I definitely agree that there has been an argument about what the Bible teaches on this matter. Once upon a time there was an argument about head coverings for women, the owning of slaves, and all manner of other things. I am not interested in arguing the point. Many theologians and Biblical scholars have done this already. Now the question for me is how we are going to act. What we are doing today with each classis voting is one thing that makes our classis not just a problem today but a broken part of our culture. So, my statement is that since no one has suggested a way to fix classis as it stands and I see no way to do so, all efforts that we put in to try to make this particular structure more relevant would better serve the church by going toward something that lacks this significant flaw.
I have an eye for organizational structures that work, having spent my career to date in change management. There might be a better organizational culture visionary than I who can see how we can move from our current state to one of thriving while retaining classis, but I honestly do not see it. I really am not suggesting that we rehash the "women's issue" as a denomination. In fact, I think the opposite -- that we should not visit it again as a denomination. In order to do that, it appears to me that we must get rid of classis. Really. Otherwise we will continue to have people like me who are compelled to feel part of a country club that does not permit black people. I hope you can understand how that tugs at my conscience. If others are fine with our church not permitting black people to be seated at some of our denominational meetings (no black females are permitted, for example), then that is for them to decide. My comments here are not to change minds on this subject but to show why I think that we should stop putting our efforts into classis. The culture of classis is fatally ill, in my opinion.
Yes, I am aware that there are differences of opinion when interpreting Scripture. These have been visited and revisited in our denomination. Just with your few words above, I have no idea why you think that because Jesus had 12 male disciples that he was locking out women. Further, I cannot understand why Jesus having 12 disciples would prompt you to call women into discipleship (if you are among those who do) but think they should be locked out of other roles.
So my concerns about classis here are given that we have multiple interpretations that we have said are acceptable within our denomination, we need a better way of working this out. I think we need to figure out how to address the organizational cutlure issues that we have now, and I think some creative efforts related to classis could really go a long way. Sweeping the issue under the carpet, pretending that all is OK and causing one classis after the next to vote on whether women can move to the front of the bus is not cutting it, in my opinion. For example, how many more times do I have to hear that my classis again voted to refuse to seat women?
I would like to see our resources put into ways to mitigate the problems we have specifically with classis rather than putting lipstick on it at this point. --dawn
I think it is fantastic that there was such collaboration between the denominations at the level of classis. I think regional work across denominations can make big differences. Thanks for writing this up, Paul.
Now, I don't like being an Eeyore about it (everyone who knows me knows I'm much more like Tigger) but I sure would like to see us move our attention from classis. Classis is the last of our structures above the level of the church that can vote, as my classis did, not to seat women (yes, in 2012!!). I know, I know -- this story is so last millennium. We have women ministers, so let's get on with our kingdom work, right? Well, individuals can choose their church, so in many locations they can go to a CRC that does not discriminate against women. At the denominational level we permit women, at least in theory, to be leaders. We cannot choose our classis, however, while remaining within the denomination. So, some of us are inadvertantly members of a country club that does not permit tee times for black people (just an analogy) BECAUSE of the problems of our denomination that are at the level of classis. Please consider this -- how much would it tug on your conscience to have a membership at a golf course that did not permit tee times for minorities?
The classis structure is and will remain a significant issue because it is permitted to block women. Celebrating that there are classes that can be so inclusive as to have a joint meeting with a sister denomination doesn't change the fact that our sisters are still being denied a place at some classis meetings altogether and will be for the foreseeable future (our entire lifetimes, I would guess).
So, to answer your question "Is there an RCA classis near you that you can approach and begin to talk about relating with?" -- ha! That would definitely be "no" as NO ONE of my gender may even be seated at our own classis meetings. How 'bout them apples?
I would love, love, love to see the energy you and others are putting into the classical structure go, instead, into the structures of our system where women are welcomed. Even if your classis permits women, the structure is still critically ill and I wish that we would not pretend otherwise. If, on the other hand, this is part of a strategic plan to have classes share with Reformed classes, thinking that this might be a way to get women in through the back door, I do not think it will work. I do not think that was a consideration in doing this, but just in case someone might think this would be helpful to women, I really doubt it. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see anything outside of an applecart-upset that will fix classis, as a structure. I recognize many classes do many good things, but they will continue to have this critical wound. I think we need to minimize the work and need for classis in order to lift up other structures that do permit full participation.
