By Wendy Kittlitz
Review of: Issues In Women's Leadership: Why Women Don't Lead-Removing Barriers, Releasing Gifts (Regent College Pastor's Conference public lecture-May 10, 2006)

On May 10, 2006, a forum was held at Regent College addressing the issue of women in leadership. Two members of Regent's faculty, Maxine Hancock and John Stackhouse Jr., Presented talks. What follows is a summary of their presentations. Maxine Hanock first of all asserted that women do lead and have led, but have often filled less visible roles. She suggested that women have exercised their gifts more outside of male-dominated structures. She also observed that women often choose, for a variety of reasons, to stay at levels below that of senior leadership. Maxine listed several reasons why she believes these observations are true:

1. women have internalized a certain ambiguity about leadership because of high relational commitments and a lack of structures to combine these
2. women have internalized deferentiality towards men
3. women are not as driven as men for a certain kind of achievement
4. women are more motivated by respect, belonging, appreciation than by prestige, status and remuneration
5. the glass ceiling, when reinforced by theological pressure, becomes steel dome
6. women are often marginalized by male language use and patterns (women use language to establish relationships; men use language to establish status)
7. women are asked to administer existing programs rather than create new structures (not invited to "dream the dream")
8. there is no female equivalent to the "old boys club" for networking and mentoring
9. men are afraid of being mothered again; fearful of women taking over

Maxine concluded by asking whether there is a way forward, to which her answer is a resounding YES! She envisions progress as women's gifts are given genuine recognition, as men start to powerfully advocate for their sisters in Christ and as well all repent of our failure to empower women to fully use their abilities for God.

John Stackhouse, Jr. continued the discussion by asking the provocative questions: Is there a problem? Are women in fact not leading? Should women lead?

He observed that a trend that had developed of women being better represented in academics, politics, business and the church has flattened out and has not led to equal representation of the genders in all levels of leadership. He further noted that one need not be a "leader" in order to be successful or validated. However, his thesis was that the underrepresentation of women deserves a long look.

John suggested, like Maxine, some reasons why women don't lead: they prefer cooperation to competition; they are not as interested in power; balancing family with work; feel stress involved is not adequately compensated; fear losing their femininity; double standard; fear success may impede relationships; they have been taught to accept second class status economically and psychologically; they lack mentors and role models and because often people (men and women) resist them as leaders.

John further identified specific reasons he believes women don't lead in the church. He suggested it is because of: bad theology (women are stereotyped as the "weaker vessel" and as "responders and receivers"); the aura of divine authority; some have suggested that the gospel itself is at stake if women lead; and men were there first, defining roles and criteria for success.

John suggested that these patterns should change and will change when:

1. men actually feel the pain and loss of women's inability to freely exercise their gifts ("until I have to change, I won't");
2. those who have power rise to their obligation to use it on behalf of those who do not have power;
3. women are invited to share their pain and struggle; and
4. the prophetic tradition of anger against injustice is brought to bear on the issue.