Men and Women
together: levelling the playing field in church
Structures
of society are such that men are still constantly favoured when it comes to
taking up leadership positions. The weight of tradition speaks in favour of
having a man. Being a conservative body by nature, the church has by and large,
and more than many others, maintained a male leadership ethos. One should
remember that what I will say here is said against the background of generations
of male dominance, a state of affairs that I have not forgotten.
The
task is really to level the playing field. I think the metaphor is clear
enough: we have to scrutinize ourselves, especially we who are men, and ensure
that there are equal rights, equal access, that criteria that are in place are
jointly agreed upon, by men and women alike; in other words, the rules on the
ground have to be the same for all.
Time
may not have come yet, as our culture immemorially to such an extent has
prescribed what a male task and what a female task is respectively. Still I
would maintain that there is a dire need to confront the reality of
complementarity between men and women also in church, not for the sake of
knowing who has access to which ministry but on a deeper and more profound
level; not follow slavishly the legacy of uneven power sharing, but rather
challenging that legacy; an ecumenical space, taking into account all different
church traditions, could be ideal for such engagement, but God knows when time
is ripe for such engagement (see forthcoming article by myself and Anders Göranzon in The Ecumenical Review,
March 2013).
However, having agreed on a level playing field, the only way forward is to have a completely open process and having tested the various candidates one must let the best person have the job.
What
has happened now, however, is that those who have a say do not fully trust that
the ground rules for a levelled field are enough. They want to influence the
very decision in favour of the one side. Here something else has come in, an
altogether different category or rule has been allowed to play a role. What it
amounts to when it comes to ensure that women get into leadership positions is
simply a decision to favour women before men. It must be made clear that we are
talking about two different systems here. One is about ground rules that must
be the same for all, while the other is outright in favour of the one side,
against the other. In line with this is to bring in quotas, for example making
sure that we have an equal number of women and men.
We
could here draw a parallel with the affirmative action mechanism that had to be
put in place in South Africa in the new democratic dispensation after 1994, in
order to help blacks entering those parts of society that previously had been
the sole privilege of whites. The freedom fighter Joe Slovo, who was part of
the first democratic government, saw the affirmative action arrangement as a
set of “sunset clauses”, as they were meant solely for the period of transition
(max 10 years). But affirmative action is still on in South Africa and is in
the process of derailing the country. More than one million whites have left
the country since 1994. Young whites do not get jobs in South Africa but well
overseas so ironically the arrangement now backfires on those it should have benefited
as the white exodus is a virtual brain drain.
When
it comes to men and women in church one should agree on the ground rules and
then trust the honesty and fair-mindedness of all involved. One must as soon as
possible leave the whole issue of trying to enforce an equal number of men and
women in the various positions. I want to see a woman in leadership because she
is (at the time of appointment at least) the best on offer. What a shame:
imagine you got a job because you are a man. It is like saying, you are blond
and handsome, we like to see you as our boss, or you speak with a nice,
national Swedish accent (rikssvenska) therefore we like to hear you speak, and
also have you as our leader. This is utterly wrong, utter nonsense!
Those
who deliberately have said, “we must have a woman here”, may regret this in two
ways: 1) the appointee is there on the wrong premises and therefore will not
deliver, and 2) the appointment will create resentment among the other half of
humanity, among the males, which fact eventually will fall back on women; this
because the fate of us as human beings is to live together, men and women.
More
than twenty years ago I read a discussion in a German paper on this same issue
among academics. I particularly remember two women who were adamant in saying
that “my position as a professor at this university I hold, not because I am a
woman but because I qualified for it and was the best on offer at the time”.
This argument sticks in my memory till today. Women are making great strides
into the academic work place these days and more and more there are indeed
quite clear ground rules and criteria as to who is qualified to a certain
position at a university.
It
may be more difficult in a church, especially in a church like Church of
Sweden, where it is very difficult to specify what kind of delivery the leader
must come up with. Those who go to church seem to go to church whether they
have a good bishop or not. There is no clarity as to which criteria should be
used for a church leader. You have not heard of a church leader being fired
because of not delivering the “goods” that were expected; rather he or she may
be fired because of authoritarian ways of leadership or because of problems of
co-operation (samarbetsproblem). The church is maybe a software organization
without the necessary hardware backup (hard ware could be church attendance for
example). This very fact makes it possible to appoint people who do not
deliver, because it is very difficult to say what they should deliver.
I
still want to maintain two things. First, if it is true that the best person
has been appointed, and if that happens to have been a woman, good and fine,
then my whole argument drops. But those who took the decision know pretty well
what they were doing, it is if nothing else at least a matter between their
conscience and their God. Second, what seems to have been the case also is that
some of the eligible men have kept away. They may have smelt a rat here, they
may have felt that they would not stand a chance and therefore they did not
apply in the first place. By staying away they have helped aggravate the
situation.
In
the field of academic theology we are seeing a real shift these days, and young
women are coming into the field of theology enriching the field immensely. The
late Professor Per Frostin at Lund made the following remark in the 1980s
already: systematic theology is still the domain of white, male theologians,
and it is not just because the others are not good enough, because they are,
but we have a culture that makes it difficult for the others to come in.
To
me this has to do with the playing field having to be made level for women but
also for men and women of the other continents. Make no mistake about it, for
they are coming in full force. More and more people are discovering that they
are having a real passion for theology. They are to be congratulated. Women may
have their own programmes when doing theology, like the Concerned African Women
Theologians (founded by Professor Mercy Amba Oduyoye, Nigeria), now serving all
the various regions of Africa, but would do well to engage more with the male
theologians. There is an expressed need for this in South Africa for example.
When
I read texts of systematic theologians like Professor Sarah Coakley, Cambridge,
or Dr Jayne Svenungsson, the Stockholm School of Theology (who comes from the
same seminar in systematic theology in Lund as I do, but we were part of it at
different times), I have to say to myself, here is something new and better
than I have seen before. We here seem to have two of many people who have been
appointed because they were the best on offer, at least at the time of
appointment.
No comments:
Post a Comment