I realize that many who once cared about this topic have left the CRC, but how we treat women is part of the entire fabric of the world in its treatment of women. So, even if we do not care about the future for our own children, we shoud at least care related to the treatment of women world-wide and our part in that. If we are sinking our resources into our classes, we are saying that this structure is OK or that it can be reformed or that we are fine with classis Iokota telling women in 2012 to stay in the kitchen, for example.
What if next time you have a joint regional meeting that is not a "joint classis meeting" instead? The "classis brand" is broken. If we focus on regions, rather than classes, then those regions that shun women in their classis could ignore all of that and celebrate together and join in missions in a joint regional conference of CRC and RCA people. Because there seems very little hope of reforming classis and no sign that anyone is still working to lift the barriers, I would like to see classis stay as irrelevant as it typically is, or become even more irrelevant, and have us raise up better structures for our regional church work.
If, on the other hand, you think we can redeem this structure without blowing it up to do so, then please lay out a plan for that. Right now I cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. If I could see how classis could be redeemed, maybe I would be more inclined to lend more of a rah, rah to this effort to make classis relevant. Otherwise everything going into classis right now looks like band aids and like some final attempt to lift up a dying patient. I really do think it is fantastic that you have great classical relationships, but I don't even like hearing the word anymore. Woolworths really had to go out of business, right?
I see many of the same issues you are seeing, but my analysis is a bit different. Organizations are prone to seek decentralization where there is centralization and centralization where decentralized. Back when each agency worked more on its own, with less centralization, there were significant issues too. One of those issues was that each agency bombarded church members with lots of mailings, each spending plenty to compete with the others. "We" as the denomination were giving money to agencies so they could each compete with the others for us to give them more money to compete with each other. This still happens, of course, but it has been good to have some better centralization in this regard.
There were other issues then too, some of which I saw too closely that are hopefully in the past and that I will not indicate here. Also, I can say with certainty that there were illegal activities taking place where I know the parties were told the activities were illegal and continued the practices knowingly and on purpose. A whistle blower could do nothing other than work like crazy to eliminate the illegal behavior across all of the agencies in a way that the denomination spent a lot more money than if there had been an ED at the time. It was so decentralized that I doubt you can find anyone who would know what I am talking about (but you can ask me offline). So, while I am sure that there are some centralized functions that could benefit, even if only from a Hawthorne type of effect, from decentralization, I would not be too quick to jump toward really significant decentralization to the local classis.
Classes have some of the biggest baggage in the denomination and often have significant differences of opinion within a loosely-formed, sometimes dysfunctional, group. For example, there can be churches that favor launching new churches and others that insist on very strict adherence to xyz within their classis in such a way that would hamper a new church. Some have decided against women and others for women while the classis then has the authority not to seat women. It might shock some to know that there are still many all-male classis in our denomination even in 2011.
I suggest that instead of going the route of putting more in the hands of classis, we could do something signficant with potentially much better results by doing what many companies do and eliminate the "middle management." So, I'll suggest that any decentralization be to the local churches. Churches might decide to work with another church, but if they get a denominational grant, for example, they could work with other churches of a like mind, without a classis in the middle. Local churches already have a means to function that works for their organizational culture. The denomination can help with economies of scale and we could completely eliminate classical interference (many new churches have stories about how a classis has tried to trip them up, for example) by eliminating classes or reducing their role rather than expanding it.
I do not see this as cut and dried, but I would favor a focus on local congregations, possibly with regional assistance coming from the denomination. This approach aligns with the healthy church initiative and would be good if there were a home missions push to encourage churches to birth daughter churches, for example. If we focus on making our churches and our denomination healthy with our limited resources, we could have less, rather than more, handled by the "middle management" of our classes. I realize this is a drastically different approach and that you are tasked with doing what might be considered to be a marketing function for classis with this blog, so this is likely the opposite direction you want to go, but what do you see as the downside to eliminating classes altogether? [Yes, I know it would be radical and we are a slow-moving organization, but sometimes it is worth doing an apple-cart upset.] If we do not go that route, then we really need to do something to make it much easier for a classis to get something done, and, of course, we must end the discrimination against women for some of us to have any interest in putting more money in the hands of these organizations. Make sense?
