FaithQuest Revisited

.

A Return to the Dark Ages?

By

Dan R. Dick

,

Super Bowl 44 — over.  I am a huge Colts fan, but even I can’t be unhappy with the Saints victory.  Who could begrudge New Orleans anything?  I am delighted for every Saints fan everywhere.  I wish I could feel as good about the Super Bowl ads, but I don’t.  Oh, there were some funny bits and some classic moments, but as they unfolded I found myself appalled.  An inordinate number of ads were incredibly sexist and even hostile to women (except for those by women who objectify and denigrate…).  I found myself offended more often than entertained.  The “men are pigs, women are ignorant” message wore thin fast.  I felt a time warp — cast back fifty years to a time when men could be insensitive jerks and think it was cool.  Have we decided that women are somehow okay targets again?

I know.  I am idealistic.  I want to believe that we are an evolved and kind people, but the evidence is sketchy at best.  I still encounter Christians (United Methodists, in fact…) who question if “women” (as if this is some sub-species) should be pastors.  The question leaves me speechless.  Are we complete idiots?  Have we never functioned in the real world?  Have we no mothers, wives, sisters, or brains?  Have we never had any relationships of any worth or value in our lives with females?  Are we irrational, primitive, pre-modern, ignorants who live in total bigotry and prejudice?  No.  We’re intelligent human beings who respect and revere both males and females as created in the image of God.  We are not stupid.

But, then what explains the insensitive, violent, aggressive, antagonistic, misogynistic, hateful and ugly messages about women that pass for humor in marketing and media?  How have we devolved so far, so fast?  I am a guy, after all, and I found a large number of Super Bowl ads offensive and indefensible.  I can’t be too far off, since my wife found them offensive as well, and she is a woman!

I hate when the dominant culture is unenlightened and offensive — I hate it all the more when my church follows suit.  I lament with the wonderful, spiritual, competent, and gifted women clergy in my denomination who are still finding it hard to be accepted as leaders in our church.  I listen to denominational leaders crow about how far we have come, then talk to women in the system who are suffering under the burden of 19th century sexism and oppression.  Are we kidding ourselves?  We still mistreat women in leadership almost daily.

Look at our largest churches.  How many are led by women?  I actually had a well-known large-church pastor tell me it was because “women don’t want the responsibility.”  Yikes.  Our system doesn’t recognize or reward women the same way it does men.  We come up with a hundred and one (lame) excuses, but the one reason is that we simply haven’t gotten to the point where justice and fairness guide our life together.  We pay lip-service to what we know we should be (articulated values) but are light-years away from that goal (lived values).  We revere and honor woman while treating them as second-class — the great American way.

I can’t quite fathom the irreverent, disrespectful, and offensive messages about women in this year’s batch of Super Bowl ads, but I fear it reflects a deeper disregard that we refuse to admit and acknowledge.  In the church, this may call for some major repentance — unless we’re really not sorry.  I just can’t imagine that we would be so stupid as to rob ouselves of the amazing leadership of women in a system that needs the whole people of God to be successful.

22 responses to “A Return to the Dark Ages?”

  1. Tom Avatar
    Tom

    Saw the title of this blog post elsewhere and thought it would be about the continuing vicious attacks against Sarah Palin from the supposedly female-friendly, “tolerant” left. One need only google “palin handjob” to see misogyny in action from the very people who claim to decry it. But she’s just a dirty conservative, so therefore fair game, no?

    Reply
    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      Ah, yes, the old “it’s only offensive if the other side does it” excuse. We liberals are too noble to sink to such depths… until we aren’t. Wonder where respect, civility and the defense of dignity wandered off to…?

      Reply
  2. Safiyah Fosua Avatar
    Safiyah Fosua

    As a person of color, who happens to be female, I bristle when anyone suggests that my appointment or employment is just another example of tokenism. I happen to feel that I am qualified! AND, I am insulted when my colleagues suggest that “people like me” ONLY get into certain places because of the benevolence of “people like them!” (Usually with the unspoken sentiment that we do not belong because we could not possibly be qualified to do the work!) The sad reality we face in 2010 is that there are many qualified people of many marginalized races who are still only seen on the basis of the color of our skin or our national origin, or our gender. In this so-called “post-racial” era I see many attitudes reverting and I agree with you, Dan. This will not serve our common life together well at all. Thanks for sounding the trumpet.

