Urban poor and GIRLS

[UPDATE Dec 6, 2005: Welcome to my controversial post - maybe the only blog post in the world with its own reunion party. Just want you to know before you read it that the context of our conversation (that i neglected to link to) was TEENAGERS of the FEMALE variety in China who were starting churches. I was arguing that they were young, and not yet women and that we should applaud them in their youth rather than speak of them as women in their 30's and 40's)]

[ORIGINAL]
So many questions from emails and comments. Thanks for your interest in the emerging church and your honesty in asking some of these things. I will jot down some more thoughts in relation to what has been asked in the last week.

1. Urban poor. As Justin B has said in the comments, they are the poor people in the great cities of our world. Viv Grigg changed my thinking on this topic at Fuller School of World Mission. He believes 1/4 of the world are "urban poor" and the amount of foreign workers that ever make it out to incarnational lifestyle among them is pathetically small. And yet movements of God traditionally start among the poor, often involving the elite at the same time, since both groups deal with justice - one needs it and one group has justice to give. People who start movements among the poor end up working also with the elite (Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa). A really interesting thing is how the middle class is either bypassed during the intial stages of a God-movement, or brought in much later when the action is all over or settling down.
Viv wrote the excellent book "Cry of the Urban Poor" and has been helping to start monastic movements among the poor for many years.

[back-blog. feb 25.2004 - i am adding this addition because of the missunderstanding generated by the following statement. please read the original blog entry a few days earlier to which i am responding, called Questions and The Mullet of Jesus, and the comment by Lilly, to understand my response below]

[backblog Feb 2005 - ONE YEAR LATER - this blog post is now famous . .  or at least infamous. I wish it wasnt since it reflects badly on me. But if you are reading this for the first time, please read it in the context of the whole story by reading the post entitled The Girls Post: A Definitive History. Thanks. TSK]

2. Girls, girls, girls. I will call them girls and not women. No apologies. The movement in China would not be the same without teenage girls. A friend from China told me recently that a teenager started a church in China that has since become hundreds of churches involving tens of thousands of people. I will not call her a woman, since that would let a lot of western Christians with the excuse "God cant use me until i am older or more mature".
Dang, God has been using girls from the beginning. Mary was young. Esther was young. It should not surprise us.
There is a massive Sunday School  movement in China that Wolfgang Simson just informed us about in last weeks Friday Fax. Massive, I tell you. Thanks to the GIRLS behind it. And the older women, of course. 

Comments

[Phyllis]

OK, I'll bite. Are you trying to be offensive? 'cause you are. and you excuse that you want to cut the crutches of those who deem themselves too young just doesn't fly.
Are these girls you're talking about prepubescent? Are they playing with dolls? Are they hopscotching on the street? No. They're taking risks, bearing responsibilities, and living like adults. Call them young women if you want, but they deserve to be referred to as adults. And so do the rest of us.
Your attitude sucks, Andrew.

[maggi]

Are you trying to be lighthearted? If so, I think you may find it misfired.

This kind of language debate is antediluvian. If you said stuff like this in most places of work, it would be a disciplinary offence.

[rachelle]

andrew,

You sound like an idiot, which I know is not the case. Stop shooting yourself in the foot. This isn't about political correctness, it's about respect. Play nice. Be a grown up. Recognize the struggle women (of all ages) are having to achieve dignity.

R

[Christy]

Andrew -
This post explains a lot. Since you appear to be one of the designated spokespersons of the whole emergent thing, you have a great deal of power and your words carry a lot of weight. When you say crap like this, you legitimize the devaluing of women in ministry. If your attitude is typical, then no WONDER the public face of the whole emergent thing is dominated by white boys.
BTW, God has a history of using WOMEN in ministry- Miriam, Deborah, Huldah, Sarah, Elizabeth, Priscilla, Lydia, Dorcas, Damaris, etc.
I shall stop now while I can still resist the urge to use profanity.

[Justin Baeder]

Whoa! I think Andrew's making a valid point here, and there are also cultural differences to consider. If they're not adults, they're not adults. We don't call boys men (unless we're trying to make them feel good) until they are adults. I don't see why we should do anything different for females.

