llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll’lllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 01026 2180

 

LIBRARY
Mlchlgan State
Unlvonlty

 

 

 

This is to certify that the 1

thesis entitled

Between Women and Men and God:
A Study of an Intersection of Gender and Religion

presented by

Dorothy Chandler Weaver

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters Anthropology

 

 

degree in

All //.:Vof

, / Major professor

_,

11/16/93
Date

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

 

PLACE N RETURN BOX to remove thte checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or bdore dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

m“? was; l l
-mm ‘

—-_ll[:f—T
l2"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__]l___l

|__J-
l I l

MSU Ie An Affirmetlve Action/Equel Opportunity Inetltutlon
Mama

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN AND GOD:
A STUDY OF AN INTERSECTION OF GENDER AND RELIGION

By

Dorothy Chandler Weaver

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology
l 993

ABSTRACT

BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN AND GOD:
A STUDY OF AN INTERSECTION OF GENDER AND RELIGION

By

Dorothy Weaver

Patriarchy theories suggest that religions with belief systems reflecting a 'masculine' world
view; as demonstrated in areas of creation story, hierarchical thinking, emphasis on separation,
and conflict orientation; would tend to assign most power to men and to ignore 'feminine'
perspectives and communication strategy. A four month research project was undertaken to
examine the relationship between belief, gender, and power. The project used bath participant
observation and interview to explore these factors in a single small, highly active, student
religious (Christian) organization. This study found that while both formal structure and
theology fit the model of a patriarchal system, more 'feminine' world views and communication

patterns could be expressed by re—directing emphasis to informal and unofficial relationships.

Cepyright by
Dorothy Chandler Weaver
1993

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Inmoducfion ........................................ 1
Gender and Religion ......................................... 1
Method .................................................. 2
The Researcher ............................................. 3
The Population ............................................. 5
Shortcomings .............................................. 6
Overview ................................................. 7

Chapter 2 Gender, Religion and Theories of Patriarchy .................... 8
Gender and Perception ........................................ 8
Religion and Patriarchy ....................................... 1 0
Shortcomings and Uses ...................................... 1 3

Chapter 3 The Organization Studied ............................... 1 5
The Population ............................................ 1 5
History ................................................. 1 6
Organization .............................................. 1 7
Activity ........... 4 ...................................... 1 9

Chapter 4 The Ministry and Student Reality .......................... 2 5
The University context ....................................... 2 5
MinistryParticipantsasStudents 33

Chapter 5 The Ministry and Christian Theology ....................... 3 6
Basic Theology ............................................ 3 7
Images in Music ........................................... 3 9
Application of Theology to Life ................................. 4 2

iv

Religion and Gender ......................................... 4 7

Patriarchy ................................................ 5 2
Chapter 6 The Participants ..................................... 5 6
The Campus Minister ........................................ 36
Participants ............................................... 58
Relationships ............................................. 6 8
Chapter 7 Gender and Formal Leadership ............................ 7 O
Fellowship ............................................... 7 1
Special committees -. ......................................... 7 2
Small Groups ............................................. 7 5
Residences ............................................... 7 6
Other Activities ........................................... . 7 7
Chapter 8 The Relationship of Gender and Degree of Participation ............ 7 9
FormalContexts-u-o-o-n-o‘ ............................... 79
Informal Contexts .......................................... 8 2
Chapter 9 Gender and Informal Power. . . . .......................... 8 4
Unrecognized Power in Structured Situations ......................... 84
Unrecognized Power in Unstructured Situations ....................... 8 8
Borrowed Authority ......................................... 8 9
Chapter 10 Conclusions ....................................... 9 1
List of References ........................................... 8 4

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

GENDER AND RELIGION

In beginning this project, I discovered that much had been written about the
intersection of gender and religion, some of it very passionate. In the United States,
however, very little actual research had been done. Many authors theorized that Western
religions (particularly Christianity) were set up by men, to benefit men, and from the
perspective of a masculine world view (Christ 1980; Daly 1985; Dunfee 1989). Some of
these theories seemed, however, to be based on the 'gut feelings' of participants in this
religion--a reaction, even, to personal frustration against a system that had failed to meet
their needs--and not as a result of organized research. I believe that those living inside a
system can be excellent sources of knowledge about the nature of the system.
Nevertheless, there comes a time when theories should be tested.

To this end, I undertook to study the relationship of gender, religious ideology, and
power. I selected a single religious organization and used it to test certain theories about
'Patriarchy' and women's empowerment. I hoped to gain insight on the following
questions: Are the 'masculine' and 'feminine‘ world views incompatible? If the theology
is based largely on the 'masculine‘ world view, will that lead to the suppression of female

members' experience and access to power? How strongly do formal rules about gender

2

and access to power affect the use of real power? How does world view and ideology
affect the ways men and women make decisions?

Not all of these questions were answered completely, even in the context of one
rather small population. However, I believe some insight has been gained into the way

gender and religion can interact with one another.

METHOD

Data was collected by both participant observation and interview. Participant
observation consisted of regular attendance of group gatherings between December 6, 1992
and February 26, 1993. Such gatherings included twice weekly Fellowships, Sunday
dinners, prayer breakfasts, and Bible studies. In addition to these regular interactions, I
had the privilege of attending special activities such as the Chinese New Year party,
Baptisms, and Christmas caroling. I was also allowed to observe meetings of the Hedge
Team, Ministry Team, and small group leaders.

Besides participant observation, I had formal interviews with 7 male and 8 female
participants. The interviewees varied in age from late teens to early forties, included formal
and informal group leaders as well as other participants, and both 'young' and more
'mature' Christians. Interviews were unstructured. The topics discussed were the nature
of humanity (particularly gender differences) as ordained by God; appropriate gender
behavior; actual behavior of group members; and the individual's perception of the ways
gender influences personal interaction.

These topics also arose during informal conversation, and this provided almost as

much insight into both real and ideal behavior as did formal interviews.

THE RESEARCHER

At the time of conceptualization and data collection, I was a twenty-three year old
women in her second year of graduate study. I grew up in rural Southeastern Kentucky.
My community seemed to accept 'traditional gender roles' completely, although my parents
(outsiders from New Jersey) had taught me that men and women are the way they are
because society makes them that way, and society is not always fair. I received my B.A.
(anthropology/sociology) from a very small (rather feminist-minded) liberal arts college in
Kentucky. I considered myself a Christian, but was a member of no particular
denomination. My religious upbringing was an amiable combination of Presbyterian,
Episcopal, and Southern Baptist.

Gender and religion are each incredibly powerful parts of our culture. They touch on
what is most important to people and permeate almost every aspect of life. While I was
curious about both gender and religion as separate concepts, in combination they had a
synergy that riveted me. I first noticed their power when I was a senior in high school. I
was feeling a bit feisty after a graduation breakfast given by the local ministerial
association. The whole activity had seemed empty and patronizing, and when we returned
to the school I vented my bad temper by writing, "what if God is a woman?" on the
blackboard. The response amazed me! I expected annoyance and disdain-J had no
illusions about either the status of women or of God in my home town--but the statement
was met with outright shock and horror. I was going to hell. I had said a terrible thing.
How could I be so stupid? Did I know what I had said? I was a little hurt by the outrage
of my friends, but mostly I was confused: What was going on? The question followed me
into anthropology, where I found a few answers and many more questions. My masters
thesis seemed a perfect opportunity to explore some of what happens when gender and

religion intersect.

In actually doing research, it was impossible to confine my experience to my intellectual
questions. Ideas are not separable from the people who 'have' them. The people who
were my ’subjects' also became by friends. I took notes on what they did and said, I asked
questions about my topic, and adapted (as best I could) to their communications style. But
I also sang, ate, prayed, and exchanged confidences with them. They treated me with great
trust, respect, and acceptance, and I tried to return these. A role as anthropologist placed
only a few constraints on my behavior: don't say weird anthropological things, don't
argue, and don't change the dynamic (that is, let others define situations and my role in
them). I did not keep these rules perfectly, however, I seemed to find my duel identity
much more problematic than anyone around me did. I accept that research cannot be
separated from the person who did it. I understand that the person I am must include my
identity as an anthropology student.

I did not expect, when I started, to be very much affected by my informants. I
knew that my research would be only a tiny, unimportant part of their lives and a temporary
part of mine. I assumed that the most important things I learned would be about
anthropology. About this I was wrong.

For most people I have known, religion was a small, integrated part of life: church
on Sunday, prayer in difficulty, occasional guilt. However, for many of my informants,
religion permeated all aspects of life. Small difficulties were lessons, bad attitudes were
challenges, and everything that happened was an opportunity to grow closer to God. They
tried to live as they believed God wanted, even though they sometimes failed and often
things went badly-even horribly--in their lives. Watching so many people trying again and
again, without making excuses for failure or bragging about success, to devote themselves
to God and each other taught me more than I ever expected to learn. Their belief and action

have been great encouragements to me, and are what I will remember the longest.

THE POPULATION

The subject group is a full time 'campus ministry,‘ a registered student organization
of a large Michigan university. It was selected for the study mainly because of the
frequency of both formal and informal activities, which provided ample opportunity for
observation. Furthermore, both the formal leadership and general participants were very
helpful and interested in the study. I found them to be very frank in their statements, even
when they believed what they were saying was not what they thought I wanted to hear.

Almost all participants in the organization are students. This has both positive and
negative implications. On the one hand, very few anthropological studies on any topic
have been performed on college students (one exception being Coming of Age in New
Jersey by M. Moffat). There is a great deal of information yet to be examined. Also, a
college campus provides an identifiable population—making it possible to avoid some of the
complexity and confusion found in America-at-large. Finally, I was only slightly older
than most participants (and younger than many). It was thought that if this research was to
be done, best it be done now when the physical appearance of the investigator would be
most conducive to rapport.

On the other hand, there are difficulties in examining a collegiate organization.
Students are a circumscribed, slightly deviant population. By definition, demographics are
largely restricted to a very. narrow range of age and occupation. Furthermore, the living
conditions (dormitory residence, separation from family, insecurity about the future, etc.)
are not those of most 'real people' (that is, non-students). It is uncertain to what degree

inferences based on them can be generalized to the rest of the population.

SHORTCOMIN GS

Now that I have finished the actual research, I can see some of its shortcomings.
A few were caused by constraints inherent in the situation, others by my own ignorance.
Three are important enough to warrant particular mention.

The first deals with time. While my interaction with the ministry lasted several
months and provided a great richness of detail, it did not allow for much data on change
over time. While a few participants had been associated with the group for a number of
years and were willing to share their observations on change, this is not adequate substitute
for first hand experience. This work would have been improved by the inclusion of more
information on how both the organization and its individual participants changed over a
year or more.

Second, I believe that my communication with male participants was not quite as
good as my communication with female participants. This is in no way the fault of my
informants. Individuals of both genders seemed eager to help me with my research and to
truly enjoy discussing their beliefs. However, building rapport with men was generally
harder than building rapport with women. One contributing factor was that it was more
difficult to arrange informal contact with male participants because it was considered
somewhat inappropriate for a man and woman to be alone together. Mostly, though, my
lack of understanding was due to my own limitations. There is much I simply do not
know about the way men of my society think and the assumptions they make (though I
learned a great deal during the course of this study). While I have collected and presented
what male informants told me as faithfully as possible, I do not know what insights or
patterns I have missed.

Finally, I wish I had started with a more firm grounding in what psychologists call

"human development." Most participants in the group studied were American college

7

students. It is clear from the developmental theory I did use that religion and life cycle
interact in powerful ways (some of which will be discussed later), but I am not certain of

the complete nature or extent of this interaction. This intersection is important enough to

warrant study as a separate issue.

OVERVIEW

Both existing theory and original research will be used to explore the intersection of
gender, power, world view, and theology. Chapter two examines theories of gender
which relate to 'masculine' or 'feminine' world view and theology. These theories will be
used later when looking at theology and behavior. Chapters three and four provide
information on the contexts of general college student reality and of the particular group
studied, respectively. Chapter five is a description of Christian theology as normally
accepted by group members. Chapter six contains general information on individual
participants and their interpersonal interactions. Chapters seven, eight, and nine deal with

actual behavior regarding power, leadership, participation, and communication.

CHAPTER 2
GENDER, RELIGION AND THEORIES OF PATRIARCHY

Before describing the actual organization under study, I would like to discuss a few
of the more useful theories regarding gender and religion. These perspectives are a part of
social theory and not a description of the world view of my informants. The
understandings of religion, society, and gender given in this chapter would likelybe
considered irrelevant (or even inaccurate) by ministry participants because they do not
focus on improving one's spiritual life. Anthropologically, however, I believe that they

can be effectively used to help organized patterns of belief and behavior for study.

GENDER AND PERCEPTION

Male domination has two faces--the overt domination of women by men and the more

subtle domination of men over 'human' ideology. While it is true that women are

participating more and with more power in many aspects of American society previously

inaccessible to them, most of the contexts within which this participation takes place are

still rooted in Patriarchal assumptions. Historically, men have dominated Western culture,
and masculine perceptions have defined reality, set policy, and dictated action.

"Our objective culture is thoroughly male. It is men who have created art

and industry, science and commerce, the state and religion. The belief that there is a

purely 'human' culture for which the difference between man and woman is

irrelevant has its origin in the same premise from which it follows that such a

8

9

culture does not exist--the naive identification of the 'human' with 'man (Simmel

1984: 67).

In American society, the male experience is considered the 'normal' one, and that particular
perception is believed to represent the objective truth about the nature of the world. In
contrast, the world view of women--when noticed at all--is considered abnormal and
defective.

Generally speaking, the masculine perspective filters experience through assumptions of
separation, hierarchy, and conflict. Separation is the belief that people and things are
isolated and independent of one another-- for example, the 'soul' from the 'body,‘ person
from person, culture from nature, and world from God (Gray 1982: 115, 120; Franklin
1988: 48). This may partly originate in the experience of being a mam-in American society
being male often means not being female. Furthermore, boys, while growing up are
expected to break childhood relationships while little girls are allowed to mature "within
existing relationships" (Gray 1982: 118). "The male has always said it is important to be
autonomous, to be individuated. You grow up by separating yourself from your parents"
(Gray 1982: 60).

Masculine assumptions of separation go beyond sharp distinctions of self and
other. They also dichotomize aspects of life like "public and private, political and
economic, body and mind, head and heart, etc." (Mies 1986: 35).

Once life is broken down into separate concepts, these are arranged into hierarchies:

"[The] thought-world of patriarchy got into ranking all diversity. We have

developed veritable contact lenses through which we look every time we encounter

diversity. And we always ask ourselves 'Which of us is better?’ Whites look at
blacks and ask 'Which of us is better?‘ Civilized look at 'primitive' and ask

'Which of us is better?....'

"Diversity does not exist to be ranked. But in this patriarchal culture we

siglrply do not know how to deal with diversity without ranking it" (Gray 1982:
The universe is seen as hierarchical, with each 'individual' part placed somewhere in this

hierarchy. A thing or person is more or less useful, more or less powerful, more or less

moral, more or less good, more or less intelligent, and so on. For example:

10

"Humans are above animals in this view of things, and we clearly label them as
subhuman. Plants are below animals, because they don't even have the grace to
move around as we and the animals do, but are rooted in the soil. And nature in
this view is below everything else, completely material with no redeeming signs of
spirit at all, consisting of inert rocks, stones, 'dirt,‘ and what we view as the
'inanimate' world" (Gray 1982: 84).

The world does not neatly fall into these hierarchies: individuals may constantly
struggle to place themselves or their ideas/values into higher positions. This conflict can be
symbolic or outright violent (Eisenstein 1979: 17; Tannen 1990: 24-25; Thorne 1982: 13).
Because of this masculine world View, individual men and groups find themselves in
adversarial relationships with women, the natural world, and other men.

While the masculine world view sees separation, hierarchy, and conflict, the
feminine world view sees interactions in terms of relationships and connectedness. They
understand life as "a community, a struggle to preserve intimacy and avoid isolation,"
(Tannen 1990: 25). Persons are defined not by their independence but by their
relationship to others. Mind and body, culture and nature, world and God are not in
opposition to each other.

It is important to note that a man can choose the feminine perspective, and that

women are frequently socialized to accept the masculine perspective as the 'real' one.

RELIGION AND PATRIARCHY

Masculine and feminine perspectives are useful concepts when discussing religion.
A religion is defined as 'patriarchal' if its symbolism and mandates both support the
subordination of women and promote the 'reality' of the masculine world view. Patriarchal
religious systems can be identified by looking at the creative principal, the gender
(masculine or feminine) world view, and the behavioral norms.

Peggy Reeves Sanday compared data from 150 societies looking for correlation

between the source and nature of creative power and the distribution of secular power by

11

gender. In specific, she examined the genders and actions of deities in creation myths of
these societies. She found that there were strong correlation between sex of creator and
mode of creation:

"Female creators originate from within something--such as the earth or
water--and create from their bodies. Male, animal, and Supreme Being creators
originate from without--such as the sky or another land--and produce people
magically. Couple creators, on the other hand, originate from within and without,
but they tend to produce by natural processes" (1981: 57).

