The West Wing and the Portrayal of Women on TV

Imagine with me for a moment that when we sat down to watch television with our sons and our daughters, what we saw when women were portrayed were competent, smart women accomplishing important things and keeping their clothes on.  What would that be like?

I've spent the past few months watching through all seven seasons of NBC's The West Wing on my Amazon Prime streaming service.  As I have done so, I have been struck by the different way women are treated on this show as opposed to virtually any other show on TV, past or present.

One of the earliest episodes in Season 1 is called, "These Crackpots and These Women." In this episode, three of the high-powered male characters stand at a cocktail party and admiringly watch the strong, capable, smart women with whom they serve and comment on their inner qualities instead of the size of their breasts or rating their prowess in bed.  At one point, the chief of staff comments on one woman staffer who is "going punch for punch with Toby in a world that tells women to sit down and shut up."  By and large, this conversation among the male staffers summarizes the basic attitude toward women on the show.  You rarely see women sexualized, women are always portrayed as strong people with brains who have things to say, and women virtually always have their clothes on (and their clothes tend to be business suits or classy, sophisticated evening gowns). This is the TV show I want my daughter to watch.  In fact, this is the TV show I want my son to watch.  I want them to see how smart and capable women are, how wonderful it is when the two genders work together to accomplish goals.  I want my daughter to see that she is more than beauty (although she is that), but she is also a smart person, a serious person.

As I have found myself steeped deeply in The West Wing these past months, I have become very aware of how terribly women are treated on most other shows.  On most shows, women exist for men in some way.  Women are merely sex objects, bodies, for the consumption and pleasure of others.  Women are taught (Miley Cyrus, anyone?) that the more outrageous the spectacle of their nakedness and sexuality is, the more fame they will be awarded and the higher they will climb in achievement.

This point was underlined in a New York Times article by Jodi Kantor this Sunday, "Harvard Business School Case Study: Gender Equity."

In even such a venerable school as the Harvard Business School, women are often silenced and relegated to being sex objects.  Kantor writes: "Yet many Wall Street-hardened women confided that Harvard was worse than any trading floor, with first-year students divided into sections that took all their classes together and often developed the overheated dynamics of reality shows. Some male students, many with finance backgrounds, commandeered classroom discussions and hazed female students and younger faculty members, and openly ruminated on whom they would 'kill, sleep with or marry' (in cruder terms). Alcohol-soaked social events could be worse." This from a so-called "serious school"!  If Harvard fares this way, what hope the rest of the world?  The article goes on to detail the ways in which the leadership of the school is trying to upend the social system that makes such an environment possible.  They have made some modest gains and I hope they will continue their good work.

Sex is a part of life.  But is it all there is to life?  Has our culture become so saturated in a sexualized way of approaching women that we can no longer view them as real people with an important perspective to share?  As serious leaders?  As intelligent agents of change, hope and purpose?  I've begun to ask these questions even more after watching the eye-opening (and sometimes graphic) documentary Miss Representation (available on Netflix streaming currently).  Jennifer Siebel put this film together because of her deep concerns for her daughter as she looked at the way women were treated in the media.  She realized how powerful the images we see day after day on our screens can be to us.  She wanted to challenge the norms and raise a clarion call for higher standards.  She also wanted to challenge us all to consider what the media norms for the portrayal of women say to our culture about women in leadership.  Do they keep us from taking women in leadership seriously?  How can we change that?

I find myself wondering, with Siebel, not only how the media affects my daughter's body image and self esteem but also how it impacts what she wants to do with her life and whether she feels that she can be taken seriously in a world that talks more about Hillary Clinton's pantsuits and Sarah Palin's beauty queen looks than the substance of their arguments.  And I wonder how the media impacts the experiences of women in ministry too.  I was once a woman in pastoral leadership.  Did the men who I led see me as a serious person with intelligence and serious thoughts?  Or did they see me as a girl who needed to keep house, look pretty and leave the serious thoughts to the boys?  If I had to guess, I'd say that I think that there were probably some of both mindsets.

I don't know exactly what we do to change things.  But I have a couple of goals for my daughter and son as I seek to shape their view of women.  First of all, I hope to encourage them to view worthy, edifying television and movies.  Although I will seek age-appropriate viewing, this does not mean that I will look for what is the most squeaky-clean as my only concern but rather that I will look for media to consume that uplifts worthy values and worthy people, that shows the consequences of bad choices, and that stirs imagination and thought.  I will also hope to seek out projects that give a positive view of women.  Secondly, I hope to engage my kids in discussion about what we see on the screen.  We won't always agree with everything we see and I don't believe in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  If the majority of a show is good, I won't abandon it because of one distasteful element.  But I will (and already do) talk to my kids about what we see, what is worthy, what is not, and why.  I will teach them to analyze what they see instead of just accepting it whole-sale.

And I will hope for many more worthy television programs like The West Wing.

What about you?  How do you navigate the challenges of media and the portrayal of women with your kids?  What shows or movies have you found to be especially worthy and edifying?

franklin graham's mistake: why it matters, but not as much as you think

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Internet and cable news were all abuzz yesterday and today concerning remarks made on Morning Joe (MSNBC) by Rev. Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham and head of Christian relief organization Samaritan's Purse.  Graham, in an interview with co-host Willie Geist and other panel members, seemed to suggest on the one hand that a person's true faith in Christ is known only to them, but then on the other hand expressed far more certainty regarding the Christian faith of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich than that of President Obama.  He said that Mitt Romney is not a Christian, but a Mormon (for more on what Christians mean when they say this, please visit my previous post here), but that he would be a good President and leader.  He also criticized what he considered to be the inaction of President Obama in urging certain Muslim nations to cease persecuting Christians, citing in particular the situation of persecution of Christians which currently exists in Egypt. 

Graham said faith is something determined in one's heart and one has to ask a person about their faith to know if they are a Christian.  The sticking point for many people regarding Graham's responses when asked about the faith of each candidate is that he then sought to judge the hearts of all of the men involved (as he had said he could not do).  The second sticking point is that Graham suggested that faith is revealed by actions (a very Biblical statement, by the way), but that he seemed to ignore actions that didn't support his case.  President Obama didn't support the social issue stands most important to Graham, ergo, President Obama may or may not be a Christian.  Gingrich had engaged in moral failure, but did appear to be a Christian, according to Graham.  Why not call into question Gingrich's faith, due to his adultery, if actions are the measure of faith?  Why only subject President Obama to hesitancy regarding his faith? 

