Why My Church And I Need Feminism: The Women On Your Worship Team

I happen to be a woman who plays drums professionally. I also happen to have the privilege of serving many church bands through a local network that organizes teams to meet their needs.

Over the years, I have learned to laugh off a lot of ignorant comments such as “You’re a girl and you play drums? That’s so hardcore” and “You’re pretty good for a girl” . . . the subtext here being that being female is a handicap to my drumming ability or that playing the instrument that I love is not a suitable activity because I’m a female. I’m used to being introduced at bar and restaurant gigs as “our drummer . . . she’s hot” or “the chick drummer.” Male musicians get to be introduced to the crowd according to their skill or something about them (“he rocks,” “he shreds,” “he’s from Atlanta, Georgia”), but my identity is reduced to my body and my gender.

I have hope that worship music can be a space transcendent of these value systems, and can resonate with the acceptance and sacrificial love of a God who has no gender bias. I have found that often, it isn’t, and it doesn’t. Last week while playing in a church I’d never visited before, a gentleman on the worship team approached me and asked me if I have “anger issues.” The “you-must-be-angry-because-you-play-drums” jokes continued along with inappropriate comments such as “I feel sorry for your boyfriend,” etc. While I get that the point of the joke is that I must be angry because I hit things to play my instrument, it is clear to me that a man would never be on the receiving end of such statements (“I feel sorry for your girlfriend,” and so forth). He was more or less saying that drumming is too aggressive an activity for a woman (perhaps I should find a knitting circle to join instead).

Church folk tend to get really freaked out by the word “feminism,” and I’ve heard many pastors try to argue that the church doesn’t need feminism because “God doesn’t need feminism.” And half of that argument is absolutely right: God DOESN’T need feminism. He sees us for who we are; he has no gender bias. But the catastrophic mistake being made here is the presumption that WE don’t need feminism. WE do. WE need a way of thinking that dismantles the value systems of our society, which have taught us that women are objects, and that their worth is rooted in appearances and identity performances. Exposing these lies and the damage they have done to us is at the heart of feminism. Freedom from the destructive ideologies of the world is at the heart of God. In short, we are on the same side.

 I have also found that as a woman on a worship team (and this is very much my own personal experience, rather than a generalization), I am often expected to have a bubbly, over-the-top personality all the time. While I always do my best to be friendly, welcoming, and professional, I have a fairly introverted personality (especially when I’m loading out drums at 5 a.m. on a Sunday!). I have been in many situations in which male musicians are allowed to be who they are and do their jobs in peace, while I am pegged as “angry” or “unfriendly.” I try to always allow the joy I experience while making music shine in my actions and presence, but this doesn’t seem to be enough. Apparently, Christian women are expected to be some kind of perpetually enthusiastic, garrulous cheerleader ALIENS. (The subtext here is that all women must share the same personality traits / be ridiculously emotional.) I also find that leaders and employers don’t take me as seriously as they do a male drummer of my skill level when discussing contracts, money, business, and so on, in the music world. To my leaders and employers that have treated me with respect and professionalism, I notice, and I appreciate you. But you should not be the exception in my experiences, and this is why I write.

These are the patronizations I encounter every day. This is why I need feminism--so that I can share my passion and love in worship and keep hoping for a day where playing music won’t coincide with being humiliated and treated like a circus act. So that I can do my job with professionalism and excellence. And this is why my church needs feminism, too—so that our sisters and daughters can freely answer their callings and use their gifts and talents for the glory of God and the edification of the body of Christ.

The Mythic Hero That Tells Off Atheist Professors

You may have seen this floating around your facebook, or your inbox:

"Professor : You are a Christian, aren’t you, son ?

Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, you believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor: Is GOD all powerful ?
Student : Yes.
Professor: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to GOD to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn’t. How is this GOD good then? Hmm?
(Student was silent.)
Professor: You can’t answer, can you ? Let’s start again, young fella. Is GOD good?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Is satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor: Where does satan come from ?
Student : From … GOD …
Professor: That’s right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?
Student : Yes.
Professor: Evil is everywhere, isn’t it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor: So who created evil ?
(Student did not answer.)
Professor: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don’t they?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor: So, who created them ?
(Student had no answer.)
Professor: Science says you have 5 Senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son, have you ever seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor: Tell us if you have ever heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor: Have you ever felt your GOD, tasted your GOD, smelt your GOD? Have you ever had any sensory perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I’m afraid I haven’t.
Professor: Yet you still believe in Him?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my faith.
Professor: Yes, faith. And that is the problem Science has.
Student : Professor, is there such a thing as heat?
Professor: Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as cold?
Professor: Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn’t.
(The lecture theater became very quiet with this turn of events.)
Student : Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don’t have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.
(There was pin-drop silence in the lecture theater.)
Student : What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?
Professor: Yes. What is night if there isn’t darkness?
Student : You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light. But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn’t it? In reality, darkness isn’t. If it is, well you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?
Professor: So what is the point you are making, young man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.
Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good GOD and a bad GOD. You are viewing the concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing.
Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?
Professor: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?
(The Professor shook his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument was going.)
Student : Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor. Are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?
(The class was in uproar.)
Student : Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor’s brain?
(The class broke out into laughter. )
Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor’s brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?
(The room was silent. The Professor stared at the student, his face unfathomable.)
Professor: I guess you’ll have to take them on faith, son.
Student : That is it sir … Exactly ! The link between man & GOD is FAITH. That is all that keeps things alive and moving.

P.S.
I believe you have enjoyed the conversation. And if so, you’ll probably want your friends / colleagues to enjoy the same, won’t you?
Forward this to increase their knowledge … or FAITH.
By the way, that student was EINSTEIN."

All it requires to understand that this story probably never happened is about thirty seconds of research on Google. It's not recorded in any of Einstein's extensive biographical works, it is understood to be in conflict with his religious views, and this chain e-mail existed way before the story was being attributed to Einstein.

Now, if you want to read a nice, heartwarming story that villainizes the "evil atheist professor" and turns the Student That Sums Up All The Truths of the Universe In One Cute Anecdote into the mythic hero, cool. But why attach Einstein's name to it and advertise it as an opportunity to "increase knowledge or faith?" It's made up, so you're not increasing knowledge or a faith in anything real.

Perhaps the more important question here is... Why do we, as people of faith, feel the need to attribute characteristics to great thinkers that make us feel better about ourselves? Is your God so small that you cannot have faith without rewriting history, that you cannot appreciate a great mind that didn't hold all the same beliefs as you? That's a dangerous place to be. Furthermore, why does the villain always have to be the atheist professor? Why is it necessary for us to strip him of his humanity and make him the fool of our tales?

Could it be that we are afraid to face his questions and doubts, because they are so like our own?

Could it be that we're afraid of wrestling with the difficult concepts of faith and evil?

Could it be that it's less work to have everything we believe come gift-wrapped in a feel-good chain email rather than earnestly seeking the truth?

KONY2012

oh lawd, i promised myself i wouldnt do this, but desperate times call for desperate blogs.

first, some factual statements.
1. i think about some aspect of international development every day.
2. i ponder the meaning of life every day.
3. i have moral, ethical and philosophical debates with myself every day. sometimes about important things involving human rights and social justice, sometimes about if i should use left over dark chocolate from the vegan cookies as a paint medium, or just eat it (the latter won out).
4. i try to keep up with global happenings, as it is something that interests me and i feel it is important.

as i have never been anyone other than myself, im not entirely sure if other people think about these things on a daily basis. my first impulse would be no.
i am technically a trained anthropologist, so i should know how to observe social realities created by human beings.. yet im not very comfortable judging people on this matter.
i do know for a fackt, however, that there are many people i am friends/acquaintances with who are not very interested in these things, because they ask me questions like:
"What is international development?"
well ill tell you what it is. its a bunch of white people that sit around, argue nonstop with each other, and generally feel more enlightened than everyone else in the entire world.
class dismissed.


on to the matter at hand, ive known about invisible children since i was a teenager. ive been to a lot of their events in the states. i know a ton of people who have been involved with their movement. i happened to drop by their office in gulu when i was in the area and had a lovely chat with some people there. locals we talked to seemed to appreciate them working there. mind you, gulu is flooded with international organizations that showed up just about the time the conflict moved out. so IC is just kind of another organization hangin around northern Uganda hoping to empower the post-conflict society and bring some stability.
or are they?
see, in the world of international development, IC has accomplished something the arguingwhitepeople could never dream of doing. they have literally captured the world with a current, global issue (and by world i mean of course the entire western community, as well as the wannabe-western communities that are not currently engaged in some horrid conflict of their own).
yes, i was skeptical of this world-capturing as well. but as i sat through a 30 min discussion on KONY2012 in my development methods course today, i realized that it is very true.
last semester i actually wrote an essay on IC and how they use social media to communicate their message to western youth. when i explained my essay topic to my professor im pretty sure he didnt know who IC was. and today they were the case study of an entire class period.
on the other hand, i know people, dear sweet people, who couldnt point out uganda or drc on a map, yet they could tell you all about IC’s mission.
its literally everywhere. i could go on.