Sanday found that comparatively high gender equality was associated with
societies having creative deities who were female or a male-female couple, while those with
male deities were usually heavily male dominated. Furthermore, these two factors, nature
of creative force and degree of gender equality, also correlated with world view. Is life
seen as safe or dangerous? unified or fragmented? cooperative or competitive? Generally
where the creative principal is female or a couple women are not seen as sinful or
dangerous (Sanday 1981: 33), nature is not seen as a hostile place that must be controlled
(Sanday 1981: 65), and conflict is de-emphasized. Not only are male creation metaphors
usually accompanied by male dominance over women; they are more conflict oriented and
tend to "reflect on the evil of women, separate humans from the divine, and introduce
bloodshed and war" (Sanday 1981: 34).

For example, Carol Ochs uses the Judeo-Christian creation story as an example of
the separation characteristic of the masculine world view:

"One such cosmology, typical of patriarchal religious systems, portrays the
creator as artist, and mankind as his work of art. This view is illustrated in the Old
Testament. God like a potter, fashions man from clay, views the finished product
critically, and declares that is good. The creation, man, is wholly external and
removed from the creator, God" (1977: 3).

Masculine creation scripts, then, are compatible with masculine world views (and vice
versa). The masculine world view, however, is also often made explicit in the cosmology
of patriarchal religions. Separation, hierarchy, and conflict can be justified by the neat

separation of the universe into constituent parts and the ranking of these parts into a system

where 'higher' parts are more valuable than and have dominion over 'lower' ones (Gray

12

1982: 84). This may be symbolized directly, as Ochs observes, "In patriarchal religions,
God, if he is not in the highest heavens, is a least atop a mountain, such as Olympus or
Sinai" ( 1977: 194). God is often pictured as king, general, head of household (father), etc.
Other supernatural beings (lesser gods, angles, demons, spirits, or whatever), societies,
people (leaders and followers or males and females), specific animals, objects, and so on
are given their place in this hierarchy, although specific placement varies from society to
society.

Often religious and social hierarchies support one another.

"By patriarchy we mean not only the subordination of females to males, but
the whole structure of father-ruled society: aristocracy over serfs, masters over
slaves, king over subjects, racial overlords over colonized people. Religions that
reinforce hierarchical stratification use the Divine as the apex of this system of
privileged control" (Reuther 1983: 61).

The power of God acts as a model for human power arrangements.

Patriarchal hierarchy is often characterized by conflict. Individuals may struggle to
rise or refuse to accept the domination of those above them (Sanday 1981: 40). There may
also be conflict from without, an external threat or evil. The world is defined as 'us'
versus 'them' (separation again) with 'us' in opposition to 'them' and trying to defeat
'them.‘ (Meis 1986: 74-75). Good is in conflict with evil, angels are in conflict with
demons, the faithful are in conflict with heretics.

Finally, patriarchal religions will present women as morally and intellectually
inferior and lay out specific rules requiring women to be subordinate to men. For example,
the Girni, a society in New Guinea, find women inherently destructive of spirituality.
Gillison states, "Gimi men's mundane existence is degraded and their mortal potential is
unfulfilled because of the inescapable neamess of women inside the hamlet and of the
powerful contamination which female sexuality exudes" (1990: 143-144). The Mundurcu,
another male dominated culture, believed that women originally controlled access to sacred

power and dominated men. The women were not able to handle their power correctly,

however, so men stole it from them (Sanday 1981: 39-40). Such definition of women's

l3

inherent sinfulness or incompetence is often the basis for specific rules excluding women

from power positions (Daly 1985: 3).

SHORTCOMINGS AND USES

The most important problem with this set of theories is their globality. The crux of
the issue is hooked on a single assumption, one that is assumed to be equally useful (or
almost so) cross-culturally: "that women are human beings of quite a different sort from
men. Therefore the way they know is quite distinct from the way men know" (W ilson-
Kastner 1983: 11-12). Feminine world view and masculine world view are somehow
linked to sex, and not assumed to be a product of culture. It presupposes that women and
men from all backgrounds are motivated in the same ways. This is false:

"...Women come only in different classes, races, and cultures: there is no

'women' and no 'woman's experience.‘ Masculine and feminine are always

categories within every class, race and culture, in the sense that women's and

men's experiences, desires and interests differ within every class, race, and culture"

(Harding 1987: 7).

A theory is not an independent entity objectively describing the workings of some
part of the universe--it is a product of the perspective of it's creator. For the most part
these theories of Patriarchy were created by White, middle-class, Western women. It is
impossible to completely separate "the knower from what he knows" (Smith 1987: 88).
The ideas generated by these scientists and feminists may not be generalizable to humanity-
at-large, and may not even reflect the perspectives of minority groups within their own
cultures.

With this in mind, I still believe the use of patriarchy theories can be productive.
Since the group under study is part of one of the cultures Patriarchy theory was developed

to examine and has been used in the past to shed light on different aspects of that culture, it

seems appropriate to use it as a research tool.

14

In this work Patriarchy theory will be used to explore the interaction of theology
and behavior. It would be expected that a religious belief system emphasizing partiarchial
elements such as separtation, hierarchy, conflict, the valuation of men over women, and
mores requiring the subordination would be associated with a lack of attention to the

feminine world view and the absence of female leadership.

CHAPTER 3
THE ORGANIZATION STUDIED

In order to examine the relationship between religion and gender, I studied a small,
highly active religious group. Before analyzing either theology or gender, it is necessary to

present a description of this organization, its social context, and its membership.

THE POPULATION

The subject group is a full time 'campus ministry,‘ a registered student organization
of a large Michigan university. This particular group is part of a network with branches on
several campuses. Long term plans and budgeting for the different branches is done by a
board of directors having both male and female members, with coordination of branch
activity supervised by an executive director. Each individual site is run by a full time
campus minister, who is responsible for the day to day activity of the branch, including
student counseling, content and form of fellowship meetings, looking after the group's
student residences, and organizing additional activities to meet the religious and social
needs of participants. Different branches are similar in ideology and activity. Several
individuals had transferred from one branch to another when they moved and/or graduated
if their new location allowed it.

The group which agreed to participate in this research (in this work referred to as

the Ministry) has been in place for over 20 years. It has no official membership, but while

15

16

I was there it had roughly 75 regular participants, which the campus minister loosely
defines as attendance of fellowship at least once every two weeks. This base population
included about 60 undergraduate or graduate students attending the university and 15
young adults (age 36 or younger) living in the local community. Most non-students were
alumni who started coming to the ministry while they were students. While 85% of the
regular participants were White, there had, in the past year or so, been a drive for
international and minority recruitment. International students (almost all Asian) made up
about 12% of the regular participants. Recruitment of African American students had been
less successful-~only 4 were regularly attending as of the end of data collection. However
this number was growing. During fall semester 2/3 of all participants were female.
Although this imbalance stimulated more concentrated recruitment of males, I observed no

significant change in the gender ratio.

HISTORY

The first branch of the Ministry was begun in 1969 when a local Christian church,
noticing that the university population was not being reached by the local religious
community, decided to place a minister on campus. A corporation was set up, a board of
directors selected, and a first campus minister found. For the first five years or so,
attendance was only about twenty people. The campus minister would walk through the
dormitories, looking for students who might be interested in attending Bible studies. As
the Ministry became more viable, the campus minister sought support from other churches
and private individuals. In 1974 attendance climbed suddenly to more than 100. Then,
since it was firmly established on one campus, the Ministry began to branch out to other

locations.

17

It is important to note that for college students, the history of their campus or extra-
curricular group, while it may be interesting, has little direct effect on daily life. The
involvement of most Ministry participants is four years or less, and their memory is
consequently as short. While I was there two or three people had been around long enough
to remember what happened seven or ten years ago--conflicts, particularly influential
individuals, a wonderful activity, the arrival of a new campus minister, and so on; but most
could not take such a long view of things. Participants are young people, living in the
present for the future. They are involved in the problems they are having today, the people
they know and care about now. A few alumni keep in regular contact, and these are
known, at least by name, to most participants. Many, however, know almost nothing
about the Ministry's history or past participants. Individuals might express some interest
when asked about history, but had taken no initiative to learn about it. Sometimes someone
who has been gone for a few years will come to a fellowship or send a letter that is shared
with the group. These visitors are made to feel welcome and return letters are often sent
(sometimes by persons who never actually met the sender). Such contact, however, is not
very common and is most meaningful only to those who actually knew the people
involved. The urgency of present relationships and interactions is too great to leave much

room for the past.

ORGANIZATION

The campus minister (ordained) is in charge of both the theological and social
aspects of the organization. The Ministry Team was developed to provide additional help.
This is a committee of regular participants of both genders who have the experience,
commitment, spiritual growth, and time to provide special support. The Ministry Team

serves as a kind of funnel for new ideas. Any participant, as well as the campus minister,

18

can suggest a special activity or new program, but it is normally the Ministry team that
examines the suggestion's usefulness and feasibility, as well as helps implement an activity
or change in policy. The Ministry Team has run the ministry for a few weeks in the
campus minister's absence. The Ministry Team also coordinates the activities of the prayer
group or Hedge Team.

The campus ministry maintains two residences, one for men (six people) and one
for women (five people). Most inhabitants are students, although interns and recent
graduates may also live there. Each residence is guided by a Head of House, who
coordinates chores and diffuses conflicts.

The ministry usually has a student intern, a theology or ministry student who
absorbs some of the work load while learning about student ministry. An intern can
provide counseling, teach lessons, and lead bible studies. An intern is not automatically
part of the Ministry Team, although at the time of the study, the intern did serve as a
member.

A number of roles may be taken by regular participants. The music leader selects
most songs used in worship and leads the accompaniment (guitar). International student
coordinator is a new position, created to more systematically locate and encourage
interested foreign students. A leadership position without formal title but having real
responsibility is being in charge of the Ministry's food and overseeing the volunteer cooks
for Sunday night dinners. Participants also serve as leaders for smaller subgroups (three to
twenty people) that focus on 'Accountability' (personal and spiritual growth) and Bible
study.

It is important to note that these positions cannot be fit into a comprehensive
organizational chart. There is no rigid hierarchy or bureaucracy. Most of the individuals in
the roles listed above--as well as most of the active participants--were friends. I believe
that more decisions were the product of interaction between friends than between formal or

semi-formal roles.

19

ACTIVITY

FELLOWSHIP

The ministry meets twice weekly (Sunday and Wednesday) for evening fellowship.
Both meetings follow the same general pattern.

Sunday fellowship follows a meal at the women's residence. Dinner is cooked by
two or three volunteers and served buffetstyle. Costs are defrayed by small donations ($3
or less) collected in a bucket placed on the table. Diners eat in the living room. Twenty to
forty people usually attended, so most people sit on the floor.

After dinner, participants convene in the outbuilding behind the women's house.
More people attend the Fellowship than the dinner, but it is difficult to say just how many
more, because people continue to arrive throughout the meal. The outbuilding is 41' X
19'. The floor is carpeted. There are four couches, but most people sit on the floor. The
room can hold about fifty people comfortably. At the front of the room is a white marker
board. On either side of it is a low table to hold bread and grape juice for communion. In
front of the writing board is an upside-down milk crate with a small pillow on top. This is
often used as a seat for individuals addressing the group from 'up front.‘

After greeting everyone, giving a brief overview of the night's lesson, and passing
the sign-in sheet used to take roll, the campus minister turns the floor over to the music
leader. The person sitting next to the light switch (usually the same person) turns the lights
down. This is so that the lyrics to the songs, which are printed on transparencies and
projected onto the white marker board at the front of the room, can be easily seen. If a
specific song is new or especially complex (is a round, has unusual tempo changes, or has
echo parts, etc.) the music leader provides brief instructions. Also, if there is a special
message in a song that she wants participants to think about she can mention it then. The

music leader and from one to three other guitarists provides accompaniment for between

20

three and six songs. The music helps participants relax, put aside distractions, and 'focus
in on God.‘ I believe it also helps create the spirit of community that is further expanded
during Sharing Time and Prayer Requests.

After the first group of songs comes Sharing Time. The lights are turned up and
the campus minister, intern, or other regular participant comes to the front of the room and
initiates a dialog with the others. Taking the topic of the night's lesson as a starting point,
the speaker asks about a specific way the issue affected the lives of those present. People
signal their desire to answer by raising their hands, and are called upon by the moderator.
If few answers arise or those given are not quite what the moderator has in mind, it is up
to the him to rephrase the question or guide the discussion. Sharing Time usually takes
seven to ten minutes and ends when no one has anymore to add.

After Sharing Time the lights are dimmed for three or four more songs.

Following the second song set is Prayer Requests. This is usually lead by two
people--one sitting or standing in front of the group and calling on people, and the other
recording each speaker's name and request on the board. A person wishing to make a
request raises his or her hand, and when called upon explains what he or she would like
'lifted up' (given into God's care). Usually the item is a request for help, either for the
speaker or for a friend, acquaintance, or relative. Topics lifted up include health, grades,
employment, poor attitude, travel and transportation, interpersonal conflict, perceived
assault on religious position by secular society, housing, and the spiritual needs of specific
non-Christians. The other kind of prayer request is a 'praise' or acknowledgment of a
specific blessing or answered prayer. After a request is made, other participants raise their
hands to volunteer to 'lift up' that particular item. When no more requests are made,
participants rise, stand in a circle, and join hands for prayer, which is lead by the campus
minister and/or one or two participants.

After prayer is Communion. This is prefaced with a brief instruction, or

'Communion Meditation,’ given by the campus minister, intern, or a male participant. The

21

length of this lecture is about five minutes, but it varies. It integrates a particular Bible
verse(s) and thoughts on the meaning and impact of Communion, or on problem attitudes
that should be addressed before taking Communion. This is followed by a short prayer
and silence during which participants come to the front of the room. On each side of the
writing board is a small table set up for Communion. The host is large and round like a
cookie, and participants break pieces from it themselves. Both small, individual cups and a
single communal cup are provided.

When no more people come forward, the lesson begins. It is almost always taught
by the campus minister, although the intern, spiritually mature male participants, and guests
from outside also sometimes teach. The teacher hands out a one page outline which
contains the main points of the lesson and identifies the central Bible verses. Most
participants take notes on the outline during the lesson. When a biblical passage is used,
those participants with Bibles (about 2/3 of the whole) turn to the page, and the teacher
might ask for volunteers to read aloud. Lesson topics include improving attitudes,
male/female relationships and '(sexual) purity,‘ baptism, salvation through grace, and
relationship of particular passages to daily life. Ideally, the lesson lasts thirty minutes, but
in practice it usually lasted forty to forty-five.

After the lesson, participants join hands in a circle to sing one of the shorter, better
known songs (the overhead projector is not used at this time). Usually the campus minister
asks anyone who might feel the need to make a decision about baptism or change some
aspect of their spiritual life to come forward during the song. I recorded few people
actually doing this, and four weeks or more could go by between occurrences.

After announcements and a final prayer, the formal fellowship is over, but
participants often remain fifteen to thirty minutes talking informally. Topics of these
conversations may be unrelated to the ministry, deal with ministry related activities or social

relationships, or focus on an individual's religious difficulties or insights.

22

Wednesday's Fellowship is much like Sunday's, with a few differences. On
Wednesday 1) There is no meal served 2) Fewer songs are sung: the total might be as low
as five, 3) Songs are usually chosen by the campus minister, who might join the guitar
accompaniment and might add brief discussions between individual songs, 4) The

collection bucket is passed around after Prayer Requests, and 5) There is no communion.

BAPTTSISM

The Ministry performed 14 baptisms between the start of the school year and March
14. The ceremony was usually held in the baptismal of a nearby church, although a local
river was also sometimes used. Any Christian can perform a baptism. The person
performing the ceremony is selected by the person being baptized, and is usually the
campus minister or the participant who has been instructing or ministering to baptizee.
Occasionally, two people perform the ceremony together.

Many baptisms are held right after Fellowship so that as many participants as
possible can attend. After the regular ceremony is over, participants wanting to watch the
baptism carpool to the host church. While those who would be in the water change into
clothes they do not mind getting wet, the music leader, with her guitar, leads the others in
song (since there is no overhead projector, selections for this tend to be either those songs
frequently sung or very short and simple so that most people know the words). When they
are ready, the baptizer asks the initiate who Jesus Christ was. There is no formula answer,
but responses usually identified Him as the Son of God or a Savior from sin. The initiate
then follows the baptizer into the water, which is about waist deep, and stands with his/her
right side facing the audience. He/she holds the nose with the right hand and the right wrist
with the left hand. The baptizer stands on the initiate's left, facing the observers. Saying,
"Because of your confession of Jesus as God's son, I baptize you in the name of God, the
Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of your sins and the gift of the

Holy Spirit" (from Acts 2:38), the baptizer lowers the initiate briefly into the water. While

23

they change into dry clothes, the observers sing. When they are done changing and have
returned, the observers cluster around the initiate for a final prayer. Finally, the new

Christian is welcomed into the spiritual family with hugs and congratulations.

PRAYER BREAKFASTS

During fall semester some participants began to meet for special breakfasts as an
experiment. At first these met at 7:00 am. on alternate Fridays. As many as twenty people
attended, and food (French toast, yogurt and homemade granola, pancakes, etc.) was
prepared by volunteers. During spring semester this activity became more routine.
Meetings were held every week, attendance dropped to twelve or less, and the food was
consistently cold cereal, milk, orange juice, and toast with cream cheese. While talk tends
to be secular and playful while people are actually eating, when participants are done they
become more serious. Everyone chooses a section of Sunday's Fellowship (for example,
Communion Meditation, Music, attendance, Sharing Time, etc.) to pray for. Then they
join hands and take turns praying aloud for their sections. Individuals not wishing to pray
aloud for some reason signal the next person by squeezing his or her hand. Breakfast
ends shortly before 8:00. Those with cars then transport those without them to early

classes or jobs.

