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.

technorati tags: emergent, theology, christianity, feminism

Joss Whedon, a film and television writer/director/producer who is known for creating TV shows that become cult hits and also feature strong women characters, was recently honoured by Equality Now! for doing just that.

You can watch his brief but articulate acceptance speech on YouTube.

I’m a feminist who acknowledges the importance of and encourages the participation of men in the struggle, because it still is a struggle, as Joss demonstrates. There are times I wish all television shows were made by Joss Whedon! Then we wouldn’t have to put up with any more dead-strippers-in-the-blood-soaked-motel-room episodes of C.S.I.

Very seldom to politicans capture my heart the way Barack Obama has. And it’s not just because he’s Really Really Good-looking. No, it’s because he’s charismatic and cool, two other relatively superficial aspects but perhaps slightly more important than physical attractiveness. Two years ago when I was enjoying the theatrical spectacle that was Indecision 2004 and its accompanying partisan conventions (I am continually awed and entertained by the coordinated signage in the crowds, and had to even give the Republicans credit for creating a visual read of their prime accusation against John Kerry by waving thong sandals above their heads and chanting “Flip-Flop!”) Obama’s address to said Democratic gathering was quite enthralling. Finally, a Democrat you can look at and say, “That man could be president.” Indeed, I’d put serious money on him becoming president someday. He’ll beat Hillary to it, at any rate.

Anyway, he’s in the news today saying that Democrats should work harder to “reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans.”

Though I relish any opportunity for a glimpse of Sen. Obama, this is not a particularly newsworthy statement. It is, in fact, common sense, but the Democrats have not been particularly familiar with those two words over the past seven years. Not that the Republicans have, either, but at least they know how to capitalize on people’s church-sponsored fear (of hell, of homosexuals, of anyone in and around the vicinity of the Arab world).

In America, there is no separating religion and politics. If the Democrats want to win, they have to enter the religious arena, which is what Obama is saying here. Here in Canada we don’t have the same dichotomy where anyone who is a “real” Christian automatically votes Republican. Of course, there have been and still are political movements that are girded by a framework of social conservatism and appeals to certain conservative religious communities, mostly here in western Canada, but nothing that approaches the divisiveness in the United States. Even charismatic, totally rad Obama can’t win over the evangelical, conservative Republicans — the Falwell and Robertson crowd, as it were.

But the question is, can the Democrats capture the imaginations of the so-called “religious left?” Does such a movement even exist? The Sojourners crowd is trying to convince people that it does. Or even more importantly, is there centre-of-the-spectrum religious contingent that could be won over, who, when shown that the Republicans appeal to a twisted imperial version of Christianity, would vote Democrat? There has to be, otherwise Christianity is in more trouble than anyone ever thought.

I’m very skeptical. After all, there’s only one Barack Obama and tons of other Democrats who keep on dropping the ball. It’s like Jon Stewart continually asks — “How will the Democrats mess this one up?” It’s not a matter of “if.” I fully expect the Democrats to lose in 2008, especially if they keep up this Hillary Clinton nonsense. I don’t have as much of a problem with Hillary as some, but America is nowhere near ready to elect a woman president, network television dramas notwithstanding. Black men have traditionally achieved rights before women in the US, and there’s no reason to believe the presidency will be any different (another reason why Barack will be president before Hillary). As Ariana Huffington said, if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, it’ll basically be a giant party suicide.

By the same token, if more moderate American Christians don’t stand up to the illogical and unethical tactics of the religious leaders associated with Republican politics, it will only prove to the rest of the world (non-believers, infidels, Canadians) that Christianity is more effed up than we already thought. This kind of bullshit doesn’t serve the Kingdom of God, folks.

technorati tags: barack obama, america, religion, politics, christianity

I really, really hope this is the final chapter, anyway. But I’m not going to promise myself anything.

Here are two more items I have recently acquired for what is definitely now a “collection” of strange Jesus stuff.

Bill brought me this lamp, which apparently was in his ninety-year-old mother’s posession and that’s why it’s no longer functional, unfortunately.

As you can see, this lamp is composed of a large, shiny seashell embedded vertically in plaster in a black dish. The seashell forms a backdrop for a cheap gold crucifix that overlooks fake coral in two neon colours. The seashell in the foreground conceals a light-bulb, or at least what used to be a light-bulb. I believe the idea is for the light from the bulb to reflect off the inside of the smaller shell and onto the plastic crucifix.

Lest you think this was an ill-advised Women’s Ministries craft, let me note that a stamp on the bottom bears testament to the fact that this item originated at “The World Famous Ye Old Curiosity Shoppe” in Seattle, USA, which has existed since some point in the 19th century (the last two numbers in the date are blurry). There’s still a price tag, too, that reads “$4.50.”

