I'm so excited that the number of members of Awesome has reached one hundred!
The name Awesome is an acronymn for 'Anglican Women Evangelicals: Supporting our Ordained Ministries'. We're a network of ordained Anglican women from across the evangelical spectrum, and aim to support each other and to equip each other for ministry in the Church.
The network was launched in January 2004, so almost six years on it's good that we have attracted good numbers of women, and a record number of 42 at our most recent conference in September. Click here for our website, where there's more information.
Membership has reached 100, and we know that there are more women who support our aims. Some 20+ have been members but are lapsed or no longer active, and many others agree with our aims but find support through other networks.
It can be tough an evangelical woman at this point in the life of the Church of England. Many of our ordained sisters come from a more liberal perspective, while some of our evangelical brothers don't believe that those of us who are priests should be ordained!
But there are always signs of hope around too. I'm excited about a couple of books I've just read. One is called Inspiring Women: discovering biblical role models, and it's about the significance of role models and how to preach some of the women in Scripture so that women find new roles models there. Click here for a review. It's a great little booklet, which deals with some of the tricky passages about women as well as encouraging preachers to look at some of the 'little people' in Scripture. Jehosheba, Sheerah, Shallum's daughters? I'd never heard of them either, but I have now!
What else is good news? Another woman appointed archdeacon: Christine Wilson, currently vicar of Goring by Sea has beeen appointed Archdeacon of Chesterfield, bringing the number of women archdeacons to 15. It's going to take a while to change the climate of the church when it comes to senior leadership, but there's slow progress being made.
I want to change the world, but I realise that progress usually only comes in very small steps.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Are women up for 'stepping up'?
I've just received some fascinating results of a survey on 'Women in Senior Posts' (in the Church of England).
A total of 1083 questionaires were returned, from women clergy currently in posts ranging from dean to curate. In response to the question, 'If the opportunity arose some time in the future, would you be prepared to take up a more senior post?' 850 out of that 1083 (78%) said 'Yes'.
This is somewhat at variance with the view that many ordained women are just not interested in posts which come with a high degree of responsibility.
The project was focused around women's aspirations to senior posts, including episcopal ministry. Of most interest to me were responses about other posts which women aspire to, what might prompt them to apply for these posts, and what might prevent them from applying.
Out of those 1083 women, 635 said they'd consider a Team Rector post, 537 being Rural Dean, and 597 a Major Incumbency. What would encourage them to apply? 80% said a personal approach, and only 5.6% said they'd respond to an open advertisement.
If they would not consider a senior post, the first reason given (21.5%) was lack of confidence, followed by the nature of the role, and way down at 2% was geography.
I'm fascinated by this. Almost surprised at the large proportion saying Yes, despite the current situation of deployment patterns. Not surprised that women lack confidence. And moderately surprised at the gap between those who would only respond to a personal response and those who would take the initiative to apply.
If women are up for stepping up, then it seems that the lack of women in senior roles is not so much to do with women's aspiration. So is it, as many have been saying, more to do with hidden bias in the system, and the male leadership culture of the Church? And if so, what is ever going to change it?
A total of 1083 questionaires were returned, from women clergy currently in posts ranging from dean to curate. In response to the question, 'If the opportunity arose some time in the future, would you be prepared to take up a more senior post?' 850 out of that 1083 (78%) said 'Yes'.
This is somewhat at variance with the view that many ordained women are just not interested in posts which come with a high degree of responsibility.
The project was focused around women's aspirations to senior posts, including episcopal ministry. Of most interest to me were responses about other posts which women aspire to, what might prompt them to apply for these posts, and what might prevent them from applying.
Out of those 1083 women, 635 said they'd consider a Team Rector post, 537 being Rural Dean, and 597 a Major Incumbency. What would encourage them to apply? 80% said a personal approach, and only 5.6% said they'd respond to an open advertisement.