    Reply
    1. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      As a primary beneficiary of white privilege, I guess it is sometimes an empty witness when I sound the trumpet. What continues to mystify me is the pervasive sense that injustice isn’t that big a deal. And to hide behind the “people shouldn’t be given breaks based on their gender or skin color,” ignores the fact that many in power are their because of their gender and skin color and little else. Also, the “we’ve come so far” excuse rings hollow as well. Were someone to justify their continued violence by saying, “well, I don’t beat my children nearly as often as I used to,” we would think that ridiculous. I’m not sure we can be a “little bit” racist or sexist. Once again, we are broken and imperfect, in need of both repentance and forgiveness — and perhaps a little humility…

      Reply
      1. Creed Pogue Avatar
        Creed Pogue

        We are all sinners. We are all racists. We are all sexists.

        In the outside world, we consider diversity to be successful when the particular organization looks like the general population. The general agencies are very different. Before the recent layoffs, for example, African-Americans constitute a proportion that doubles their proportion in the general population and five times their proportion in the church membership. Virtually everyone would think it a problem if the general agency staff was monochrome. Perhaps, we need to stop saying that the UMC is racist and sexist.

      2. doroteos2 Avatar
        doroteos2

        In a truly fair system, the organization rarely matches the larger population. When positions are based prurely on merit, different gift-sets, skill-sets, knowledge-sets, and ability sets emerge. Take professional sports — teams rarely resemble larger populations, and relative merit based on performance is a fairly equal standard. This doesn’t mean it is a fair system, nor is it applicable across other disciplines. Too far a swing to the survival-of-the-fittest mindset means we don’t cultivate true potential and we lose the value and benefit of diversity. We need better definitions of justice, fairness, and kindness — and a true dedication to valuing and honoring the individual.

  3. Scott Avatar
    Scott

    Not only are the ads offensive to women, but to men who don’t fit the stereotypes of what a *real* man is supposed to look like or behave.

    Reply
  4. Creed Pogue Avatar
    Creed Pogue

    So, we move from some stupid Super Bowl ads by Bud Light, Flo.TV and Dodge to gender discrimination in our larger pulpits???

    Of those 1,200 churches with over 1,000 members, how many are still on their first pastor? Should we replace Adam Hamilton at COR just to give a female racial/ethnic pastor a chance??? I don’t think anyone would agree with that.

    In the Northeastern Jurisdiction, we have two female bishops out of nine and about 20% of the elders in full connection are female. The Western Jurisdiction has gone even further and managed to have a College of Bishops with no white males despite 82% of the EFCs being white and 76% are male.

    Reply
    1. John Meunier Avatar
      John Meunier

      Should we replace Adam Hamilton at COR just to give a female racial/ethnic pastor a chance??? I don’t think anyone would agree with that.

      I actually think the UMC should move Hamilton – although Hamilton and COR disagree, and no one is asking me my opinion on the matter.

      Reply
      1. doroteos2 Avatar
        doroteos2

        We should move Hamilton only if the UMC is serious about its mission and purpose. Otherwise, no problem. What I hope doesn’t get lost is that we’re not simply talking about who can succeed by worldly standards, i.e., lead a big church. Comments like Creed’s are the clearest examples I see that the racism and sexism we so proudly claim no longer exists in our church is actually as prevalent and real as ever. For many, we don’t want to — we can’t — admit we are as prejudiced as we are. But even this is a reflection of our deeper values — we don’t treat people as people, but as types, labels, and categories. When we do that we end up thinking that because there are a few women and people of color in power that this is some kind of proof that we are enlightened. Someone challenges our biases and we contemptuously parade our figures out for consumption — tokenism at its worst, and illustration of bigotry at its loudest. As long as one hand holds all the power, any kind of true justice is merely a myth — be it in a society or a local church (regardless of size).

    2. doroteos2 Avatar
      doroteos2

      Creed, no one suggested silly tokenism or excusing poor leadership in honor of prejudice and bigotry. Come on, I know you’re slightly more enlightened than that (I hope…) And if COR is the best example you can come up with for a church ready to receive an excellent woman pastor, we’re in real trouble!

      Reply
      1. Creed Pogue Avatar
        Creed Pogue

        All too often discussions about race and gender oscillate between one extreme or another. Obama’s election means we’re in a post-racial era, then Skip Gates’ arrest shows that cops (even in Cambridge) are racists, then the tea-baggers still want to see Obama’s “real” birth certificate, then ….

        Perhaps we really to need to move to judging based on the content of the character instead of the color of the skin or primary sexual characteristics.