To be fair, Graham was in a no-win situation from the moment he was asked about candidates' faith.  The best scenario for him would have been to comment equally on all of the candidates that God alone knows their hearts.  He should have stayed out of the politics of it.  He should have done this because the dipping of the toe into partisan politics tends to discredit those who seek to serve the Lord in ministry.

Understand, I am not saying that pastors cannot talk about social issues and call people to repentance.  It is essential that they do so.  But getting into a situation where they are called upon to endorse or repudiate specific candidates is polarizing and gets in the way of their message.  This is why as a pastor, I never publicly encouraged people to vote for any particular candidate.  However, I was firm in my teaching on social issues such as the need of caring for the poor and needy, the importance of stopping genocide, the sin of abortion, and the wrongness of acting on homosexual impulses.  When it came to politics, I would engage in collegial discussions with congregation members, assuming that Christians who believe strongly in God's Word come to different conclusions on how to live it out the teachings of Scripture.

As you can imagine, my views did not place me firmly in either party, and I suppose that helped when it came time to lead a congregation.  I could see different points of view in terms of how we accomplish the goals we are called to as Christians.  For example, Republicans believe that the poor are better helped by a social policy that limits government intervention; they believe that one gains self-esteem from working hard and rising in success based on their own merits.  They do not believe that government money legitimately helps the poor, except in the most dire of cases.  Now, it is perfectly possible to be a strong Christian and hold this perspective.  Of course selfishness can come into play, but so can selflessness.  Many Christians believe that if they are not taxed at a high rate, they will have more money to give to charitable endeavors.  This may not always work, but if an individual is seeking to live out these ideals and help in a more personal way than the government can, we should applaud them for living out their faith.  Conversely, many Democrats believe that the poor are better helped by limiting the opportunity of our human nature to resist sharing. They believe that a free society has a responsibility from all of its members to care for the poor and needy and so they believe in higher taxation to provide the funds for this care.  They believe that the government has a more direct role to play in providing for the poor.  Such beliefs easily hearken back to Old Testament Law in which the whole society was responsible to care for the poor and needy amongst the people.  I believe either position can be reached through serious interaction with Scripture.  Now, is it important for a pastor to stand up and say: "The only viable way for us to see that the poor are served and cared for is _________"?  No!  Furthermore, no method will be perfect, for we live in a sinful world.  But simply because our methods are imperfect, we are not "let off the hook" from trying.

As long as a Christian is in the Word and tries to think about the world from God's perspective, he or she can seek to do good in either (or no) political party.  As the old saying goes, "there is more than one way to skin a cat."  We need to respect that others may have different methods of achieving Biblically-sound goals of good for society and the world. 

The problem is not whether Franklin Graham privately reflects on where he thinks each candidate is at spiritually.  As he pointed out in the interview, evaluating faith and calling people to come to Christ are "his business," just as news is the media's business.  The problem is that Franklin Graham proclaimed publicly what he thought the status of each man's faith was.  Now, how will Franklin Graham be able to preach the Gospel credibly to any of the candidates?  How will he be able to encourage them in faith?

I am hesitant to be too hard on Franklin Graham, however.  We often forget that even pastors are human and liable to make mistakes just like the rest of us.  When they make a mistake, they are reduced to that misstep alone and their finer deeds are ignored.  Franklin Graham was all but crucified on the internet and in the press in the past 24 hours.  And his very real accomplishments on behalf of the poor and vulnerable in the world were ignored.  He was relegated into a very narrow box of what the world thinks a Christian is.

Chuck Todd, political analyst for MSNBC and host of The Daily Rundown, tweeted yesterday morning, "Franklin Graham has a lot to learn from his father."  Fair enough.  But we often forget that Billy Graham also landed himself in political hot water from time to time.  On one occasion, Graham was accused of being a propaganda tool of the former Soviet Union, an accusation not entirely unwarranted, despite his good intentions.  William Martin wrote in Christianity Today: "[Critics] pointed in particular to a 1982 Moscow 'Peace Conference,' which did indeed have a strong anti-American slant, and after which Graham made some inadequately considered—and inaccurately reported—remarks that seemed to describe greater religious freedom in the USSR than in fact existed. Graham understands, of course, that the governments of the countries he has visited have their own agendas and that preaching the Christian gospel is not a major priority. 'Of course they are using us,' he said. "But we are using them as well, and my message is stronger than theirs.'"  To one extent, Graham was being realistic and shrewd.  To another extent, he was being too innocent about the impact of his actions.  Should he have spoken on political matters in such a way?  Probably not.  Was he confusing his calling momentarily?  Probably.

Then there was the even more troubling revelation in 2002 of the Nixon tapes of 1972 which found Billy Graham making anti-Semitic remarks to Richard Nixon, despite his long support of the nation of Israel.  Graham later apologized for the remarks, saying he did not even recall making them.  It's hard to imagine what he was thinking at the time.  Could he have been star-struck by President Nixon?  Could he actually have harbored anti-Semitic thoughts in his heart?  We cannot say for sure.  We can only say that Graham made a very significant mistake, but that he righted it and repented of his words.

Every time Billy Graham attempted to step outside the range of his calling--the speaking of the Law and the Gospel in Scripture--and attempted to lead in matters of politics, he was humbled.  He made some major mistakes when it came to politics.  But he also did tremendous good in the Body of Christ.  His lasting legacy is found in the countless people came to new or renewed faith in Christ through his work of evangelism.  The impact of his ministry will be seen in the assembled saints in Heaven.

We should look at the ministry and work of his son with the benefit of this history in our minds.  Franklin Graham is not a perfect man.  There have been several times he has ventured too much into the field of politics and too far away from his callings to care for the poor and needy of the world and to speak the Gospel.  When he strays from these callings, he is humbled, just as his father was.  However, that does not negate the excellent and massive relief work he does in the world.  Samaritan's Purse recognizes the importance of relieving the suffering of those in need and puts its money where its mouth is.  In the midst of the drought and famine in East Africa, they provided food and relief.  They give Christmas gift boxes to underprivileged children throughout the world through Operation Christmas Child.  Whenever there is a natural disaster in the world, they are there providing aid.  They aid in medical missions, hunger relief, HIV/AIDS care, water programs.  We cannot dismiss these good efforts.  All too often Christians are said to care nothing for the poor.  This is not true of Franklin Graham.  He has invested his life in the care of the poor.  You could say that this ministry is his life's work; politics is only his hobby.

Should we call into question Graham's words this morning?  Certainly it is fair to do so.  But we ought not blow his words out of proportion.  We ought to look at the full man with a balanced eye and give thanks for all the good that he, yet an imperfect sinner saved by God's grace, does in the world.

