Don't tell me to be nice

Rachelle Mee-Chapman has written an interesting article in Next Wave about "Women in Ministry". There's a lot there to think about, including this:

...women-unlike men-are not allowed to be angry, or even frustrated, or really even forceful, assertive, or honest. Recently in the emergent scene there was a little fight over words. Some of the women stated their minds about it. They thought it sucked to be linguistically belittled. They thought it sounded idiotic, in 2004, to speak dismissively of women. Now, most people thought the whole brouhaha was about semantics. But for me, the sadness was that the only way I could be heard was to play nice, to make my language very soft, to send my message though the backdoor. Men and women both-all in the emerging, super hip, super with-it church-told me that my anger wasn't helping, and that I shouldn't express rage if I wanted to be like Jesus.

The premise stated here is that being told to be nice is a form of shutting the discussion down, because it is dismissive and patronizing. Is this premise true? Here's some of what I've been thinking about today. First, I agree that niceness (read blandness) is not what following Christ is about. There is a directness that many in the church avoid. Read Jesus, Paul, or any of the prophets. It is not wrong to be angry, frustrated, forceful, assertive, or honest. This should not be discouraged, whether you're male or female. Second, there's a line. Many of the men and women in the discussion realized they crossed it, because they apologized for their comments. Some of them were over the line. I can be legitimately angry, but there are still limits on how I can express that anger. It is legitimate to tell me that I expressed anger inappropriately. It would bother me if anyone (male or female) felt shut down and couldn't speak out on any issue as honestly as they wanted. But at the same time, anger does not justify every expression of itself. The goal is not niceness, but it is legitimate to challenge expressions of anger that cross a line. There are just certain things we should not say about another, even if we are justified in our anger. For instance, if I was angry at you, it would be wrong for me to swear my head off at you and tell you you're on crack cocaine. My anger may be justified, but that isn't. I think the real issue here is something deeper. Maybe the real issue is being heard. I don't think many of us are beyond being corrected, because many times we know we've crossed a line in how we've expressed our anger and even come to apologize ourselves. But first we want to be heard. We want to be affirmed, to be told that it's okay to be angry and that our feelings count. Maybe then we can be told, "You know, when you said that, maybe that wasn't fair," but first we need to be heard. The problem is that it's hard to dismiss an unfair expression of anger without dismissing the underlying anger itself, which is often quite justified. But I could be wrong. Help me understand this. I don't have the answer. How can we allow both honest expressions of anger in a discussion, and still maintain boundaries of respect?

Comments

[Rev. Mike]

When I say that I want to be like you when I grow up, this is why. I wish I didn't have such a long way to go.

[Bene Diction]

I don't know either. Active listening helps sometimes. Repeating back what has been said helps some and inflames others. I honestly don't know, there seem to be so many angry people it's easier just to withdraw from the discussion.

[Mike]

Darryl, you need to put the paragraph you've quoted back in context. For instance, if you read the paragraph right above this one, I think Rachelle paints a picture that may help us (men) to understand, even just a little more. I'm not sure what I'm advocating here, but it's not a level playing field, so I don't think it's fair to say we need to be civil about this. We have no idea.

[Darryl]

Mike: There probably isn't a level playing field, and that's why people like Rachelle need to continue to speak up, loudly and directly. But surely that doesn't mean that anything goes, does it?

[Mike]

I don't know. Of course the correct answer is no... but then again I've never walked in those shoes. PS. Mmmmmm. Legal Seafood. Could you bring me back about 5 gallons of clam chowder, or should I say "chowda?" Ah, memories....

[Leighton Tebay]

Mike: I have a few thoughts. Both Darryl and I care a great deal about affirming women in ministry in the church. Most of our focus is aimed at the established church. We certainly aren't complete strangers to this discussion. I know that both of us have moved from traditional to progressive positions on issues relating to women in ministry. Because of this we have at least some idea of what it takes to actually foster change. Saying someone is on cocaine and they need rehab isn't going to do much to change the hearts and minds of those opposed to women in church leadership. It may attract a little bit of attention for awhile, but fostering lasting change requires a different approach. Some of the comments were critical and fair. I thought Maggi Dawn did a fairly good job. However some of the comments from others crossed the line. No amount of suffering or rage legitimizes turning more people in to victims. That just makes things worse. I have been marginalized and suffered abuse by people of authority in the church. This has happened on more than one occasion. I was so deeply impacted that I effectively left the church and abandoned my ministry career for years. If I let my hurt and my bitterness get the best of me than I become part of the problem not part of the solution. In these times I was deeply challenged by Paul and Peter. Phil 2:1 Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort provided by love, any fellowship in the Spirit,1 any affection or mercy,2 2:2 complete my joy and be of the same mind,3 by having the same love, being united in spirit,4 and having one purpose. 2:3 Instead of being motivated by selfish ambition5 or vanity, each of you should, in humility, be moved to treat one another as more important than yourself. 2:4 Each of you should be concerned6 not only7 about your own interests, but about the interests of others as well.8 This doesn't mean people can't be angry. Paul really ripped in to the Corinthians and the Galatians. But he already knew them, they knew he cared about them a great deal. There was a relationship there. Reading a couple of blog posts is not anywhere near a relationship. 1Peter 2:18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. 19 For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; Please donít misundertand what I mean when quoting these verses. No one should become dormats. However Christ did set an example of how to treat people in the midst of mistreatment..