how very interesting indeed.

i tried to dislike IC. i really did. they are just so damn positive. (development studies really eats your soul btw). (if you didnt know). so yes we can critique their development policy and presentation and understanding. we can point out flaws in their media and information. we can sit around and argue with each other and think were more enlightened than everyone else. but im telling you, if i was in their position right now i would take the same approach. almost
because i want my friends and family who know nothing about africa to be aware of current human rights issues. i want people to get involved in a global discourse. not everyone can/will/cares to devote their life to development studies, but they should still have access to information. and that information needs to be easily understood and simplified. is this right? prob not. is it the only way information can be understood on a global level?
a resounding YES.
so. the arguingwhitepeoplewhothinktheyknoweverything are in an uproar about KONY2012 and my friends that have never traveled out of the US have become overnight social activists.
either way, people are talking about it. because..oh wait, thats actually the point.
IC empowers people.
people will actually do things if they feel compelled.
because people want to be part of something bigger than themselves.
they will mobilize if they feel they need to be heard and seen.
this is why grassroots bottom-up movements are so important. you build a collective that is personally invested and passionate about the situation.
if this is a fad, or a trend, or a distraction, is it not something worthwhile? should lay people (ie. people that do not study development/geography/politics/anthropology/etc/etc/etc/etc) be forever destined to think only about things like the jersey shore and justin beiber and groupon? do they have an equal say in global matters? or should they be excluded?
i think IC answers that question for them. they make this information accessible.
does global information come at the expense of distortion, misinterpretation and manipulation? yep. so should all the experts hoard this info for themselves?
[if i could just go out on a limb here and say, i think academia/researchers/experts are so afraid of being criticized, it seems they only speak out on issues (i mean in a broad, widely publicized context) when it directly threatens their howevermanyyears of research. they only speak out when they can slam someone for being 'wrong' or maybe 'not as educated' and throw a bunch of sources in their face. it seems to me that they are more eager to criticize everyone else than to take the initiative to bring social justice issues to light and suggest methods of positive change. because they are so cautious of being critiqued. is this something we should be ok with?]

ive always thought it was strange that all the wonderful (and not so wonderful) things i learn in social science are never written in a way that is accessible for the broader public. while i think this has something to do with academic elitism, social stratigraphy and the idea of western knowledge (which is another story entirely) (a rather really long story), i can only hope that academics and development experts actually try to engage with this audience. because right now, IC and organizations like it are trying to fill this gap between knowledge and accessibility.
and people are responding to it! and theres money! oh my!

i have supported IC for years and i still do.
but i wish a western organization didnt have to be the face of central africa to the world (the world as we have previously defined it).
i wish everyone had an equal voice.
i wish humanitarian aid didnt have to exist.
i wish everyone was equally knowledgeable about social issues.
i wish things could be different,
but theyre not.



so. to recap-

things are really complicated.

people are people, so why should it be..

i have been noticing something in class recently that is both troubling and puzzling to me.

in said class we are discussing yet again the so called ‘poverty trap’ most countries in africa seem to be associated with. and the problems with lumping african nations into one entity. neocolonialism. neoliberalism. politics. corruption. humanitarian aid. globalization.
yes. basically we read, listen and discuss for hours on end about all the wrong ways of approaching poverty and slowly but surely come to the conclusion that there is nothing we can do about it. so lets just get out there and contribute to the problem already!

and just when you thought that was troubling and puzzling..

i am noticing a recurring trend in class, where the europeans/americans/australians, mostly men (just a friendly observation), sit in a group and make fun of other people.

this is grad school, ladies and gentlemen.

in seminar the other day, we were discussing (yet again) the issues with using the term ‘Africa’ to describe all african nations and what that means, and we decided that it was quite eurocentric and it carries certain stereotypes based on western bias, blah blah blah. one of the africans in our class goes to make a point, which drags on for a bit and kind of turns into a story, and its getting near the end of class, and i hear white boy corner giggling and making comments.
wut.
today in the same seminar, lovely chinese man is making points referring to china and its success within the global market in the recent past, blah blah blah. hes going on for a while, expanding on his point. focusing on something that he feels is important, but may be lost in cultural translation. apparently going way beyond white-boy-corner’s comfort level. and there it is again. i cant believe it. more laughter and comments. quiet enough not to be heard. loud enough to be noticed by bored, observant, stealthy anthropologists.