SPECIAL OCCASIONS

The ministry also meets for special occasions. For example, eleven participants
went Christmas caroling outside nearby dorms after fellowship. In January, Chinese New
Year was celebrated at the women's residence. It was attended both by (White and Asian)
regular participants and other Chinese students (about twenty foreign students attend a
special Bible study, but did not usually attend fellowship because of language problems.)
A third special activity is All Night Prayer, one of which was in planning during data

collection. Finally, twice a year the parent organization holds a weekend retreat. The

24

retreats are specifically for participants from all branch campuses, but any interested

person, student or non, can attend.

SMALL GROUPS

The ministry has organized small group activity for both regular and non-
participants. During my observation, a total of six small Bible studies (five to twenty
members) existed for both dorms and populations with special needs (i.e. graduate or
international students). These were lead by participants.

Another kind of small group is 'Accountability' Ideally, an Accountability Group
is made up of two co-leaders and from two to six members. However some groups only
have one leader, and many one-on-one ministries could be considered to be Accountability
Groups. Members of an Accountability Group meet weekly to set spiritual, physical, and
social goals for themselves. Then, through discussion and emotional support, members
help each other meet these goals. Members talk about religious insights and questions, but
also share important personal issues and problems. Many groups also include some Bible

study. At last count there were 21 accountability groups/one—on—one ministries.

CHAPTER 4
THE MINISTRY AND STUDENT REALITY

THE UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

The Ministry is oriented primarily toward students. The social context shapes the
participants' daily lives is that of a large university campus. The world they as students
live in is distinctly different from what students call the 'real world' (Moffett 1989: 65).
Their assumptions and needs are formed by the particular developmental stage they have
reached. The combination of these social and psychological worlds comes together to

create a context that guides both individual participants and the Ministry culture.

UNIVERSITY CONTEXT

In American society, higher education is unique in it's structural format, potential
interpersonal interactions, and stimulus for personal growth. Each individual facility is
also unique. The pattern of daily life for students at this university are different than those
of 'main-stream society.’ Individuals do not get up in their private residence, commute to
work, remain at work for eight hours, and return home to engage in their private lives. The
facility is largely residential; for the first year or more most students are required to live in
dormitories unless they live nearby with their parents. While size varies a little, dorm
rooms are very small, and most are shared by between two and four people. Bathrooms
are either small and shared by the occupants of two rooms or large and shared by the

occupants of an entire floor. Almost all furniture is provided by the university. There is

25

26

very little privacy, very little quiet, and very little room. Dining is communal, scheduled to
meet the needs of the kitchen staff, and generally considered unappetizing. Cooking in the
rooms (with the exception of microwaves) is prohibited. Classes are not held in a formal
location completely separate from personal living; all are within walking distance and some
are even held in dormitory buildings. Students spend between twelve and eighteen hours a
week in class. These hours are not usually arranged in the classic 'nine-to-five' pattern,
but may be scheduled anywhere between eight in the morning and ten at night. Students
must also allot time for study, although when and how much is optional. Class time is
interspersed with this study, part time jobs, naps, sports, clubs, shopping, computer
games, laundry and other bits of personal life. People, too, can not be divided neatly into
'family and friends' and 'co-workers and acquaintances.‘ The individuals one sleeps with,
goes to class with, cats with, works with, and plays with may be the same. Or they might
not. These irregularities of schedule and interaction continue even if a student chooses to
move off campus in the junior or senior year. The unique requirements of campus life spill
over in to all aspects of daily life.

The university also provides a unique situation in regard to the kinds of people with
whom one is likely to spend these large amounts of time. The pool of possible
acquaintances is at the same time both limited and expanded. It is limited largely to people
of the same age and stage of maturity. It is very rare, for example, to. see anyone elderly on
campus. A few professors are in their late sixties, but they are not generally available for
personal interactions. A few undergraduates are older than average. There are graduate
students. Professors, administrators, and support staff are seen occasionally. However,
while students may interact with the people in these roles, these adults generally have very
little impact as persons. There is also no major contact with people under the age of
eighteen. Students may have younger brothers and sisters, attended combined high-and
middle-schools, baby sat, or talked to children in their own neighborhoods, but the campus

contains very few children. Those that are present (usually children of graduate students)

27

are generally confined to the university's apartments, and do not come into frequent contact
with the rest of the population.

At the same time there is an increase in the diversity of those within their age group.
College is often a person's first intimate experience with people of different backgrounds,
values, or ethnicity (Brown and Christiansen 1991; 78-79). On the campus in question,
homosexuality, discrimination against minorities, handicapper rights, and women's issues
are not theoretical questions one hears about in the news. In the dorm rooms, cafeterias,
and classrooms students are in close proximity to people for whom these issues are of
important, daily concern. They meet people from other countries who may have an entirely
new heritage and set of assumptions. At the university attended by most participants,
Caucasians made up 79.9% of the population. 7.1% of students were African-American,
5.9% were international students (from a total of 111 different countries), and the
remaining 7.1% was made up of Chicanos, Native Americans, Asian Pacific-Americans,
and 'none of the above.‘ This suggests that at least one-fifth of the people a student came
into random contact with (dorm assignments, class composition, etc..) would be of a
different ethnic group. This variety in points of view and needs creates an interpersonal
situation very different from that which can be found in most of American society.

While dealing with this new variety, students must also negotiate new relationships
by new patterns. Roommates are strangers who quickly learn the intimate details of each
other's lives. They often have no special loyalty to one another, no common history, no
clearly defined existing relationship; but they may be forced by proximity to witness the
most private and secret parts of each other's existence. A dorm room is the closest thing to
one's own territory, and it must be shared with someone who may use it in ways that one
finds annoying or impinging. (Friday 1989: 190). Moving off campus to live with friends
presents its own problems. Interaction patterns are not negotiated, as they are at home or
even in a dormitory. Cooking, cleaning, shopping, guest etiquette, quiet hours, etc., must

be negotiated by the members of the household. Once a system is in place, it takes effort to

28

maintain it (Wertz 1989: 218-219). Besides the necessity of living arrangements, students
must create new relationships of companionship. Success varies: some build strong,
supportive networks of friends, and some do not. The process is not easy for anyone, and
it may be extremely frustrating and painful. Newman and Newman state that about 25% of
college freshmen feel "extremely lonely at some time during any given month" (1987:
1992).

These differences of lifestyle and relationships serve to accentuate the rapid growth
and change that occurs at this point in the life cycle. 'Leaving for school' often marks the
beginning of a major transition in a young adult's life. They leave behind familiar
relationships. Away from parental supervision and support, they take on a greater degree
of independence (Newman and Newman 1992: 5-6). During this period, they also build
their own values. Adolescents see a world of black/white, good/bad (Bocknek 1980: 77).
The university, due to its formal (classes) and informal (diversity in peer groups) nature,
introduces shades of gray--and also blue, green, pink, and orange. Before, all reasonable
people may have taken the same (perfect, just, and useful) view point, but now there are
reasonable people who disagree. Many students begin to experiment with ideals, beliefs,
and principals. "In trying to settle their own values and goals, they explore options. They
believe passionately in something for a while, and then six months latter believe
passionately in something quite different" (Newman and Newman 1992: 39). Others cling
more tightly to the ideas they grew up with, and some retreat into moral relativism. At the
university in question, the official administration standpoint is that diversity is valuable.
Individual students, though, seem less concerned with theoretical diversity than with
promoting their own agendas (women's issues, minority rights, sexual freedom, politics,
environmentalism, or a particular religious perspective). A relatively small number of
students loudly and clearly present their positions through rallies, meetings, letters to the
newspaper, informal discussions, etc. Conflict normally remains in the battleground of

ideas, however, not with violence or coercion. Within this storm of perspectives and

29

needs, students must build their own values and define their own priorities. Most students
respond by staying out of conflict--they may take a position, but do not make a public issue
of it. Their goal is not to reform others, but to avoid other's inflicting their beliefs upon
them. Though they may appear to be lost in the petty stresses of campus life (bad food,
long lines, bureaucratic mistakes) moral and social issues are usually confronted sooner or
later. The response may be loud or quiet, firm or tentative, but the effect is real.

This experience--new lifestyle, new friends, changes in existing relationships, and
reformation of values can be very traumatic for students. Without familiar situations and
social reinforcement, one's security in identity may start to erode. Unsure what is going on
in new situations, isolated from friends and family, worried about the future, and facing a
multi-faceted attack on values and assumptions, students may "experience very intense
feelings of disorientation or loss" (Brown and Christiansen 1990: 71-72). Individuals may
face and work through the grief this uncertainty causes. They may also manifest escape
(leaving school, taking drugs, withdraw from educational or social activity, etc.) displaced
anger, or over-compensation (heavy partying). All of this is traumatic.

The university ought to be fun. Theoretically, opportunity, empowerment, and
responsibility overflow. The future is near and possible and it can be anything. No adult
supervision is handy to squelch an irresponsible (and fun) whim. Any club you ever
wanted to join is here, and any play you ever wanted to see is likely to pass through
eventually. Foristudents, though, reality is not so secure and optimistic. They know that
the national economic situation has caused a decline in employment opportunities, and this
frightens them (Green 1989: 39). On campus there is enough violence (including rape and
occasional racial conflict) to make students distinctly nervous. Some students--though not
all--follow international conflicts and crises with concern. They face these stresses during
an important transition from child to adult. College life consists of a long and peculiar

period of marginality. Alternative values are presented, perhaps for the first time. Identity

30

is reforming. Family and old friends are far away and new relationships are not necessarily

easy to build. This special reality permeates all aspects of life.

GENDER AND THE COLLEGE STUDENT

Men and women do not experience college identically. They enter with different
intentions and expectations and have different gender identities. Interestingly, these
identities are not quite the same on campus as they are in the wider society.

In 1989 a national survey of college freshmen revealed definite differences between
males and females. Men were more likely to be politically conservative and were more
concerned with material success. Women tended to place slightly more emphasis on
personal growth and community service (Newman and Newman 1992: 43-44). This is to
be expected in a society that assigns men to instrumental and women to affective roles.

Ironically, these roles are often not reinforced on campus. Higher education was
originally a male domain, and to a large degree, women have had to adapt to what is still, in
may ways, foreign territory. As Moffat discovered when studying dorm life at Rutgers
University, gender convergence is not necessarily egalitarian:

"...the price that the women had had to pay for being treated as near equals
in the coed dorms was to act like men, to move more in the direction of older male

gender patterns than men had moved toward older female patterns" (1989: 47).

This unbalanced convergence is not confined to the dorms of one college campus. At the
university attended by most Ministry participants, normal dress for both sexes was jeans
and tee-shirts, not skirts and heels. People were more likely to communicate through what
Moffat calls "Busting" (aggressive teasing) than friendly affection. Going to bars and
increased sexual activity, for example, once only seen as the prerogatives of men, have
increasingly been legitimate options for women as well. Though this growth in 'freedom
of choice' appears laudable, it may also have brought with it restrictions the women

involved find damaging: if freedom to choose to go out and drink becomes pressure to do

31

so, or the acceptance of sexuality means the denial of more emotionally and spiritually
committed relationships, women may feel that they have not gained anything at all.

Campus life is highly patriarchal, but it is a patriarchal system that demands the
participation of women. While in the 'real world' women may by excluded from some
male hierarchies or expected to have feminine world views (that is emphasize
connectedness and interpersonal relationships) in the university women, as students, are
daily participants in a hierarchy that includes administration, professors, teaching
assistants, resident assistants, upper classmen, freshmen, etc. Though they may not
perceive or act in ways identical to male students, the ideal is the same for both genders.
Also, relationality may be disguised as conflict ('Busting') or simply deemed inappropriate.
Finally, it might be argued that the informal division of campus into special interest groups
(Blacks, feminists, handicappers, etc.) and the formal division by major course of study
are signs of patriarchal ideology as well. -

Gender is an issue on campus, just as it is an issue in the 'real world.’ It is not,
however, the same kind of issue in both places. Students have had eighteen years or more
to learn and create a gendered niche for themselves, but the social rules are not the same

within the university's walls.

CAMPUS AND RELIGION

The university has 35-40 religious organizations officially registered or otherwise
associated with the school. Most of these are Christian, although the variation includes
Hindu, Judaic, and Islamic groups. There are also about 20 churches within close walking
distance of campus. Most students do not make much use of these facilities, however.
Generally speaking, religion is not an important part of daily life. Groups such as Right to
Life, the Gay-Bi-Lesbian Alliance, NOW, and various cultural or minority associations are
active and \ acal, but religious organizations rarely engage in the more high-profile

dialogues. Most religious issues are probably faced individually and privately.

32

DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY

The angst and pain endured by students as part of the college experience may, in
fact, be rooted in deeper developmental processes. Many psychologists believe that
identity formation (at least in America) follows a distinct pattern.

Identity, according to Ruthellen Josselson, "is the stable, consistent, and reliable
sense of who one is and what one stands for in the world" (1987: 10). In 1966 James
Marcia defined four possible statuses of identity development (1966 551-552): Idehtity
achievement" means that the subject has experienced a crisis and selected an identity with
regard to ideology and goals. "Identity diffusion" indicates that there is no commitment to
ideology or beliefs. "Identity moratorium" means that the subject is currently "in the crisis
period with commitments rather vague; he is distinguished from the identity diffusion
subject by the appearance of an active struggle to make commitments" ( 1966 552). The last
category is "identity foreclosure," which indicates a subject who has "had no crisis, but is
committed to the values and goals to which he was socialized" (1966: 552). According to
Marcia, this typology provides an exhaustive and significant set of categories into which all
individuals can be placed.

Although identity statuses were originally created to describe male developmental
patterns, subsequent studiesinvolving female subjects found that the typology can be
applied similarly to both sexes. The implications of identity status appear to differ for men
and women, however. Studies correlating identity status with ego development and social
adjustment have suggested that specific identity statuses can have different effects on the
way one relates to the world for each sex. For example, Hodgson and Fischer studied
achievement in particular aspects of personal development (occupation, religion, politics,
sex values, and gender roles) and found that all areas to not always develop at the same
rates and that while males tended to form achievement identities for intrapersonal spheres

(occupation, religious ideology, and political ideology) before interpersonal spheres (sexual

33

values and gender roles), among females there was much more variation in which the
different facets were dealt with (1981: 685). In another study, Ginsburg and Orolofsky
suggest that women with moratorium identity may experience greater internal conflict and
negative social pressure than men with moratorium identity because of societies beliefs
about female 'dependence' and 'passivity' (1981: 299, 306).

According to this perspective, the crisis often experienced by college students are
not the result of the stresses created by higher education as an institution, but are the result

of natural developmental processes.1

MINISTRY PARTICIPANTS AS STUDENTS

The Ministry must be understood as a part of this context. Most Ministry
participants are students, or first came to the Ministry as students. This particular
relationship to God and each other is their answer to unfamiliar surroundings, loneliness,
confusion, bewildering diversity, and value uncertainty. It is an almost consciously
achieved identity (even those participants raised as Christians are expected to examine the
ways their beliefs apply to their lives), one that represents a choice for a particular view of
the world, a particular morality, and a particular style of interpersonal interaction. It is also
a rejection of some of the solutions many other students have chosen. It is important to
explore what has brought them to this answer.

Their answer to questions of values, goals, and identity is God. Some were raised
as Christians and had their beliefs challenged by the secular assumptions of faculty or
peers. Others had had little interest in religion, but found alternative perspectives
inadequate. Ministry theology was big enough to meet the overwhelming needs these
individuals had when trying to define their lives: Is life difficult? Have there been

problems you cannot solve by yourself? Don't worry. As bad as things get, it is all part of

 

1I could find no example, however, of identity development research done on
anyone but college students. Since (obviously) not all 18-21 year olds go to
college I am not convinced about the universal usefulness of this theory.

34

God's plan and will be used for his results. Do you doubt your worth? Do you look at
your failures and faults and get disgusted? Take peace--God loves you, and will accept
you no matter what you do as long as you accept Him. Are you worried about the future or
unsure what to do? Give the dominion over your life to God. Things will turn out the way
they ought to. Are the arguments both for and against opposing moral positions attractive
and plausible? Answer your confusion with the Bible. Not all the answers are easy to live
with, especially at first, but you have the comfort of knowing that they are absolutely right.

Participating in the Ministry is also a choice for a particular way of relating to other
people. What other people feel, the difficulties they face, the insights they have, and their
self images are important. Mutual support is a conscious goal that individuals enjoy
striving to meet. Pursuit of this ethic of care is received differently by male and female
participants. In some ways it seems more consciously embraced by the men because
American male gender roles make relating through emotions and mutual vulnerability very
difficult. In interviews, several spoke of the need for things like "love, service, and mercy"
very reverently. The ministry may provide one of their first opportunities to express these.
Female participants, while more experienced with this context, also seemed to take its
existence a little more for granted: they are part of the women's expected role. On a college
campus, however, women may not often get the chance to take that role. The ministry may
provide a rare chance for them to act like women.

