Recently I was reading my TNIV Bible on the commuter train whilst going out to meet some friends for dinner. Unfortunately, I happened upon Ezekiel 23:20 during my reading. The NIV/TNIV translation is rather, er, explicit, and I turned a bright shade of red (I am sure) after I digested the passage.
I think I am going to stick to reading New Testament books whilst in public.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Bible Tales
I recently dug out my first Bible. It was a imitation leather-bound "Good News" version . My dad and stepmother purchased it for me when I finally decided to attend comfirmation classes. My stepmother inscribed it for me in her beautiful handwriting, and it was a great introduction to serious Bible study.
When I completed confirmation, I was presented with an utterly gorgeous New American Standard Study Bible. It had a concordance and other study tools, and I thought that I appeared to be a very serious student of the Bible with this heavy book on my arm. It has never been far from me, and its wear testifies to the 22 years that I have toted it around.
When I entered seminary, I decided that I needed to get a new Bible. The New Revised Standard version was currently all the rage, as it featured "inclusive language", a very important thing for a girl-preacher in a liberal seminary. It is a nice translation, though oddly enough, it seems to have dissapeared.
My latest purchase is a simple copy of Today's New International Version, also controversial for its "feminist" leanings, despite being the product of evangelical scholars. I read parts of it last night on the "L" (public transit train).
It's really weird reading the Bible again. But in a good way.
When I completed confirmation, I was presented with an utterly gorgeous New American Standard Study Bible. It had a concordance and other study tools, and I thought that I appeared to be a very serious student of the Bible with this heavy book on my arm. It has never been far from me, and its wear testifies to the 22 years that I have toted it around.
When I entered seminary, I decided that I needed to get a new Bible. The New Revised Standard version was currently all the rage, as it featured "inclusive language", a very important thing for a girl-preacher in a liberal seminary. It is a nice translation, though oddly enough, it seems to have dissapeared.
My latest purchase is a simple copy of Today's New International Version, also controversial for its "feminist" leanings, despite being the product of evangelical scholars. I read parts of it last night on the "L" (public transit train).
It's really weird reading the Bible again. But in a good way.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Crazy Community Part III
The eviction of Linda, Ernie, their four small children, and Bob was not cause for great distress among our ministry members. Linda and Ernie had been told, by God, that Ernie was to quit his job and that they were to hit the road for an unspecified period of time. This transition was to work out nicely, though, because the Cornerstone Festival (sponsored by our friends at JPUSA) was to take place on the heels of the eviction. Linda and Ernie could camp at the fest and stay there until the JPUSAites had left. After that, they would stay at campgrounds "wherever the Lord led".
Linda organized the purchase of group tickets for the fest as well as a collection for the "food fund". All of us gathered at their home in order to divy up the tents, sleeping bags and camping equipment, and while a few of us were sent to the campground to get things set up, others remained behind to help Linda and Ernie pack up their stuff and put it into storage.
The weather was rainy and cold that day, and I felt dispirited as I sat in the cold rain trying to look after Linda and Ernie's children while they (and one of the least, ahem, intellectually gifted members of our group) whined and protested against the cold and the forced confinement of the tents. Eventually the rest of the folks showed up, and we settled into a week of Cornerstone. I, for one, had a great time, though several of our members kept their long faces, convinced that most of these trinitarian heretics were going to hell.
Unfortunately, this attitude had really started to bug me, and by the end of the fest, I had decided to break with the group. I got a ride back home with an old friend and had determined that I would never see Linda and Ernie again. This is not the first time that I have made God laugh at my plans.
A few weeks after Cornerstone I went to the doctor to get my school physical. It was during this fateful appointment that I learned why my jeans no longer zipped. I was pregnant, and pretty far along, too. Faced with the choice between a late second trimester abortion or carrying the pregnancy to term, I chose the later (though I seriously resent those who choose to read a political, or even a general moral, significance into this private choice). This meant, of course, that "college" wasn't going to happen anytime soon.
Unwed motherhood in 1987 was certainly not the great scandal that it had been even a decade earlier. I was still humiliated, though, and tried to keep my condition a secret. My parents, bless them, supported me in my decision to carry the pregnancy. My parents weren't going to force me to work during this time, so for the next 4 1/2 months, I was going to have a lot of time on my hands.
Of course the "gospel grapevine" ensured that everyone in the ministry had heard of my predicament. Eventually Linda, Ernie, and Bob came back from their sojourn and contacted me to offer assistance. They had, in fact, been living out of their cars and tents for 40 days and 40 nights when they decided it was time to come back to civilization. I was grateful for their kind care. As it turned out, they were still homeless and jobless, but they, along with several other ministry members, were living in a tiny apartment. It wasn't clear what exactly was going on, but the situation did not sound good.