But the more interesting of Saturday’s acquisitions is this one, purchased by Robin on my behalf for $2. Apparently the woman who sold it to her had less-than-adequate English-language skills, so I’ll forgive her not negotiating a lower price.

Surrounded by a tarnished base metal frame is a holographic image of Jesus at prayer, with two cowering disciples looking on. Above the image is a small but working lamp that illuminates the scene. It even came with a light bulb.

As I said, I hope this will be the final installment in this series of posts documenting my acquisition of strange religious items. What began as a whimsical journey has now become slightly depressing. I’m not sure why. Is it perhaps a sense of disillusionment resulting from vestigal attachment to the conventions of Christianity and its iconograpy? Is it that I feel bad that fossil fuels were expended in the creation of these absolutely unneccessary objects of no redeeming aesthetic value?

Maybe it’s just that I don’t have room for more crap.

But I can’t help it if people just keep bringing me stuff! I never should have made my illicit desire so public.

As promised I have more Jesus paraphernalia:

The sound board and microphones in the background may confuse some readers, so I’ll flesh out the situation. Each Saturday morning this month I’ve produced a radio show on a community station about garage sales. That’s why I refer to other people making these enviable purchases rather than myself, as I spend each morning in the studio while others do the actual garage saleing. I’m allowed to make requests, however, and that’s why Marni and Rodney selected this Jesus plate for me.

I think this plate is right on the border of kitsch and just plain useless/tacky. But it has a lot going for it — the unapologetically Caucasian Jesus with flawless pink-toned skin, the flowing brown hair and immaculately groomed beard, the white tunic with sash (coloured purple? I assume the artist intended for it to read as blue, as that’s the traditional Jesus sash colour, and everyone knows purple is the colour of gay). The image also features the subtle yet evident halo and heaven’s light shining down on Jesus’ face in 3/4 profile.

You can’t discern it in this low-resolution image, but at the bottom edge of the Jesus picture a scripted font reads “Inspiration.” That actually makes me wonder if maybe this was part of a series. Perhaps we will find the others next week. What could they be? (Dare i hope for one entitled “Temptation?” Get thee behind me, Satan!)

But our radio show strives to reflect the diversity of the community so we also seek out other forms of religious imagery that borders on kitsch. The Fat Buddha has long been a fixture of the pop culture visual lexicon, but seldom is it so disturbing as this:

Its menacing countenance is part drag queen and part gremlin. Looking at this candle, I imagine that if I took it home I would place it on one shelf only to find it mysteriously reappearing wherever else in the house I went — the kitchen cupboard, the shower stall, the closet, the freezer. Each time I would return it to its appointed place on the bookshelf only to have it once again appear next to me at my desk or bedside. I would throw it in the trash. It would appear on my car dashboard. I would chop it up into pieces, and then throw it out. It would appear in my handbag. I would melt it down, its gelatinous pink flesh forming a grotesque melange in my saucepan until–

Well, the point is I didn’t take it home and I think it’s still hanging out at the radio station. It’s also worth noting that, like the image of Jesus above, this religion founder also appears to be Caucasian.

Oh yes, I almost forgot: the Jesus plate cost me the sum of $0.50. I don’t know how much Freaky Buddha cost, but it can’t have been much more.

WHATEVER WILL WE FIND NEXT? If you have any requests, let me know and I’ll pass them on to our intrepid field reporters.

I hate to link and run, but:

Jesus can appear on your pancakes every day if you buy the Jesus Pan (only $29.99 for two!).

It looks kind of fake at first but a cursory glance around the interwebs seems to indicate it’s for real (feel free to prove me wrong). In any case, I’d be tempted to get one but I don’t make pancakes really ever and I have to admit I’d prefer it if the visage of the Son of God weren’t so dour. A little more along the lines of Buddy Christ, maybe.

Tomorrow’s garage sales may reveal more Saviour kitsch, I do not know. If they do, I won’t be able to tell you about it until Sunday, however, as I’m going camping with the People Love Forgot. No beer, but high-on-Jesus life hijinks should ensue nonetheless.

Last weekend a friend of mine purchased this item at a garage sale. When he showed it to me, I flipped out and he gave it to me. I offered to pay him for it — quadruple the price, even! But he wouldn’t take my money.

I love it. I don’t really have a place to plug it in, but I’ll wait. I’ll wait for the day when, as the sun sets, I can turn the switch and be comforted by a glowing plastic Jesus.

technorati tags: jesus, kitsch

Eddie(F) at Edge of Faith has a great post up about Bush’s proposed amendment to ban gay marriage.