As much as the Ministry represents a 'choice for,‘ it also represents a 'choice
against.’ All social problems that make a confused student worry that society is about to
collapse are present on the university campus. Suddenly released from direct supervision,
under tremendous pressure to perform academically, and confused, many students engage
in unusual (even labeled by much of society as deviant) behavior: vandalism, drugs,
alcohol abuse, rape, loud partying, 'new-age religion,‘ casual sex. There is little
consensus among the student community as to whether all of these behaviors are actually

bad or just different. Some participants were thoroughly socialized to find these behaviors

35

abhorrent. Others, however, were at some point attracted to one or more of them and
turned to the ministry because they found the lifestyle unsatisfying or feared the
consequences it might bring later. Most reject the position of moral 'relativism' (what
developmental theory calls 'diffusion identity') that many other college students embrace.
Instead, they make a decision for a particular world view and morality, one that provides

meaning, security, clarity, and love.

CHAPTER 5
THE MINISTRY AND CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

The Ministry is Christian and bases its theology on the Bible (New International
Version is preferred by most participants, although some use the New American Standard).
Examining the Bible, however, will not provide an understanding of the Ministry's
ideology, since the Bible is simply too big and too complex to be completely actualized by
any group. As Alvin Schmide points out, it is those aspects of the work that are
emphasized and used in daily life that define the nature of theology for all practical
purposes (1989: 94-95). People focus on and use aspects of a belief system that meet their
needs and are pertinent to the world they perceive they are living in (Kavanagh 1973: 166).
Furthermore, participants in the Ministry differentiate themselves from other Christians.
While not aligning with (or away from) any particular denomination, participants do
emphasize that stating one is a Christian and attending church weekly (as they perceive
most others doing) is not enough. A person has to work consistently at developing one's
relationship with God.

Information on the beliefs of Ministry participants was gathered in a number of
settings; formal Fellowship lessons, casual conversation, interviews, and song lyrics. All
understandings of God and the world voiced to me, while similar, were not identical.
Participants came from different countries, ethnicities, denominations, and personal
histories. Also, there was a wide range in spiritual 'maturity' of respondents. While some

participants had clear and detailed positions on certain issues, others had given little

36

37

thought to matters beyond the acceptance of Jesus, or had given these matters much

examination but had as yet reached no conclusion.

BASIC THEOLOGY

God is all knowing, all powerful, and benevolent. God created the world and the
people in it as described in Gen. 1 and 2. God created human beings 'in His image' (that
is, like God, except less so and subordinate). While species of animals may change a little
over time, evolution, as in the change from a species to another, does not happen. In
reference to humans, God first created a man whose purpose was to love God and interact
with Him. An attempt to use any of the animals as the man's primary companion and
'Suitable helper' apparently failed (Gen. 2:20), so God took one of the man's ribs and
made a woman out of it. God and the two people could talk to each other and be together.
The man and woman lived in a perfect place and faced no adversity. Participants consider
this pre-‘Fall‘ status the optimal arrangement for human existence.

Besides the inhabitants of the Earth, God created other beings: angels. No one
knows exactly what angles are, but there are some things that can be said about them. 1)
Angels were created before humans, 2) Angels were created differently from humans, 3)
They are not quite like spirits of dead people, but they don't have corporeal bodies, 4)
Angles do not die, 5) Angels do not have sexes and probably do not reproduce themselves.
One of these angles, Satan, thought he was better than God and disobeyed him. This
angel was then separated from God and became His antagonist--a demon. (Satan is not
God's opposite, because God is still more powerful). Some other Demons followed Satan
and also became demons. The Demons' main objective is to thwart God, to challenge His

authority. To spite God, they try to keep people from knowing Him. They encourage

38

people to disobey God and hurt each other. This is visualized as 'spiritual warfare,‘ literal,
daily conflict between good and evil.

Satan started this conflict with the first man and woman:

"And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the

garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for

when you eat of it you will surely die." (Gen. 2: 26-17)

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had

made. He said to the woman, 'Did God really say, "You must not eat from any tree

in the garden"?

The woman said to the serpent, 'We may eat fruit from the trees in the
garden, but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle
of the garden, and you much not touch it, or you will die."'

'You will surely not die," the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows
that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3: 1-6)

Satan, in the form of a snake, convinced the woman, and she convinced the man. Because
people had disobeyed God (sinned), they could no longer be with him--clearly see how
wonderful God was, be simply told what God wanted, take part in God's joy. Humans
without God are ugly, empty, purposeless, and contaminated by evil. It is impossible for
God, who is perfect, to be reconciled with people, who are tainted. So people could no
longer live in paradise. They had to live in an imperfect world and cope with problems
caused by demons. While God still did sometimes talk to people (Abraham, Moses, etc.),
the fellowship that had existed before was gone.

Eventually, however, God did provide a way for people to remove the taint of sin
and come back to Him again. Part of God came to earth and became a human being-Jesus
Christ. Jesus, being both a human and God's son was in a unique position. First, he
could teach people what God wanted them to do. Second, he could accept the punishment

for humanity's disobedience and take the sin into himself. This removed the barrier

between people and God.

39

IMAGES IN MUSIC

As Barbara Walker points out, important religious assumptions can be made explicit
through song (1987: 30). The lyrics of songs used in formal fellowship were very helpful
in defining issues and truths important to participants in the Ministry. The researcher
observed 67 songs during formal Fellowship while collecting data. Of these, 19 were used
more than once (the most any was used was four). A limited content analysis of these 19
provided additional insight into important themes and imagery.

Songs generally convey six basic kinds of messages: descriptions of the nature of
God; examples of what God did; statements about Jesus's death and resurrection;
descriptions of human beings; normative instructions for human behavior; and speech
actions (i.e. stating one is presently praising or submitting to God). Most songs include
more than one kind of message. Within these areas several themes emerge. In 17 of the
19 most commonly used songs, God is referred to as ruler, king, or lord. Twelve of these
expand on the authority figure imagery to some extent. In related imagery, nine songs
emphasize God's power. At this point, some typical examples of these descriptions of
God would be useful.

Majesty, worship His majesty!

Unto Jesus be all glory, honor, and praise.

Majesty, kingdom authority

Flows from His thrown, unto His own: His anthem raise!

So exalt, lift up on high the name of Jesus.
Magnify, come glorify Christ Jesus the King!

Majesty, worship His majesty!
Jesus who died, now glorified, King of all kings!

("Majesty." Jack Hayford.)
Also:
You are King of creation and King of my life.

King of the land and the sea.
You were King of the heavens before there was time,

40

And King of all Kings you will be.
We bow down and we crown you the king.
We bow down and we crown you the king.

We bow down and we crown you the king.
King of all kings you will be.

(verse 2 "We bow down." Twila Paris.)

Both of the above songs, as well as containing reference to God's power and
authority, also contain praise and worship. In fact, ten of the 19 repeated songs contain
explicit statements that people should worship/praise God and/or were doing so at that
moment.

Eight songs remind participants that they are not independent creatures: humans
need God and must submit and put effort into getting closer to him. This message is
particularly explicit in the song "More Love."

More love. More power.

(More love)1 (More Power)
More of you in my life.
(I want more)
More love. More power.
(More love) (More Power)
More of you in my life.

I will worship you with all of my heart.
I will worship you with all of my mind.
I will worship you with all of my strength.

You are the lord.
More love. More power.
(More love) (More power)

More of you in my life.

(Jude De Hierro)

Other prominent themes include God as provider of good things (appearing seven
times); God as creator; God as wonderful; God changing the minds or hearts of people
(each appearing six times); God helping or strengthening people; God loving peeple; Jesus‘
suffering, death, resurrection, and consequent salvation through grace; people must

accept/believe in God; and people must submit to God (each appearing five times).

 

1Words in parenthesis to be sung by women in echo.

41

Most songs contain images that are overwhelmingly positive and benevolent. Two,
however, portray God's relationship to the world as somewhat less than peaceful:

In heavenly armor, we'll enter the land.

The battle belongs to the Lord.

No weapon that's fashioned against us shall stand.
The battle belongs to the Lord.

(Verse one "The Battle is the Lord's." Jamie Owens-Collins).

Similarly, "Awesome God," a favorite of many participants, include images of separation,
conflict, violence, and hierarchy.

When he rolls up his sleeves He ain't just puttin' on the ritz.
Our God is an awesome God.

There is thunder in His footsteps and lightning in His fists.
Our God is an awesome God.

The Lord wasn't jokin' when He kicked them out of Eden.
It wasn't for no reason that He shed His blood.

His return is very close so you better be believin' that

Our God is an Awesome God.

CHORUS: Our God is an awesome God.
He reigns from heaven above.
With wisdom, power and love.
Our God is an awesome God.

When the sky was starless in the void of the night
Our God is an awesome God.

He spoke into the darkness and created the light.
Our God is an awesome God.

Judgment and wrath he poured out on Sodom.
Mercy and grace he gave us at the cross.

I hope that we have not too quickly forgotten that
Our God is an awesome God.

CHORUS.

(Rich Mullins)

Both clearly depict a conflict between good and evil. The confrontation is explicitly
violent, and whether this is understood as metaphorical or physical violence, it is clear that
victory will be taken by force.

Such out-group conflict is in stark opposition to the idealized perception of in-group
relations, as presented in another song:

Knit our hearts together like Jonathan and David.

42

Knit our hearts together like Ruth and Naomi.

Make us one, make us one like the Father and the Son.

There is no division beneath your love.

(This was normally sung two or three times)

("Knit Our Hearts" No citation available.)

This song suggests an intimacy of friendship normally considered rare in American
Culture. Furthermore, this intimacy is ideally extended to all Christians, not just to those
few one would select for companions.

Musical selections reiterate the beliefs shared by participants. They make explicit

assumptions and emotions that otherwise might remain unspoken, and emphasize those

areas participants find most important and relevant to their lives.

APPLICATION OF THEOLOGY TO LIFE

For Ministry participants it is not enough simply to be aware of the situation as
described above (although this is a first step). For them, "Christianity is not a religion, it is
a way of life." Religion is integrated into life by acceptance, the creation of a relationship
with God, and appropriate behavior.

The first step is acceptance. Jesus' sacrifice does not automatically confer
forgiveness on everyone; people have to choose to receive it. When a person becomes
convinced of the basics of sin and redemption through Jesus, it is necessary to
acknowledge the identity of Jesus, confess to having sinned, ask forgiveness, and submit
to Jesus' sovereignty. The formal ceremony for this is baptism (full submersion).
Baptism created forgiveness of sin. People who are baptized become a 'new creation'; sin
(past, present, and future) and the separation from God it caused are completely forgiven
and forgotten. They have renounced their independence and entered a relationship with

God.

43

Baptism is only the beginning of life as a Christian for participants. It is followed
by the development of a relationship with God. This is accomplished by getting to know
God better and making changes within the self.

Answers to questions about God and his instructions are found in the Bible. A
second resource for building this relationship is prayer. Prayer is for the benefit of
humans, not God. In prayer, participants confess sins, give thinks for blessings, submit to
God's will, and ask for help. This gives them a chance to reflect on both God and
themselves, and gives God a chance to demonstrate power and benevolence by answering
prayer. Finally, God is revealed when people praise Him. Praise can be part of prayer,
song, or informal human interaction. Through it, participants remind themselves and each
other how wonderful God is.

This relationship with God is pursued both publicly and privately. Public settings
include Fellowship, Bible studies, Accountability Groups, baptisms, prayer breakfasts,
church, one on one ministries, etc., as well as informal conversation before and after
Fellowship or in the homes and job sites of participants. Life can be difficult and painful at
times, even when one is not trying to make major personality changes. Participants rely
heavily on one another for support and understanding. One's personal pain, failure, or
difficulty are acceptable topics for discussion. Self disclosure is not normally met with
embarrassment or disgust, but with empathy, offers of prayer, offers of material help, and
Biblical citations of instruction of comfort.

Many participants also engage God privately in 'quiet times.‘ Quiet times are ten to
sixty minute periods set aside every day for Bible reading, prayer, and reflection. Some
participants also memorize Bible verses. Many use this time to try to determine God's will.
If a person asks God to show him or her things in life that need to be done or changed,
God 'convicts' them, or moves them to take the appropriate course.

Ideally, one's relationship with God changes over time. At baptism a new

participant becomes a 'baby Christian,‘ someone who believes in God and accepts Jesus

44

into his or her life. By studying and praying, one allows God to make one grow into a
'young Christian.‘ A young Christian has begun to define the important issues in
Christianity and life: What are my particular sins and what can I do about them? What is
God's position on things like abortion, homosexuality, war, romantic love, etc.? With
what perspective should I face problems? The questions vary from individual to
individual. Finally, one moves into the different degrees of 'mature Christian,’ someone
still growing and improving, but already convicted of God's answers to some of the above
questions.

A relationship with God has to be translated into action. While people are saved
through 'grace' (that is, a person's sins were forgiven not because of good behavior but
because Jesus died), salvation affects a person's personality and behavior.

The Bible contains specific instructions about how Christians should act.
Participants attempt to follow these to the best of their understanding. These instructions
include the Ten Commandments ( Ex 20:1-17 ), as well as other rules like do not say
destructive things (James 3: 9-12), do not get distracted by earthly things (Col: 32)--the
complete list would be amazingly long. Few instructions are understood exactly the same
way ,by all members. Some (perhaps seen as not particularly relevant to modern life) are
not mentioned at all. For example, Titus 2:9 states "Teach slaves to be subject to their
masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them." Since modern
American society lacks institutional slavery this injunction has no literal usefulness. (It may
also cause some anxiety as participants wonder if the Bible supported something as awful
as slavery, but that is another issue.) Many of the formal religious rules found in the Old
Testament (for example the dietary laws given in Lev. 11) are explicitly described as
excluded, even though they are recorded in the Bible and some participants thought they
contain many very good ideas. It is thought that these laws are too numerous and too
complex, making them impossible to follow, easy to misinterpret, and requiring so much

effort and time that there would be none left for growth.

45

Generally, most effort seems to focus on the following three areas: internal attitude,
service, and ministry. Attitudes affect behavior. Furthermore, attitudes might get between
a person and God. Pride, for example, can cause one to fail to submit to God's will. This
is morally wrong and also unwise--since God is in a much better position to make
decisions than humans. Finally, too much attachment to earthly pleasures (nice clothes,
television, secular music, etc.) or difficulties (money problems, school grades, car trouble)
can cause one to loose sight of spiritual issues, which are more important. Quiet times,
Accountability Groups, informal conversation, one-on-one ministry, and fellowship
sharing times may all be used by participants to air and work through personal attitude
problems. Ideally, participants are always engaged in such attitude work. Self control has
to be practiced, and even after a problem is thought conquered, slippage may occur.
Furthermore, once one bad habit is under control, another might be revealed.

While attitude is focused inward, service is directed outward. A number of
participants can quote or give references to Bible verses instructing people to help those in
need (for example James 2: 15-17). This includes giving money and time to churches and
charities, but is also to be a part of everyday interactions. Participants demonstrate service
through volunteering to cook Ministry meals or doing dishes afterward, giving rides to
participants without cars, teaching international students how to shop in America, etc.
Service includes being polite to everyone, being cheerful, helping people without being
asked, and so on. Service involves 'stewardship'--the belief that everything (money,
houses, land, resources, food, and even 'Leggos' and comic books) is really owned by
God. Therefore, it is up to people to make sure that these things are taken care of and used
well. People are not to become attached to possessions and should loan them freely to
anyone who asks. Ideally, participants are to serve everybody they come into contact with.

The final basic area of behavior is ministry. Grace can only come from repentance
of sin and acceptance of Jesus Christ. With out this, a person is separated from God in life

and is doomed to hell afterwards. Therefore, it is important that as many as people as

46

possible be saved. While a few participants do go in short (ten days to one month)
ministry trips to other countries during school breaks, much more emphasis is on teaching
people already around them. Theoretically, every non-Christian co-worker, roommate,
classmate, and family member is seen as a mission opportunity. However, talking to
people who do not want to listen is useless--worse, it might actually push people farther
away. The first part of ministry, then, is to get people to ask. Participants see themselves
almost as ambassadors for God. They try to always be clean, polite, helpful, patient, and
good tempered. As far as I could determine, no regular participants drink or smoke, and
only very few use 'foul language.’ Many make it a special point to follow all traffic laws,
be very friendly, and avoid any situation that might be misconstrued as sexually improper
(a women and man should not be left alone together for a long period of time, especially
behind a closed door.) They do these things because it is 'moral,‘ but also because they
want non-Christians to see how they live. They want people to ask, 'Why do you act this
way?’ to see their lifestyle as attractive, or to feel comfortable coming to them to discuss
problems.

When participants see someone they know living an immoral or dangerous lifestyle,
having problems with stress or conflict, or asking questions about religion, they ask God
to give them the opportunity to minister and the words to do it well.

The exact form of ministry varies since it is a product of the individuals and
situations involved. Sometimes it is mostly listening. Other times it consists of giving
unconditional love and support. God is often suggested as a solution for apparently non-
religious problems--for example school stress, illness, interpersonal conflict, romantic
problems, or unhappiness. Ministry is one reason for memorization of Bible verses: it is
important to be able to document support for what one is saying.

Participants also minister to each other several commented that becoming a

Christian does not mean an end to problems. New Christians often need someone

47

knowledgeable to answer their questions. Such ministry can be one on one, in

accountability groups, or in Bible studies.