As my pregnancy progressed, I often thought of the "old days" (though only a few months had passed) and spent my time brooding over my fate. Much of this sadness was lifted, however, when I received a ministry newsletter in the mail. . .
Stay tuned for Part IV.
Linda organized the purchase of group tickets for the fest as well as a collection for the "food fund". All of us gathered at their home in order to divy up the tents, sleeping bags and camping equipment, and while a few of us were sent to the campground to get things set up, others remained behind to help Linda and Ernie pack up their stuff and put it into storage.
The weather was rainy and cold that day, and I felt dispirited as I sat in the cold rain trying to look after Linda and Ernie's children while they (and one of the least, ahem, intellectually gifted members of our group) whined and protested against the cold and the forced confinement of the tents. Eventually the rest of the folks showed up, and we settled into a week of Cornerstone. I, for one, had a great time, though several of our members kept their long faces, convinced that most of these trinitarian heretics were going to hell.
Unfortunately, this attitude had really started to bug me, and by the end of the fest, I had decided to break with the group. I got a ride back home with an old friend and had determined that I would never see Linda and Ernie again. This is not the first time that I have made God laugh at my plans.
A few weeks after Cornerstone I went to the doctor to get my school physical. It was during this fateful appointment that I learned why my jeans no longer zipped. I was pregnant, and pretty far along, too. Faced with the choice between a late second trimester abortion or carrying the pregnancy to term, I chose the later (though I seriously resent those who choose to read a political, or even a general moral, significance into this private choice). This meant, of course, that "college" wasn't going to happen anytime soon.
Unwed motherhood in 1987 was certainly not the great scandal that it had been even a decade earlier. I was still humiliated, though, and tried to keep my condition a secret. My parents, bless them, supported me in my decision to carry the pregnancy. My parents weren't going to force me to work during this time, so for the next 4 1/2 months, I was going to have a lot of time on my hands.
Of course the "gospel grapevine" ensured that everyone in the ministry had heard of my predicament. Eventually Linda, Ernie, and Bob came back from their sojourn and contacted me to offer assistance. They had, in fact, been living out of their cars and tents for 40 days and 40 nights when they decided it was time to come back to civilization. I was grateful for their kind care. As it turned out, they were still homeless and jobless, but they, along with several other ministry members, were living in a tiny apartment. It wasn't clear what exactly was going on, but the situation did not sound good.
As my pregnancy progressed, I often thought of the "old days" (though only a few months had passed) and spent my time brooding over my fate. Much of this sadness was lifted, however, when I received a ministry newsletter in the mail. . .
Stay tuned for Part IV.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Crazy Community Part II
(Sorry for the delay. Life and a death in my immediate family has slowed down my writing a bit!)
Our crazy ministry/church was really getting going. Most of us had decided that we were going to live communally and began making preparations for that eventuality. Never mind, of course, that none of us had any money. Never mind, of course, that some of us were still in high school or college. Never mind, of course, that those of us who were not in school were severely underemployed. We were, by golly, going to buy property large enough to keep all of us in some level of comfort, and do. . .something.
So we did what any self respecting group of potential communards would do, and called JPUSA, the holy grail of Jesus Freakism. JPUSA pastor Glen Kaiser (also the lead singer for REZ, one of the most radical "Christian Rock" bands of that period) took mercy on us and came out to talk to our motley crew about living in community. I felt very important as I composed at list of serious questions to ask, as I was quite sure that our band of ruffians would only grovel at the Great One's feet, ignoring the whole purpose of our meeting.
(Actually, while our musician-boys did a fair amount of groveling, they also had some good questions to ask as well. Glenn was kind and patient with us, and I bless his good soul for driving all the way from Uptown Chicago to Des Plaines. His insights were memorable, and maybe if we had been more mature, we would have eventually reached our goal of intentional community.)
The ministry at this point featured three affiliated bands and regular Bible studies. Many of us continued to attend local churches, but were quite convinced of our spiritual superiority. One reason for this is that Linda and Ernie had absorbed the teachings of some folks in Wisconsin, which put us uncomfortably in the "hetrodox" camp. Our doctrinal distinctives included nontrinitarianism and a belief in "Jesus Name" baptism via immersion. Some people might have lumped us in with with Oneness Pentecostals, but that wasn't quite accurate either. For one thing, while we denied the trinity, we never fully articulated how our position differed from trinitarianism, other than that Jesus was God in flesh and that God's proper name was "Jesus". The other differences were that we didn't believe that Jesus-name baptism was entirely necessary for salvation and we didn't believe that you had to speak in tongues as evidence of salvation. We also didn't hold to the "holiness" codes of dress and hair length espoused by most "oneness" people. But our peculiar baptism theology was enough to give us both a sense of self-rightiousness and persecution.
