archive for the 'theology' category

the price of patriotism

Monday, October 1st, 2007

Hey folks — I know, I know, I kinda dropped off the face of the internets. I even got an inquiring email or two asking after my welfare and I’m touched by that.

I don’t have much to say right at the moment, but I really wanted to post a segment that aired on The Current on CBC Radio this morning. It’s called “For God and Country,” and it’s a documentary about a soldier who was stationed at Abu Ghraib (after the scandal) as an interrogator. He was a non-denominational evangelical Christian, and after a period of time interrogating jihadis at Abu Ghraib he applied for and received conscientious objector status. He’s very articulate in telling his story as he talks about the moment he realized that all of his Christian role models - Paul, Bonhoeffer, etc. - were prisoners and that given that he would actually be more comfortable in the place of the orange-jumpsuit-wearing jihadi.

It’s not an “America sucks” kind of piece. It’s about the nature of warfare and how incompatible it is with Biblical Christianity.

Go here and click on “part three” at the bottom to listen.

gender and the emerging church

Sunday, July 2nd, 2006

Let me begin with a lexical clarification. In this essay, I’ll use the term “Emergent/ing” as a blanket term for those who may or may not associate themselves directly with Emergent, a group of pastor-writers who gathered under that name at the beginning of the decade to pool their efforts in encouraging/facilitating postmodern faith “conversation,” through their local faith communities and also through their published works, the most famous of those being Brian McLaren’s A New Kind of Christian. There’s been lots of talk on the interwebs about whether you can be “Emerging” without being “Emergent,” and I think by this point it’s clear that you can. The definition at Wikipedia is a good one:

The emerging church or emergent church is a diverse movement within Christianity that arose in the late 20th century as a reaction to the influence of modernism in Western Christianity. The movement is usually called a “conversation” by its proponents to emphasize its diffuse nature with contributions from many people and no explicitly defined leadership or direction. The Emergent/ing church seeks to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity as its mainly Western members live in a postmodern culture.

When I first encountered the Emergent/ing “conversation” last year, I was incredibly optimistic. Having read some of the texts valued by the Emergent/ing crowd already (Brian McLaren, Donald Miller), I was pleased to see that there was serious discussion going on about the true nature of Christianity and its placement within a postmodern context.

But then, I found that Emergent has an alarming tendency to be androcentric, and even anti-feminist.

First, the majority of Emergent/ing leaders are men, and white men at that. This list of pioneers in the Emerging Church movement contains 16 names; of those, one is a woman. I’m not suggesting that list is comprehensive (it isn’t), nor am I suggesting that women are not involved in the Emergent/ing Church movement. There’s never been a short supply of women attending church, after all, but there has been a dearth of women in leadership. In the past, it was due to direct decrees and misapplication of Pauline biblical texts. Now, it’s more a holdover from that era. Often, women are not expressly forbidden from leadership but the culture is such that it’s still not done, much. After all, what young girl sitting in a pew will dream of growing up to be a pastor when the person standing behind the pulpit is a man, and she is taught to identify with the woman sitting next to her? Until there are women leaders in the movement — vocal ones on the level of the men on the aforementioned list, Emergent/ing will lack credibility in the eyes of me and other feminists.

Second, the Emergent/ing theological makeover has not gone far enough to excise the pervasive gendering of the divine. Tony Jones, an founding member of Emergent has said that Christianity is suffering from a case of bad theology. Hey, I’m all for remaking Christian theology. The Emergent crowd will likely bristle at the word “remaking” because that’s exactly the kind of word their conservative critics would fling back in their faces, accusing them of making the religion into whatever they want to be. Personally, I’m all for remaking this patriarchal, sexist religion. By all means, do it. But make sure you address the fact that the religion is patriarchal and sexist. I haven’t read Brian McLaren’s new book, but I know that his previous works have given only a token acknowledgment to the fact that Christianity as a religion is incredibly oppressive and dismissive of women. (See Michelle Murrain’s review of A Generous Orthodoxy.)

Patriarchy is so ingrained into evangelical Christianity that I don’t expect it to be removed in a generation. Women have made some gains in agency in American Christianity over the past 25 years, but not nearly to the point where even one third of pastors are women, let alone one half as it should be. Women are doing feminist theology — Gail Ramshaw, Rosemary Radford Reuther, Anne Lamott. But none of them is in the Emergent/ing movement, and few are even known to Emergent/ing adherents. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read the anthology edited by the late godfather of postmodern Christianity, Mike Yaconelli, Stories of Emergence: Moving from Absolute to Authentic. In it, Frederica Mathewes-Green wrote about her “Personal Journey through Feminism,” meaning, her journey from being a self-identified feminist to being a self-identified non-feminist. You can read the entirety of my reactions in this blog post.

What I want to know is, where are the feminist Emergent/ing Church writers? In my experience, the men of the Emergent/ing movement are not anti-feminist, but rather feminist-ignorant. Sexism simply isn’t on their radar. Part of me wants to cut them some slack — it’s not their fault they grew up reading a holy text where God was the same gender as they and thus they don’t know how disheartening it is to have to constantly mentally switch the pronouns when reading in order to apply its teachings to their lives.

