. First, put more women on the air and more diverse women as well, not just models. Second, promote women athletes without objectifying them. Third, fire men who harass women, or at the very least have them apologize, even if they are popular stars. Fourth, diversify programming - do we really need 5 hours of SportsCenter or constant replays of the World Series of Poker (which actually showcases some extraordinarily talented and intelligent women). I can't believe that the third rerun of some Limit Hold Em tournament would actually outdraw say a broadcast of the women's college volleyball championships. Fifth, cut down on sexist advertising. Sixth, form partnerships with primarily women centered media and advertise to women. Seventh, make a product that men would like to share with their wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters rather than one that keeps them isolated in a bedroom (the men I know whose wives are sports fans really enjoy sharing this part of their lives).

There are many other things ESPN could do, and they don't need my help to run their network. I am just bothered that they believe that women are so put off by their product that they needed a separate one. If that is the case, then there are serious problems with the original product that are not being addressed. Title IX has given me hope that the macho bastion of sports is moving to include women more. This is not just some fringe issue. Sports is at the heart of American culture and entertainment, and as long as it is a segregated world, that influence will affect millions of people profoundly.