Of such sentiments are fringe movements made.
Meanwhile my parents were becoming distressed. In fact, most everyone who still lived at home had distressed parents. Convinced that Linda and Ernie (in reality the most guileless human beings I have ever met) were out to brainwash us into a weird cult, my mother wrung her hands and peppered me with questions. My father was threatening to withhold tuition money lest I throw away a college education on "growing vegetables in the middle of O'Hare field" (I think he was confusing us with the Hare Krishnas.). But I was eighteen years old and was determined to exercise my first amendment rights. Others stood up to their parents manfully as well, and our general disrespect must have really furthered the cause of the gospel. (sarcasm mode on)
The merriment continued as one of our members actually moved in with Linda and Ernie in order to get the ball rolling on the communal living. "Bob" was one of the most zealous human beings that I have ever known, and was truly on fire for God. He had his own contracting business, and the sadly underemployed Ernie went to work for him. (Other members considered this to be our first "ministry business", though only two of us were actually employed by this venture.) Unfortunately, Linda and Ernie's landlord took a dim view of these proceedings, and evicted Linda, Ernie, Bob and the kids. This was ok, however, because a new chapter was about to open in our fledgling community.
To be continued. . .
Our crazy ministry/church was really getting going. Most of us had decided that we were going to live communally and began making preparations for that eventuality. Never mind, of course, that none of us had any money. Never mind, of course, that some of us were still in high school or college. Never mind, of course, that those of us who were not in school were severely underemployed. We were, by golly, going to buy property large enough to keep all of us in some level of comfort, and do. . .something.
So we did what any self respecting group of potential communards would do, and called JPUSA, the holy grail of Jesus Freakism. JPUSA pastor Glen Kaiser (also the lead singer for REZ, one of the most radical "Christian Rock" bands of that period) took mercy on us and came out to talk to our motley crew about living in community. I felt very important as I composed at list of serious questions to ask, as I was quite sure that our band of ruffians would only grovel at the Great One's feet, ignoring the whole purpose of our meeting.
(Actually, while our musician-boys did a fair amount of groveling, they also had some good questions to ask as well. Glenn was kind and patient with us, and I bless his good soul for driving all the way from Uptown Chicago to Des Plaines. His insights were memorable, and maybe if we had been more mature, we would have eventually reached our goal of intentional community.)
The ministry at this point featured three affiliated bands and regular Bible studies. Many of us continued to attend local churches, but were quite convinced of our spiritual superiority. One reason for this is that Linda and Ernie had absorbed the teachings of some folks in Wisconsin, which put us uncomfortably in the "hetrodox" camp. Our doctrinal distinctives included nontrinitarianism and a belief in "Jesus Name" baptism via immersion. Some people might have lumped us in with with Oneness Pentecostals, but that wasn't quite accurate either. For one thing, while we denied the trinity, we never fully articulated how our position differed from trinitarianism, other than that Jesus was God in flesh and that God's proper name was "Jesus". The other differences were that we didn't believe that Jesus-name baptism was entirely necessary for salvation and we didn't believe that you had to speak in tongues as evidence of salvation. We also didn't hold to the "holiness" codes of dress and hair length espoused by most "oneness" people. But our peculiar baptism theology was enough to give us both a sense of self-rightiousness and persecution.
Of such sentiments are fringe movements made.
Meanwhile my parents were becoming distressed. In fact, most everyone who still lived at home had distressed parents. Convinced that Linda and Ernie (in reality the most guileless human beings I have ever met) were out to brainwash us into a weird cult, my mother wrung her hands and peppered me with questions. My father was threatening to withhold tuition money lest I throw away a college education on "growing vegetables in the middle of O'Hare field" (I think he was confusing us with the Hare Krishnas.). But I was eighteen years old and was determined to exercise my first amendment rights. Others stood up to their parents manfully as well, and our general disrespect must have really furthered the cause of the gospel. (sarcasm mode on)
The merriment continued as one of our members actually moved in with Linda and Ernie in order to get the ball rolling on the communal living. "Bob" was one of the most zealous human beings that I have ever known, and was truly on fire for God. He had his own contracting business, and the sadly underemployed Ernie went to work for him. (Other members considered this to be our first "ministry business", though only two of us were actually employed by this venture.) Unfortunately, Linda and Ernie's landlord took a dim view of these proceedings, and evicted Linda, Ernie, Bob and the kids. This was ok, however, because a new chapter was about to open in our fledgling community.
To be continued. . .
Friday, September 22, 2006
Church Hunting
I guess it is time to find a church.
This is going to be difficult.