Good points, August. Classis does not act like middle management across the board, but it does serve as middle management in at least one way that trips my radar. A classis in our denomination can decide not to permit any Koreans, Hispanics, or Black people to participate in decisions that affect the church members in their area by not allowing them a seat at the classis meetings. Synod does not do this and churches can make sure they do not discriminate, but the classis can vote to discriminate in this way and make decisions while blocking groups of people from full participation in the church in this way.
No, wait, I have that wrong. It looks like these groups may send males, but only males, to such classis meetings. it is a much larger group in the denomination that the classes may block -- some classes in our denomination actually decide they will not permit any women to participate! WOW, Shocking, eh? Are we willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit tee times for black people, I mean for women? How badly does that tug at your conscience?
Has almost everyone who is wrenched by this either left the denomination or in a classis that no longer blocks women so that they think this issue is behind our denomination? Sadly it isn't. It is still one of the big issues our denomination has to cope with in order to be healthy. We really need to get beyond it. Granting more authority (in terms of budget dollars, for example) to these classes that have the authority to exclude women does not seem like the way to get beyond it.
We could be a light in this world, where in so many countries and households women are treated so poorly. We could also be an example of how we can have churches that discriminate side by side with churches that don't in the same denomination, but not by blocking women at the classis level. It might be very difficult for us to get beyond this issue in our midst without replacing classis with something else. So, that's my vote (and I remember when women could not vote in our churches). smiles. --dawn
To a quota of 25% minority should we add a quota of more than 50% female? For minorities who make up 10% of the denomination the proposal is 25%, so for women, perhaps 75% would be acceptable? I do not want quotas for either category but thought I would note that it seems this quota recommendation is not about justice or faithfulness to Scripture. This recommendation must be about something else, otherwise it has missed the mark in a big way with no gender figure. Is it about marketing, given the increased percentage of minorities in North America?
How will the definition of "minority" be determined over time? If white people of European descent are less than 50% of the North American population at some point, will that group then become a minority that is counted in that 25% quota?
I hope that synod will be wise enough to squash the quota concept altogether, but if they opt for quotas, then I look forward to hearing the gender-based quota figure. More than 50% of the leadership of the CRC being women could definitely drastically change the denomination. smiles.
Ken -- My point is that if this were about justice, then it would include a quota for women. It does not include such a quota, so either it should be changed to include a gender quota that is also greater than the percentage of women in the denomination or I will continue to figure this must be about something other than justice and correcting wrongs. Try putting up a woman against a minority male for a position and see who is more likely to get the job (hint: Hillary vs Obama in the last election).
Additionally, I would be interested in knowing how often a more qualified white male loses out to a less qualified minority or woman compared to those times in recent years when a more qualified minority or female has lost out to a white male. I suspect the later does not occur nearly as often as the former within the CRC. Do we really want to mandate that some high percentage (compared to the percentage of the whole) of minorities get jobs over a non-minority man or woman?
Let's say that we identify that we have 10% women in leadership positions and 10% minorities. Now approximately equally qualified non-minority female and minority male apply for the position. By this quota, the nod would go to the male, even though they would be represented appropriately (10% for 10%) while women would not be (10% for 50%).
I do not favor quotas like this at all, but see it as an affront to women to treat the gap of minority leadership without treating the gender gap as well. I would like to better understand why there is a recommendation for a minority quota without a recommendation for a gender quota. It is a terrible idea to address these issues with a quota, in my opinion, although if that is the direction the body wishes to go, then I can imagine going along with a 50-50 balance between men and women in leadership positions in the CRC.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
I definitely agree that there has been an argument about what the Bible teaches on this matter. Once upon a time there was an argument about head coverings for women, the owning of slaves, and all manner of other things. I am not interested in arguing the point. Many theologians and Biblical scholars have done this already. Now the question for me is how we are going to act. What we are doing today with each classis voting is one thing that makes our classis not just a problem today but a broken part of our culture. So, my statement is that since no one has suggested a way to fix classis as it stands and I see no way to do so, all efforts that we put in to try to make this particular structure more relevant would better serve the church by going toward something that lacks this significant flaw.
