Let me begin by framing the conversation:
Any woman who God has called to leadership and especially to church planting has deep and often near-fatal wounds from those who believe following our call is sinful.  These wounds can never be neglected and honestly will never completely heal - they mark us and if we are blessed and wise, they end up marking us in a way that enables us to empathize with and reach out to excluded people - they can be holy wounds.  I don't want to overlook these holy wounds, but I want to step beyond them for the sake of this conversation.  What I would really like to engage here is the ways in which those who sincerely support women leaders stop short of actually doing that.
Networking:
As most church planters know, networking is important.  Church planters share ideas, co-conspire, connect each other to resources, console each other, point out pitfalls etc.  And beyond that, Church planters need other leaders to support them: mentors, funds, gathering a core group, church planting networks that will help with the task at hand, connections to those who are really interested in investing in church planting etc.
And, as most women in the church are well aware of, most of the incumbent or established leaders in the church are men.  And the problem is that many men - with good reason - are very interested in investing in young men.  Leaving women...well...under-developed, under-resourced, under-used, and consequently under-heard.

Let me quickly give a couple of examples and then invite you to share your thoughts:

• As I said, the incident that sparked this conversation was being excluded from a gathering of church planters who want to engage their own brokenness and the brokenness of the world.  I was told that the event couldn't facilitate a "mixed gender" group.  As I later found out the decision was basically that the conversation would be hindered by a mixed gender group - aka men wouldn't get as much out of it if women were there.  And, honestly, I can believe that to be true.  But the choice was that women would get nothing out of it so that men could get more out of it.  I do not fault or judge or hold anything against the people who made a well-intentioned call on that.  But they - we all - need to see that excluding women from a conversation about church planting is never incidental, inconsequential, or truly unintentional.  Also, I think many of my male friends would agree that the men there will miss out on the feminine voice - which actually robs our brothers as well as our sisters in faith and calling.  Additionally, as they do not see women represented there or hear our struggles, they will continue to lead in the world in ways that are ignorant of the reality of women planting churches.
• A second example I want to give is from seminary.  I've been to two seminaries.  At both it was suggested that mentored ministry should be - but didn't have to be - done with a mentor of your same gender.  Women are magnificent mentors and I have limitless gratefulness for my mentor, Lisa Domke.  But, as a practice, this keeps women in a lower place.  Men currently have positions of more power and more connection in the church.  Internships are meant to help you make the connections that will help you find a place to minister.  Thus if women are told to have female mentors, they will likely end up with less connections and a harder time finding a place in God's church - which was already an uphill battle.  Beyond that, in Christian universities, seminaries, denominations and most churches you will find that those in leadership are men. And many have hearts for investing in young men. (Taking them under their wings) I watched this many times from the time I was a child to...well...now.  Women are excluded from this - not by intention. And, again, the result is that women leaders are under-developed, under-resourced, under-used, and consequently under-heard.

So, let me ask you a couple of questions:
How have you seen/felt this?
How can we change this?
How can we safe-guard places for our brothers to be lifted up while still giving the gifts God has given women equal time and space for development?
What do men lose by this exclusion?
What have you lost through this exclusion?
How is God calling us to a future where women church-planters are equally developed, resourced, used and heard?

so, in my wordy description of myself to your right, i didn't mention that i'm a woman.  i'm guessing it's implicit.  but as a church planter and a pastor, being a woman dramatically shapes my experience, my opportunities, the places i'm invited, and multiplies the loneliness of church-planting.


there are four aspects of being a woman church planter that i want to discuss.  so i'm going to take the next four weeks to post one post every saturday about this.  i hope that these posts can express my experience, provoke thought - but more so, be a catalyst for discussion.  so, please, come back.  read my thoughts.  and more importantly, share yours.


this is a conversation that is not happening anywhere i can find - but is absolutely necessary - so let's start it.

• jan 29: women church planters and networking
• feb 5: women church planters and church growth
• feb 12: women church planters and exclusion
• feb 19: women church planters and loneliness

i hope to hear your voices.

i'm taking a course on friends theology and practices.  last week, we read a couple of texts about george fox and the beginnings of the friends tradition.  honestly, it made me sad.  it began with a measure of arrogance and impatience that birthed a schism that - even before george fox died - already had the forming of schisms within itself.  there was a dedication to truth at the cost of unity.  i can still see that in quakerism today.


two years ago, i took a course on anglican theology and practices.  one of the sessions was on king henry and the beginnings of the anglican tradition.  honestly, it made me sad.  it began with a measure of immorality and nationalistic concerns ruling over the church.  there was a dedication to unity at the cost of truth.  i can still see that in episcopalianism.


studying church history is such a strange and often difficult thing.  none of the actors are blameless and none of the events are as holy as you might want. if you are honest, you are left with a series of antagonist, arrogant, and self-seeking acts that somehow God corrals into something good.


and i do - i want to be living church history.  i want to be a revolutionary.  but somehow, i want to do it without any of the brokenness and ugliness.  i want to assume that my new community in midtown sacramento can escape the brokenness of every single Christian movement in history.


but....like studying it, living church history is a strange and often difficult thing.  none of the actors are blameless and none of the events are as holy as i often want.  if i'm honest, i'm faced with my own antagonism, arrogance and self-seeking acts that some how God will use to make a work of art.


i want midtown friends to be some idyllic missional hub and to enact every wonderful idea i had in my too many years in seminary (as well as avoid the pitfalls i swore against).  but the truth is God takes brokenness and makes beauty.  and if we are going to be a living part of church history, we are going to be broken and bruised and sometimes ugly - but beautiful in the only eyes that count.


so here's to living church history.