        I used COR just because it was the first one to come to mind (since it is our biggest church). Other than an unjustified faith in itinerancy, why would Bishop Jones move Adam Hamilton from COR??? Facts should matter. How many of these megachurches still have their founding pastor?

        I would think that the example of the Western Jurisdiction would engender a dialogue about swinging the pendulum too far in another direction.

      2. doroteos2 Avatar
        doroteos2

        I would love nothing more than a world where people are treated based on merit, but this presumes a fair system — and I don’t have confidence that we have a just system. I have long said that Adam Hamilton deserves a lot of credit for what he has done. He is a keen entrepreneur and a shrewd leader. But what we shouldn’t do is use his unique situation as a model for others, use his style as an example for others to follow, or assume he could replicate such results in another setting. Praise him for what he has done — based on facts — but acknowledge that churches of any size that are dependent on their pastor for their success are not “healthy” in any significant (lasting) sense of the word. Should such settings be “taken away” from one person and given to another based on gender or skin-color? Only a fool would think so. But should we be creating a system that favors and benefits everyone equally based on their abilities? I think we should — but we’re not. Adam Hamilton, myself, and any other middle-class, educated, white male has benefitted, not from talent alone, but from a system that was designed by people like us, for people like us. We do not do anything positive when we turn a blind eye to marketing that perpetuates negative stereotypes, disrespects and dishonors any group of people, or denegrates others for a cheap joke.

      3. Creed Pogue Avatar
        Creed Pogue

        Perhaps we simply have a difference of perspective. I have seen too many instances where placements are made based on physical characteristics or relationships rather than merit and then people are surprised when there are poor results.

        You have apparently seen a bunch of situations where the opposite has been true. I have a feeling, though, that there are a lot more situations of the former rather than the latter.

      4. doroteos2 Avatar
        doroteos2

        What I am promoting isn’t tokenism, or a weird reverse discrimination. I really have been struck by an insidious return to an unreflective “non-politically correct” (don’t get me started on how badly this turned out…) insulting disregard for people of all ages, races, cultures and both genders. The “men are pigs, women are sex objects, people are stupid” barrage of messages doesn’t feel like “humor” to me (and a lot of other people). Does this reflect something deeper and more troubling? I think it does. And one problem we have with our current system is that we can point to one thousand and one examples of “equality” and pretend we have become something we haven’t. It makes me sad.

      5. Cindy Thompson Avatar
        Cindy Thompson

        Having watched the process where a man (any man) had to be appointed to church X because they weren’t ready for a woman yet, I will agree with you that I have “seen too many instances where placements are made based on physical characteristics or relationships rather than merit and then people are surprised when there are poor results.” Despite that you and I should both be careful not to assume that just because a man (in my case) or woman (in yours) is appointed to a large congregation that it is for a reason other than his or her spiritual gifts suited to that appointment.

  5. John Meunier Avatar
    John Meunier

    I know. I am idealistic. I want to believe that we are an evolved and kind people, but the evidence is sketchy at best.

    We are neither evolved nor consistently kind. We are sinners. But, you know that already.

    Good reflections.

    Reply
  6. kaleigh. Avatar
    kaleigh.

    this was compelling. thanks for sharing. as a woman going into ministry, and working through ordination, i get many stares and questions when i mentioning that i hope to be a pastor. we have come so far as a denomination, but still have so far to go.

    Reply
  7. La Peregrina Avatar
    La Peregrina

    Thanks for highlighting this! And in answer to your question about how many of our largest churches are led by woman:

    –> NONE. <–

    Not one woman is the lead pastor of the top 100 (in membership) UMCs in the U.S.

    If you want to expand your definition of "largest churches" to include the 1000+ UMCs in the U.S. have memberships of 1,000+, the numbers still aren't good:
    Only 94 of them are led by women as senior/lead pastors…
    and only one of those is a woman of color.

    If your readers are interested in these statistics (and the stories behind them!), then please read the GCSRW Flyer from July-September 2009:
    http://gcsrw.org/InTheLoop/TheFlyer.aspx

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

    Reply
    1. La Peregrina Avatar
      La Peregrina

      I didn’t actually watch the Super Bowl (no tv where I was!), but this morning I read about the commercials on one of my favorite body-image blogs, and I want to assure you that you & your wife were not alone in your analysis!

      See
      http://about-face.org/blog/
      for their live-blogging of the Super Bowl commercials’ portrayal of women

      (I’m not affiliated w/ About-Face, but I love to draw on both secular & denominational sources in analyzing the role of women in the church & society!)

      Reply

Leave a reply to Scott Cancel reply