I have an eye for organizational structures that work, having spent my career to date in change management. There might be a better organizational culture visionary than I who can see how we can move from our current state to one of thriving while retaining classis, but I honestly do not see it. I really am not suggesting that we rehash the "women's issue" as a denomination. In fact, I think the opposite -- that we should not visit it again as a denomination. In order to do that, it appears to me that we must get rid of classis. Really. Otherwise we will continue to have people like me who are compelled to feel part of a country club that does not permit black people. I hope you can understand how that tugs at my conscience. If others are fine with our church not permitting black people to be seated at some of our denominational meetings (no black females are permitted, for example), then that is for them to decide. My comments here are not to change minds on this subject but to show why I think that we should stop putting our efforts into classis. The culture of classis is fatally ill, in my opinion.
--dawn
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Yes, I am aware that there are differences of opinion when interpreting Scripture. These have been visited and revisited in our denomination. Just with your few words above, I have no idea why you think that because Jesus had 12 male disciples that he was locking out women. Further, I cannot understand why Jesus having 12 disciples would prompt you to call women into discipleship (if you are among those who do) but think they should be locked out of other roles.
So my concerns about classis here are given that we have multiple interpretations that we have said are acceptable within our denomination, we need a better way of working this out. I think we need to figure out how to address the organizational cutlure issues that we have now, and I think some creative efforts related to classis could really go a long way. Sweeping the issue under the carpet, pretending that all is OK and causing one classis after the next to vote on whether women can move to the front of the bus is not cutting it, in my opinion. For example, how many more times do I have to hear that my classis again voted to refuse to seat women?
I would like to see our resources put into ways to mitigate the problems we have specifically with classis rather than putting lipstick on it at this point. --dawn
Posted in: Uniting Christ's Body Through Classis
I think it is fantastic that there was such collaboration between the denominations at the level of classis. I think regional work across denominations can make big differences. Thanks for writing this up, Paul.
Now, I don't like being an Eeyore about it (everyone who knows me knows I'm much more like Tigger) but I sure would like to see us move our attention from classis. Classis is the last of our structures above the level of the church that can vote, as my classis did, not to seat women (yes, in 2012!!). I know, I know -- this story is so last millennium. We have women ministers, so let's get on with our kingdom work, right? Well, individuals can choose their church, so in many locations they can go to a CRC that does not discriminate against women. At the denominational level we permit women, at least in theory, to be leaders. We cannot choose our classis, however, while remaining within the denomination. So, some of us are inadvertantly members of a country club that does not permit tee times for black people (just an analogy) BECAUSE of the problems of our denomination that are at the level of classis. Please consider this -- how much would it tug on your conscience to have a membership at a golf course that did not permit tee times for minorities?
The classis structure is and will remain a significant issue because it is permitted to block women. Celebrating that there are classes that can be so inclusive as to have a joint meeting with a sister denomination doesn't change the fact that our sisters are still being denied a place at some classis meetings altogether and will be for the foreseeable future (our entire lifetimes, I would guess).
So, to answer your question "Is there an RCA classis near you that you can approach and begin to talk about relating with?" -- ha! That would definitely be "no" as NO ONE of my gender may even be seated at our own classis meetings. How 'bout them apples?
I would love, love, love to see the energy you and others are putting into the classical structure go, instead, into the structures of our system where women are welcomed. Even if your classis permits women, the structure is still critically ill and I wish that we would not pretend otherwise. If, on the other hand, this is part of a strategic plan to have classes share with Reformed classes, thinking that this might be a way to get women in through the back door, I do not think it will work. I do not think that was a consideration in doing this, but just in case someone might think this would be helpful to women, I really doubt it. Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see anything outside of an applecart-upset that will fix classis, as a structure. I recognize many classes do many good things, but they will continue to have this critical wound. I think we need to minimize the work and need for classis in order to lift up other structures that do permit full participation.
