South African Women Ministers’ Experiences of Gender Discrimination in the Lutheran Church: A Discourse Analysis

Research Design

A discourse analysis is appropriate, because the research aims to understand the subjective meanings that women in ministry award to their experiences (Babbie and Mouton, 2005; Willig, 1995). Discourse analysis identifies how individuals create meaning and construct their reality through the use of language. Interviews, aimed to focus on the construction of meaning through language, were used to collect data.

Participants

The participants were three heterosexual, married, Caucasian women living in Johannesburg, South Africa, who have been involved in ministry in the Lutheran Church for between 20 and 30 years. The roles and title of each of the women varies somewhat, which illustrates the heterogeneity of the participants. The first research participant, Helga, is an ordained Lutheran pastor; the second participant, Melanie, is a secretary at her church and is simultaneously the leader of the children’s ministry; and the third participant, Lizanne, is an un-ordained children’s pastor. The participants were obtained via word-of-mouth.

Data Collection

In-depth interviewing was used to collect data. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and then used as the texts that were analysed. A set of questions about the participant’s experiences in the church guided the interview process.

Data Analysis

Ian Parker’s (2005) 12 steps of discourse-analytic reading were applied as a guideline to analyse the texts produced by the interviews and consequently discover the discourses within the texts. Discourse analysis is an ideal method when analysing texts, identifying how meaning is given to experiences (Willig, 1995) and how realities are constructed (Potter and Wetherell, 1987).

Ethics

Consent forms provided permission from the participants to use the data and ensured confidentiality and anonymity (Emanuel et al, 2000). Pseudonyms have been used to ensure the participant’s confidentiality.

Helga

Helga is a 40-something year-old pastor in the Lutheran Church. She grew up in Germany where she lived with her family. Helga’s family of origin affiliated themselves with Christianity; however, they only attended church on special occasions. In her adolescence she started attending church on a regular basis. The church environment was liberating for Helga, because she was able to develop paradigms that were contrasted to those of her family system. Helga was actively involved in her church as a Sunday school teacher, youth leader and confirmation leader and moved on to study theology for seven years. During this time Helga was exposed to feminist theology and began advocating for the rights of women. In her 30s Helga moved to South Africa and became the pastor of a church. At the age of 39 Helga married a male Lutheran pastor. Helga chose not to change her surname when she married, because she considered her maiden name to be part of her identity.

Helga has firm and outspoken opinions, which are in some cases more sophisticated understandings of the Bible and Lutheran Church tradition. Helga’s perceptions are informed by her feminist theology training and consequently stand in opposition to patriarchy. Helga speaks about her studies in Germany to which she has a positive association. To contrast her German experiences Helga speaks about South Africa. Helga considers how South Africa has more conservative gender roles in comparison to Germany. Helga states that South Africa has a ‘more hierarchical system’. She also identifies cultural barriers between her and her congregants, which enhances a form of segregation between cultures.

Helga says: ‘[there is] a lot of insecurity and you have to provide security’. This refers to trust and having the ability to provide reassurance when there are doubts. As a female pastor, Helga understands that she has the responsibility to provide security for her congregants.

Helga states that she needs to make herself more ‘visible’. Helga does this, for example, by not washing dishes at men’s meetings ‘just for the purpose to make them understand, I’m here not the cleaner, but the pastor’. She seems to experience a constant struggle to make herself known. At the same time she also experiences pressure to achieve more than her male counterparts: ‘as a female […] you are double-checked all the time: “how is she doing it?” And I always still sometimes feel that you have to perform better to be acknowledged’. She says: ‘you have to unpack it all the time […] I try to deconstruct and overcome stereotypes’. She critiques the use of stereotypes and traditional gender roles.

Melanie

Melanie is in her mid-50s and started attending the Lutheran Church when she was 13 years-old. She was confirmed at her church and started teaching Sunday school shortly after her confirmation. She has been the secretary, a Sunday school teacher and the kids’ club leader at her church since 2003, which is the same church she joined at the age of 13. Melanie is married and has two adult daughters. Melanie’s husband does not profess to be a Christian and although he is not engaged in any activities in her congregation, Melanie states that he supports her.