Book Review Friday: When Work and Family Collide by Andy Stanley

When Work and Family Collide: Keeping Your Job from Cheating Your Family by Andy Stanley (Multnomah Books) is like a modern-day book of Proverbs, speaking to the workaholic spouse and parent and providing direct and wise counsel on how to stop the madness and reclaim the most key priorities of life.

Andy Stanley is the founder of a megachurch, North Point Ministries in Atlanta.  As any ministry family knows, the Church can be a very demanding profession.  One has spiritual reasons for neglecting one's family.  The needs of congregation members never end and one can easily gift their loved ones the short shrift.  Yet, Stanley has steadfastly sought to prioritize his family members, despite the intense demands of starting and running a new congregation.  He is a valuable role model for the over-stressed, over-worked typical American.

Stanley's running idea throughout the book is that there are only so many resources to go around and we will necessarily let someone down.  In this way, we will either "cheat" our families or our workplace.  Stanley says we ought to rather "cheat" our workplaces before we "cheat" our families.  He points out that employers often do not value our loyalty and efforts, but that our families absolutely require it.  He says that the workaholic's prayer is, "Dear God, you do what only I can do while I go do what many other could do just as well or better."

When I first started reading this book, I struggled with Stanley's use of the word "cheat."  When I struggled so much as a young pastor, wife and mother, always feeling as if I was letting someone down, this was precisely my worry.  I often thought to myself that I was being paid by my employer and I could not dare to let them down because that would be like cheating or stealing.  Yet, for my family responsibilities, I was not paid.  It would not be stealing to let them down, but it did tear my heart out.  As I progressed further in the book, Stanley made it clear that he is not saying that Christians should defraud their employers of their due by sneaking out the door or just letting things go.  Rather, he advises directness with one's employer.  He holds up Daniel 1 as an example of how to appeal a rule that is forcing one to go against their convictions.  His insights about presenting the issue to the employer directly, listening to their concerns, and seeking to come up with a solution that meets both parties' needs seemed to me wise and practical.  (However, I always did struggle as a young pastor with figuring out who my boss was: God?  The church council--who changed every year and who each had different expectations?  The average member?  The bishop?  Still, conversations such as these would have been helpful to have had with the council, even if the revolving door of people entering council positions introduced some difficulties.)

This is a very helpful, readable book with a lot of wisdom, helpful stories and illustrations, and strong conviction.  It holds up the importance of our family relationships as the most important commitments in our lives.  It also includes a very helpful 4-week study guide for groups to use in discussion.  Recommended.  3 1/2 stars.

Disclaimer: I received this book for free from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group for this review.  I was not required to write a positive review and the opinions included are my own.

To read the first chapter of When Work and Family Collide, go here.

Book Review Friday: Healing Your Church Hurt by Stephen Mansfield

When I signed up to be a book review blogger last month, one of the books I was most excited to read was this week's featured title: Healing Your Church Hurt: What To Do When You Still Love God But Have Been Wounded by His People by Stephen Mansfield.  (The first version of this book was titled ReChurch.)  I was excited to read this book because, frankly, I needed it.  I still need it.  The last year of our time as pastors in North Dakota was fraught with conflict that exhausted me and wore me down.  I came to Montana wanting to be very slow about getting involved in church.  I would support Christopher is his role as pastor and be a positive presence at church, but I felt just very, very tired of the pain that churches cause.  I was bleeding inside and I was pretty angry.

God has slowly been bringing me back from that battle-weary state.  He has been so very good to me this year, surrounding me with trustworthy friends with whom I can be real and deepen my faith.  He has blessed me with an incredible Bible study where I get to be a participant instead of the leader.  There is still healing left to do, but I have begun to feel the cynicism and anger recede and a softness of spirit develop in me.

Healing Your Church Hurt is a book to help people whose hearts have been broken by the Church.  Stephen Mansfield writes from the perspective of a man who has been deeply hurt by the Church.  He writes of his experience: "For nearly a decade, I had been the pastor of a growing and influential church.  It had been a glorious experience and I had loved the life that we shared and the history that we made as this nearly four thousand-member congregation pursued the things of God.  But then, for reasons that don't need airing here, it all came to an end amidst conflict and uproar.  Oh, it was a classic--complete with a conspiring church board and gossip packaged as 'sharing' in prayer meetings and accusations flying fast and loose.  Demons danced and angels wept, and I should say quickly that I sinned too."

Sound familiar?  I know that it did to me.  Mansfield goes on to write that he was becoming broken and bitter, cynical and angry.  He went over the whole horrible story over and over again in his mind, even after he had left the congregation where the wounding occurred.  He began to develop hatred for those who had attacked and hurt him.  He describes his soul as a "toxic bog" at this point.

Mansfield says that at this point in his descent, God sent him a group of "bold and unapologetic" pastors who took him to task, strongly confronted him, and forced him to face what he needed to so that he could find healing.  They were his coaches, helping him to not only heal but begin to live out a hopeful future.  But it was hard, strenuous emotional and spiritual work.  Since that time, Mansfield found that God was constantly bringing him into contact with people who had been wounded by the Church.  He began to realize that inherent in these encounters was a call.  This book was written to help fulfill that call.  Mansfield now writes to every Christian who is in the position he was in.  He writes as if he is now one of the bold, confronting pastors, challenging us as readers to be all God calls us to be.

Throughout the course of the book, I appreciated Mansfield's direct voice.  He doesn't tiptoe around the truth but states it baldly and strongly.  He does so with compassion and love, but he speaks the truth that sets us free.

One of the chapters that I most appreciated in the book was "The Sea Breeze of the Centuries," in which Mansfield tells the story of several prominent Christians in church history who suffered terrible pain at the hands of other Christians.  I don't know why I had never thought of this before, but it never occurred to me that some of the worst pain the heroes of the faith endured was at the hands of other Christians.  Mansfield tells of how George Whitefield had rotten eggs and pieces of dead cats thrown at him when he preached, of how he had drummers try to drown out his preaching, of how he once had someone try to urinate on him while he preached.  (As someone who once had a prominent congregation member stand up after a sermon I gave and publicly reprimand me for it, I began to feel, reading this, that perhaps I had not had it so bad after all!)  Even worse, Whitfield was attacked on theological grounds by his good friend, John Wesley, in a very public way.  This wound was perhaps the worst of all.  But Mansfield shows how Whitfield worked his way through the pain and found healing.  He also tells the stories of St. Patrick, Jonathan Edwards and Bono, and ways that they also encountered wounding at the hands of the Church.  But of how they did not stay in that broken place, but went on to healing.  These stories were powerful to me and I will likely return to them again and again.