The mostly male leaders of the Emergent/ing movement cannot expect women like me to take their so-called “progressive” theology seriously if they do not check their privelege. If you truly want to create a progressive, egalitarian Christianity, you cannot ignore the gender inequities that are embedded in religious practice and, of course, in the Bible itself.

Would it be too much to suggest that Emergent/ing types start to eliminate the male pronoun when referring to God? There are very few American Christians who, when pressed, would say that God is male. God is without gender and sex, they would say, as would, I’d wager, all Emergent/ing types. So why the hell are you still referring to God with a male pronoun? It’s a bad habit, albeit a millennia-old one. Get over it. No Emergent/ing adherent would ever suggest that God was gendered or sexed. Even most conservative evangelicals will say that God is without gender and sex. But still we see so few members of these communities making any attempt to change the language they use in liturgy, worship, and day-to-day conversation,

The gendered language is right there in the originals (or, the copies of the copies of the copies of the originals as they are). And presumably there’s going to be no changing of the text itself, beyond attempts to be as accurate in translation possibly (as the TNIV has done, never defaulting to the male pronoun when it is not indicated in the original Greek). So that means that Christian faith communities need to make sure their liturgies are as inclusive as possible. That is something the Emergent community is, for the most part, not doing.

I want Emergent/ing adherents, specifically men, to back up their belief that God is not a he with the excision of that pronoun from their discussions. I want those leaders to step outside their experience as men in the Christian faith and try to imagine what it’s been like for those of us in the other half of the human species, the half that’s rarely mentioned in the holy text and usually only as object lessons.

let’s get cosmic

Thursday, March 16th, 2006

Feminary linked to this excerpt from a book by Matthew Fox (the theologian, not the actor of Party of Five and Lost fame), The New Reformation. The excerpt is a list of “95 Theses: Articles of Faith for a Christianity for the Third Millennium.” I really love lists, have I mentioned that?Go read the list for yourself (the page also provides German translations for each, I can only assume as some sort of Lutheran historical reference). I picked out a few of my favourites, as well as some that were severely thought-provoking. Here they are, along with my responses.

3. God is always new, always young and always “in the beginning.”

I love thinking about the non-linear nature of God. There’s something fun about making your brain hurt by trying to comprehend the incomprehensible and paradoxical. The idea that there is a being, a force, a spirit that exists independent of time. That just because our existence is linear doesn’t mean all existence is.

OK, I admit, it’s also a very sci fi concept and maybe that’s why I like it.

After all, with me, it goes something like this:

THINGS I LIKE
1. Lists
2. Sci Fi

15. Christians must distinguish between Jesus (an historical figure) and Christ (the experience of God-in-all-things).

This is a really intriguing notion. I have nothing else to add.

25. There is a priesthood of all workers (all who are doing good work are midwives of grace and therefore priests) and this priesthood ought to be honored as sacred and workers should be instructed in spirituality in order to carry on their ministry effectively.

I think of the people I know who fill this definition, Christian or not, religious or not. Some of the people I know who embody this definition of priesthood are definitely not religious, since religion has a tendency to curtail their practice of grace-giving.

46. The human psyche is made for the cosmos and will not be satisfied until the two are re-united and awe, the beginning of wisdom, results from this reunion.

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds really good. And very science fictiony.

49. God is experienced in darkness, chaos, nothingness, suffering, silence and in learning to let go and let be (via negativa).

I’d like to engage this idea more. So many of us grew up with the teaching that “God is with you in the valleys as well as the mountain tops” (Which, by the way, always struck me as a strange metaphor, but that may just be me being a acrophobic prairie girl who prefers solid, flat ground to precarious peaks). But I want to know what kind of relationship God has with the darkness — i.e. is God part of the darkness? Is the darkness part of God? What kind of darkness are we talking about, anyway, because there are different kinds. I mean, there’s depression, heartbreak, the stuff that makes for angsty ballads and then there’s the stuff that’s unquestionably evil, like child abuse and sexual abuse. It’s easy to get poetic about darkness when you’re suffering from seasonal affective disorder. It’s another thing entirely when a young child is caged, starved, and beaten to death (as in the case of Phoenix Sinclair, a young girl whose death has rightfully garnered a great deal of media attention in my city, lately).

55. God speaks today as in the past through all religions and all cultures and all faith traditions none of which is perfect and an exclusive avenue to truth but all of which can learn from each other.

This is a statement which evangelical Christians are trained to greet with suspicion and even derision. I tend to believe it anyway.

86. Chaos is a friend and a teacher and an integral part or prelude to new birth. Therefore it is not to be feared or compulsively controlled.

This speaks to what I was rambling about in my last entry and what Steve touched on in the comments. This might be something I need to work on accepting on a personal level — that chaos, a lack of understanding, or whatever, is not something to be feared.

P.S. Matthew Fox has a blog. He’s also one of the folks behind the Cosmic Mass. You may have seen, as I did, a television news story about the mass, multimedia interactive event involving lasers, DJs and lots of dancing. I myself could get all snarky on the Cosmic Mass (like the fact that for $450 YOU TOO can learn to put on the Cosmic Mass! Or the fact that there’s a cover charge [$12, $15 at the door]), but I’m not really in the mood tonight. I’m just going to let Dr. Fox’s theses stand for now. Light show or no, they’re worth thinking about. Check them out and let me know what you think.

post-modern faith, christianity, religion, cosmic mass, matthew fox