My weird neurology has meant that most "traditional" churches don't much appeal to me. Sitting in a service makes me squirm (I have problems with auditory processing.), but I can deal with that. I don't like early morning services, but evening services are relatively rare. So I am likely going to have to settle for a church that meets at 11am on Sunday mornings.
I live in a Latino neighborhood, which means that I am going to have to travel if I am going to find a church that conducts services in English. Public transportation being what it is in Chicago, getting to church is going to be difficult.
I really wish that more churches had websites. It would make it much easier for me to evaluate a church before visiting.
I am feeling like I did back when I was single and looking to date. I didn't like the process then, and I don't like it now.
Feh.
I guess it is time to find a church.
This is going to be difficult.
My weird neurology has meant that most "traditional" churches don't much appeal to me. Sitting in a service makes me squirm (I have problems with auditory processing.), but I can deal with that. I don't like early morning services, but evening services are relatively rare. So I am likely going to have to settle for a church that meets at 11am on Sunday mornings.
I live in a Latino neighborhood, which means that I am going to have to travel if I am going to find a church that conducts services in English. Public transportation being what it is in Chicago, getting to church is going to be difficult.
I really wish that more churches had websites. It would make it much easier for me to evaluate a church before visiting.
I am feeling like I did back when I was single and looking to date. I didn't like the process then, and I don't like it now.
Feh.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
God's Faithfulness, God's Rewards
There have been a few people in the ministry that I really, really admire. These are people that I wish that I could be more like, and I do try to emulate them in my words and deeds.
I have never been a "fangirl", and as such, have never been particularly interested in the "superstars" of ministry. Instead, I have often been attracted to those humble servants of God who have given their lives to those smaller ministries that both the world and the church shun and ignore. Their lives are well-illustrated in the lovely essay, Others May, You Cannot which is one of my very favorite bits of Christian devotional writing.
Recently, the midst of my struggle with confusion, doubt, and dissatisfaction, I received a communication with one of those ministers. She is a campus chaplain for a mainline denomination. She has spent 25 years, most of her ministry career, at the same Midwestern university. She is probably qualified to assume a pastorate in a large church, but a number of factors, both within and beyond her control, have managed to keep her where she is. She is an excellent campus chaplain: She doesn't have the funds or the human resources that the "big" campus ministries have, so the group of students that she cares for is generally fairly small. But she continues to minister to students in ways that the big campus ministries often can't. She doesn't have their pat answers, and she doesn't have their slick speakers and promotional activities. She does, however, have the Holy Spirit, who has cared for her and her "flock" for a quarter of a century. She has never married, and has cared for her mother in addition to her chaplaincy duties.
In her email to me she explained that she was engaged to get married. There are some difficulties with setting a date (distance being a primary factor), but she is engaged to someone that she loves. Now I don't believe that God is obligated to play matchmaker for all of those who serve him, but I am nonetheless struck by how this woman who has offered her life to God has, in the fullness of time, been given the opportunity to know love and marriage.
Such things offer me encouragement as I work though the less pleasant aspects of my faith.
There have been a few people in the ministry that I really, really admire. These are people that I wish that I could be more like, and I do try to emulate them in my words and deeds.
I have never been a "fangirl", and as such, have never been particularly interested in the "superstars" of ministry. Instead, I have often been attracted to those humble servants of God who have given their lives to those smaller ministries that both the world and the church shun and ignore. Their lives are well-illustrated in the lovely essay, Others May, You Cannot which is one of my very favorite bits of Christian devotional writing.
Recently, the midst of my struggle with confusion, doubt, and dissatisfaction, I received a communication with one of those ministers. She is a campus chaplain for a mainline denomination. She has spent 25 years, most of her ministry career, at the same Midwestern university. She is probably qualified to assume a pastorate in a large church, but a number of factors, both within and beyond her control, have managed to keep her where she is. She is an excellent campus chaplain: She doesn't have the funds or the human resources that the "big" campus ministries have, so the group of students that she cares for is generally fairly small. But she continues to minister to students in ways that the big campus ministries often can't. She doesn't have their pat answers, and she doesn't have their slick speakers and promotional activities. She does, however, have the Holy Spirit, who has cared for her and her "flock" for a quarter of a century. She has never married, and has cared for her mother in addition to her chaplaincy duties.
In her email to me she explained that she was engaged to get married. There are some difficulties with setting a date (distance being a primary factor), but she is engaged to someone that she loves. Now I don't believe that God is obligated to play matchmaker for all of those who serve him, but I am nonetheless struck by how this woman who has offered her life to God has, in the fullness of time, been given the opportunity to know love and marriage.