RELIGION AND GENDER

Public discussions that I witnessed about the nature of women and men (i.e. in
lessons or group discussions) were calm, organized, and firm. Private conversations and
interviews with individuals, however, showed a surprising diversity in answers and
sometimes some tension. This suggests that the issue of gender was more problematic that
the collective believed. There was no public conflict on this, however, for three reasons.
First, conflict in any form is seen as a potential danger to the Ministry's primary purpose;
submission to God's will, worship, and ministry. Gender roles are important, but not vital
and should not be a source of divisiveness. Second, support for the official position on
gender is taken from several Bible verses. As one informant explained, "you either believe
the Bible or you don't, but you can't argue with it." Third, discussing the subject would
probably not change anyone's mind. Many members are emotionally attached to one '
another. Few would be willing to endanger supportive relationships for the sake of an
argument that would not alter the status quo.

Not everyone interviewed had given much prior thought to the relative roles of men
and women. Most seemed more comfortable providing Biblical references on the subject
than explaining their own understanding of it. The most commonly sited Biblical passages
were Genesis 2 and 3 (containing different creations for men and women and the beginning
of sin), 1 Timothy 2: 12 "I do not permit a woman to have authority over a man; she must
be silent," and Ephesians 5:22-25 and 28-33,

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of
the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the savior.

48

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their
husbands in everything.

"....In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own
bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own
body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church--for we are
members of his body. "for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and
be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a profound
mystery--but1 am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you
also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her
husband."

Interpretation of these was not uniform. For example, some informants suggested
the directive that women "shall not speak" in church may have been meant for a group
where the women were too uneducated to teach, or where women were disrupting the
service with questions. No one I talked to suggested that women must literally not say
anything during religious activities. There was also no consensus as to whether the "men"
referred to in these passages indicated all males or just adults.

Most did agree that the Ministry's standard position on women is this:

«Women can not have religious authority over men. They are not responsible for
protecting men spiritually and can not create general policy governing men's behavior.

«Women can not formally teach men in a public setting. Teaching is usually defined for
this purpose as expounding on or explaining the Bible or as telling people how God wants
them to live. (This concept is often symbolized by participants as 'up front,‘ as in
addressing a group from the front of the room.)

--Women can have authority over and publicly teach other women. This, in fact, is
strongly encouraged, since it is thought that instruction between members of the same
gender is more effective because of shared experiences/perspectives and the absence of
sexual tensions.

«Women can teach men privately and informally.

--Everyone, regardless of gender, has the responsibility to 'suggest and rebuke.‘ If a
Christian sees another misbehaving (for example lying, drinking, etc.) he or she must,
quietly and without animosity, point out the problem to him or her.

It was not always clear exactly what positions women should and should not hold. For
example, while policy forbids women from leading Sharing Time unless she is partnered
with a man, some participants of both sexes said they saw nothing wrong with women

doing so.

49

As much attention is given to marital gender role scripts as to religious scripts. All
aspects of life are subject to God's will and marriage is included. However, at the time of
the study, beliefs about marriage seemed largely academic: of the regular participants, only
the campus minister was actually married. There were perhaps three couples within the
Ministry. These invested effort into creating a God-centered relationship and careful
consideration of and preparation for future steps (i.e. marriage). Most participants seemed
less involved in romantic love and physical attractions than other students on campus. The
majority of participants considered male-female relationships too important religiously and
too dangerous emotionally to engage in them casually. Consequently, interest in couple
behavior was largely theoretical. Whether these ideas were put into practical use or not,
most participants did agree on several basic points:

--God created men and women as compliments to each other. Marriage is to be
monogamous, permanent, and the only acceptable arena for sexual activity.

«Marriage should only take place between growing Christians, that is, those actively trying
to improve their relationship with God.

«Partners must love God more than each other. Aftermarriage, they should work at
growing together.

--Women must submit to their husbands. This does not mean he makes the decisions and
she obeys. They should consult together in all important matters. Where there is
disagreement, compromise or synthesis is to be sought. The final responsibility for success
or failure, however, is the man's, and if consensus is impossible, the final decision is his.

--There is an exception to the above, if the husband's decision is counter to Biblical
directive or the wife's own religious conviction.

Several informants, both male and female, called special attention to Eph. 5:25-32,
which states that a husband is required to place his wife's welfare before is own.

The reason claimed as most important for following these rules was that God
(through the Bible) said to. Some said that women are more emotional or nurturing than
men, and so are less equipt to make decisions or more deserving of protection. Others said
that there is no real difference mentally between men and women, and that God had
arbitrarily placed men in charge because ultimately someone must make the final decisions,

or conflict could never end. Speculation on reasons for gender scripts, while interesting, is

50

not of vital importance to participants. For them, God has made a law and they are going

to follow it.

Acceptance of the majority position was not universal. At the time of research,
most participants seemed to come from middle-class, Midwestern American backgrounds.
In the experience of this group, men were supposed to be present, competent, and
dependable. Some had grown up accepting a religious mandate for men to be
protectors/providers/authorities. Some had had experience with divorce, which provided a
strong, negative image of what would happen when men and women did not act the way
they were supposed to.

However, a small but growing number of participants were from foreign countries,
marginal American populations, or minorities. One such female informant disagreed with
the general consensus that men and women were equal (if different), saying that women,
unlike men, were not 'made in God's image.‘ Another pointed out that while ideally men
were responsible for their wives and religious authority, the world was not perfect: there
was not always a competent man available to formally lead every Christian group.
Besides, if God meant for a man to lead a specific group, he would send one capable of
doing it. "In the mean time, I have no problem with women discipling men if there is a
need."

One female informant had difficulty accepting women submitting to men under any
circumstances. In her experience the majority of women did not need protection, and the
men she had known while growing up were incapable of providing it. Most men, while
nice enough people, could only rarely be trusted with simple tasks, let alone run a
household or religious organization. Her ideal situation had no one in charge: "All my
relationships have been we make a compromise on everything...I think it should be
equal....It should be balanced. No one should be higher than the other. I mean, 'I told

you to do this,‘ that is what parents say to kids, not adults."

51

For all men (that I am aware of) and for most women, disagreement on gender roles
was not a source of serious personal strain or anguish. As one women stated, "I don't
think God minds the details....'I have this group of people and that group of people, they
all call me Father.” A very few women, though, found themselves in a difficult situation.
On one hand, they had the beliefs of their friends, the Bible, and religious authority
requiring them to submit to men. On the other hand, they had their own experience and
culture which said that such submission was dangerous, impractical, or unnecessary. They
were aware that their society often abused and oppressed women and that religion had been
used as an excuse for that. Their statements reveal some of the frustration that that issue
had caused them:

"I feel uncomfortable when [male name] says women should shut up in certain
areas....In the Bible when Jesus came and redeemed us all, he gave us equality."

Another admitted:

"I've always been an outspoken person....submitting because he's my husband,
that isn't me." She added later, "Yes, I do get mad when they tell me I can't do certain
things, because it's my nature... I haven't found out how to live with it [submission]."

Both male and female informants said that it was usually easier for female
participants to share their feelings and vulnerabilities than for male participants to do so.
Also, women were believed by some to be more mature and spiritual in college than men.
These things gave women a slight spiritual edge. However, women were expected to sit in
Fellowship and be taught by men who were sometimes much less spiritually mature than
they were. Some admitted this was difficult to do, but they justified it by saying that men
had to learn somewhere, after all, so it was best to be patient.

As a collective, the Ministry did not address the internal conflict learning "how to
live with it" sometimes caused. For those who accepted the majority understanding of
gender roles, no problem existed. The word of God was not open to debate. For the rest,
avoiding conflict was more important than the issue in question. Therefore, those who

could not accept the majority understanding c0ped with their frustration and discomfort in

52

isolation. Since those feelings were never discussed, it is doubtful that the male
participants (and some female participants) even knew they existed.

Interestingly, the number of participants from minority and non-Western
populations is increasing. If this trend continues gender issues might be pulled into the

arena of public discourse.

PATRIARCHY

Is Christianity as generally accepted by participants Patriarchal? To answer that we
must look at the ideology in light of the components of Patriarchy: masculine creative
principal, assumption of the masculine world view, and overt domination of women by
men.

I believe that the Ministry's understanding of the creative narrative qualifies as one
of Sanday's masculine scripts. God, pictured as a male or non-gendered supreme being,
created people magically--that is, not from his own body or a sexual union (Sanday
1981:57). Creation was followed by disobedience and the introduction of evil and conflict.
The world after the fall from paradise is perceived as tainted by danger and opposition.
This script for creation is compatible with Patriarchy.

The second aspect of Patriarchal religion is explicit presentation of separation,
hierarchy, and conflict in the cosmology. These are present as well. The main 'problem' in
the theology is human separation from God. Jesus is the focus of the worship precisely
because he is a bridge between sinful humans and perfect God. Much effort goes into
getting closer to God. Even after baptism (the symbolic crossing of the breech) separation
is still a problem. People do not always see what God wants or submit to God's will.

Separation is further emphasized by images of hierarchy and instructions on

dominance. God is often imaged in song, lesson or discussion as a king, lord, or ruler.

53

God is superior to human beings and has the power to make whatever He wishes happen.
He has the right to punish, while humans owe him praise and submission. The cosmic
scheme is clearly divided into 'higher' and 'lower.’

Hierarchy is also perceived upon the earth. Individuals are required by religious
commands to respect and obey earthly authorities and laws, wives have to submit to their
husbands, and children have to submit to their parents. Many participants believe that all
Christians should place themselves under the authority of a local church. Earthly authority
is further endorsed in that people in positions of power are perceived as having a spiritual
mandate to care for and protect those placed under them. Individuals with authority will be
held responsible by God for the performance of their duty. Finally, all people are
perceived as stewards, caretakers of the material world. They are responsible for using
assets wisely, without waste, and for the benefit of others. Hierarchy is clearly
demonstrated, both symbolically and in specific behavioral instructions.

The third aspect of the masculine world view is conflict. In-group conflict is
studiously avoided, since differences of opinion are considered to have minor importance
and cause counterproductive distractions. Out-group conflict is another issue. Participants
see themselves constantly engaged in 'spiritual warfare.‘ The forces of evil are fighting
God's authority by separating people from God. They do this by tempting people to sin
(engage in sexual impropriety, drunkenness, illegal activity, and cruelty to others, etc.) and
by diverting attention from God to the problems and pleasures of the world. Participants
fight back by resisting these distractions, praying, and ministering to each other.
Participants sometimes picture themselves as soldiers, but all violence is metaphorical.
Confrontational conflict is rare, even on the verbal level. I believe, however, that the
presence of even symbolic battles is significant.

Separation, hierarchy, and conflict, the three main components of the masculine

world view, play important roles in the Ministry's theology.

54

Finally, specific rules regarding gender roles are also Patriarchal. Women are
almost unanimously seen as having been created as 'helpers' for men, not as creatures
existing in their own right. While women are seen as valuable and useful, the reasons
given for their worth are generally discussed in terms of their value or usefulness to men.
Some participants also see women as more emotional (less rational) than men or personally
blame women for the entry of sin--as well as the separation from God and misery it brings-
-into the world. Whether these 'inadequacies‘ are given as explanation or not, women are
placed in the formal hierarchy below men. They can not formally teach men, and a wife is

required to submit (if no compromise can be reached) to the authority of her husband.

On the other hand, many aspects of the feminine world view are present as well.
Side by side with division, hierarchy, and conflict are unity and relationality. While
separation from God is one of the central issues in the participants' lives, the ultimate goal
is an end to that separation. Many specific lessons emphasized that while the norm in
American culture is independence, people are actually dependent on God: it is necessary to
give up selfishness and self-sufficiency. In its place one needs to make God the focus of
life, trust God to solve all problems, and use God to shore up all weaknesses.

Participants also invest much energy in relationality and unity with each other, as
well as with God. Other participants are seen as partners, not competitors. Emotional
attachments between participants are strong, and except for some parts of formal worship,
the majority of interactions seems devoted to relationship building. Revealing
vulnerabilities such as emotional pain, problems, or shortcomings is seen simply as honest
communication, not weakness. While such sharing seems to be easier for women than for
men, both make concerted attempts to meet this goal.

Such a emphasis on relationality and community is normally associated with the
feminine orientation, not with the behavior/ideology complex some feminists call

'Patriarchy.’ How, then, did these two supposedly mutually exclusive world views co-

55

exist? How were the requirements of both met simultaneously? These questions will be

further explored later.

CHAPTER 6
MINISTRY PARTICIPANTS

A collective is formed by the interactions of individuals. In order to properly
explore the dynamics within the Ministry, it is necessary to examine some specifics. In this
chapter I will present some information about the campus minister, discuss some of the
values held by participants, and construct come composites to illustrate individual

personalities and interactions.

THE CAMPUS MINISTER

The campus minister works between fifty-five and seventy-five hours a week.
Besides planning and leading fellowships, he oversees the Ministry's residences and their
maintenance, handles the Ministry's day to day operation, and councils students. At the
time of research, the present campus minister had been in place for nine years. His original
occupation had been engineer. While he enjoyed his work, he was deeply religious and had
managed to integrate his spiritual and professional lives. After serving on the board of
directors of the Ministry's organization he made a career change and became a full-time
campus minister.

Discussing him is difficult; first, because he is in a unique position and can easily

be identified, I can write nothing of a confidential nature. Second, I, personally, am finding

56

57

it difficult to analytically discuss a friend. Given these limitations, I will attempt to describe
the campus minister and relate something of his role in the Ministry's dynamic.

The campus minister present during my observations was very personable: polite,
friendly, patient, enthusiastic, and un-self-conscious. Whenever he spoke with me, I
received the impression that I was the focus of his attention, and that that specific
interaction (no matter how brief) was of great importance to him. As far as I could
observe, he invested this kind of energy into all of his interactions with participants and
visitors.

His communication style was both more direct and intimate than 'usual' for the
surrounding cultural context. He usually greeted people with a handshake (or often even a
hug). While there was no opportunity to measure it, he seemed to keep a conversational
personal space slightly smaller than the norm. He had an astounding memory for faces and
names. All this seemed to encourage more intimate, personal communication. Many
participants (and some non-participants) came to him for advice, even though they knew
they probably would not get the answer they wanted to hear. Furthermore, he could
successfully broach highly sensitive matters such as one's relationship to God or one's
beliefs about sexual orientation while keeping the student from feeling judged or too
pressured.

While participants respected his opinion and position of religious authority, they did
not universally agree with his positions and interpretations of Biblical statements or their
applications (for example, some saw nothing wrong with women leading sharing time, and
others believed that although it was better to be baptized, if you didn't know any better you
could be a Christian without it, and so on). His communications style was received with a
nearly uniform positive response. While at least three informants commented that this style
was (in light of contemporary gender roles) a bit more effective with women than men,

participants of both genders described him in admiring and affectionate terms.

58

One important point is that most of the pe0ple the campus minister worked with are
students. He had to target his communication to a highly specialized context. Most
participants went home summers. Finals, while not an issue for him personally, were a
regularly occurring source of trauma and anxiety for most participants; while providing
sympathy, he had to recapture the distracted attention this caused. To relate to their lives,
he had to keep up with college sports, campus news, and the petty miseries of life in
dorms. Since students are primed to expect note taking, diagrams, and outlines he used
these in his teaching. As a 'real world' person deeply involved with the reality of college
students, he was in a uniquely marginal position. An the one hand, he was clearly not a

student, on the other he was deeply integrated into student life.

PARTICIPANTS

PARTICIPANTS AND MORALITY

By recurring attendance, participants demonstrate a choice to align themselves (to
some degree, at least) with a particular moral position. During college individuals are
forced to confront (or even reorder) their assumptions and values. On a large campus the
variety of perspectives may be seen as bewildering or dangerous. In this instance, direct
confrontation of conflicting viewpoints is confined to a tiny segment of the student body.
Most individuals seem satisfied with a "you keep your values out of my face and I will
keep mine out of yours" stance. For most Ministry participants this withdrawal is
unacceptable.

While most participants can accept considerable cultural relativism regarding things
like food, dress, politeness, and social organization, moral relativism is impossible because

for them certain universal rules are provided by the Bible. Some of these include:

59

l) Homosexuality is wrong because the Bible prohibits it, God created men and
women to be compliments to each other as life partners, and sex is to be confined to
marriage.

2) Since marriage is a sacred union and has such profound affect on people‘s lives,
romantic interactions are not to be taken casually. Sex is to be confined to marriage
(this position is markedly different than the position stated and/or practiced by most
students with regard to dating and sex.)

3) Racism is wrong: Everyone was created by God, everyone is equally caught in
sin, and everyone is equally saved through Christ.

4) People need to follow God's will, not their own desires.

5) Abortion is wrong because a fetus is a human life from conception, and murder
is prohibited.

6) When God places an authority over a person, that authority (civil law,
professor, elected official, parent, etc.) must be obeyed, even if one disagrees with
the particulars.

7) The most important thing in life is God. The second most important thing is

loving other people. This should be the basis of all actions.

Not everyone accepts all these positions or understands them the same way. As a
unit the Ministry is not politically active; its purpose is the spiritual growth of the
participants, not social change. Also, although they do not conceal their moral positions,
participants will not be found on street comers telling passersby that they are in the grip of
sin and headed toward hell. Generalized public condemnation has a negative effect, while
compassion and one-on-one ministry works very well. Although these positions are not

the focus of a lot of obvious energy, they do play a role in the daily lives and minds of the

participants.