I realize that many who once cared about this topic have left the CRC, but how we treat women is part of the entire fabric of the world in its treatment of women. So, even if we do not care about the future for our own children, we shoud at least care related to the treatment of women world-wide and our part in that. If we are sinking our resources into our classes, we are saying that this structure is OK or that it can be reformed or that we are fine with classis Iokota telling women in 2012 to stay in the kitchen, for example.
What if next time you have a joint regional meeting that is not a "joint classis meeting" instead? The "classis brand" is broken. If we focus on regions, rather than classes, then those regions that shun women in their classis could ignore all of that and celebrate together and join in missions in a joint regional conference of CRC and RCA people. Because there seems very little hope of reforming classis and no sign that anyone is still working to lift the barriers, I would like to see classis stay as irrelevant as it typically is, or become even more irrelevant, and have us raise up better structures for our regional church work.
If, on the other hand, you think we can redeem this structure without blowing it up to do so, then please lay out a plan for that. Right now I cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. If I could see how classis could be redeemed, maybe I would be more inclined to lend more of a rah, rah to this effort to make classis relevant. Otherwise everything going into classis right now looks like band aids and like some final attempt to lift up a dying patient. I really do think it is fantastic that you have great classical relationships, but I don't even like hearing the word anymore. Woolworths really had to go out of business, right?
Posted in: Drama Queen
I see many of the same issues you are seeing, but my analysis is a bit different. Organizations are prone to seek decentralization where there is centralization and centralization where decentralized. Back when each agency worked more on its own, with less centralization, there were significant issues too. One of those issues was that each agency bombarded church members with lots of mailings, each spending plenty to compete with the others. "We" as the denomination were giving money to agencies so they could each compete with the others for us to give them more money to compete with each other. This still happens, of course, but it has been good to have some better centralization in this regard.
There were other issues then too, some of which I saw too closely that are hopefully in the past and that I will not indicate here. Also, I can say with certainty that there were illegal activities taking place where I know the parties were told the activities were illegal and continued the practices knowingly and on purpose. A whistle blower could do nothing other than work like crazy to eliminate the illegal behavior across all of the agencies in a way that the denomination spent a lot more money than if there had been an ED at the time. It was so decentralized that I doubt you can find anyone who would know what I am talking about (but you can ask me offline). So, while I am sure that there are some centralized functions that could benefit, even if only from a Hawthorne type of effect, from decentralization, I would not be too quick to jump toward really significant decentralization to the local classis.
Classes have some of the biggest baggage in the denomination and often have significant differences of opinion within a loosely-formed, sometimes dysfunctional, group. For example, there can be churches that favor launching new churches and others that insist on very strict adherence to xyz within their classis in such a way that would hamper a new church. Some have decided against women and others for women while the classis then has the authority not to seat women. It might shock some to know that there are still many all-male classis in our denomination even in 2011.
I suggest that instead of going the route of putting more in the hands of classis, we could do something signficant with potentially much better results by doing what many companies do and eliminate the "middle management." So, I'll suggest that any decentralization be to the local churches. Churches might decide to work with another church, but if they get a denominational grant, for example, they could work with other churches of a like mind, without a classis in the middle. Local churches already have a means to function that works for their organizational culture. The denomination can help with economies of scale and we could completely eliminate classical interference (many new churches have stories about how a classis has tried to trip them up, for example) by eliminating classes or reducing their role rather than expanding it.
I do not see this as cut and dried, but I would favor a focus on local congregations, possibly with regional assistance coming from the denomination. This approach aligns with the healthy church initiative and would be good if there were a home missions push to encourage churches to birth daughter churches, for example. If we focus on making our churches and our denomination healthy with our limited resources, we could have less, rather than more, handled by the "middle management" of our classes. I realize this is a drastically different approach and that you are tasked with doing what might be considered to be a marketing function for classis with this blog, so this is likely the opposite direction you want to go, but what do you see as the downside to eliminating classes altogether? [Yes, I know it would be radical and we are a slow-moving organization, but sometimes it is worth doing an apple-cart upset.] If we do not go that route, then we really need to do something to make it much easier for a classis to get something done, and, of course, we must end the discrimination against women for some of us to have any interest in putting more money in the hands of these organizations. Make sense?