If they would not consider a senior post, the first reason given (21.5%) was lack of confidence, followed by the nature of the role, and way down at 2% was geography.
I'm fascinated by this. Almost surprised at the large proportion saying Yes, despite the current situation of deployment patterns. Not surprised that women lack confidence. And moderately surprised at the gap between those who would only respond to a personal response and those who would take the initiative to apply.
If women are up for stepping up, then it seems that the lack of women in senior roles is not so much to do with women's aspiration. So is it, as many have been saying, more to do with hidden bias in the system, and the male leadership culture of the Church? And if so, what is ever going to change it?
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
To the ends of the earth
I've just been reminded that it was October 1932 that a small party of supporters gathered to say farewell to Gladys Aylward as she set sail for China.
The story is well known. Gladys Aylward, a London parlour maid who felt that God was calling her to China, but was unable to learn Chinese and had to leave the training college.
But she was not deterred, and after a hazardous journey to China she spread the Gospel as she went around unbinding the feet of women. In 1940, in the midt of the war, she set off with a hundred children across the mountains and led them to safety away from the advancing Japanese.
The 'cockney sparrow' continued to work among Chinese in Britain and then in Taiwan, where she died in 1970.
The story of her being turned down, yet persevering in pursuit of God's call is echoed by the story of Jackie Pullinger.
God chooses the most unlikely people. Leaders come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes it takes persistence to challenge the 'system'. Women, perhaps more than men, can sometimes challenge the world's way of thinking, that it's the obvious, 'charismatic' figures whom God chooses to be leaders. I'm glad the Bible sees it differently: 'God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise..the weakness of God is stronger than human strength..'
(1 Corinthians 1:25-31)
The story is well known. Gladys Aylward, a London parlour maid who felt that God was calling her to China, but was unable to learn Chinese and had to leave the training college.
But she was not deterred, and after a hazardous journey to China she spread the Gospel as she went around unbinding the feet of women. In 1940, in the midt of the war, she set off with a hundred children across the mountains and led them to safety away from the advancing Japanese.
The 'cockney sparrow' continued to work among Chinese in Britain and then in Taiwan, where she died in 1970.
The story of her being turned down, yet persevering in pursuit of God's call is echoed by the story of Jackie Pullinger.
God chooses the most unlikely people. Leaders come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes it takes persistence to challenge the 'system'. Women, perhaps more than men, can sometimes challenge the world's way of thinking, that it's the obvious, 'charismatic' figures whom God chooses to be leaders. I'm glad the Bible sees it differently: 'God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise..the weakness of God is stronger than human strength..'
(1 Corinthians 1:25-31)
Thursday, 8 October 2009
It's all Greek to me!
A few weeks ago I was in Greece (sigh! - and apologies for the gap in blog posts). Warm sunshine, blue skies (mostly), great food, great wine - and Orthodox churches.
We had a great tour guide on our second week, Thanos, who led us on our visits to villages on the island of Evia. He was an active member of the Orthodox Church, and we had some excellent explanations of the design and layout of churches.
What a great lesson in artistic communication, but which is probably sadly lost on most visitors. I am struck again and again by the images of Christ 'Pantocrator' high up in the dome.
But what most interested me was what Thanos said at the end about the Orthodox Church today. He commented on the fact that many clergy are older rather than younger, and the church is struggling to attract younger priests. I learnt some interesting things about the Orthodox vs Roman Catholics: Orthodox have no time for the Pope and infallibility, or for priestly celibacy (except for bishops).
One solution to the shortage of clergy, Thanos explained, is that Anglican clergy are allowed to lead worship in Orthodox churches. Then (not knowing I was a priest) he turned to the subject of women priests. How often I have heard that some sections of the Anglican church don't agree with the idea of women priests because the Orthodox and Catholic Churches don't.
Apparently there has been a vote in the Greek Orthodox Church in favour of women priests (why is this not more widely known? I ask myself). But the Greek Orthodox Church is part of, and smaller than the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Russian Church is not in favour of women priests, so the Greek Church could not proceed as it wished.