In the remainder of the book, Mansfield continues to speak truth in a direct way to those of us who have been wounded by the Church.  He reminds us that we should expect that other sinners are indeed capable of evil, though they are believers; we ought not be sentimental about the people of the Church, but should face the facts as they are.  This truth resonated with the Lutheran teaching that believers are fully saint and fully sinner.  This does not mean that we cannot grow in character, but it does mean that we will always be flawed and broken and sinful until God takes us home to heaven.  And so, we should not be shocked when a Christian wounds us for he or she is still a person in process, a broken person, just like us.

In "The Throne Room of Your Mind," Mansfield provides a powerful image for what to do with the sins committed against us.  This single image is worth the price of the book and much more besides; I think it has changed my life.  This chapter helped me so much because I have always felt in attempting to forgive someone that I simply don't know what to do with the very real presence of their sin.  And so I rehash it again and again.  Now, I have a place to put it.

This is a deeply wise, challenging book that every Christian who has been hurt by other Christians should read.  It is chock-full of truths that can change your life and transform you from a broken person to whole person.  It is also immensely readable.  Highly recommended.

5 out of 5 stars

To learn more about this book, visit the Tyndale website here.  In addition, you can read a free excerpt by going here.  To learn more about Stephen Mansfield, you can visit his personal website as well.  Finally, watch this blog for your chance to enter your name in a drawing for a copy of this powerful book.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.  I was not required to write a positive review.  The opinions I have expressed are my own.  I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

introverts and leadership

Look at a job listing for any leadership position and you'll probably notice that people are looking for a superhuman.  Not only must a leader be a visionary, but he or she must also be charismatic with people.  Pastors must get the bottoms in the seat, but also produce well thought-out, deep sermons and set a compelling and Scriptural vision for a church.  Political leaders must spend time "relating to" people and kissing babies.  Leaders must be: Happy and hopeful.  "On" in public, all the time.  Yet, conscientious and attentive to detail.

We cannot, of course, have it all in one person.

I have wondered for a while now if part of the reticence to Mitt Romney as a presidential nominee is not only due to the occasional insensitive comment he makes or his position-shifting, but rather to some introvert tendencies that he seems to display.  (Note: Though I attempted to do research on whether Governor Romney is, in fact, an introvert or not, I was unable to find any definitive data.)

Though we do not know for sure if Governor Romney is an introvert, we can certainly agree that he displays a certain social awkwardness and stunted ability to turn on the charisma and charm people. 

Yet, we also know that Governor Romney thinks in a careful, nuanced way, as he did in his rich and resonant speech on his Mormon faith and religious faith in America in 2007.  Romney is a deep thinker, but not necessarily skilled in extroverted back-slapping and baby kissing.  People hold this against him, but I ask if his lack of people skills means he cannot be a great leader? 

In my work as a pastoral intern and then as a pastor, I found two things to be true.  One was that I was naturally shy and could easily use that as an excuse to hide out in my office, avoiding the difficulty of social interaction.  Certainly, I brought some of people's occasional frustration with me on myself.  For to be a good pastor, you must love and know your people, not just think about them.

But the second thing I found to be true was that while I often needed to stretch outside my comfort zone more than I did, like a rubber band, there was only so far I could be stretched without snapping.  I can develop skills that do not come naturally, but I cannot change my overall personality.  For good or for ill, I am an introvert.  I like people, but I don't gain energy from being with them most of the time.  I enjoy having long periods of time spent in thought and reflection.  I function best when I can read, encounter new ideas, watch the world around me and carefully analyze what is good and what can be better.  I like to listen to people and learn things about them, too.  I believe I serve best when I am allowed to use these gifts, rather than hide them under a bushel, forever chasing the unreachable goal of an extroverted personality. 

We need both extroverts and introverts in the world of leadership.  Extroverts excel at reaching out to large groups of people and making them feel wanted, invited, and cared for.  They know how to generate excitement and enthusiasm.  They know how to get big groups of people together.  They know how to form a tribe.

But introverts stand back in the shadows and carefully analyze not just the quantity but the quality of the work.  They know that depth is just as important as breadth.  Introverts listen to people; they pay attention.  To put it baldly: They know when to shut up.  They offer correctives and cautions that extroverts in their enthusiasm may have missed.  In their willingness to spend time alone in thought, they help governments, companies and churches to develop integrity and depth in the work that they do. 

Without introverts, it is hard to form a mission with depth.  Without extroverts, it is hard to get people to buy-in to the mission. 

Yes, I am painting in broad strokes.  There is a continuum, to be sure, of introversion and extroversion.  But to simply choose our leaders based on their charisma, without attention to their depth and character, is a mistake.  Perhaps we ought to look at our potential and current leaders with an eye to whether they surround themselves with people who balance out their inadequacies, with an eye to their character, with an eye to the depth of their thought.  After all, it is not enough to build a tribe if you have nowhere to lead them.

Note: Politics can be a powder keg and I am certainly not endorsing Governor Romney in this post, but am simply offering some food for thought, regardless of who each of us votes for in the midst of the election season.

For more on introverts and extroverts and leadership, check out this article on Psychology Today's website and this one on Forbes.com.

why i won't be boycotting starbucks

On January 25, Starbucks posted the following status to Facebook: “We are proud to support Marriage Equality legislation in the Washington State Legislature.”  Of course, some conservative Christians raised brouhaha over this statement and the comments in response to Starbucks are still coming in.  For example, one commenter said: “I will be taking my dollars elsewhere because of this support - and I do love my Starbucks. But I do have the right in this country to choose how I spend my money. And I choose to not spend it with a company supporting something I do not.”  A few months ago, it became apparent that Starbucks matched employee gifts to Planned Parenthood and at that time also many Christians declared that they would no longer buy coffee from Starbucks. 

But I do not count myself among the boycotters. 

Unlike my more liberal friends, I don’t agree with Starbucks’ expenditures.  It’s not how I would spend my money and I don’t appreciate these causes.  I don’t support Marriage Equality legislation (although I am certainly far more concerned about the redefinition of marriage within the church—which I expect to be set apart for God— than in the State—which I expect to act like the world).  I definitely don’t support the mission and work of Planned Parenthood.  Although there are caring people who work there, I do not trust the organization itself to truly do what is best for women. 

