In my prior post, I wrote about the Vineyard USA 2006 Resolution. “In response to the message of the kingdom, the Vineyard Movement encourages, trains, and empowers women in all areas of leadership.”
At the time, Bert took on a very controversial issue for the Vineyard. He led with courage and at the expense of severe criticism, knowing churches would leave the Movement over this change. For people who believe in “spiritual warfare,” there was an intense amount surrounding this decision. Bert often lost sleep over advocating for this change. He presented the Board with a giant notebook of notes he had made concerning all aspects and begged them to read seriously. Bert saw this as I do, as a justice issue and felt that to oppose women in leadership called by God was sin! However, he conceded to the disputable stance due to much pressure and his desire to accomplish something.
In October of 2006, Bert convened a meeting of women (pictured) at his home in Sugarland, Texas. As a result, he formed a task force to work at bringing the structural change needed to make pathways for women into senior leadership. He asked Di Leman and Cindy Nicholson to lead the task force. We met just after my fiftieth birthday. The first night we all went to dinner at a Texas BBQ. We had a wonderful evening connecting and discussing all the possibilities to serve the Movement. We were full of ideas, and the atmosphere was electric! On our way home from the restaurant, I sat in the backseat. When we arrived at Bert and Everlyn’s house, I opened the door, and I am not sure how this happened, but I fell out of the car into the dirt! They had been doing some work in their driveway.
It is embarrassing to be invited to the table to discuss strategies to change the patriarchal structures that define leadership and fall out of the car! I mean, you are with the national director and brilliant women whom you respect. I had not had too much to drink; I am unsure how it happened. Bert, Evelyn, and the women who rode with us were very gracious! Maybe it was a metaphor for the future of what it would be like championing women’s equality in many arenas. You don’t get to be the driver, and often when you least expect it, you fall into the dirt, shocked by how it happened. You feel embarrassed and, again, a bit of shame. But you get back up and follow the Spirit’s invitation for justice.
As we discussed different strategies, I remember Bert saying it would take time to change the inbuilt structures of white male leadership. He asked us to be his eyes and ears throughout the Movement to notice any exclusionary behaviors. The entrenched patriarchy was not going to be easy to expose and correct.
A few nights later, I had a dream. Bert invited me to come to Sugarland for a meeting. When I arrived at his house, it was under construction. There was no front door. I walked around to one side of the house. It had a door, and it looked like it was near completion. Next, I walked around to the other side of the house, which was under construction with no way inside. In my mind, I was wondering what was going on. Finally, I entered the house to the side with a door. That is all I remember. When I woke up, I wrote down the dream and reflected on what it might mean. I interpreted it as the passed resolution putting the Movement into a remodel phase. There was a side entry now for women, but there was still much work to do for multiple entries into leadership, primarily through the front door.
A word on the entrenched patriarchy I am referring to. I don’t mean to slam Vineyard. The Vineyard was birthed in the 1970s Church Growth Movement. When you are in a bubble and trying to figure out the best ways in which people can encounter the love of God, many times, philosophies, and strategies that seem good, can have unintentional severe consequences. That is what happened in the Vineyard. I believe Bert was trying to correct the fruit we were seeing in a white, male-dominated movement, beginning with recognizing and empowering women leaders.
Eventually, Bert had so much pushback about the decision around senior female leaders he broke us into two task forces. Cindy and three other women traveled the country encouraging pastors’ wives and women called to support roles. Di formed a team (which I was on), and we began meeting to determine the best strategies for resourcing women called to senior leadership roles. There were seminars held in many of the regions. I remember Di Leman, Rich Nathan, and Bert Waggoner leading seminars, especially in regions with strong complementarian churches, area leaders, and regional leaders. There was still resistance. Changing was not going to be easy. We soon realized it would take an extended, sustained plan to bring gender equality to the Vineyard.
After passing the resolution, our teams held a “Women in Ministry” lunch at the national conference. We were in a ballroom with round tables and a catered lunch. There were a few hundred women of all ages in the room. Our team was thrilled. We were looking forward to seeing women dream about what the Lord might have been inviting them to all along, but because they had never seen ordained women in their own right leading at a senior level, it never occurred to them they could. Remember, many women were not listed as co-pastors but were leading alongside their husbands—some for many years. So we did not anticipate how destabilizing this would be to women’s identities. Instead, several women faithfully serving alongside their husbands found themselves in an identity crisis. Pastor pastors’ wives felt displaced if women like me could come into leadership without being married to a man in leadership. Here are the reactions I heard from some of the pastor’s wives:
“I have been able to do anything I want; being a woman has never held me back. So I don’t need a title.” Or “I don’t understand why you need a title. I don’t have one, so what does that now make me, chopped meat?” Some of these women were angry. Women, content with no title, blasted us for our audacity in asking to be recognized for the gifting and role we believed was God-ordained. As women came into leadership outside of being married to a leader, it shook things up, and we all had to wrestle with identity questions. I cannot count the times I heard both men and women ask, “Why do you need a title?” I always found it a strange question as we never ask it of men or about the title of pastor’s wife! One title we saw absolute anger and mockery over was the title “pastor’s husband.”
In 2008 we hosted a conference at our church organized by the regional leader for emerging leaders, young adults. All of the main speakers were men. I sat on a panel of women talking about “calling.” I think there were five of us answering questions. At one point, there was a question about calling. The four young women before me replied with some semblance of, “I have always wanted to be a pastor’s wife.” They said it in a way that meant so they could do ministry. I answered, “I felt called to be a pastor. I was a pastor before I was married to my husband. Together we co-pastor the church.” The women who were on the panel had never seen a woman pastor. Please hear me; if you are called to be a pastor’s wife, I think that is a high calling, and I cheer for you. I am talking about women who believe the only way to be in ministry is to have a ministry spouse. The 2006 resolution was the beginning of change for this type of thinking.
We were on a high learning curve. But, as we were to be Bert’s eyes and ears around the Movement, we began to articulate so many ways that exclusionary behaviors were normal. Exclusionary behaviors such as:
I am sure my female colleagues could name many more. But unfortunately, I often did not notice and name these behaviors in the kindest ways. There were so many ways in which women were not included. It was like buying a new car, a Ford Escort. Then, suddenly, you see Ford Escorts all over the road! I often saw/see so many exclusionary behaviors that I would get angry, yet there was not a lot of space for anger while doing this work. I was told many times, “It’s hard for people to listen to you if you are angry.” It puts you in a bind.
Injustice should make us angry. Anger is often the catalyst to change unjust systems, yet, as a woman, to get a hearing, you cannot show anger at all the ways you are left out. Many of these ways are not intentional; they are just the default way of being. My anger would rise when we asked over and over again for those planning area, regional, and national events to include women. Even in asking, we would often be met with defensiveness. One of the common responses was, “We just don’t want a token woman on the stage.” The “token” excuse really would frustrate me. The idea that out of five hundred churches, they could not find a few women who could speak on the main stage seemed ludicrous to me. The downside of the 2006 resolution, by no fault of Bert’s, was to define it as a matter of “adiaphora” (a disputable matter) rather than seeing it through the justice lens of God putting all things right.
As I conclude this post, writing this reminds me of my family. My siblings might have a completely different experience; this is my story and my experience. I am not writing for all women in the Vineyard. I am writing my experience as a female leader.