Mary may have been 14 or so when Jesus was born, but once she was married, she probably would have been considered a woman. A Westerner is never considered an adult (man or woman) at 14. Maybe people in certain countries (e.g. China) are considered adults at certain ages in their teens under some circumstances. I don't know. If they are, they would probably appreciate being called women in that case. But still in high school? Girl. College-age? Young woman.

And it's not as if women of all ages don't refer to themselves as girls. "I'm going out with the girls" may be something said by my sister, my wife, my mother, or my wife's grandmother. "Girl" is not the same as "child." Let's not look for insult where none was intended.

[jen lemen]

andrew, you have an incredible invitation to change before you here. the women posting above are some of the most gifted, innovative and creative voices for the church today. they aren't crazy, and they don't get angry over trivia. you would do well to come out of the closet as clueless on these points and start asking these women and the others around you what's *really* going on in the emerging church.
we'd be happy to oversee your rehab and welcome you back to the fold as a true partner once your recovery is complete.

[maggi]

dear andrew,
in the few hours since you put up this post, I've received a good few e-mails from women in the emerging scene who feel betrayed, angry, despairing and gutted by your comments.

A number of men I know think very well of you, and so I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, and hope that your comments were a misfired attempt at a lighthearted jest; or perhaps you seem to say something that you didn't really mean? I have no wish to start a flame-war here (it's against my religion).

However, in response to the communications I've received I've put a post on my blog that attempts to explain why the kind of language you've used here is not merely annoying, but open to serious question. Please understand this is not a flame war, but a conversation. We've been having it in the traditional church for a long time now. If it can save you some grief in 'emerging', so much the better.
best wishes, maggi

[Mumcat]

The idea of saying they are "girls" because they are teens is incredibly insulting. You're worried about women using the excuse that they aren't mature enough? Well, bubele, those "girls" are mature enough to choose a path that can lead to their death. What are you doing besides cheapening their sacrifice? It's not political correctness to call them "women", it's reality. Of course, there is the old boys' network ... and some of them are 85 years old!!!!!!!! so age doesn't play here. Results do.

[jen lemen]

well said, maggi. i think you capture our spirit.

[Phyllis]

My dear Justin,
What makes a boy a man? What makes a girl a woman?

Marriage? Are you really saying that Mary didn't become a woman until she was married?

Boys become men when they act like grownups.
Same with girls.

As for women referring to ourselves as girls, that's for us to decide. The power punch in the word girl doesn't apply.

Nice try, but please make an effort to understand what you don't understand

[Justin Baeder]

"Marriage? Are you really saying that Mary didn't become a woman until she was married?"

Yes, I am. Marriage was a rite of passage in the ancient Jewish world. Maybe we don't have rites of passage in the West anymore, but it was certainly different in the first century. Being a man and being a woman meant sexual maturity, and women generally got married at about that age (14 or so in those days, though it's come down for a variety of health and environmental factors). Men generally married later (and had different rites of passage at puberty), after they were established in a trade that could support a family.

If you wish to see women (and teenagers) respected for their work in missions and ministry, it would help to see things in their own contexts rather than reading everything - from China to the Bible - through a 21st century Western lens.

I think Andrew's made it clear that he's not intending to refer to all women, old and young alike, as "girls," though Maggi seems to imply that on her blog. Andrew said specifically "girls and older women," in case there was any doubt.

On a semantic note, "boys" is not exactly parallel to "girls." "Girls" can also be used for the more colloquial "gals," which goes with "guys." Because of the slavery connotation of calling a man a "boy" (which Maggie mentioned), you hear "guy" a lot. You don't hear "gals" because it sounds antiquated and goofy. I think "girls" is a reasonable replacement for "gals," and it's obvious that it's commonly used that way.

At any rate, it is flaming to assault Andrew on his own blog like this. If you want to encourage someone to change what they've said, use email.