Such things offer me encouragement as I work though the less pleasant aspects of my faith.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Crazy Community: Part 1
There has only been one period of time in my life that I was part of anything that felt like "community". That was in my senior year of high school, when I connected with a bunch of Christians (mostly outside of school) and we ended up creating a delicious mess that lasted (in one form or another) for close to three years. Names have been changed to protect the guilty, though I can't imagine that any of us don't crack a grin at the memories of what we did together.
I had hooked up with a group of folks who attended Willow Creek every Wednesday night. There was a semi-rotating cast of characters that made up our motley crew, and we all ended up at Baker's Square after service. Between bites of pie we all got to know each other, and began socializing outside of church. Some of us attended a "college age group" over at a Lutheran Church, while others made references to a couple named "Linda and Ernie", and times spent at their house. I learned that Linda and Ernie lived locally and were considered to be very spiritual people. Finally, after weeks of hearing about these people, several of us visited them at their split-level apartment one night.
I knew right then that I had walked into something special.
I can't say exactly what it was, but there was something about these twenty-somethings with four children under the age of five, poor as proverbial church mice, who extended Christian hospitality to whoever happened by. There were at least three different Christian bands who were using the place as a makeshift studio, their upstairs bathtub was regularly used as a baptismal pool, and their two living rooms became Bible study classrooms.
"Linda" and I bonded almost instantly: We had chatted a bit the first night we met, and then a few nights later, during a phone conversation, we realized that we had a similar vision for ministry. Even though it was late (9pm) and it was a school night, she drove to pick me up and bring me back to her place for conversation with herself and Ernie. Thus began a very intense relationship between Linda, Ernie and myself that was to last for several years. Linda and I were generally the only two women who consistently attended our gatherings, so our relationship became especially close.
I started attending the gatherings at their home regularly. . .and I do mean regularly! Technically, "Bible Study" was on Wednesday and Friday nights, with "band practice" on Sundays. The trouble was that everyone considered themselves "special" enough to show up on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday nights as well! Chaos ensued as headbangers, representatives of various cults, half-baked Jesus Freaks, high school and college students, and Linda and Ernie's children ran amok among dirty dishes, stacks of paper, and baskets of laundry. The standard format for the evenings at Linda and Ernie's place usually consisted of people arriving "whenever", and a time of Bible study. At some point the discussion broke down into smaller groups, and someone would yell "Munchie Run!". This was the cue for a couple of us to head off to the local grocery store in order to purchase pizza, soda, and other goodies. Back at the apartment we ate, worshiped, studied, sang, and studied together. In other words, we became a church.
Coming soon. . .Part II
I had hooked up with a group of folks who attended Willow Creek every Wednesday night. There was a semi-rotating cast of characters that made up our motley crew, and we all ended up at Baker's Square after service. Between bites of pie we all got to know each other, and began socializing outside of church. Some of us attended a "college age group" over at a Lutheran Church, while others made references to a couple named "Linda and Ernie", and times spent at their house. I learned that Linda and Ernie lived locally and were considered to be very spiritual people. Finally, after weeks of hearing about these people, several of us visited them at their split-level apartment one night.
I knew right then that I had walked into something special.
I can't say exactly what it was, but there was something about these twenty-somethings with four children under the age of five, poor as proverbial church mice, who extended Christian hospitality to whoever happened by. There were at least three different Christian bands who were using the place as a makeshift studio, their upstairs bathtub was regularly used as a baptismal pool, and their two living rooms became Bible study classrooms.
"Linda" and I bonded almost instantly: We had chatted a bit the first night we met, and then a few nights later, during a phone conversation, we realized that we had a similar vision for ministry. Even though it was late (9pm) and it was a school night, she drove to pick me up and bring me back to her place for conversation with herself and Ernie. Thus began a very intense relationship between Linda, Ernie and myself that was to last for several years. Linda and I were generally the only two women who consistently attended our gatherings, so our relationship became especially close.
I started attending the gatherings at their home regularly. . .and I do mean regularly! Technically, "Bible Study" was on Wednesday and Friday nights, with "band practice" on Sundays. The trouble was that everyone considered themselves "special" enough to show up on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday nights as well! Chaos ensued as headbangers, representatives of various cults, half-baked Jesus Freaks, high school and college students, and Linda and Ernie's children ran amok among dirty dishes, stacks of paper, and baskets of laundry. The standard format for the evenings at Linda and Ernie's place usually consisted of people arriving "whenever", and a time of Bible study. At some point the discussion broke down into smaller groups, and someone would yell "Munchie Run!". This was the cue for a couple of us to head off to the local grocery store in order to purchase pizza, soda, and other goodies. Back at the apartment we ate, worshiped, studied, sang, and studied together. In other words, we became a church.