Posted in: Drama Queen
Good points, August. Classis does not act like middle management across the board, but it does serve as middle management in at least one way that trips my radar. A classis in our denomination can decide not to permit any Koreans, Hispanics, or Black people to participate in decisions that affect the church members in their area by not allowing them a seat at the classis meetings. Synod does not do this and churches can make sure they do not discriminate, but the classis can vote to discriminate in this way and make decisions while blocking groups of people from full participation in the church in this way.
No, wait, I have that wrong. It looks like these groups may send males, but only males, to such classis meetings. it is a much larger group in the denomination that the classes may block -- some classes in our denomination actually decide they will not permit any women to participate! WOW, Shocking, eh? Are we willing to be a member of a country club that does not permit tee times for black people, I mean for women? How badly does that tug at your conscience?
Has almost everyone who is wrenched by this either left the denomination or in a classis that no longer blocks women so that they think this issue is behind our denomination? Sadly it isn't. It is still one of the big issues our denomination has to cope with in order to be healthy. We really need to get beyond it. Granting more authority (in terms of budget dollars, for example) to these classes that have the authority to exclude women does not seem like the way to get beyond it.
We could be a light in this world, where in so many countries and households women are treated so poorly. We could also be an example of how we can have churches that discriminate side by side with churches that don't in the same denomination, but not by blocking women at the classis level. It might be very difficult for us to get beyond this issue in our midst without replacing classis with something else. So, that's my vote (and I remember when women could not vote in our churches). smiles. --dawn
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
To a quota of 25% minority should we add a quota of more than 50% female? For minorities who make up 10% of the denomination the proposal is 25%, so for women, perhaps 75% would be acceptable? I do not want quotas for either category but thought I would note that it seems this quota recommendation is not about justice or faithfulness to Scripture. This recommendation must be about something else, otherwise it has missed the mark in a big way with no gender figure. Is it about marketing, given the increased percentage of minorities in North America?
How will the definition of "minority" be determined over time? If white people of European descent are less than 50% of the North American population at some point, will that group then become a minority that is counted in that 25% quota?
I hope that synod will be wise enough to squash the quota concept altogether, but if they opt for quotas, then I look forward to hearing the gender-based quota figure. More than 50% of the leadership of the CRC being women could definitely drastically change the denomination. smiles.
Posted in: People of Color in Leadership Positions
Ken -- My point is that if this were about justice, then it would include a quota for women. It does not include such a quota, so either it should be changed to include a gender quota that is also greater than the percentage of women in the denomination or I will continue to figure this must be about something other than justice and correcting wrongs. Try putting up a woman against a minority male for a position and see who is more likely to get the job (hint: Hillary vs Obama in the last election).
Additionally, I would be interested in knowing how often a more qualified white male loses out to a less qualified minority or woman compared to those times in recent years when a more qualified minority or female has lost out to a white male. I suspect the later does not occur nearly as often as the former within the CRC. Do we really want to mandate that some high percentage (compared to the percentage of the whole) of minorities get jobs over a non-minority man or woman?
Let's say that we identify that we have 10% women in leadership positions and 10% minorities. Now approximately equally qualified non-minority female and minority male apply for the position. By this quota, the nod would go to the male, even though they would be represented appropriately (10% for 10%) while women would not be (10% for 50%).
I do not favor quotas like this at all, but see it as an affront to women to treat the gap of minority leadership without treating the gender gap as well. I would like to better understand why there is a recommendation for a minority quota without a recommendation for a gender quota. It is a terrible idea to address these issues with a quota, in my opinion, although if that is the direction the body wishes to go, then I can imagine going along with a 50-50 balance between men and women in leadership positions in the CRC.