PARTICIPANTS

Characterizing participants who served as my informants as a group is difficult.
Some were 'new Christians,‘ struggling to define their relationship to God or exulting in
new security and joy, or both. Others were more mature in their faith and facing difficult
long-term problems (like unemployment, death in the family, extended personal conflict)

and clinging to God in search of joy that went beyond their physical circumstances.

60

Some, like the campus minister, a number of the non-students and a few of the older
undergraduates were very Biblically literate. These individuals had memorized entire
books of the Bible, studied Biblical history and culture, and were the authorities other
participants came to with theological questions. Many were relaxed and friendly, but a few
were shy.

In order to convey part of the texture of the individual personalities and
relationships involved, I will construct a few composite persons to serve as examples.
While each participant was unique in the specifics of his or her life and involvement in the
Ministry, some fairly common patterns emerged in interview and discussion. Those
patterns can be combined to present hypothetical individuals-mot descriptions of specific

people who actually existed, but depictions of the sort of people who could exist.

Example I. The first example is a young woman I shall call Edna. Edna grew up in a
small town about fifty miles from the university. Her parents were Lutherans who usually
went to church, but were not particularly active there. Edna and her parents were close.
They took a concerned interest in her extracurricular activities (band and track team). They
were a little authoritarian, however; they set curfew at 10:30 pm, closely examined her
boy friends, and had firm rules about things like drinking alcohol and always telling
someone responsible where one was.

Edna missed her family when she left for college, but she found the lack of adult
supervision exhilarating. She liked the idea of making small decisions by her self without
having her parents as a safety net. In the weeks that followed her arrival, Edna tried all the
things she had wondered about in the last few years. She went to fraternity parties. She
tried beer. She went out with four or five different men--she didn't have serious feelings
about any of them, but they were fun, and the attention they paid her made her feel good.

She did not pay a whole lot of attention to her classes, but since they were general

61

requirements and not part of her major (secondary education) she did not think they were
really important anyway.

On a visit home about halfway through the semester, she ran into a friend of her
mother's who had attended the same university. The friend suggested Edna try the campus
ministry she had attended as a student. A few weeks later Edna attended a Sunday dinner
and service. She had nothing better to do, and, anyway the dorms did not serve food on
Sunday nights. The lesson at the fellowship was on living what you believe. It jarred
Edna--not only was she not 'living what she believed,‘ she was not even sure she believed
in anything. Afterwards, she asked the campus minister for an appointment so they could
talk.

When they met in his office on the Thursday of the following week, Edna nearly
left as soon as she walked in. She felt empty and silly. What did she have important
enough to say? And what would this man--this nice, soft-spoken, patient looking man--
think of her when he found out how she had been living? Surely he would see her life as
sinful and be disgusted.

The campus minister listened while she told him how lost she suddenly felt. Then
he explained that the purpose in life was not all that hard to define: worship God and love
other people. He asked if she had been baptized. She had been christened, but that wasn't
the same as submersion. He explained that through baptism one could become 'right with
God,‘ and put all her sins (past and future) behind her forever. Edna was immediately
convinced that baptism was a good thing to do, but she wanted to get ready first; stop
partying, get better study habits, generally get her act together. The campus minister said
that that was doing it the hard way. If she got baptized God would help her solve her
problems and order her life.

In two weeks Edna had the campus minister baptize her at the church down the

street.

62

A senior chemistry major named Elizabeth invited Edna to join an accountability
group she was starting. The group met once a week. For her major goals, Edna decided to
have ten minutes of quiet time a day, stop cursing, and stop 'partying.‘ She did not always
keep her commitments, but when she told the others about her failures, they were
sympathetic and suggested ways to meet her goals. Knowing that she would have to tell
Elizabeth when she missed a quiet time made it easier to remember them. The group also
helped each other learn about God and to 'grow.‘ They read James, which was full of
information about how Christians should behave; act on your beliefs, be kind to
everybody without favoritism, don't say hurtful things, don't gossip, be persistent when
things got rough, pray, don't be distracted from God's will, don't get wrapped up in
materialism. Actually doing all these things was hard, but not doing what God wanted
would only lead to emptiness, so she kept trying.

For Christmas break her junior year Edna went on a short mission trip arranged by
the parent organization. She and eleven other students from different schools spent two
weeks in Puerto Rico. They repaired the roof of the mission there, built a new chicken
coop, and held a special Bible school for the local children. Edna had never worked so
hard before. She had also never done anything that had such obviously useful results. The
fourteen days working with her teammates, playing with the children, setting aside an hour
a day to think about God made her (and, she noticed, the others as well) feel full and
strong. This was God's work. It was real and satisfying, and with God to help her, she
could not fail. When she returned to campus, Edna worked at keeping that feeling of
purpose and protection and finding ways to extend her religious commitment to all parts of

her life.

Example 2. The next composite is Todd. He was a junior majoring in packaging the first
time he heard of the Ministry. His parents had been deeply religious all his life (Church of
Christ) but Todd, while attending church regularly, did not think of religion as an integral

63

part of his own daily life. His life was generally 'OK.‘ He made good grades, was close
friends with his roommate, and had a girlfriend he planned to marry.

The fall of his junior year all that seemed to fall apart. His father lost his job and
his parents had to move to a new town. His girlfriend left him for someone else. Todd's
grades plummeted. Suddenly the world changed from a normal, sensible place whose
problems could be coped with to a hostile, unpredictable place where nothing and no one
could be relied upon.

A couple of weeks later, Todd was waiting to meet a friend in the student union
when a man standing nearby struck up a casual conversation. It turned out that the man
was a campus minister for a Christian student group. He knew quite a bit about the kinds
of problems (personal and academic) that students faced and showed great sympathy for
them. The man said that the group was meeting the following night and invited Todd.

What got Todd's attention during that first fellowship was the singing. Two songs
in particular had been about how God could get people through hard times: while life was
genuinely hard sometimes, Jesus loved people and would comfort them and make them
strong enough to win out in the end. The music really made him think, and when he got
back to his room that night, he dug out the Bible his parents had given him for his high
school graduation and began to read.

He attended the Ministry's fellowships for the next few weeks. He read his Bible
and went to church with a couple of the guys he met at the fellowship. Some of the lessons
seemed to deal specifically with his problem-«what could you trust in life? What could
you hold onto? The answer Todd was getting was God. God loved him. God loved him
so much that He had sent His son to die for him even before Todd was born. Although the
world had difficulties, God could get him through them, and use those difficulties to make
Todd a stronger, better person. God would never leave, and God could solve any

problem. As bad as things were, if he just trusted God, everything would be all right.

64

A new problem surfaced, however. If God was going to take care of Todd, Todd
would have to trust Him. In fact, he would have to place his entire life in God's hands
and do what God wanted him to do. Well, this was hard! He had trusted his family, his
girlfriend, and his society and wound up miserable! How could he make himself turn over
his decisions and purpose to someone else?

On the other hand, the rewards seemed worth it. Many Ministry participants
seemed to have gotten very good at submission, and they were the most encouraging,
peaceful people he had ever met. Sometimes during sharing time someone would mention
how hard submission was, how successful they had been in a particular instance, or what
good thing happened when God was the one 'running the show.‘ These reminders
convinced Todd that he should try.

He found out that submission was not something you achieve once and then have
forever. It always took work. First, one had to learn what God wanted. This involved
prayer, reading the Bible, talking with other Christians, and thinking. Then, when the
conviction came, it might not be what Todd himself wanted to do. Once he had to end a
budding romance because his new girlfriend (while fun to be with) was manipulative and
negative and resentful of his spiritual life.

Subrrrission was the biggest issue throughout his contact with the Ministry.
Unsure he could manage it without support, when he graduated, Todd asked the campus

minister to suggest a church in the new town he was moving to.

Example 3. The final example is Claire. She was a sophomore when she first visited the
Ministry. Her parents were not religious-they didn't attend church, pray, or talk about
God--and Claire had never given religion a lot of thought. She was invited by Michelle, a
classmate, for Sunday dinner and fellowship. Wanting to be better friends with Michelle,

Claire went.

65

What struck Claire most was how friendly and relaxed everyone was. The
participants were obviously close to each other, friends. However, this did not seem to
lead to an exclusionary elitism. Claire felt honestly welcome. Because of this feeling, she
came back several times in the next few weeks. After a while she began to wonder about
the religious issues her new friends were investing so much energy in. Claire had
wondered if there were a God, and had supposed that if there were, He or She was not
terribly involved in the world. In the experiences of the Ministry participants, though, God
was very involved. They prayed for things (housing, transportation, health) and got them.
When they were unsure, God 'convicted' them of the right choice. God improved their
attitudes when they were angry, comforted them when they were sad, disciplined them
when they broke his rules.

Was this true? Was this real? Claire started asking Michelle questions: Who
exactly was Jesus Christ? Why did he exist? What did baptism do? What made something
a sin? When Michelle didn't know the answer to something, she took Claire to Elise, a
senior who had been an active Christian since high school. For a while, the three of them
spent Saturday afternoons sitting around in Claire's dorm room studying the Bible and
trying to pin down exactly what the passages meant and the implications for daily life.
Together, they read Genesis 1-3 and looked at the difference between what God had meant
His relationship to people to be and what it had become because of human disobedience.
They looked up the instructions about baptism (for example, Acts 2:38-39; Eph. 4:5, etc.)
They found the passages in the four gospels which described exactly who Jesus Christ
was.

After a while Claire began to think that what the Bible said was true. It made sense
to her, it appealed to her, and it seemed to give Michelle and Elizabeth a lot of joy. But
becoming a Christian meant giving up control of her life to God. It meant doing what God
wanted, even when that was heard or unpleasant. In meant committing to quiet times, not

getting impatient or angry with people, loaning out her property freely--sure, Michelle said

66

that if you just worked at changing the inside (that is loving and trusting God and
developing a relationship with Jesus Christ) the outer changes would come from that, and
yet--it was several months before Claire came to a decision.

In the end, what she did was pray to God that, if He was real and cared, He show
her the truth and convict her to become a Christian. The following Sunday Michelle
baptized her in a nearby church.

After that Claire got really excited. She bought a reference Bible and read three
chapters a day, planning to work her way through the entire New Testament. She attended
fellowship two times a week. She shared her new perspective with her non-Christian
friends. Things went really well for about two months, but toward the end of February
things began to fall apart. The weather was amazingly cold and her boots leaked. Her
- course work had not been very good, she had no idea what to major in, and her car broke
down (a $300 repair--money she did not have). She didn't seem to have the energy to
pray, and she stopped her quiet times.

Michelle noticed something was wrong and asked her about it. Claire admitted she
had been doing badly. Michelle explained that when you least felt like praying was when
you most needed to do it, and that any energy you put toward God came back. They
prayed together and then Michelle gave Claire a few special Bible verses to think about.

During prayer requests the next Wednesday Claire explained her problem and asked
for help. She worked at her attitude and things improved some after that. She always had
to work at growing closer to God, and she was never the kind of person she wanted to be.

Claire graduated last year and took a job in Detroit as a pharmacist. She became a
member of a local Church of Christ. Just after Christmas she drove back to campus for a
fellowship meeting. Most of the participants remembered her (two or three had even been
exchanging letters with her). Claire kept saying that the participants should really treasure

their time together, because groups that provided that kind of religious and social support

67

were rare in the 'real world,‘ and being Christian when surrounded by secular society was

very hard.

These are fairly typical examples of the ways a student might become a Ministry
participant. There were not the only patterns, however. Some participants were already
Christians as the Ministry defines the term and had actively sought out a group to join.
Also, not everyone invited to fellowship becomes a participant. For instance, I can think of
a young Buddhist man who was attracted to Christianity, but could not convert because of
his family. Or a young atheist woman who stated that while she thought the people at the
ministry were very nice, she thought some of their beliefs (like the creation story) were
impossible, pointless, and internally inconsistent.

Such short sketches cannot convey the depth of processes that may take weeks or
months (or years), and sometimes change one's entire perception of the world. While
peace--secure belief in God, acceptance of his will, and joy despite unpleasant or painful
circumstances--is the goal, it is not always the normal condition. Sometimes serious loss
or difficulties were met with (as far as I could tell) genuine trust and joy. But also, while I
was there I saw people who felt guilty for past actions, even though they believed
intellectually that God had forgiven them. They saw members of their families suffer from
disease or misfortune and they often grieved and got angry. They doubted. They rebelled.
They got lazy and forgot to pray. At some time or other, they all failed to meet the
standards they accepted. However, they watched one another and were ready to help and

sympathize when things got hard.

68

RELATIONSHIPS

Participants relate to one another on two levels: in the general context of the
Ministry and in the context of specific friendships. Those two relationships co-exist
simultaneously and may intersect.

The first level is the general culture of the Ministry. The purpose of the Ministry is
to the foster spiritual the growth of participants. They consciously try to facilitate this with
an atmosphere of openness and safety. They are genuinely glad to see any interested
person who walks through the door (even student anthropologists working on master's
research). Things too personal or revealing to be discussed elsewhere can be freely shared
during Fellowship or special activities. By this custom, twenty-year—olds can talk about
their favorite teddy bears; women can talk about how a recent boyfriend manipulated or
belittled them; anyone can adrrrit to being rude or uncaring; many state that there is some
part of their lives they have been keeping from God and that this is causing a struggle
within them. The appropriate (and usual) response is understanding and acceptance.
Sometimes this goal is not met (society has not taught them, for instance, the proper
response to give when a young man says he still sleeps with a stuffed otter), but they try.
This acceptance is extended to people the first time they attend, although it is most
gracefully accepted by those who have had months or years to practice. Interestingly, a
participant moving to an area near another branch of the Ministry will often transfer his or
her attendance, since the welcoming context is consistent throughout the system.

The second level of interaction is that of friendship. Many participants were first
invited by friends and many, many friendships form between people frequently attending.
Small groups like Accountability or Bible studies and committees like the Ministry and

Hedge Teams, where people talk seriously about serious religious and personal topics, are

69

conductive to intimate friendships. Opportunities for closeness also surface during retreats,
all night prayers, and fun activities like concerts. The trust and openness fostered by the
general Ministry culture gives these relationships a head start. After a few years an
individual might have very strong ties to six, seven or more participants.

Such friendships may be strengthened by the tendency for participants to live
together. Individuals who get to know each other through the Ministry sometimes decide
to share a house, apartment, or dorm room. Each year eleven participants live in the
Ministry's two residences. More than twenty-five regular participants lived together during
my study or had at sometime in the past. Many participants stated a preference of living
with Christians over non-Christians. They have found that Christians do not tempt one to
engage in impure behavior like drinking, cursing, or 'partying.’ They understand that
when one has a problem the answer one is seeking is a Godly rather than 'worldly' one.
Christians can read the Bible together or discuss religious issues that are confusing.
Christians tend to 'care' more than non-Christians. Also, some stated that conflicts over
chores, food use, noise, etc., are more easily resolved because Christians are more willing
to compromise or apologize for the sake of peace and forgiveness. Relationships between
housemates are often very close, and this contributes to the general tendency of participants
to emotionally bond with each other.

These two contexts combine to create a very non-threatening atmosphere, especially
when it is compared to the isolation, confusion, and stress of the university campus where
most participants live. These relationships often continue beyond graduation (which causes

geographical dispersion).

CHAPTER 7
GENDER AND FORMAL LEADERSHIP

Norms regarding formal behavior of men and women are based on the biblical passages 1
Tim 2:12 and Eph 5:22-33. These are interpreted to mean that women can not have
authority over men--that is, they can not hold an official position the duties of which
include interpreting Bible verses or giving instructions to men on how to live. Practically
speaking, prohibited positions are giving a Fellowship lesson to a group containing men;
guiding formal discussion in a group containing men; leading a small group containing
men; or regularly mentoring or ministering to a man. Among informants, there was some
confusion on whether or not women could set policy for a religious organization. While it
was generally agreed that a women should not have the final responsibility for a church, I
could get no consensus on how much input was 'too much.‘ Furthermore, many
participants said they thought the ministry did not count as a 'church' in that context.
Activities which are not restricted include addressing a mixed-sex formal group as
part of participant interaction if a male leader is present to take responsibility for the
gathering or discussion; occasional one on one instructing, teaching or rebuking of a man;
leading 'non-instructional' worship, such as music or prayer; formal leadership of any
group containing only women; organization of special activities like skits, all night prayer
meetings, etc.; and organization and/or implementation of social activities such as meals or
movie nights. With the exception of marriage (having negligible impact, practically
speaking, since no significant number of participants were married) there are no gender

restrictions on secular authority.