Melanie mentions that there are more men than women in leadership positions in her church, with a ratio of five to two respectively. Melanie attributes this to the unsuitability and unavailability of women candidates in the congregation. Melanie acknowledges that gender roles have changed somewhat: ‘when I first started work, a woman was just a…you could just be a secretary basically’.

Melanie says: ‘very often the guys will relate better to guys and the girls better to women’. This sentence emphasizes that there is a vital distinction between the genders and for the purpose of order and productivity these distinctions are maintained. Melanie criticizes women who take on too many responsibilities by saying ‘[women] are not leaving anything for the man to do. [They are] taking on all the roles and he’s not feeling that he’s worthy or significant’. Melanie’s acknowledgment of gender differences is noted when she speaks about how a female friend wanted to be a lay preacher, but ‘there was a man in the congregation who objected to that’. In addition to this, Melanie says: ‘my father was extremely strict with my brothers, […] but he wasn’t so bad with me’.

Melanie mentions ‘Muslims’, who are associated with strict religious beliefs, following the Koran and having clearly defined gender roles. With reference to Muslims, Melanie says: ‘the women are very submissive and basically slaves to their husbands’. Melanie also says: ‘I think we are fortunate here in South Africa, because women are regarded…well, in most cases, as equal’. Melanie mentions this with reference to how women are treated in other cultures.

Lizanne

Lizanne, who is in her late 30s, is responsible for the spiritual development for children under the age of 12 in her congregation. She is referred to as the children’s pastor, although she did not study theology. Lizanne is simultaneously the principal of a Christian primary and nursery school, which is affiliated to her congregation. She is the leader of the children’s ministry in her congregation; this includes Sunday school and kids’ club. Lizanne is married and has two young children.

In certain contexts, Lizanne’s arguments are evaluated against the backdrop of her not having a theological qualification. She states that theologians ‘wouldn’t regard me as a pastor’, whereby she experiences discrimination. Lizanne also agrees with clearly demarcated gender roles, which is often informed by biblical texts that emphasize traditional gender roles. Overall, her discourse conforms to patriarchal societal norms.

Lizanne mentions the ‘bigger church meetings’. In these meetings Lizanne, as a woman, is part of the minority group. The meetings are associated with hierarchy and authority. In this context, Lizanne tends not to speak up, but instead submits to what she believes the norms of the meetings are. Lizanne states: ‘it wouldn’t be the right thing at the time to speak’. Lizanne is covertly silenced in these situations. Therefore, it seems that patriarchal norms are accepted in these meetings. In this instance Lizanne is somewhat powerless and voiceless, while the people in opposition, such as theologians with qualifications in theology, are powerful and authoritarian. The power that is held by the opposition seems to encourage Lizanne to remain silent.

Patriotic Discourse

The patriotic discourse, in relation to power, emphasizes the superiority of one culture or nation in comparison to another. Patriotism is the love and devotion that one has towards a country, which is generally the country of origin. The patriotic discourse gives merit and validity to Helga and Melanie’s actions and discourses, through their association to the supremacy of the homeland. Therefore, the participants are constructing their own identities through the language and discourses that they are using (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). This discourse can also be experienced as disadvantageous, since differences between people of various cultures and the categorization of these differences become pronounced when patriotism is accentuated (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). This has the capacity to promote alienation (Parker, 2005). By repeatedly speaking about a culture in a certain way the cultural identity is maintained (Billig, 1995). According to Butler (1993), this maintenance of cultural identities is recognized as regulatory frameworks for how women should conduct themselves.

A contrast between the participants arose in the culture or nationality that they ascribed to themselves and consequently felt patriotic towards. Helga stated that Germany is more ‘liberal’ in contrast to South Africa with regards to gender roles, and therefore Germany has less gender discrimination; while Melanie contrasted the ‘liberal’ South African culture to an ‘oppressive’ Muslim culture. This emphasizes the contextual perspectives that the women have incorporated in creating meaningful experiences through their discourses (Schiffrin, 1987).