Coming soon. . .Part II
Monday, September 04, 2006
The Liberal Failure
It probably seems like I am only picking on Evangelicals (and Conservative Christians in general). But evangelicals aren't the only bugaboo in my reconsideration of orthodoxy: Liberal Christians have been, if not a greater stumbling block, at least an equal contributor to my discomfort with Christianity. Despite my misspent youth as an Evangelical/Pentecostal, my adult spiritual formation was at the hands of mainline Protestant liberals, and could best be described as a disaster. A qualified disaster (it wasn't all bad) but a disaster nonetheless.
There was a feeling of desperation in my seminary: The student body was almost entirely of the earnest variety. Everyone really wanted to "do good", even though most of us couldn't really articulate why. Claims to supernatural experiences were warned against, or else one of our psychology profs might accuse you of mental instability. This only applied to white students, however. "Minority" students were exempt from any criticism of behavior, belief, or doctrine. This racism was appalling: Liberal rationalism was the rule of the day, unless you were deemed a "primitive" by the school administration.
Things got even sillier when I returned to seminary for a second masters degree. In a class on post-modernism, a woman stated that the Aztecs had never committed human sacrifice, and that the suggestion that they did was a white colonialist lie. (The white colonialists were apparently miffed and jealous that the Aztecs had perfected open heart surgery at that early point in history.) The professor (much maligned as a "conservative" by some within the denominational hierarchy) gently expressed his disbelief in this notion, but the woman's response indicated that she believed that naysayers were simply racists. Nobody in the class (including myself) bothered to back up the professor. I know that I was too stunned to respond. I hope that this was the case with the other students, or else I must come to the distasteful conclusion that my academic colleagues were too stupid to question absurdity.
And what did all this seminary education do for us? Well, I couldn't help but notice that a lot of people had a very difficult time getting ordained. This seminary had a VERY complex formation process for students, as did its denomination. Students could be (and often were) forced to leave seminary or switch to a purely academic degree track because the faculty no longer supported their vocation. Yet our seniors were constantly coming back from ordination hearings dejected and depressed. They may have had excellent academic records, but they couldn't get their districts to ordain them. They couldn't relate to the folks "back home", and the folks "back home" saw our students as "dangerous".
But the worst part of my liberal formation process was that it didn't really have any sort of a goal. The big emphasis in seminary (at least when I was there) was that as ministers, we were supposed to "empower" the people we served. We really weren't supposed to lead, and even serving our people was suspect. Of course, most laypeople don't want to be empowered, and they sure as hell aren't going to pay you to empower them. So here we all were, formed to "empower" people who didn't want to be empowered, all the while completely bereft of any solid grounding in theology. Theology was not considered empowering, I guess, but this deficit meant that we also lacked purpose. Why were we trying so hard to get ordained just so we could empower the reluctant for $20,000 a year? Nobody ever cleared that up for us.
In the face of all this liberal non-rigor, I gave up. I started taking up the study of Western Esotericism, and made my mark in that community. My efforts were sometimes appreciated, sometimes not, but at least I no longer had to pretend that I didn't believe in a God that sometimes does weird things. Of course most Christians no longer wanted to have anything to do with me, but I was pretty sick of Christians (both liberal and conservative) at that point.
But now I am back, tail between my legs, sniffing around for something real to grasp onto. The gender wars are getting worse (and the wrong side seems to be beating the hell out of the feminists), and political money is fueling "conservative" movements within mainline churches. I fit in even less now than I did before. But perhaps that is a cross that I need to learn to bear.
There was a feeling of desperation in my seminary: The student body was almost entirely of the earnest variety. Everyone really wanted to "do good", even though most of us couldn't really articulate why. Claims to supernatural experiences were warned against, or else one of our psychology profs might accuse you of mental instability. This only applied to white students, however. "Minority" students were exempt from any criticism of behavior, belief, or doctrine. This racism was appalling: Liberal rationalism was the rule of the day, unless you were deemed a "primitive" by the school administration.
Things got even sillier when I returned to seminary for a second masters degree. In a class on post-modernism, a woman stated that the Aztecs had never committed human sacrifice, and that the suggestion that they did was a white colonialist lie. (The white colonialists were apparently miffed and jealous that the Aztecs had perfected open heart surgery at that early point in history.) The professor (much maligned as a "conservative" by some within the denominational hierarchy) gently expressed his disbelief in this notion, but the woman's response indicated that she believed that naysayers were simply racists. Nobody in the class (including myself) bothered to back up the professor. I know that I was too stunned to respond. I hope that this was the case with the other students, or else I must come to the distasteful conclusion that my academic colleagues were too stupid to question absurdity.