70

71

FELLOWSHIP

During the Fellowships that are held twice a week there are a number of leadership
roles Open to participants. These include teaching the lesson, giving the Communion
Meditation, moderating Sharing Time, taking prayer requests, leading music, and leading
prayer. The lesson, based on one or more Biblical passages, is usually taught by the
campus minister, although the intern and other male participants also teach once a month or
so. Communion Meditation, which happens only on Sunday, is almost always led by the
intern or a male student. It lasts about five minutes and addresses the meaning or
implications of Communion and helps get participants into a worshipful state of mind.
Sharing Time is not a lecture. The moderator asks a question relating to the night's
upcoming lesson to the participants' personal experiences. The moderator calls on people
who signal that they wish to speak by raising their hands. He often paraphrases or
comments on the responses. The moderator has to be male, but some participants of both
sexes said privately that they saw nothing wrong with a women doing it. Anyone can take
prayer requests. Usually one or two participants works together-the first calling on people
to speak or adopt a particular request and the other writing the name of the speaker and his
or her request on the board. The person(s) taking requests sometimes prefaces this activity
with a statement or Bible verse, and often comments on some of the problems or praises
presented. Music leader is a semi-perrnanent position, currently held by a woman. The
music leader selects the songs used on Sunday (The campus minister selects those sung on
Wednesday), sets the pace and style of songs, and then leads the accompaniment on guitar.
There might be from one to three other guitarists present. These were always male, but I
suspect this was a quirk of demography rather than the result of design. Three or four
times during the course of observation the music leader drew attention to the meaning or

emphasis of particular songs during the singing times.

72

Collective prayer is usually held at least four times during a Fellowship: at the
beginning, after Prayer Request Time, after the lesson and before leaving. Participants are
called upon by the campus minister to lead prayer a little less than half the time. No
detailed records on the frequency of oral prayer by gender were kept, but men probably
lead prayer slightly more often than women.

A participant or former participant who has had an unusual experience or had
recently seen God work in his/her life in special ways might be asked to address the group.
The talk may last from five to thirty minutes. During the course of research, three such
instances were observed. Two of the speakers were female.

Participants enter these leadership positions in two ways. The first is to be invited
by the campus minister (or sometimes the intern). The second is for the participant to
request a specific role. The participant might or might not discuss what he or she wants to
say with the campus minister. What is said by someone 'up front' is that person's
prerogative. However, any participant (including the campus minister) watching who
believes that a speaker has said something incorrect or easily misunderstood can ('lovingly'

and without hostility or pride) discuss it privately with the speaker later.

SPECIAL COMMITTEES

There are two special participant committees in the Ministry, one leading by design,
the other by example. The first is the Ministry Team. It meets Sundays after Fellowship
(although not every week). At the beginning of research it was composed of six people,
none of them students: the campus minister (male), the intern (male), the head of the
women's residence (female), a recent graduate of the university (female), the music leader
(female), and the international student coordinator (female). Near the end of the

observation period a male student was added.

73

The head of the ministry team is the campus minister. Other members are not
included because of pre-existing leadership positions. Instead they are selected by existing
Team members on the basis of spiritual maturity and available time.

The Ministry Team has 3 major responsibilities: advising the campus minister on
policy and long term plans, guiding specific activities, and coordinating the Hedge Team.
Policy and long-term planning include deciding who would be invited to live in the student
residences or the best way to promote small groups. Specific activities refers to details like
the best way to make first-time guests feel welcome or whether a special poem should be
read during Fellowship. In addition, each member of the Ministry Team works with one of
the six divisions of the Hedge Team.

Being on the Ministry team does not seem to confer special status or authority on
members--many regular participants are only vaguely aware of the Team's existence.
Rather, those asked to join already have the respect, trust, and affection of a significant
number of those around them. They are perceived as having great faith, knowledge,
maturity, or dedication. People come to them for advice, teaching, or comfort. They
organize social events or lead small groups. However they are not the only people who are
respected or the only ones who arrange activities, but demonstration of spiritual leadership
precedes membership.

The Ministry Team is not an equal democracy. The campus minister has final
responsibility for decisions. He usually accepts the general consensus, but when he does
not, the usual response of the rest of the members is to put even more effort into making
the chosen course of action work.

While I was observing the Ministry, the majority of the Ministry Team was female,
which reflected the demographics of the Ministry. Women and men are both free to
introduce topics and voice opinions. Almost as much emphasis is placed on relationship
maintenance as attention to task--special time is set aside during each meeting to discuss

and pray for serious personal issues, both those of Team members and of others. There

74

might also be some light teasing and serious discussion of deep emotional ties between
members.

The Ministry Team coordinates the actions of the Hedge Team, or prayer group
(they "pray a hedge of protection" around people). The Hedge Team started three and a
half years before, when time was set aside during a small (male) Bible study to pray for the
Ministry and its members. The prayer grew in importance until those participating
(including the campus minister) decided to create a special meeting, find more members,
and include women. To be on the Hedge Team, one needs to be a growing Christian who
is willing and able to dedicate time and effort to the project.

During research, the objective of the Hedge team was to make sure that all regular
participants had someone praying for them. In order to take care of this in an organized
way, the Ministry participants were divided into six categories: International students,
minorities, freshmen, upperclassmen, graduate students, and non-students/students of
other schools. Each member of the Hedge Team volunteered to pray for five people in one
of these groups. Hedge Team members choosing each category were coordinated by a
member of the Ministry Team (This system came out numerically even when the Ministry
Team had six members).

Hedge Team members were urged to keep close track of 'their' people, give them
verbal support and encouragement, and pay attention to their attendance. Some Hedge
Team members did not inform their people who they were, while others sent their people
cards and notes offering help, friendship, and prayer. I do not know if this pattern will
continue in the future.

Hedge Team members have no special authority, but they can lead by example.
Furthermore, significant influence can be exerted through Hedge relationships, although
the degree to which this actually happens depends more on the particular people involved

than on the formal structure.

75

SMALL GROUPS

There are two main kinds of small groups: Bible studies and accountability groups.
Leaders of these might volunteer or be asked by the campus minister. At the end of
research, there were six Bible studies, each containing between four and twenty members
(not all of whom were regular Ministry participants). Bible studies meet weekly to discuss
scripture and Christian life. Usually there is a single leader who stimulates discussion by
asking questions and doing additional research. The topic, a specific book or issue, is
generally selected by group consensus. A women can lead a Bible study only if no men
attend. Bible studies can be arranged on either residential (for people living in a particular
dorm or complex) or social (for international or graduate students) lines. Bible studies are
generally more discussion than lecture, although one or two people usually are much more
knowledgeable than the others.

Accountability Groups might also include some Bible study, but the focus is on
personal and spiritual development. Women and men seem almost equally likely to
participate in accountability. At last count there were seven Accountability Groups for
more than two people (five female, two male), and fourteen one-on-one ministries (eight
all female, four all male, and two mixed). Most members are regular Ministry participants
and all leaders are. Normally, Accountability Groups are sex segregated. Two reasons
given for this are 1) like gender increases the likelihood of shared experiences and
empathy, and 2) distractions could inadvertently be caused by sexual attraction and/or
misunderstandings. Larger groups are lead by two people working as a team.

Accountability Groups meet weekly to hold each other accountable for spiritual and
personal growth. When joining, each member sets spiritual, physical, and social goals for
him-or herself: religious and secular life are not considered independent: success in one
area is tied to success on other areas. Spiritual goals include having regular quiet times,

memorizing a specific number of Bible verses, or changing an attitude. Social goals might

76

be getting along better with roommates or communicating better with family. Physical
goals might be losing weight, exercising twice a week, or eating more vegetables.
Participants then share at least some of these goals with each other, discussing failures and
successes. They both suggest practical solutions and provided emotional support and
understanding. Particular details are at the discretion of the leader(s), and vary from group
to group.

The Ministry was in the midst of expanding the accountability program. Ideally, all
participants would have been in a Accountability Group. However, since most Ministry
members were female and a number of competent female leaders were available, the
campus minister and the Ministry Team made getting all female participants into
Accountability Groups the immediate goal. At last count, 39 women were involved in
some type of accountability (although some of the one-on-one sets may have been
overlooked). Group leaders, especially those who were new at it, met every three or four

weeks to discuss progress and share ideas.

RESIDENCES

The Ministry maintains two houses on campus, one for men, holding six people,
and one for women, holding five people. The 'Girls' House' is especially central to the
Ministry. Fellowships are held in the outbuilding behind it; Sunday dinners and Friday
breakfasts, as well as other group activities, are held there; the campus minister's office is
on the first floor; and participants sometimes stop by during the day to visit. Participants
are also welcome to visit the 'Guys' House,‘ but few events are held there and traffic is
much lighter. Cooking in both houses is communal and chores are shared. One resident of
each is the 'Head of House,‘ the person in charge of scheduling chores and mediating
conflicts. The Head of House is answerable to the campus minister, but he generally is not

involved in the day to day functioning of the houses.

77

Persons living in the residences are selected by the campus minister on the advice
of the Ministry Team. A resident needs to be a growing Christian committed to forming
good relationships with house mates, working at spiritual growth, and participating

regularly and vigorously in the Ministry.

OTHER ACTIVITIES

There are a number of other activities, both regular and special occasion what have
to be planned and conducted. Sunday dinner is served weekly at the women's residence.
Two or three volunteers, usually female, do the actual cooking, but purchasing of group
food, cooking procedures and scheduling of cooks is overseen by a female non-student.
Starting in the preceding fall, Friday morning prayer breakfasts have also been served at the
women's residence. At first they were held every two weeks, but this increased to weekly
by the end of observation. No one was officially in charge of those, so organization has
fallen by default to the head of the women's residence and the campus minister.

Special occasions are held whenever someone is willing to organize them. For
Chinese New Year, the international student coordinator and other participants arranged a
party with Chinese food and movies (subtitled in English for the non-Chinese students who
came). Before Christmas, a group collected after Fellowship to go caroling to nearby
dorms. When research ended, a female participant was in the process of organizing an all-
night prayer meeting. Both male and female members organize groups to attend religious

CODCCI'IS .

The key to understanding formal roles seems to be acknowledged authority. The

final acknowledged authority rests with men. As long as they do so informally women can

78

exert much spiritual influence, even over men. However, women can not take final
spiritual responsibility for a group containing men. They can not publicly dictate to men
how they should live or what they should believe in regard to religion.

Women can (and did) organize worship (that is, activities praising God) and social
activities. They are restricted from preaching and from having the final say on policy
decisions. Theoretically, these restrictions do not apply to secular institutions or situations
(with the exception of marriage, which had its own rules and was a moot issue anyway,
since no significant portion of regular participants were actually married). While male-
dominated in principal, practical power is distributed in ways more egalitarian than the

formal rules would lead one to expect.

CHAPTER 8
THE RELATIONSHIP OF GENDER AND DEGREE OF
PARTICIPATION

Actual participation is of two main kinds-~that taking place in structured contexts
and that taking place outside of them. In both areas women seem to participate more

actively than men.

FORMAL CONTEXT

FELLOWSHIP

Participation in formal activities can be measured in two ways: attendance and
actual activity. Recording attendance, while apparently a simple task, had some problems.
While the campus minister passed a sign-up sheet during each Fellowship and kept detailed
records on the attendance of individuals, participants sometimes (although probably rarely)
forgot to sign, and the list did not reflect just when a person arrived. The researcher found
taking a 'head count' equally imperfect--people in corners were sometimes difficult to see,
at any given moment someone might be away in the bathroom, and sometimes a participant
was not present for the entire Fellowship. The researcher settled on taking a head count
when the participants stood up and joined hands to pray after Prayer Requests. This count
seemed to most accurately represent the number of people present during the time of

highest participant activity.

79

80

In almost all group functions, female attendance was higher than male, usually by a
significant number. During fall term (being a student-oriented organization, the Ministry
measures time from a collegiate perspective), Aug.-Dec., 1993, the campus minister's
records listed men as making up only 36% of those present at Fellowships. In the 12
observations of Fellowships I made, average female attendance was 27 and average male
attendance was 13 (rounded to the nearest whole number), or 68% and 32% respectively.

Attendance at other events was even harder to keep track of (people might arrive at
anytime during an activity, or even leave to go get someone who needed transportation).
Usually, at any given moment most of the people present were female. For example, of the
eleven people who went Christmas caroling, only three were male. Attendance at breakfast
varied considerably, usually falling between five and twelve participants. These were also
usually attended by more women. With the exception of one occasion, which had eight
men and seven women, at most breakfasts women outnumbered men two to one. This was
not explained by the fact that the breakfasts were held in the women's residence, as not all
of the women living there attended, and always some women who did not live there did
attend.

I cannot explain this differential attendance rate. On the surface it seems to make
little sense, since the formal theology tends to reflect the male world view and positions of
formal power are open only to men. It is my understanding, however, that in American
religion women's participation rates are usually higher than men's, and that this pattern is
borne out on college campuses. Because I was unable to find a supportable explanation
for the general social trend, I feel it would be inappropriate to comment on this particular
case.

On the other hand, behavior within Ministry contexts is within the scope of this
work. It seems significant that women tend to participate more than men when the floor is
open during Fellowship. Moderators take comments from participants twice during

Fellowship: Sharing Time and Prayer Request Time. In Sharing Time the lesson topic is

81

related to the personal experience of the participants. Prayer Requests are an opportunity to
both bring matters up for special prayer and to let other participants know what difficulties
or blessings one was experiencing. Eight observations of Fellowship included details on
Sharing Time contributions. Of the 301 contributions recorded, 102 (38%) were by men
and 199 (62%) were by women. Out of 149 total prayer requestsl, 34 (23%) were made
by men and 115 (77%) were made by women.

Since women outnumber men, it is reasonable to expect them to participate more.
However, in Prayer Requests female participation is much higher than attendance can
explain. This is further underlined by the fact that in public situations men are more likely
to speak than women (Tannen 1990: 75). That women should speak proportionally as
much or more than men is highly unusual.

Some participants, both male and female, have noticed this trend. The most
commonly given explanation given was that men find it more difficult to talk about personal

matters than women do.

ACCOUNTABILITY

Women are also more likely to participate in accountability groups. When research
ended there were five multi-person accountability groups for women, but only two for
men. While the goal was to have all regular participants in Accountability, effort first went
into providing them for women. Explanations for this choice were somewhat vague: You
have to start somewhere. Women would be easier to organize than men. Female leaders

were available.

 

1For research purposes, a prayer request began when a participant was called
upon by the moderator and ended when the request was assigned to a
volunteer who would give the request special attention. A single request,
however, might have several parts--for example, a person might pray for his
mother's health; a classmate who was an atheist; and help on a particularly
hard test

82

This could be interpreted as an attempt to place female participants more firmly
under (male) religious supervision. This seems unlikely to me, not because college women
are usually perceived by participants as being more mature and religious than college men
(throughout much of Christian history, women have been thought to better embody piety
and submission than men while being firmly held under male rule) but because the push to
construct women's accountability groups seems to have come as much from the women

participating in them as from the Ministry's leadership.

INFORMAL CONTEXTS

A great deal of religious interaction takes place outside of formal contexts. Several
times a term, participants gather to watch videos or attend concerts. Two or three might get
together to go out for ice cream. After Fellowship, most people do not leave for fifteen to
thirty minutes. They spent this time in unstructured conversation.

The topics of these interactions are often religious or highly personal. Frankness
and vulnerability seem more acceptable and 'normal' than in external contexts.2 New
participants are asked the usual college-polite questions such as 'What is your major?‘ and
'Where are you living?‘ But after a conversation or two questions might become more a
serious, 'Where are you spiritually?‘ The socially correct 'How are you doing?‘ is usually
an actual invitation to discuss social, family, or religious situations, even among
individuals who do not know each other well. Participants listen carefully and attentively,
and respond with sympathy, a relevant Bible verse, and offers of prayer more often than

they respond with advice.

 

2 In one of the few studies of college students, Michael Moffat, while studying
Rutgers students during the late 1970's to mid 1980's found that college
students usually restricted revealing the self or 'real you' to close friends
(1989: 42, 91).

83

CONCLUSION

In voluntary participation, as well as attendance, women are more represented than
men. Communication patterns are more oriented toward the 'female perspective.’ Women
and men both seem unusually willing to share feelings and problems, behaviors that are
seen as weaknesses in American society. However, women seem to do so more than men,
and this observation was reinforced with statements from informants. This would suggest
that while the ideal communication patterns for both men and women may be relational and

trusting (feminine), in practice women may find it easier to live up to those ideals.

CHAPTER 9
GENDER AND INFORMAL POWER

Generally speaking, participants see two kinds of interaction: the first is that of formal
authority--a person 'up front' taking charge of a structured situation, like Fellowship or a
small group meeting. The second kind of interaction is that created by participants not
currently acting in a leadership position. These interactions are seen as power-free, not
only egalitarian, but basically removed from contexts where ideas like 'authority' and
'subrrrission' are meaningful.

It is a Western prejudice to view 'power' as synonymous with 'formal power'
(Sanday 1981: 113). It would be a mistake to underestimate the amount or importance of

interactions which take place beside the formal structure.