If I don’t like Starbucks’ money going to these causes, then why have I failed to jump on the boycott bandwagon?

Well, first of all, I believe boycotts should be more than a knee-jerk reaction.  Because our decisions directly impact someone’s business, we should stop and think hard before we boycott.  We should think about the message we send by our boycott.  (Are we contributing to the “intolerant bigots” view of Christians today?)  We should think also about what other companies are contributing to the causes of which we disapprove.  For example, there is a list of the other companies who are part of the Washington United for Marriage Business Coalition, a pro-gay marriage group.  The list is long and although many of the companies are local businesses in Washington, there are a number of prominent national businesses as well.  I believe each should be scrutinized equally when it comes to potential boycotts.  Are you prepared to drop your insurance company (American Family Insurance)?  Are you willing to start using another search engine (Google)?  Plan to change your computer’s operating system (Microsoft)?  Unless you are willing to consider these choices, you are simply succumbing to a herd mentality, doing the “trendy Christian thing.”  We live in a world where it’s cool to boycott Starbucks in some Christian circles, but if we are not consistent, we run the risk of simply coming across as hateful and making very little impact.  (Note: There is a similar list of companies that currently match employee's gifts to Planned Parenthood here.  Starbucks is not listed on that list but is listed here; I have been unable to substantiate whether or not they are still providing these matching funds.)  

Sooner or later though, we come to realize that all businesses and all money are tainted with sin.  If we dig deep enough in most companies, we will find something we don’t like, something of which we disapprove.  Yes, there may be times when we feel conscience-bound to boycott a business (and if God is calling you to do that, by all means do!).  There may be times when we feel so uncomfortable with a certain group’s business practices that we decide to shop elsewhere.  But we should think and pray carefully before we haul off with an angry boycott. 

Yes, sin is serious.  Yes, Christians are concerned with turning away from sin.  But we also have to think about how our tactics make our message come across.  Are we giving off a haughty attitude or are we portraying the Biblical understanding of sin?  Sin is something we are all complicit in.  Sin is something we all need a Savior to deliver us from.  And that Savior did come, because He loved us enough to give up His life for us.  So, the story begins with sin, but it ends with a Savior. 

Where is the Savior in the angry boycott language?  Is our communication style making it harder for people to see Jesus?  Rather than boycotting a business for having different values than our own, maybe it would make sense for each Christian to become friends with someone who believes vastly differently than they do.  Maybe in gently sharing God’s love and care for their friend, an open heart to Biblical truth may result.  Christian disciples are not made by placards, slogans, and boycotts.  Christian disciples are made through the Word, the Holy Spirit and the power of personal relationships with Christians.  And Christians who are plugged into the Scriptures and Christian community fundamentally begin to change from the inside out.

We shouldn’t expect Starbucks—or Google—to have Biblical values.  But maybe we can all befriend and care about Starbucks one barista at a time.  The way Jesus would.  And maybe those individuals can be changed to see the world the way God does. 

Book Review Friday: Why Men Hate Going to Church

A female friend of mine summarized Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow this way: “Love to hate that book.”  Having just read the revised 2011 version, I think this perfectly encapsulates what it is like as a woman to read this book.  There is no question that its message is deeply needed in the Christian church, where in nearly every congregation women outnumber men, where men (particularly younger, masculine men) look at church as irrelevant and boring, and where the undeniable feminizing influence on the church (and even on the perception of Jesus) has been felt for decades—maybe even a couple centuries.  As Murrow points out, statistically fathers have the largest influence on whether or not their children will continue in the Christian faith in which they were raised.  So, in the need for the message of this book, I love it.  However, it is difficult to hear (as a woman) that the way I have been doing ministry is sometimes counter-productive to men’s growth in faith, and therefore to the growth of the whole church. 

Murrow does not criticize women in leadership per se (although he does suggest that too many women up front in a church communicates to men that there is no place for them).  I did appreciate that in his final chapter, he gives a great example of how a female pastor has created a church culture that reaches men perhaps better than any other church he has witnessed.  Women can do this, but it takes more effort and it takes sometimes being willing to step out of the spot-light in order that a brother in Christ may have the opportunity to grow in leadership and as a role model to other men.

In college, I took an intensely interesting class in cultural anthropology in which I studied how a group or culture operates as a holistic system.  Reading this book reminded me of that class.  Like it or not, the way Murrow describes how men think and act is reality.  Can men be challenged in many areas?  Yes, of course they can, just as women can.  But you have to start with where they are.  This is no different really from the growth of seeker-sensitive ministries that seek to “become all things to all men that they might in all ways save some.”  Still, just as seeker-sensitive ministries can do, I found myself wondering if orienting ourselves to the way men think and act simply because it is reality can at times sacrifice some of the message.  For example, if a church focuses overly on numbers, achievement, power, glory as oftentimes appeals to men, then where is the word of the Apostle Paul, who reminds us that Christ’s power is present in our weakness?  Where is the power of the cross?  Where is the surrender of self that the Lordship of Christ to which we are called?

Still, with that said, sensitivity to and understanding of the culture of men is important.  Only if we understand how a man thinks and operates can we decide intentionally when to depart from their culture.  Instead of departing from a man’s culture by default and concluding that Christianity is fundamentally feminine, we can analyze our assumptions and better communicate with the men for whom Christ also died.

Murrow begins his book with this insight:

One Sunday I was sitting in church, half-listening to the sermon, when my wandering mind recalled a quote from a business guru: “Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you’re getting.”

Like the business guru, Murrow contends that the Church has been setting itself up for failure in its attempts to reach men.  It covers its walls with quilting and its tables with doilies, sings emotional songs, puts women up front, emphasizes touchy-feely stuff and academics (skills in which women excel) instead of doing (in which men excel), wastes time, fails to take risks, doesn’t get things accomplished.  It is set up to be a field of frustration for men.  Murrow goes on to say,

Men don’t hate God or Christ or the Bible or Christianity.  They hate a system that’s perfectly designed to reach someone else.  A system that makes them feel unneeded.  A system that exalts the gifts they simply do not possess.

One of the most helpful insights in the book for me related to the language used of our relationship with Jesus.  Murrow helpfully points out that terms like “personal relationship with Jesus,” “Jesus, I’m so in love with you,” “passion for Christ,” “passion for other men,” and the like are squirm-worthy for men.  They enter church convinced that it is a feminine place anyway and then we (unintentionally) throw homo-erotic imagery at them.  Murrow rightly states that this language is not in fact Biblical.  It is a construct that we place on the Scriptures.  We are nowhere told to fall in love with Jesus.  Yes, the Church is called the Bride of Christ, but this is as a whole, not in terms of individuals.  Murrow rightly criticizes the “Jesus is my Boyfriend” praise songs that have been circulating throughout the Church for years.  He points out that men are often more drawn to hymns with a driving, marching beat.  And he adds that while women may be drawn to the immanence of God, men are more often drawn to the transcendence of God. 