For some reason, I’ve tried to avoid talking about things overtly political, even though this is ostensibly a religion blog and religion and politics are attached at the hip so often, especially in that country to the south of me — you know, the one founded by people who fled another country where the marriage of religion and politics had turned deathly oppressive.

I guess we all turn into our parents eventually, which is why the United States of America has, two centuries later, followed suit.

Laws passed on what one of the many deities seemingly would want is not only insane, but exactly what the forefathers were against when they crafted the constitution to protect all minorities.

Handing out $5 Starbucks gift certificates to gay people to show the “kindness of Jesus with no strings attached” is an affront to them, especially when many of the same people giving out these cards are the ones supporting Bush to pass this amendment. If you want do to something Christlike for gay people, then lobby your congressperson to oppose this amendment. I don’t see Jesus walking around influencing Rome to establish his kingdom which he said is not from this world to begin with.

Of course, for American Dominionists, the “kingdom” will be brought about by the sweat, tears and force of good Christians.

It’s been said many times and many ways, but I’ll say it again: if Dominionist Christians are so concerned with legislating marriage according to Biblical principles, why aren’t they trying to outlaw divorce?

Then there’s also the fact that this amendment is clearly pre-election pandering to so-called middle America. I agree with Peter David: if I were a conservative American, I’d be insulted.

technorati tags: america, george bush, homosexuality, religion, dominionism

Via Dark Christianity:

Steve Sjogren at pastors.com writes: Don’t be original, be effective!

I would like to submit this article as evidence of one reason people like me, who pride themselves on critical thought, are driven away from Christianity.

Sjogren addresses the question of how much material not his own (I’d say his/her own here, normally, but in this context I’m pretty confident Sjogren doesn’t have women in mind) a pastor can incorporate into a sermon. Sjogren’s conclusion is that you can plagiarize all you want, because we’re talking about the good of the Kingdom.

His conclusion doesn’t surprise me, because if your goal is to reel in as many fish as possible, why would you be worried about matters of intellectual property rights? These pastors are fighting a war, and that war is fought from the pulpit. In times of war you do whatever it takes to win. If that means preaching, word-for-word a vintage Billy Graham sermon every single week, as Dr. Cho, pastor of Yoido Church in Korea (incidentally the largest church in the world) does, so be it.

Evangelical Christianity is not interested in exploration or interrogation of big ideas. That is what all religions attempt to address — the big ideas, the ideas that are beyond our grasp, but we try to understand them anyway, because we’re human. The questions of existence, good, evil, life, and death. Evangelical is interested in staying on message, in making the sale. Evangelical Christianity sells a product, and when you’re selling a product, you find the best way to sell it and you don’t fix what ain’t broke. Why would Dr. Cho risk a drop in his sales if he can guarantee increasing returns with a tried-and-true pitch?

When evangelical Christianity is selling a product, this approach makes perfect sense. Heaven forbid that a pastor actually exegete or illuminate scripture in a new way.

Plagiarism is using someone else’s words or ideas and claiming them as your own. That’s the academic definition, anyway, and by that definition, pastors like Rick Warren who listen to “two or three sermon tapes a day” and incorporate whatever ideas they like into their sermons are plagiarists.

The thing is, for many, a good sermon should include ideas and words from other sources. Those include the Bible, commentary texts and other books, and for the really hip and with-it pastors, cultural references. And most pastors with academic backgrounds will duly credit their sources.

But if there are indeed, as Sjogren says, many who don’t — well, that doesn’t inspire much confidence from the rest of the world, does it? The rest of us who have been taught that plagiarism, claiming someone else’s ideas as your own, is wrong. You don’t have to have a university or journalism-school background to have internalized those values; you (should have) learned that in junior high or high school, at least.

When it comes to Sjogren’s claim that originality is a form of pride, I wonder. All these pastors who forsake originality, and therefore pride, by preaching sermons they did not write — when their audience members come up to them after the service, shake their hands and say, “Excellent message, Pastor!,” do they divulge the origin of the sermon (Billy Graham, 1974; Bill Hybels, 1993)?

In the end, Sjogren’s stance on this issue reinforces the perceptions of folks like me, who believe that most Christians and churches have no interest in thoughtfully investigating their beliefs, their scriptures, their logic, their philosophy, their religion. Not, at least, when there’s a sale to be made.

technorati tags: pastors, christianity, religion, plagiarism, rick warren, steve sjogren, preching, sermons

Here’s a good way to start off the long (in Canada) weekend!

Trailer for The Ten Commandments as summer teen comedy.

technorati tags: video, movies, youtube, comedy