The implications that this patriotic discourse may have on gender discrimination are vital in understanding how discourses contribute to the maintenance of gender discrimination. By stating that gender discrimination is occurring in cultures and societies outside of their own, the participants are shifting the responsibility for change in the form of creating gender equality towards others. Hence, the participant’s responsibility towards the problem is defused when the problem is relocated. Such discourses, which to some extent deny the existence of gender discrimination in one’s own culture, reinforce hierarchies and the existence of patriarchy.

Patriarchal Discourse

The existence of discourses which incorporate hierarchical structures within specific cultures and contexts brings about a patriarchal discourse. The patriarchal discourse includes perceptions of human rights, especially in the South African context, where equal human rights for all citizens are ensured by the constitution. However, patriarchal rule conflicts with such human rights. In a patriarchal society men implicitly or explicitly have a higher ranking and consequently have more authority (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004). Therefore in patriarchal societies, gender discrimination towards women is easily legitimized, since the ideological framework, which exists through patriarchy, gives men and women the license to act the way that they do (Emmett, 2000).

The patriarchal discourse is used by Melanie and Lizanne. They both explicitly agree with patriarchy and consider hierarchies in which males are placed above females to be ‘positive’, ‘functional’ and ‘constructive’. However, the extent to which each participant conforms to patriarchy differs. The one text, which seems to largely deny the discursive object, identifies degrees of patriarchy. For example, Melanie states that in the Muslim culture patriarchy functions to the extent that it is ‘oppressive’ towards women, because ‘women are very submissive and basically slaves to their husbands’; however, in the participant’s own cultural context the degree to which patriarchy operates is considered ‘beneficial’, since this allows men and women to have unique and distinct roles in society. From this perspective Melanie identifies submissiveness, in a woman, as ‘acceptable’ and ‘normal’.

The patriarchal discourse, when used by Lizanne, presents slightly differently. By speaking about appropriate and acceptable familial, marital and church behaviour, patriarchy is legitimized by the participant. In the familial and marital context she identifies the man as the head. Here, public ideologies and discourses of patriarchy, such as biblical texts, are seen to influence and manifest in private life, such as the family environment (Coyle, 2007). This illustrates that gender roles may continue in private contexts, due to the discourse of public, patriarchal contexts, such as religion or society, in which they are embedded (Emmett, 2000). The distinction between gender roles becomes evident when this participant speaks about ‘male energy’. This ‘male energy’ is able to handle ‘heavy duties’, which is a perception that reinforces the notion of the female being the weaker sex. Consequently, it is noted that the distinction and acknowledgement of gender differences are important, because this may be a precipitator to gender discrimination.

The patriarchal discourse serves to justify certain hierarchies (Foster, 2004). By conforming to this discourse, as well as reproducing it, women ensure that they remain the object on the periphery and men remain the subject (de Beauvoir, 1972; Sölle and Kirchberger, 2001). Perhaps, conforming to patriarchal hierarchies, especially in the religious contexts of the participants, is esteemed, since through this act order is maintained (Foster, 2004).

Silence and Visibility Discourse

The discourses of silence and visibility stand in stark contrast to one another. With the discourse on silence there is a submission to the norms in that context, while the visibility discourse challenges the status quo and strives to make previously invisible opinions and people known. The tension between these discourses stresses the varying stances that the different participants, namely Lizanne and Helga, incorporate towards similar experiences of gender discrimination.

The church, as an institution, has been pivotal in reproducing the silent discourse, through the importance it has placed on biblical texts such as 1 Cor. 14:34, saying that women should remain silent in the church. This illustrates the patriarchal nature of Scripture (Emmett, 2000), which normalizes a patriarchal discourse. Butler (1990) argues that women have not been fully recognized in cultural histories, because men have dominated the production of literature, which is also true for the Bible. In a sense the silence is alienating and prescriptive for women (Emmett, 2000) and legitimizes oppression through the way in which women perform the role which has been prescribed to them by biblical texts (Butler, 1993; Parker, 2005; Rakoczy, 2004). This illustrates that this discourse is embedded in historical discursive practices found in biblical texts and is conflicted with many present-day discursive practices.