[Mike]

Guys - I have no interest in starting this up again. Let's go out and live it, instead of sitting here and talking about it. Peace.

[Darryl]

Mike: I'm not sure we disagree. But can't we talk about it as we live it? I just hate to have the conversation shut down on either side.

[Mike]

Right on, Darryl. My point was simply that I believe Rachelle makes a strong case for her "anger". We need to be a listening ear, not someone who reprimands women for being angry - that just makes things worse. In one way the anger is the point, as opposed to something that is preventing us from getting to it. It's one of those paradox things that Christianity is rife with, and Christians hate dealing with.

[ed]

I sometimes think we make things harder than they seem, usually because of wanting our way. (James' reason for why Christians allow the tongue, especially in anger, to direct them, instead of them controlling the tongue, or in this case, the computer keyboard). I think, put the issue aside, we've been given directions for how we are to treat one another. Love, respect, pray for - and this is just advice for treating our enemies, so I think the language for brothers and sisters we disagree with and might even get angry with now and then, would be, at least, just as strong. I think Jesus', Paul's, Peter's, James' and so on point is clear...Express yourself, but never cross the line to destroying people and relationship. When you feel yourself pulled into that place, get out - don't comment, in this case, maybe stay away from the blog for a time. I don't like to make everything everything black and white, but this issue of how we are to treat one another, especially when we disagree, isn't just a biggie now, it was a biggie as the church got going, and we were given much advice on it. I'm not so sure there's anything really new to add or discover, as much as that we know what it is and we need to start obeying. And most importantly, putting aside everything I've said, it must start with me!

[ger]

I am occasional reader so I may be missing it. Expressing anger is always a tricky thing because anger provokes anger. Complaints of all sorts are also difficult because it naturally makes people defensive etc. Which of you...when faced with an angry spouse or a angry complaining parishioner or boss ...can be said to be positive and encouraging listener ? Just close your eyes and recall one such incident...and check your heart...can you feel yourself reacting to the memory of it ?? If not, I did like to meet you and test you ;) Its an instinctive struggle to listen in the face of an angry person or person who has nothing nice to say about you. Thus knowing this...everyone who wants to express anger...or a complaint should think twice or thrice. Not because they need to shut up or bottle things up...but because they need to figure out which is more important... the results...or venting their frustration. Just as there are many ways to skin a cat ?? there are many creative ways to get your point across or get the results you want without the usual way of venting anger and confrontation. I would say that there are legitimate times you lose your cool..as we quote the case of Jesus in the Temple. But if you look at the entire Gospels...just how often did Jesus blow it ?? And how often do WE blow it ?? That said...I believe emails are the best medium for tough discussions. Because the Speaker (( Writer )) can write down his or her thots...difficult ones...complaints etc...and then vet and vet and vet thro and ask for opinion before posting it. THis is so as to make sure you do not trigger irrational emotions of defense, hurt etc in the Listener..(( Reader )). Unlike verbal words which cannot be taken back ...and once a topic is hot...people can tend to be careless with words, written words can be edited. The message can be saved in the Draft till crafted, prayed over and ready. If you are talking about email then...I think you should captitalise or exploit this particular feature...the Draft folder. Also.. compare for yourself...would you have someone real angry yelling " You *****X>JUAF " in your face...or writing the same thing in capital letters in a response ??? I won't blame you if you feel threatened, startled, humiliated, etc if someone really angry hurled abuses at you in your face...but with an email ??? you have the power of the delete button. You can walk away and come back yelling at the monitor screen for all you want and it won't yell back, so you are in control. With this feature...with this space for venting emotions safely away from each other... Speaker (( complainer, etc )) and the Listener (( the one being criticized, complained against etc )) and also the Draft folder feature I mentioned, I encourage you to pursue discussion of tough issues you would otherwise not discuss person to person! A blog is however different...email is private... you safeguard the dignity of a person...so I suggest that with wisdom you know which issues are best taken offline to email and which are online and you can toggle between both. Take it offline...and when there are some agreements... restate the agreements online and proceed with the blog discussion. Again when there are issues, again talk to the person privately etc...get agreement of sorts (( even agree to disagree )) and get back online. People change slowly...so be patient...perseverance and a thick skin is an essential. Remember the parable of the lady and the dishonest judge etc..and Jesus and the Samaritan woman...calling her a dog. If what you want is important...thicken the skin of your face, grit your teeth...and remember to persevere...blessings to all. I enjoy and are blessed by all your sharings etc. There was this Calvin and Hobbes strip that had Calvin saying..." There's nothing like a little rudeness and disrespect to add spice to a day " And which he added " You would have known that if you weren't such a mutton head " and had himself dumped into the snow head down by Hobbes.