it is very strange to me that these people can be so sincere in theory, (and they are all very smart, i assure you. we attend one of the top 20 universities in the world. yeah, thats right) but are completely unaware of how eurocentrism affects their own minds! in this seminar circle of about 20 people form all over the world, they are the standard to which everyone else must form, even though they are in the minority. sound familiar?

how can someone even think about working in development/relief aid/etc and not be able to respect the cultural/ethnic diversity within their own classroom?

im not sure if i want to know the answer to that. unconsciously or not, this group, its worldview and customs, are still perpetuated as the standard to which the world is upheld.

help!

i dont want to think anymore!

another fb gem:

“My friends go to college, I go to war. At the same hour they wake up to decide not to go to class or call in sick to work, I've been at work for hours. Their alarms wake them up, my alarms send me to cover. They make plans based on how they feel, I do as the schedule that was put out to me demands. They can't wait to leave their homes, I can't wait to get back. But when we look back at our respective lives they will like theirs and I will be damn proud of mine... repost if you're active duty.”

interesting.

you know what we talked about today in class?

we talked about the politics involved with humanitarian efforts: if it was possible for non-government organizations to ever remain neutral, what defines an innocent and guilty person and how this affects their human rights, and how the ‘good’ accomplished by these human rights/humanitarian organizations are measured.

the thing is, very surprisingly im sure, is that there are no answers. people ultimately do what they decide is best for the greater good. and by saving some people, we lose others.
which lives are more important?

perhaps this can be understood by the old ‘shipwreck survivors are on a raft and one has to go or we all sink’ dilemma. ie: ‘its ok to kill people as long as we do in accordance with the geneva conventions lolz and omgz’.


i spend most of my time in school these days thinking about how war victims, refugees, displaced peoples and marginalized groups can be protected, helped, fed, sheltered, provided for- ‘saved’ even.. you know, from death and stuff.. all while keeping their dignity, agency, and space intact.

its interesting to think that some people just dont matter in the grand scheme of things. and dont you even dare try to deny it. some people will never have a blog or a book or a voice or a life. and the world will never know them unless they are championed by someone who is important.
but who is important?
if a territory becomes dangerous enough aid workers will leave.
are aid workers more important than victims of war?

i have never considered joining the military because i could never justify it to myself. tricare and free college would be lovely, but im way too philosophically invested in my life. and i mean that in the nicest way possible. with a smiley face.
i know that everyone is operating from a different perspective and motivation and while i may not believe that everything is ‘ok’. its a fact and its reality we all have to live with.

i havent ruled out the possibility that i could find myself in a conflict zone one day.. ‘working for hours and taking cover and missing home’. but i would like to think that it wouldnt be in the name of politics, nationalism, revenge, conquest, occupation or armed intervention.

i have, however, considered working with an aid organization because its ultimately something i could justify and believe in. not without critique, heartbreak, and much philosophical debates im sure. but its what ive come to.

i take what i do very seriously, because i know who i am, and by circumstances within and without of my control, i am in a position to be an influence. i have a blog and a book and a voice and a life. and im going to never stop doing what i feel is right.


this is something i am very proud of.

christian worldview

i wish i could send out sponsorship letters/dramatic pleas on facebook to fundraise for my masters program. oh wait- i'm not dedicating my life to God unless i go on an official evangelism venture of some kind, and therefore am void of charitable donations. bummer.

compassion

Look what i found on facebook today everyone!

- "If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. If you cross the U.S. border illegally you get a job, a driver's license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & tax free business for 7 years. No wonder we are a country in debt." Re-post if you agree -

Now doesn't that make sense, to compare the US to North Korea and Afghanistan? Makes complete sense to me!


Honestly, i just cant imagine wishing 12 years of hard labor and/or being shot to death on anyone. People act surprised that someone would want to move to the US and take advantage of whatever it is they came here for. I just have to tell myself over and over again that US citizens, and yes, even poor US citizens (gasp!) have absolutely no clue about what it means to live in "poverty" or "sickness" or all around "bad conditions". If they did, i don't think they would be so quick to judge those who will do whatever it takes to come to a country where they can escape that in some way, even if it means creating different problems for themselves and their families. Maybe it would be better than what they were dealing with before. Maybe it would be a lot better.

I would never advocate for someone to come to the US thinking is a magical land that can fix everyone's problems.
But i would implore and plead and beseech US citizens who live in a bubble of fear about your-precious-rights-being-compromised to just look around. The weird thing about human beings is that we're all human beings, and we probably have a lot more in common than not.

You can really make a positive difference in someone's life if you would stop being so selfish. Its a true story.