Lizanne is constructing herself as a silent woman, through the identification with various discourses such as the above mentioned biblical text (Willig, 1995; Wolff, 1990). A result of this may be that fewer leadership positions in the church would be held by women (Kang, 2005; Rakoczy, 2004). This is because the characteristics of leaders, such as being outspoken and charismatic, would perhaps be disapproved of as characteristics of women, especially in this context. In addition to this issue, this participant may more likely be found in subordinate and submissive roles (O’Connor and Drury, 1999). Lizanne also submits to the patriarchal norms of the ‘bigger church meetings, [because] it wouldn’t be the right thing, at that time, as a female, to speak’.

The silent discourse, like the patriotic discourse, introduces the understanding of a moral obligation to conduct oneself in a particular way by conforming to the implicit and explicit norms of a religious institution. The benefits of silence and submission are phrased by Lizanne as: ‘[women] can be protected in such a way that [they] can flower to the full potential’.

In contrast Helga uses the visibility discourse to make herself known. For example, the participant states that when there are meetings with only males she purposefully does not clean and serve tea or coffee. She states her intention behind this is ‘just to make sure I’m visible, because otherwise they don’t see that you are the pastor’. The visibility discourse defies the taken-for-granted ways of behaving by not subscribing to socially and religiously accepted gender roles.

By ensuring her visibility, Helga, like Lizanne with her silence, is performing a role (Butler, 1990). Although this role is not specific to the participant’s gender, she is performing this role, which opposes stereotypical gender roles. It seems that this oppositional role is liberating for Helga. With regard to going against the norm, the participant relates her experiences to Jesus’ behaviour, whereby he went against the norm by associating on relatively equal terms with women (Rakoczy, 2004).

By drawing on a visibility discourse the participant is not applying the teachings of prescriptive texts, but is rather contextually assessing and interpreting the behaviour of characters within biblical texts and is mirroring that behaviour. Therefore the interpretation and not only the application of biblical texts and characters may have a liberating effect on the individual who does the interpretation. This indicates that interpretation may also be linked to educational qualifications. The participant who conducts more in-depth and contextual studies of biblical texts has a theological education and is qualified as a pastor. Exposure to feminist theology has possibly assisted Helga in developing a more critical stance towards gender roles and gender discrimination. This is contrasted to Melanie and Lizanne who do not have a theological education, which may be the reason for their more superficial and prescriptive applications of biblical texts which are related to gender roles.

The resistance that comes to the fore, when the visibility discourse is utilized, challenges those people who hold more power and are therefore more dominant. This discourse is empowering for those people who have been previously bound by social bonds, because becoming visible can be liberating. On the other hand, by being visible and known, scrutiny is more likely, since publicity and popularity can be negative or positive.

These competing discourses of silence and visibility have differing implications for women in the Lutheran Church. The silent discourse serves to reinforce submissive and gendered roles for women, while the visibility discourse provides the opportunity for women to perform roles that are not stereotypically confined to their gender (Butler, 1993). By using these discourses there may also be implications for reading, studying and interpreting biblical texts.

Trust Discourse

The trust discourse emerges as the tension between the polarities of security and insecurity arises. The congregants feel insecure, because they have a female pastor. Since female pastors are not the norm, this situation is unfamiliar and the congregants seem to experience a sense of distrust towards Helga. As more security is provided by the female pastor the congregation is able to trust more. And conversely, having insecurities would lead to distrust.

In this case Helga is faced with the pressure exerted by the congregation of transforming an insecure situation, which primarily exists due to assumptions about her gender and what it means in terms of the roles she might assume, into a secure situation. She says ‘you are double-checked all the time…and [I] feel that you have to perform better in order to be acknowledged’. It seems that for the participant this comes across as a form of scrutiny or interrogation. The result of this double-checking is that pressure to perform is experienced. Helga consequently understands that she needs to endeavour to achieve beyond the achievements and duties of her male counterparts.

In this instance, contrary to previous discourses that Helga has used, she is practicing a form of submission to the church and by doing this the participant is submitting to the patriarchal discourse, since the church conforms to a patriarchal framework. The church needs security and the female pastor responds by providing security and fostering trust. She does this by working harder than her male colleagues. Choosing to submit to the congregation produces rewards for Helga in the form of providing a collaborative working relationship. A moral obligation towards the congregation and possibly even towards God, to care for this congregation, may also be present.