And as far as gaining respect, it only reinforces stereotypes to see tons of impassioned but careless comments by women. I thought most em-church bloggers were past the ad hominem attacks and threats. I can't tell who the girls are and who the women are, because they're all acting like children by ignoring basic rules of blog ettiquite.

[Mike]

Interesting string here. Andrew, I'm quite sure you didn't intend any offense, but there it is, never the less. And Justin, a male trying to defend the use of the term "girl" against several articulate women is laughable. Give it up.

[Justin Bryeans]

Wow! I'm amazed at the quick and indignant responses... I'm a guy, so I expect the arrows to fly, but I appreciate your clarity, especially due to the fact that I daily work with young women, girls, females of the human family, who struggle with this issue - "when do i matter to the mission of God?" "how do I matter, etc..." So lighten up. Those females in China and thier exploits for God deserve cheers, prayers, blessings, and partnership - not a debate about the correct way to designate them... Something tells me that they're not too worried about that. And if it helps, I'm 30 years old, but you can call me a boy or whatever else...

[Mike]

I came back to clarify my comment for the first Justin, but now I'll include both Justins, and this will be the last I say on the subject.

I'm a guy too, 38 years old. You can call me anything you want pretty much, and I could care less. The point is, it doesn't matter how WE would react. Irrelevant. Judging what others should and should not find offensive based on what we would and wouldn't is a foolish argument.

[Justin Baeder]

Well, that's kind of what I'm saying. If Andrew had called all these women "girls" and meant it seriously, I would understand their offense. But he wasn't talking about them, so I don't understand why a vague reference to people in other countries (of who knows what ages) that none of us know is grounds for a flame war. I don't think anyone read the part where Andrew said he was talking about teens, not adults. Sheesh. I'll be interested to hear what The Kiwi himself has to say after the rest of us have had this discussion!

[jen lemen]

if you haven't been following this conversation, you might think that the first several comments are out of nowhere and over the top. the thing is, this is andrew's third direct opportunity in recent days to address this issue in a meaningful way. after two not-so inspiring public responses, it just seems wrong to not say something very plainly in response in the same forum.

[Toni]

but reading the original post, I'd say that he's clearly stated his reason for saying what he did. And it was reasonable.

In this case I'd say offense has been found where none was presented. I'm struggling with the absurdity of the comments not to bait in reply.

Jen - maybe he's saying what he thinks, and the reason for not 'addressing the issue' is: he sees no issue.

Or maybe he's trying to provoke debate?

[Jimmy]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but I think the semantic difficulty lies in one of Justin Baeder's comments. Namely, we lack a "tweener" term for females. Justin, I respectfully submit that while "gals" is definitely antiquated and very likely dismissive (thus unavailable for common usage), "girls" is in no way an acceptable feminine parallel to "guys." In all colloquial English usage I can think of "girl" is directly parallel to "boy" and is almost universally used now to refer to children.

Males, on the other hand, have an in-between term as you have already observed: "guys." I'm not sure what the solution is; coining new words is usually contrived at best. But I'm certain the best path is absolutely NOT to use some technical definition of "girl" as referring to all non-yet-adult females, when the colloquial usage is obviously different.

Andrew, while you may indeed be right that in technical terms the word "girl" may be used as you have used it, the reality is that language is a fluid medium and that this word has been under the pressure of change for several years. What I hear the women in this thread saying is that words should be kept in line with current usage especially in areas that directly affect the ways that respect those who are being described by those words. (If you asked me not to call you "Andy", I wouldn't tell you that Andy is a perfectly acceptable nickname for all persons named Andrew.)

I guess the best course of action w/o a "tweener" term is to refer to "young women" or simply "women", then clarify youth or ages if it is relevant.

By the way, to you women who are involved in this discussion, I have a question: What is the current status of the word "ladies"? Passe? Undesirable? Would "young ladies" sound equally dismissive?

[jason]

so...did mary go through a rite of passage when she was visited by the angel of God and impregnated by the Holy Spirit with the Savior of the World? Or, did she go through a rite of passage when she underwent months of ridicule and shame because she was pregnant and not married in a culture that didn't really like that sort of thing? Or maybe it was .......