Also helpful was Murrow’s contrasting of Lion-Jesus with Lamb-Jesus.  He says the latter image has become dominant in the church of today, but that in Scripture “Lion-Jesus isn’t the exception; he’s the rule.”  Murrow also helpfully distinguishes from the terminology Jesus used for believers—Kingdom of God—and the default language the Church has taken on—Family of God.  He points out that once the dominant and only image we use for the Church is Family, we become hesitant to risk, confront or change.  Instead of God’s will and mission being the goal, harmony at all cost becomes the goal.  Finally, very helpful were Murrow’s suggestions for how to make small changes in the worship service in order that it might communicate better with men (such as using humor or remembering that men are visual learners).

In summary, this is a really important book and I think every person in ministry (including lay leaders) should read it.  Will I accept every statement the author makes wholesale?  No, but he has given me a lot to think about and digest.  He has changed my perspective on what it is like to be a man in the Church.  And because of that, I highly recommend this book.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com <http://BookSneeze®.com> book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 <http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/16cfr255_03.html> : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

the upside of depression

If you struggle with depression, particularly chronic, lifelong depression, as I have (although at times my depression and even more prominent anxiety abate for a while, they always come back), it is probably pretty hard to see any upside to their place in your life.  I know it has been hard for me.  Sometimes the weight of these emotions on my shoulders has been significant and even crippling at times.  A while ago, I saw Nassir Ghaemi interviewed on The Colbert Report, concerning his recent book, A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness. 

I found Ghaemi's thesis so encouraging: that during crisis times in history a person with a non-psychotic mental illness such as depression or anxiety is of more use than a person who scores high on the optimism scales and would generally be described as mentally healthy.  This is because a person who battles depression or anxiety has certain qualities such as resilience and realism that well-equip them to deal with trying times, qualities which the average healthy person does not possess in the necessary quantities.  Well, I have had A First-Rate Madness on my library waiting list for a while, so in the meantime, I got a book that follows the same theory, but zeroes in on just one great person from history, Abraham Lincoln.  The book is Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness by Joshua Wolf Shenk.

For any person who struggles with any mood disorder and wonders what the point of it all is, this is highly recommended reading.  Abraham Lincoln's journey with depression is carefully portrayed, with all the fine elements of story.  This is no dry history book, but a living, pulsing account of the private agony that Lincoln suffered throughout the course of his life.  It emerged publicly in young adulthood and at that time, Lincoln's friends sought to protect him from suicidal urges.  Later, Lincoln's depression became quieter and more indrawn, particularly after his marriage to Mary Todd.  He was able to use the energy of his depression to fuel a larger purpose, for which he became relentless and more determined over time, the cause of ending slavery.

Shenk shows how Lincoln was able to deal with the complex times into which he was thrust through the perseverance that he developed dealing with depression throughout his life.  He shows how Lincoln developed patience that enabled him to plod through, steady as the tortoise to the hare.  He shows how despondent he was over his failures but so willing to continue in what he believed.  He shows how Lincoln overcame his suicidal tendencies to live for something greater than himself, how brave this was, and how Lincoln can be a profound role model for the depressive.  As I was reading the book, I said to myself, "there is no way Shenk could write about the agony of depression the way he does unless he himself had suffered from it."  And sure enough, a perusal of his website reveals that part of the attraction to Lincoln's story for him was that Shenk was battling depression.  It appears that Lincoln's character became profoundly transformative for him, just as I believe it will be for any depressive who reads this book.

Lincoln's story gave me great courage in thinking of what the life of a depressive can look like through the years of life. So often, it is easy to look at "just now" and feel that all is lost.  But if I can train myself to take the long view, as Lincoln did, I can let the storms of depression carve my character out of the rock of life.  I can nurture in myself creativity, resilience, and realism that will make me available to the challenges of leadership that come my way.  Rather than viewing my depression and anxiety as shameful, I can look at them as opportunities to deal with life as it really is, rather than with avoidance of challenges.  Depression can be an awful burden but it can also be a great gift.  I have written before about leaning into the pain (rather than avoiding it) and how that has been a helpful metaphor for me in dealing with depression.  Shenk's book on Lincoln provides even more hope to embrace the gift of depression and the benefits it brings with it which would not otherwise be possible.

I'm linking this post up to Momma Made it Look Easy and you should too!

what evangelicals mean when they call mormonism a "cult"

I think that as the election season begins to heat up, I will probably begin to incorporate more posts about politics into my blog.  I promise to try my best not to be reactive, but instead to be reflective and think carefully about what I write.  Please feel free to share alternate opinions (or agreeing ones!), but with respect and kindness to me and to other commenters!  Thanks!

The political world is all atwitter about the evangelical pastor who introduced Rick Perry at an event and called Mormonism a cult.  Perry later said he did not agree with the sentiment and that he didn't choose who introduced him.

To me, this was a non-event.  Except that I was initially a little surprised to find that Rick Perry, as an evangelical Christian, did not view Mormonism as a cult. I have always believed Mormonism to be a cult.  This does not mean that I disliked Mormons as people or felt that they were unworthy of participation in society.  In fact, there were some things that I thought they did better than some Christians: family values, the willingness to commit to being a missionary, the courage to be different in society.  I'd be very happy to have Mormon friends.  I have no problem with them in leadership and judge them the same as I do other leaders (are they good people of character? etc.).  I just don't think they are saved.  I don't think they trust Jesus as their Savior.

But for the first time today, I stopped to analyze the word "cult" and to wonder what the non-Christian world hears when they hear the word, "cult." I  began to wonder if what they hear is "weird, chanting, Kool-aid drinkers."  Which is not what I mean when I use the word, "cult."  What I mean is that Mormonism, although it calls itself "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," is a religious group that falls outside the beliefs of orthodox Christianity.  The main issue with Mormonism is that it denies core teachings of the Christian faith.

But given this definition, I am beginning to think that it may be more helpful language for us to use as evangelical Christians to call Mormonism "another religion." This still respects the fundamental difference between its beliefs and orthodox Christianity while not using language that suggests child sacrifice and mass killings (to some hearers).  It gives a better opportunity for witnessing too because we're just being honest about the significant (and salvation-impacting) differences instead of calling names.