UNRECOGNIZED POWER IN STRUCTURED SITUATIONS

Women are prohibited from the highest positions of formal authority, but this
does not mean they are silent. If a women has a point to make, she can share it, even
during the more formal activities. There are several ways participants of both genders
can contribute to group interactions without altering the overt structure. First, someone
wishing to share a particular song or poem can ask the campus minister for time during

the Fellowship. Second, participants can lead group prayer. Third, participants can speak

84

85

up when the floor is open for Prayer Request Time or Sharing Time. Fourth, participants
may use communication space allocated for worship to integrate a normative message.
Every three or four weeks a participant or group of three or four participants will
come across a song or poem or other small activity that they believe will benefit other
participants. When a person(s) finds the item particularly informative, enlightening,
and/or emotionally moving, the sharer(s) then asks the campus minister for a few
minutes to present the item. If the sharer(s) is not sure that the content would be useful,
he/she can ask the Ministry Team to review it. However, the researcher saw the campus
minister approve such time use without even knowing the name of the song in question.
Sharing Time and Prayer Requests are not just an opportunity to ask for help and
relate lesson topics to everyday life: these periods of dialog also provide participants with
a chance to share perceptions on theology and behavior. A participant might request
prayer for a problem other participants had faced. Sometimes a few minutes are taken by
people who have dealt with similar situations and want to offer advice and sympathy.
Sharing Time is even more apt to focus on behavioral norms. People often admit
to personal shortcomings during Sharing Time--they have recently been proud, un-
submissive to God, impatient with friends, overly negative, apathetic, etc. This is not just
an admission of weakness, but a reminder that such mindsets and the behaviors they
cause are unacceptable. Sharing Time can also provide positive examples. For instance,
on the night when the lesson topic was "God's standards on Relationships" (that is,
male/female romantic relationships) the Sharing Time topic was what qualities people
wanted in mates. Comments included
F(emale) A desire to grow and be taught
M(ale) Willing to put God first in life
F Loves Jesus more than me
F Can give and receive love

M Honesty

86

F Not afraid to show emotion

Besides being what participants actually wanted from their future mates, these
traits were also what the Ministry taught that Christians should want from mates. It is
reasonable to expect that the participants volunteering these traits believed looking for
people possessing them was the moral--as well as desirable--thing to do. Such dialog can
disseminate norms as well as reflect them.

Formal roles generally believed to be only associated with worship and
organization can sometimes also allow for a kind of subtle teaching. Songs are praises to
God. They also put participants in a serious, contemplative state of mind, and include
clear messages. Sometimes, just before a particular song, the campus minister or music
leader will say that it was chosen for its message. Music provides instruction without
formal authority. Because of its marginal position, this method of expression is open to
women.

Theoretically, the person(s) taking prayer requests is not in a position of spiritual
authority, but the moderator sometimes does comment on the situations brought up. It is
acceptable for the moderator to remark on the importance of prayer. Once a (female)
moderator went even farther, prefacing Prayer Request Time with a short reading from
Bee. 8 and adding that "study wearies the body" and people needed fellowship every day,
even during finals (which were about to start). Again, since there is no formal authority
in this context, women are not excluded from speaking.

Finally, public prayer often serves as one forum for the reiteration of norms. The
participants pray collectively before every group meal and at least four times during
Fellowships. Prayer is led by the campus minister or other participant he designates (the
party might either volunteer or be asked). All participants attending a Friday prayer
breakfast are given the opportunity to pray aloud after the meal. A considerable amount

of time goes into prayer.

87

At the Ministry, prayer is conceived of as having four parts: praise (speaking
about God's love, beauty, wisdom, power, etc.), thanksgiving (thanking God for salvation
by grace, good weather, help with class, health, etc.), confession of sin (often pride,
anger, lack of attention to God, failure to submit, etc.) and petition (request for help with
daily life or spiritual development). Participants believe that God invented prayer to
benefit humans. Praying nurtures spiritual growth. This is true even when one is praying
alone. When one person prays aloud for a number of others, however, the impact takes on
another dimension. Listening to others praise God serves as an external reminder that
God should be praised. Thanksgiving can also contain a message: thanking God for
what He has done reminds one who did it. Also, something like being grateful for the
weather when it is cold, wet, icy, and dark outside reminds listeners that the weather is
God's will, and should be accepted with a good attitude. Especially useful in reiterating
norms is petition. Specifically asking God to "help us to...." reinforces the importance of
the change. Let me give an example. One Sunday over fifty people attended Fellowship,
the meeting space was crowded, people were whispering more than usual, and the
campus minister had to call for quiet several times before he got everyone's attention.
The noise level still continued to be above normal. A female participant leading prayer
during the middle of Fellowship asked God to help them become quiet and focused;
since there were so many people present it was necessary to put special effort into
avoiding distractions. The prayer was an excellent way to convey the message to other
participants. First, it brought up the need for a change in behavior in a non-
confrontational way--no accusation was made, no culprits singled out, no person directly
tried to impose his or her will on another. Second, it placed heavy emphases on the
matter--participant concentration was worthy of God's special attention. Third, it placed
the burden for solving the problem on God. By implication, anyone causing a distraction

would be attempting to thwart God, a sin.

88

Such normative prayer seems to be an excellent way to convey suggestions for
change in behavior or attitude. Since the speaker is not addressing the person(s) to whom
the suggestion is aimed, conflict is avoided. Since the authority called upon to enforce
the suggestion is supernatural, not personal, argument is not possible, and the relationship
of the individuals involved plays a less direct role.

These activities, operating within formal contexts but not formally recognized as a
medium for power and influence, are used by both male and female participants. With
the exception of prayer leading, which seems to have served this purpose for men and

women equally, women are much more likely to use these avenues.

UNRECOGNIZED POWER IN STRUCTURED SITUATIONS

Much interaction also takes place outside of formally structured contexts--just
how much is difficult to estimate. Fifteen to thirty minutes is spent in conversation after
Fellowship. Sunday dinners last about an hour, most of which is spent in casual
conversation. Furthermore, many participants live together. Besides the eleven people
occupying the Ministry-owned houses, at least eleven more share houses, apartments,
dorm rooms, or dorm floors. In addition, participants tend to seek each other out socially.
From all of this arises much opportunity for informal ministry.

Ministry1 takes place when a participant seeks out a more 'mature' Christian they
respect for advice or instruction. A participant might go to a friend or acquaintance who
first recruited them, the campus minister, someone who they heard speak during
Fellowship, or someone another participant has referred them to. Both theology (see

theology chapter) and practical life are topics for ministry. An individual normally

 

1 Accountability groups, permanent one on one ministering, and brief ministry interactions were related on
a continuum. Accountability groups were only the most formal form of this, however, and more casual
types are examined here.

89

approaches a potential teacher when struggling with a particular problem, issue, or
question, but this sometimes turns into a regularly occurring interaction.

One's complete understanding of religion is not formed by the person who is
ministering. Participants also go to lessons, Accountability Groups, Bible studies,
church, and so on. They read the Bible and various books on Christian living for
themselves. But ministering to someone means giving him or her love and
encouragement, interpreting unclear ideas or Bible verses, and challenging him or her to
examine new concepts or make changes in attitude and daily life. Ministry often involves
strong emotional bonds. It consists not only of teaching theology, but also the sharing of
friendship. It is considered very important to spiritual growth.

Normally, women minister to women, and men minister to men. This is to
prevent (sexual) distractions and protect the (sexual) reputations of the people involved.
Proportionally speaking, male and female members participate in long term one on one
ministry about equally. More brief ministry interactions, covering a single topic or two,
were harder to get data on. I suspect that sex segregation is less strictly followed if the
association is short.

Without formal power, participants can exert considerable influence over each
other. Understandings learned from peers can have a profound effect over world view
and behavior. Furthermore, the effects of gender on these encounters seems to have been

minimal.

BORROWED AUTHORITY

When a participant makes an extra-formal statement, whether the format is

spontaneous speech during a Fellowship, music, prayer, or private discussion, the

statement is generally considered to have two possible sources. First, a person might

90

repeat a message learned from the Bible, church, or some Ministry teaching. Second, it
might be that God has recently demonstrated an important truth to that person. A specific
message might have both sources, for example if the person was somehow moved to
share a particular Bible verse to a particular person at a particular time. Either way, the
statement has authority theoretically independent of the speaker. As one informant
explained, when she felt prompted to speak the imperative was that she say what was on
her mind, but also "I do it [in the] conviction that it is what he (the person she would say
it to) should be listening to." Just as "you can't argue with the Bible" you also can not
silence someone through whom you believe God is speaking. There are limits to what a
person can say; any public statement that varies too sharply from the truth as it is
generally understood likely stimulates a member or two to privately 'rebuke' the speaker
later. Interestingly, while several members mentioned women rebuking men, no instance
of a man rebuking a women was related.

This 'borrowed' authority appears to provide access to influence theoretically
unavailable to most participants, especially women. It may, in fact, be the method used
by female participants to negate some of the effects of their exclusion from formal

authority.

CHAPTER 10
CONCLUSION

According to some theories, males and females, both individually and collectively,
view the world differently. The masculine world view is believed to emphasize separation,
independence, hierarchy, and conflict; while cooperation, connectedness, and relationality
are attributed to the feminine world view. Moreover, these world views are presented as
conflicting and mutually exclusive. It is thought that in contemporary American society
the masculine world view predominates, and contributes to male domination.

These assumptions are not completely supported by my study of a small college
religious organization. The formal theology has both 'masculine' and 'feminine'
attributes. While it contains dichotomies of separation (God from world, good from evil,
spirit from matter), both divine and Earthly hierarchy, and conflict, it also has unity and
relationality as its goal and emphasizes helpfulness and love as the appropriate attitude for
people to take toward each other. The actual behavior of Ministry members also contains
elements of both systems. Official theological leadership positions are restricted to males,
but women also hold much unofficial power. Informal interactions and programs such as
accountability promote sharing of vulnerabilities, relationality, and affection.
Proportionally, men often participate in these as much as women, even if they are not

always as adept at doing so.

How, then, have these two systems managed to integrate to such a degree?

Collision of values appears to be avoided in three ways: assignment of certain values to

91

9 2
certain situations, interpreting gender proscriptions in the most limited way, and by
assigning authority away from the actual actors involved.

First, cognitive dissonance is avoided by confining certain assumptions to certain
situations. The only valid conflict is 'spiritual warfare,’ a quiet struggle against demons
who use subtle problems and temptations to hurt and confuse people. While one has to
hate evil, one can not hate people, even if they are committing evil. Furthermore, peace
within the group is an important concern. Differences of opinion and personal
incompatibility are actively suppressed because they cause distractions and might lead to
damaged relationships. While a kind of conflict with out-groups is acceptable (to change
non-Christian's minds or reform the general culture), within the group members are
expected to freely share feelings and be safe from all levels of attacks.

While patriarchal religions tend to restrict female power, female Ministry members
have access to a great deal of unrecognized influence. The participants manage this by
interpreting "God's instructions" (which they can not argue with) in the most limited way
possible. 1 Timothy 2: 12 ("I do not permit a woman to teach or hold authority over a man;
she must be silent") is believed to refer only to formal authority over men--particularly
final, sole, official authority. This leaves a tremendous amount of territory open. The
power and influence women have is real, but it is not defined as 'power.‘ Possibly, this
places their power beyond the reach of formal authority: you cannot restrict or supervise
something you do not see as existing in the first place. Additionally, for men and women
both, true authority comes from God, and not the physical person speaking. Neither men
nor women act in religious contexts unless they believe that they are being guided by God.
Statements regarding religion are received as though they came from that source. An
individual might choose to share a Bible verse to help with a particular problem or question
(fear, loneliness, doubt, etc.), discuss a way God has recently affected his or her life,
contribute a poem or song, offer a rebuke, or lead by example; but always God is the

ultimate source of the message. The only credit the speaker receives is a hug and a "you

93

have been such an encouragement to me." This ability to 'borrow' authority is not
restricted by gender, so that both men and women have equal access to this informal and
spontaneous power. In fact, women seem to use it more often, perhaps to make up for
their exclusion from the formal contexts (lessons, Communion Meditation, etc.) men do
have access to.

Finally, the fact that both masculine and feminine perspectives co-exist may make
the ministry especially attractive for women as women. On college campuses, women may
be treated with increasing equality, but often this is tied to their participation in traditional
masculine behavior. Furthermore, as Ginsburg and Orlofski suggest, women tend to
confront issues of interpersonal maturity earlier than men (1981: 306). For them,
relationality is often a priority. In the ministry, it is all right to recognize emotions,
communication is not assumed to be competitive, personal power and prestige are not valid
primary goals. For male participants, this may be seen as a chance to enter a new world of
interactions focused on affection and sharing. For women, however, it may offer a rare
chance to 'act like women,’ to take part in interactions they are already skilled at and
recognize as valuable.

Opportunities for leadership are not equally available to both women and men. Men
have exclusive rights to the highest formal positions, including the one that wields the most
official and real power: campus minister. However, both 'masculine' and 'feminine'
perspectives coexist within the organization, and the amount of power and freedom
available to women is greater than a theoretical exarrrination of the theology and formal

structure would indicate.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Bible. New International Version

Bocknek, Gene
1980 The Young Adult. California: Brooks/ Cole Publishing.

Brown and Christiansen
1990 Coping with Loss: Emotional Acculturation in First Semester Freshmen. Journal of
the Freshman Year Experience. 2: 1. 69-83.

Carmody, Denise Lardner
1984 Seizing the Apple. New York: Crossroad.

Chodorow, Nancy
1993 Family structure and Feminine Personality. In Woman, Culture, and
Society. M. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere eds. Pp. 43-66. California: Stanford
University Press.

Christ, Carol ed.
1980 Diving Deep and Surfacing. USA: Beacon Press.

Daly, Mary
1985 Beyond God the Father. Boston: Beacon Press.

De I-Iicrro, Jude
1987 More Love. Mercy Publishing.

Dunfee, Susan Nelson
1989 Beyond Servanthood. Boston. University Press America.

Eisenstein, Z.
1979 Developing a Theory of Capitalist Patriarchy and Socialist Feminism.
In Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism. Z.
Eisenstein ed. Pp. 5-40. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Fischer, Edward
197 3 Ritual as Communication. In The Roots of Ritual. J. Schaughnessy
ed. Pp 161-184. Michigan: Eerdman's Publishing Company.

Franklin, Clyde W.
1988 Men and Society. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Friday, Robert
1989 Relationships: Communicating with Yourself and Others. In College Is Only the
Beginning. Gardner and Jewler, eds. Pp 186- . California: Wadsworth Publishing.

94

95

Gillison, Gillian
1990 Images of Nature in Gimi Thought. In Nature, Culture, and Gender.
Maccormak and Strathem, eds. Pp. 143-173. USA: Cambridge University
Press.

Ginsburg and Orlofsky
1981 Ego Identity Status, Ego Development, and Locus of Control in College Women.
Journal of Youth and Adolesence. 10:4. 297-307.

Gray, Elizabeth Dodson
1982 Patriarchy as Conceptual Trap. Mass: Roundtable Press.

Green, Kenneth
1989 The Children of Upheaval: a Look at Today's College Freshmen. Journal of the
Freshman Year Experience 1. 2. 20-42.

Harding, Sandra
1987 Introduction: Is There a Feminist Method? In Feminism and
Methodology. 8. Harding ed. Pp. 1-14. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.

Hayford, Jack
1981 Majesty. Rocksmith Music.

Hodgeson, James and Judith Fischer
1981 Pathways of Identity Development in College Women. Sex Roles 7:7. 681-690.

Josselson, Ruthellen .
1987 Finding Herself. Jossey-Bass Pub. San Fransisco.

Kavanagh, Aidan
1973 The Role of Ritual in Personal Development. In The Roots of Ritual.
J. Shaughnessy ed Pp. 145-160. Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing
Company.

Marcia, James
1966 Development and Validation of Ego Ientity Status. Journal of Personality and
' Socical Psychology. 3:5. 551-558.

Mics, Maria
1986 Patriarchy and Accumlulation on a World Scale. New Jersey: Zed
Books, Ltd.

Moffat, Michael
1989 Coming of Age in New Jersey. New York: Rutgers University Press.

Mullins, Rich
1988 Awesome God. Edward Grand, inc.

Newman, Barbara and Philip Newman
1992 When Kids Go Off To College. Columbus: Ohio State Press.

 

96

Ochs, Carol
1977 Behind the Sex of God. Boston: Beacon Press.

Owens-Collins, Jamie
1985 The Battle is the Lord's. Fairhill Music.

Paris, Twila
1984 We Bow Down. Sonspiration Music.

Pagels, Elaine
1988 Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. New York: Random House.

Reuther, Rosemary Radford
1983 Sexism and God Talk. Boston: Beacon Press.

Sanday, Peggy R.
1981 Female Power and Male Dominance. New York: Cambridge University
Press.

Schmidt, Alvin John
1989 Veiled and Silenced How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology. Macom GA:
Mercer University Press.

Sirnmel, Georg
1984 On Women, Sexuality, and Love. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Smith, Dorothy
1987 Women's Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology. In
Feminism and Methodology. S. Harding ed. Pp. 8496. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.

Tannen, Deborah.
1990 You Just Don't Understand New York: Morrow and Company.

Thorne, Barrie
1982 Feminist Rethinking of the Family: an Overview. In Rethinking the
Family. B. Thorne and M. Yalom, eds. Pp. 1-20. New York: Longman.

Walker, Barbara
1987 The Skeptical Feminist. San Francisco: Harper and Row.

Wertz, Richard
1989 Living at Home, on Campus, and With Friends. In College Is Only the Beginning.
Gardner and Jewler, eds. Pp 210-221. California: Wadsworth Publishing.

Wilson-Kastner, Patricia
1983 Faith, Feminism, and the Christ. Philidelphia: Fomess Press.

Ziegenhals '
1989 Meeting the Women of Women-Church. The Christian Century 106:492-494.

HICHIGQN STATE UNIV. LI
ll 1 || lllll ll Ill lll ll ||l| Ill Ill ||l llll lllll Ill
3 1 2 9 3 0 1 0 2 6 2

IES

180