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?

Enter to Win: Healing Your Church Hurt by Stephen Mansfield

If you read my review of Healing Your Church Hurt: What To Do When You Still Love God But Have Been Wounded by His People by Stephen Mansfield, you know that I think it is a book that every Christian who has been hurt by another brother or sister in Christ should read.

Tyndale has provided me an opportunity to give one of you a free copy of this book.  To enter the contest, just answer the following question in the comments below by Wednesday, February 15 (MST).  If you win, I will post your name here on the blog on Thursday and get in touch with you.  One entry per person, but multiple members of a family may enter.

Here's the question for you to answer: What is one lesson that you learned in your experience of church hurts or church conflicts?

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.”