I have had an issue for a long time with the religious significance many Christians give to the self-named religious revelations of another Mormon, Glenn Beck.  I'm not gonna wrangle too hard with you as a Christian if you agree with him politically.  But if you are a Christian and you ascribe spiritual significance to what he teaches, I am very concerned, because he is not a Christian.  He is the proponent of another religion.  He has every right to participate in society, and even to practice his religious beliefs and speak about them.  He has every right to use his free speech.  But as a Christian, I should be getting my spiritual guidance from my church, from other Christians, and from the Bible.

But I don't have a problem with Mitt Romney being a Mormon, in terms of whether he should be President.  He's not trying to guide me spiritually.  He's trying to assume an elected office.  Martin Luther once said something along the lines that he would rather have a wise Turk than a stupid Christian ruling in the land.  I agree.  I think that we don't have to have a Christian be the President.  I think it's great if there's a smart Christian who will lead well and have good ideas and morals, but if the best candidate is not a Christian, it's ok.  There is a difference between the realm of the church and the realm of the government.  And sometimes it's healthy for the church not to have all the power.  Look at how strong the church was in ancient Rome when it was persecuted by rulers who were far from God.  And look how ugly the church got when Constantine converted to Christianity and made the whole empire Christian.  Sometimes Christianity functions best as a minority.  Why?  Because we do not rely on our own strength but on God and we lean hard on Him.  We grow in our faith far more this way.

I submit these thoughts for your consideration in the midst of the broo-haha surrounding "that Mormon remark."  With all love and respect.:-)

gov. chris christie: saying no to big opportunities

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has done several things recently that have impressed me quite a bit.  I don't know his politics much and haven't taken much time to study his positions on the issues that matter to me.  But I know that as a leader and as a human being, I am really coming to respect him. 

The first thing moment that greatly impressed me was when Christie appointed a Muslim-American lawyer who had defended terrorism suspects (who never ended up being charged) as a New Jersey Superior Court judge.  The pick was criticized by certain bloggers and columnists, charging that the judge would be more likely to attempt to follow Shariah law.  To this, Chris Christie responded, "This Shariah law business is crap.  It’s just crazy and I’m tired of dealing with the crazies."  He knew the judge personally and defended his character and reputation.  This reply to the controversy from a Republican made me sit up and pay attention.  Yes, both parties have their problems, but I have seen all too many "fear-mongering" techniques to gain votes coming from the Republican party lately.  It's not necessarily a popular Republican position to suggest that a Muslim judge could be a great judge.  Christie didn't care.  He spoke the truth as he saw it.  That takes guts.

The second thing that Christie did that caused me to sit up and pay attention happened this week.  Despite intense pressure from important and ordinary people alike, Chris Christie decided not to run for President at this time.  A lot of people would probably yield to the pressure.  A lot of politicians are so lacking in a personal compass and so lacking in an internal sense of purpose and worth that they will jump at being asked to doing something important, even if the timing is wrong, even if it means abdicating important commitments, even if they feel unprepared, even if people are trodden underfoot.  Because their sense of importance is tied to achievement and opportunity, they just can't say no. 

Christie showed a different example for us all.  Despite the extremely flattering attempts of powerful and everyday people to get him to run, Christie considered it carefully, but in the end decided that he needed to finish his commitment to New Jersey.  He said that he worked hard to get that job and wanted to be true to his commitment.  I think this shows character, something I always look for in the people I vote for. 

But Christie's response to this opportunity left me thinking even more about the character I am attempting to develop in my own life.  The character to do things because I feel called to do them, not because I feel pressured to do them.  It has been a hard realization for me that I am a people-pleaser.  Oh, how disappointing!  I always thought I was more hard-core than that!  But no, I often do things to get people to approve of me.  I often do things in order to gain the success that I use to feed my self-esteem.  Rather, than living out of a sense of purpose and giftedness, I often find myself doing things in order to fit the mold of what people expect of me. 

This was a big problem for me as a young pastor because I had 600 bosses and was always worried that I was not doing things correctly enough, that I was not filling the picture people had of what a pastor should be, that I was not giving people enough of their money's worth.  It turned into a crazy treadmill as I tried hard to please but felt it falling flat sometimes because I wasn't always being true to myself.  I often thought of myself as putting on the "proper pastor" mask.  I had things to say, challenges to make, a different way of living that I was often afraid to express because of the fear of social disapproval.  But really, it isn't other people's fault that I felt this way.  It's mine.  I idolized people above God because of my own inner uncertainty about myself.  Getting approval from people can easily become more important than getting God's approval.  (And maybe that's because we can see other people, but we can't see God.  But that's why Scripture teaches us to live by faith.)

I was worried that I would fall into this same tendency as I now serve as a pastor's wife.  There are plenty of ideas of what a pastor's wife should be like and I knew my tendency to people-please by now.  I also know my tendency to over-commit myself in order to feed my self-esteem. 

Well, I have been working hard on this problem.  First of all, I actually took a "big gulp moment" and told the council and call committee about my struggles with people pleasing and my worries about being a pastor's wife.  And it was so freeing!  To be real about those struggles! 

And I am working hard on how I respond to others.  I won't say that I am always successful in resisting the urges to be a people-pleaser, but I am getting a little better at it.  I have said "no" to a couple of big opportunities lately.  I think that a few years ago, I probably would have said yes, because I would have thought, "If I don't do this now, another opportunity will never roll around again!"  I would have thought, "If I don't do this (even though I don't feel ready or even though it doesn't feel right), the success train will pass me by."  Now, I am learning (emphasis on the learning) to say no and trust God instead of my own achievement.  I am learning to trust that if I am true to what I can handle and do a quality job at now, if I put my priorities in the right place, if I tell the truth, if I dare to ask for what I'm worth in work matters, I will find peace.  It is so freeing to say no to opportunities!  It is freeing to know that I don't have to be God and do everything.  I just need to do what I'm called to do and do it well. 

I'm grateful to Gov. Christie for putting his ego aside and making a decision that was best for his state, his family, and ultimately himself.  I don't know if he had any faith reason for making this decision.  I know that faith in Christ has helped me greatly in finding the inner worth that I long for and that I have too often tried to find in achievement and pleasing people.  I am worthy though I am a sinner because Christ loved me and died for me.  Because I am already worthy, I am free to make decisions based on good reasons to do things, instead of reasons like "if I don't do this, I will never get another chance!"  I don't always remember that I am free.  But I am learning to remember.

women, money and God

I just finished reading Knowing Your Value: Women, Money and Getting What You're Worth by Mika Brzezinski (co-host of Morning Joe).  Ever since the publication of her book, All Things at Once, Mika has positioned herself as a strong leadership role model for younger women, sharing not only her triumphs and strengths, but also her mistakes and moments of real regret.  Her books are eminently readable and full of good advice for us younger gals.