So nothing has yet changed in Greece, but to me this does put a rather different take on the 'tradition' perspective... When it comes to women bishops, does the 'tradition' arguement hold as much water as its supporters suggest it does? If at least part of the Orthodox Church supports a move to women being priests (and bishops), where does that leave the 'traditionalists'?
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Women's Work
A recent Washington Post article: 'Fixing the economy? It's women's work.'
And in Marie Claire in July, the 'Big Question' was 'Could women rescue the world?' 'Worldwide recession, global warming, war...would the planet be in such a mess if women were in charge?'
Part of me wants to say, Yes, women would make a better job of running the world and fixing the economy. But two things stop me. One, to say women would make a better job of these things is too essentialist for my liking. I've just written an article which basically maintains what most research argues: that women and men don't lead that differently.
And two, there is a God dimension to running the world and fixing the economy! No matter whether it's men or women in charge, without regard to God's ways I'm not sure either sex is going to make that good a job of it.
Marie Claire - it was a bit of a feminist rant, but I liked one sentence a lot. 'Our world would be more Garden of Eden, less Soho at closing time on the last night on earth.' Sadly, though, given the level of binge drinking by some young women, I'm not sure women's world would be so 'Garden of Eden'. When it came to the way the writer pointed out how female politicans are treated by the media, though (only interested in their clothes, not whether they can do the job), I was with her all the way.
The Washington Post article is somewhat more serious writing. You can read it by clicking here. The gist is that companies with more women in senior management roles make more money. In Fortune 500 companies, having three or women women in senior management positions made it more likely the company would outperform the competition. Reading between the lines, the research is not actually saying that women are better managers, but that gender diversity is important.
They also cite research which sees a connection between hormonal differences and leadership styles - men are more prone to competition and risk-taking, and women to collaboration and long-term results.
I do find this a little confusing, because another piece of serious research on women leaders suggests they are better than men at taking risks (of the right sort). And as men and women we are much more than the sum of our hormones!
The article also mentions something called the 'diversity prediction theorem', which says that a diverse group will solve a complicated business problem better than a homogeneous group. I suspect most people would think that was obvious!
But while not everyone has got the message, perhaps it is still worth saying. By this token, the Anglican Church would benefit from having women in the House of Bishops, and male-dominated leadership teams and committees might benefit from considering how the voices of women could contribute.
For Christians, it's not about making more money, it's much more important than that. The Church is about spiritual life and death. We can't afford not to use all the gifts God gives.
And in Marie Claire in July, the 'Big Question' was 'Could women rescue the world?' 'Worldwide recession, global warming, war...would the planet be in such a mess if women were in charge?'
Part of me wants to say, Yes, women would make a better job of running the world and fixing the economy. But two things stop me. One, to say women would make a better job of these things is too essentialist for my liking. I've just written an article which basically maintains what most research argues: that women and men don't lead that differently.
And two, there is a God dimension to running the world and fixing the economy! No matter whether it's men or women in charge, without regard to God's ways I'm not sure either sex is going to make that good a job of it.
Marie Claire - it was a bit of a feminist rant, but I liked one sentence a lot. 'Our world would be more Garden of Eden, less Soho at closing time on the last night on earth.' Sadly, though, given the level of binge drinking by some young women, I'm not sure women's world would be so 'Garden of Eden'. When it came to the way the writer pointed out how female politicans are treated by the media, though (only interested in their clothes, not whether they can do the job), I was with her all the way.
The Washington Post article is somewhat more serious writing. You can read it by clicking here. The gist is that companies with more women in senior management roles make more money. In Fortune 500 companies, having three or women women in senior management positions made it more likely the company would outperform the competition. Reading between the lines, the research is not actually saying that women are better managers, but that gender diversity is important.