[dave the rave]

Hey ,Andrew may have upset many people - mainly women - but do you know why? It is more to do with who said the girly comments than the comments themselves. That’s because most of you who are annoyed have placed Andrew on a pedastal as some sort of "guru" for the emerging church. That's why you care so much. If I had made the girly comments on my blog, nobody would have blinked an eyelid ( not that I'm ever likely to!). So this debate is more about who made the comments, as opposed to what comments were made.

Andrew, did you ever ask to be a guru? I don't think so. Are you happy with being seen as one? Perhaps.

Now about girls in China. When David Bowie wrote his song China Girl, I don't think he was thinking of 35-year- old women. Perhaps 15-year old girls. Perhaps these are the girls that Andrew is referring to? What should we call girls twenty years later? Old girls? Andrew seems to prefer "older women" (and I mean the term older women, here!) Yet people like Maggi and Jen have a point.

I'm a man. But I do prefer the approach Maggi and Jen are taking. I believe they are making relevant points. But isn`t it interesting that, judging by the 20 or so comments to date, I appear to be the ONLY MALE (sorry to shout) prepared to comment on this blog and say that women is a good word to use - even if the "girls" are under 25.

WHY? There will be more on my blog soon. Oh yeah....so what it she was under 20 when she gave birth to Jesus, what relevance has that to all this?

[jen lemen]

toni, i guess my point is that if he sees no issue, then he has issues. but perhaps andrew will come up with an ever better explanation after all these posts. jimmy, good points on the lack of colloquial equivalent of "guys". i guess babes or chicks won't work either. as for ladies....hmmmm...not my favorite, but i'm not offended. young ladies sounds like the principal talking. sometimes guys greet me with 'hey, wild woman' when searching for a colloquial phrase. i like that. :) thanks for asking.

[Justin Baeder]

Jason-
Marriage itself was the rite of passage. To a large extent it still is one, but it doesn't work as well as such because the ages at which people marry vary so wildly now.

Jimmy-
"If you asked me not to call you "Andy", I wouldn't tell you that Andy is a perfectly acceptable nickname for all persons named Andrew." Priceless. When I was a kid (about 10 or so), I used to hate the use of "Drew" as a short form of Andrew, and actually intervened when people called one of my friends "Drew" instead of Andrew. I eventually found out that he liked being called Drew, and then I realized how stupid it was of me to try to control what other people called him.

Dave-
Good points, all of them.

I have no problem with the basic thesis of what the women here are saying. I just think the case itself is not strong enough to warrant such a rude public criticism. Calling someone an idiot on his own blog is inappropriate, and cannot be done under the guise of Christian accountability.

[dave the rave]

I just want to add that although some of the women do have relevant points, I am disappointed many have been downright abusive, and the tone is applaaing. Some need to think before tapping the keyboard in such a kneejerk fashion. If you don't want to be referred to as "girls" or "old girls" , perhaps some of you should refrain from using the term "old boys network"....

[rhys]

But dave what do you mean by downright abusive? Kneejerk? ? Surely Andrew should have anticipated such a response and posted something in response? His post is curiously offensive if taken at face value and his almost revelling in the response worsens things. Go back to Maggi's comment. If he'd posted such views in a secular place of work he'd be done for harraddment or said it about an ethnic group he'd be criticised and rightly so.Come on Andrew. It was a wind up all along wasnt it?

[Mumcat]

If there's a problem with using "old boy's network" then perhaps the poster will consider that there is a problem with using "girls". I was in my 40's when an employer consistently referred to me as "girl". "I'll have the girl do that." Not "I'll have kitty do that" or "I'll have my clerk do that" but "I'll have the girl do that." Coupled with the concept that in many parts of the world the use of the word "girl" stops when a female reaches menarche because at that time she is considered a "woman". Getting any idea yet why having a male use the term "girl" for females who are past the age of menarche might be a little offensive? Or you could just pat us on the head and tell us to go back to the kitchen. :)
NOT.