In her book, Mika writes that women need to (for now) reconcile themselves to the fact that the masculine style of leadership--the man's world, if you will--is still the dominant culture today.  She adds that if women hope to acquire a raise, recognition for their hard work, or true rewards for their value, they need to acquire these things using more masculine means.

Mika rightly points out that women tend not to be as self-promoting as men and tend to be apologetic when asking for a raise, promotion or other recognition of their value.  This is all too true.  I find, not only with myself, but with other women that we do tend to work hard, keeping our heads down and expecting that if we just work hard enough, it will be a fair world and someone will notice our efforts and reward us.  Our desired result rarely happens, sadly.  Mika wisely points out that we settle all too often for the reward of being liked, instead of a real monetary recognition of our talents and contributions.  She provides good coaching on what kinds of wording and negotiation tactics to use when seeking a raise or a promotion.  She also counsels women to "be prepared to walk" if they are being "undervalued." 

What I appreciate about Mika's approach is that rather than taking on a rabid feminist viewpoint and rather than acting as if masculine styles of leadership are inherently evil, she challenges us to learn from the dominant culture and to use its language to our advantage as women.  She teaches us to respect and appreciate the strengths that men bring to the table.  This kind of attitude probably has something to do with her popularity among the male guests and hosts on Morning Joe.  When you watch the program, it's easy to see that most people think even more highly of Mika than they do of Joe Scarborough.  This is because Mika approaches people with a deep respect for them, and a desire to learn from them.  But she also has strong opinions of her own and is not afraid to voice them.  A strong, respectful woman is an excellent role model for us younger women.

At the same time, I found myself often wishing as I read this book that the world (the dominant culture) was not the way Mika described.  Along with a world in which men do know how to value themselves, are willing to walk away from the table when needed, are not overly emotional when reason is called for, she also paints the picture of a world in which men don't often care as passionately about the company or job with which they serve.  They are able to walk away from the table precisely because they are able to better separate themselves from the job.  Do we really want to encourage women to just care less about their jobs?  Isn't the maternal, nurturing aspect of being a woman a huge asset to us in our work?  Would Ann Curry or Diane Sawyer, for example, be as good as reporters without their deep, abiding compassion?  Is it really so wrong to sublimate our own desires for the sake of our company or group?

When I try to picture myself imitating such an attitude, I feel as if I would be cold, uncaring and unfeeling.  Especially when one considers work such as the call of ministry.  I have felt guilty for receiving a raise in the past (especially after becoming a mother, as I feared my new role lessened what I was able to contribute to my work), even as I considered that I was setting a good precedent for future pastors by accepting it, even as I considered that the additional money would be helpful for my family.  But see my reasoning there?  The raise was good because it helped other people.  Not because it was a way of reflecting my value.  In fact, I struggled with insecurity often, hoping, desperately hoping that in a difficult-to-quantify job, I was giving the congregation their "money's worth."  Did I see myself and my skills as inherently valuable?  Or was I, as Mika describes, just grateful to have the job, to have the opportunity?

I know I struggle with these things.  This is why it took me so long to walk away from the table.  After having my daughter, I struggled for a long time with the all-consuming nature of my work as pastor, coupled with the all-consuming nature of being a parent to a little person who depends on you for everything.  Particularly in the newborn stage, while a child is still nursing, the physical demands on a woman's body alone, are profoundly difficult.  And pairing that with a lack of a support system, makes it an impossible situation.

I knew what would be best for me for a long time but struggled with following through it because I thought so much about what was best for others (a noble motivation but an empty vessel doesn't have much to give to others).  I wanted to quit for quite a while before I actually quit.  I couldn't bear to bring myself to do it because in the first year of our time in North Dakota, I had said (without a promise, mind you, but with some conviction) that I hoped to stay there as pastor for 10 years.  I saw that the smaller congregation in particular had suffered the quick turnover of many pastors and I wanted to spare them that, to give them a real chance with a leader who was committed to them.  And so when things began to turn so difficult, I struggled greatly with guilt over thinking of leaving.  I thought, "I can't leave.  I have made a commitment.  I have a responsibility to these people."  It was only when I could not ignore the problems (both personal and congregational) any longer, that I became willing to walk away from the table.  In the final year of pastoring, my job was repeatedly threatened.  I was repeatedly de-valued by a powerful member of the congregation and talked down to, and the worst came when many of the people I felt I had committed myself to decided not to show commitment to me, decided not to stand up for me.  Why was I hesitant?  Why had I not valued myself more?

I think part of the problem is that as Christians, we are taught to sublimate our own interests.  And of course, we should.  But that does not mean being a doormat.  We are free to choose to sacrifice, but we should not be forced to do so.  I feel much respect for the pastor who chooses, freely, to go years without a raise, knowing he or she deserves it, but at the same time finding joy in the freely chosen sacrifice.  I have less respect for the pastor who takes no raise for years because he or she is hoping to people-please, to subsist on people liking him or her, rather than on God.

Asking for raises, promotions, respect, all of these things are hard, scary things.  They are ultimately things that lay us bare, that ask us to lean hard on God.  As I look back on my time as a pastor, I find myself often wishing not that I were more humble and quiet, but rather that I were more confident, strong, and outspoken.  Granted, it can be a difficult balance to navigate being respectful and yet outspoken, particularly when you are facing strong social pressure and criticism.  It can be easy to bow to the spoken and unspoken messages that you've stepped out of line and are not behaving as a Christian.  It can be tough, truly, to speak the truth in love (instead of in anger).  But if we are willing to die to image and people-pleasing, and to live to God, He can work in our lives to help us to dare to risk.

I am far from having all the answers about the right balance between knowing my value and having a servant's heart.  Mika, for all of her wisdom, is writing from the perspective of the business world, as opposed to an explicitly Christian viewpoint.  I struggle to reconcile the obvious truth of her writing with the Biblical teaching on servanthood.  I'm curious, dear readers: How have you brought balance to this issue in your own lives?  I know this issue is not limited only to women, but I do believe we women--particularly after we become mothers--struggle with it more acutely than do men.  I would love to hear insights and testimonies from others who have walked this path.