And what did all this seminary education do for us? Well, I couldn't help but notice that a lot of people had a very difficult time getting ordained. This seminary had a VERY complex formation process for students, as did its denomination. Students could be (and often were) forced to leave seminary or switch to a purely academic degree track because the faculty no longer supported their vocation. Yet our seniors were constantly coming back from ordination hearings dejected and depressed. They may have had excellent academic records, but they couldn't get their districts to ordain them. They couldn't relate to the folks "back home", and the folks "back home" saw our students as "dangerous".
But the worst part of my liberal formation process was that it didn't really have any sort of a goal. The big emphasis in seminary (at least when I was there) was that as ministers, we were supposed to "empower" the people we served. We really weren't supposed to lead, and even serving our people was suspect. Of course, most laypeople don't want to be empowered, and they sure as hell aren't going to pay you to empower them. So here we all were, formed to "empower" people who didn't want to be empowered, all the while completely bereft of any solid grounding in theology. Theology was not considered empowering, I guess, but this deficit meant that we also lacked purpose. Why were we trying so hard to get ordained just so we could empower the reluctant for $20,000 a year? Nobody ever cleared that up for us.
In the face of all this liberal non-rigor, I gave up. I started taking up the study of Western Esotericism, and made my mark in that community. My efforts were sometimes appreciated, sometimes not, but at least I no longer had to pretend that I didn't believe in a God that sometimes does weird things. Of course most Christians no longer wanted to have anything to do with me, but I was pretty sick of Christians (both liberal and conservative) at that point.
But now I am back, tail between my legs, sniffing around for something real to grasp onto. The gender wars are getting worse (and the wrong side seems to be beating the hell out of the feminists), and political money is fueling "conservative" movements within mainline churches. I fit in even less now than I did before. But perhaps that is a cross that I need to learn to bear.
Methods of Madness
"We believe that churches and Christians should continually reform their ministry methods to most effectively reach the changing cultures(s) to which they are sent by God as missionaries (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)."
This quote, taken from a conservative Evangelical blog, quite nicely illustrates my uneasiness with Evangelicalism's obsession with obtaining converts. A "method", to my mind, is a process which is developed in order to achieve an efficient means to an end. In this case, the blog owners are arguing for Churches and Christians to "continually reform" their methods in order to "effectively reach the changing cultures" that they are trying to evangelize.
I am going on record right now in saying that I don't believe that "ministry" and "methods" go together.
I am, of course, aware of these "methods" of reaching "cultures" through "ministry": The thing is, members of the "culture" being "ministered" to usually aren't fooled by these methods. Members of these cultures know that the "relationship" being offered by "relational evangelists" isn't real. They know that the only reason why they are being "ministered" to is because the "minister" wants them to convert. No matter how good the methods are, the ministry seems hollow because it is not offered out of love for human beings who bear God's image, but in hopes of another notch on the spine of the "minister's" study Bible.
"Another soul for Jesus...NEXT!"
I can't do this. I can't be this. I can't extend ministry, charity, and love to someone in hopes that they will convert to Christianity. I can't live a life of breathlessly saying to myself: "Will my parent/brother/sister/husband/wife/boss/best friend/worst enemy/Madonna accept Jesus as his/her personal savior today?" Racking up numbers of converts isn't my idea of real religion, and the notion that genuine ministry is about successful methods (which have to be modified on occasion) is laughable (sort of--because it really isn't funny).
For my own self, genuine religion is about teaching adherents how to serve and to love others without having expectations as to what the "other's" response should look like. I'd like to learn how to extend love and grace and service to others regardless of the outcome. If I learn "methods" I want them to be methods for my own spiritual development, rather than manipulative tools for tricking others into faux conversions.I truly wonder if Evangelicalism will ever get there.
I know, of course, that there are many, many good hearted Evangelicals that engage in Christian service beyond what I could ever dream of offering. But I still get this niggling feeling that the motivation for much of what passes for Evangelical "ministry" is based on the expectation that numbers will be met and if the numbers aren't right, then the "method" must be wrong.
I think that there is a madness behind these methods, and I really don't want to plumb those depths. I don't like the result(s), so I certainly don't want to know the motivation(s) anymore than I have to.
"We believe that churches and Christians should continually reform their ministry methods to most effectively reach the changing cultures(s) to which they are sent by God as missionaries (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)."
This quote, taken from a conservative Evangelical blog, quite nicely illustrates my uneasiness with Evangelicalism's obsession with obtaining converts. A "method", to my mind, is a process which is developed in order to achieve an efficient means to an end. In this case, the blog owners are arguing for Churches and Christians to "continually reform" their methods in order to "effectively reach the changing cultures" that they are trying to evangelize.
I am going on record right now in saying that I don't believe that "ministry" and "methods" go together.