They also cite research which sees a connection between hormonal differences and leadership styles - men are more prone to competition and risk-taking, and women to collaboration and long-term results.
I do find this a little confusing, because another piece of serious research on women leaders suggests they are better than men at taking risks (of the right sort). And as men and women we are much more than the sum of our hormones!
The article also mentions something called the 'diversity prediction theorem', which says that a diverse group will solve a complicated business problem better than a homogeneous group. I suspect most people would think that was obvious!
But while not everyone has got the message, perhaps it is still worth saying. By this token, the Anglican Church would benefit from having women in the House of Bishops, and male-dominated leadership teams and committees might benefit from considering how the voices of women could contribute.
For Christians, it's not about making more money, it's much more important than that. The Church is about spiritual life and death. We can't afford not to use all the gifts God gives.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Women in the City
A woman serving in a tough parish has returned from holiday to more broken windows in her church. Not long ago her car was broken into.
Frustrations she could do without, on top of all the demands of leading a church.
I've been reflecting on her situation, and the fact that in some tough areas most of the vicars are women. It's one of the emerging patterns that the Dean of Leicester, Viv Faull, noted in a lecture in 2006. But why should this be?
Kilpin gives 4 options:
Frustrations she could do without, on top of all the demands of leading a church.
I've been reflecting on her situation, and the fact that in some tough areas most of the vicars are women. It's one of the emerging patterns that the Dean of Leicester, Viv Faull, noted in a lecture in 2006. But why should this be?
Recently, I found someone else who was asking the same questions. Juliet Kilpin, a Baptist minister, asks: 'Why are there proportionately more female ministers in the inner city than male ministers?' Click here to read the article, on the Baptist 'Mainstream' site. So this is clearly an issue for Baptists as well as for Anglicans.
Kilpin gives 4 options:
- women have more guts than men
- women are less worried about money than men
- inner city churches are more liberal
- inner city churches are more desperate
I wonder which one you would go for? Kilpin's paper is definitely worth reading, though from my own experience I would want to add 'outer estate' to 'inner city': many of the challenges are similar.
Ministry is about service, but it does sometimes seem puzzling to me that some tough parishes can be hard to fill, whereas clergy flock to apply to those in leafy suburbia.
In fact I guess this is the flip side of that other big question, why there are so few women larger churches? One answer might be that numbers of them, whether out of choice or necessity, are following a diffent path.
Monday, 10 August 2009
Religious leaders: end discrimination!
A friend recently sent me a link to a fascinating article about former US President, Jimmy Carter. Click here to read it.
The gist of the article is that Carter, a Baptist deacon and Bible teacher, has severed his connection with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Who cares? one might ask.
But what Carter goes on to say is that it's not just about what women can or can't do in church that has made him question his allegiance. It's the fact that once one has said that women are 'somehow inferior to men', all kinds of other things follow.
He moves on to explore briefly the implications of holding women inferior to men in both Islamic and Christian traditions, and draws attention to a statement issued by the Elders, a global group of eminent leaders, that 'the justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.'
He goes on: 'we are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share. '
I look forward to seeing what happens. I've not noticed much media attention - have you?
The gist of the article is that Carter, a Baptist deacon and Bible teacher, has severed his connection with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Who cares? one might ask.
But what Carter goes on to say is that it's not just about what women can or can't do in church that has made him question his allegiance. It's the fact that once one has said that women are 'somehow inferior to men', all kinds of other things follow.
He moves on to explore briefly the implications of holding women inferior to men in both Islamic and Christian traditions, and draws attention to a statement issued by the Elders, a global group of eminent leaders, that 'the justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable.'
He goes on: 'we are calling on all leaders to challenge and change the harmful teachings and practices, no matter how ingrained, which justify discrimination against women. We ask, in particular, that leaders of all religions have the courage to acknowledge and emphasise the positive messages of dignity and equality that all the world's major faiths share. '
I look forward to seeing what happens. I've not noticed much media attention - have you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