I am, of course, aware of these "methods" of reaching "cultures" through "ministry": The thing is, members of the "culture" being "ministered" to usually aren't fooled by these methods. Members of these cultures know that the "relationship" being offered by "relational evangelists" isn't real. They know that the only reason why they are being "ministered" to is because the "minister" wants them to convert. No matter how good the methods are, the ministry seems hollow because it is not offered out of love for human beings who bear God's image, but in hopes of another notch on the spine of the "minister's" study Bible.
"Another soul for Jesus...NEXT!"
I can't do this. I can't be this. I can't extend ministry, charity, and love to someone in hopes that they will convert to Christianity. I can't live a life of breathlessly saying to myself: "Will my parent/brother/sister/husband/wife/boss/best friend/worst enemy/Madonna accept Jesus as his/her personal savior today?" Racking up numbers of converts isn't my idea of real religion, and the notion that genuine ministry is about successful methods (which have to be modified on occasion) is laughable (sort of--because it really isn't funny).
For my own self, genuine religion is about teaching adherents how to serve and to love others without having expectations as to what the "other's" response should look like. I'd like to learn how to extend love and grace and service to others regardless of the outcome. If I learn "methods" I want them to be methods for my own spiritual development, rather than manipulative tools for tricking others into faux conversions.I truly wonder if Evangelicalism will ever get there.
I know, of course, that there are many, many good hearted Evangelicals that engage in Christian service beyond what I could ever dream of offering. But I still get this niggling feeling that the motivation for much of what passes for Evangelical "ministry" is based on the expectation that numbers will be met and if the numbers aren't right, then the "method" must be wrong.
I think that there is a madness behind these methods, and I really don't want to plumb those depths. I don't like the result(s), so I certainly don't want to know the motivation(s) anymore than I have to.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Feminism and Orthodoxy
I am a feminist. In fact, I am, as Andrea Dworkin might say, a "...radical feminist, not the fun kind.". My committment to what I believe to be the best interests of women is absolute: I filter my politics, my worldview, my ethics, and my lifestyle through my feminism.
And this is why I stopped being an evangelical.
I am aware of good organizations such as Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)who, IMHO, are fighting a losing battle in their efforts to advocate for women's rights and dignity within evangelicalism. They have some great people asking some important questions. The trouble is that they want to make the Bible out to be a poorly understood women's liberation tract, and for this they are being perpetually mocked and condemned by anti-feminist evangelicals.
Frankly, I think the anti-feminists, despicable though they are, have a point.
CBE's main problem is that they focus on the "problem passages" of scripture which seem to suggest a permanent, God-ordained subordination of women in all things. There are a few of these, though not as many as the gender hierarchalists over at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) would like for everyone to believe. (In fact, I'd argue that CBMW is being profoundly silly in their assertion that there even is such a thing as "Biblical Manhood/Womanhood".) The gender debates (i.e. over whether women are really supposed to submit to and obey their husbands, whether husbands are really an authoritative "head" over their wives and children, whether women should be ordained or allowed to teach authoritatively within a mixed gender setting, etc) are never going to end, because even the best Bible scholars are going to have a hard time getting the already-persuaded to agree with their interpretations. Evangelicals will continue in these debates, though, because Evangelicals have no recourse to tradition, progressive revelation, or a magisterium. What the Bible says goes: There is no other authority for evangelicals.
As I noted earlier, the Bible does not offer a detailed theology of gender. There are no long philosophical passages that explain the "true nature" of men and women. (Indeed, I think that Christians tend to make themselves look very silly when they attempt to make the Bible do this.) Women are women and men are men in the Bible, and Biblical characters tend to express their natures in a variety of ways: The Bible paints pictures of women who are fierce and submissive, sensual and chaste, maternal and murderous. Male Biblical characters also boast a full range of personality flaws, quirks, and traits. While the Bible encourages all believers to exhibit the fruit of the spirit, it does not hold up a prototype "man" or "woman" to which males and females must conform.
But it is also important to consider that while the Bible doesn't offer clear cut instruction as to how to be "male" or "female", it is hardly a textbook of feminism. Women do not fare well in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, where rape is a sactioned warfare tactic, rape victims are put to death for being too frightened to scream, women and girls born without hymens (or who are married to men with small penises) risk being stoned, and "godly" men offer up their daughters and concubines to violent mobs to ensure the safety of their male guests. Ignoring these "Texts of Terror" as Phyllis Trible called them, undermines the assertions of both CBE and CBMW in their attempts to assure women that they are valued by God and that God has placed his calling on their lives. The God depicted in the the Bible doesn't value women (much). In fact, I would call into question the notion that such a God is in any way holy or deserving our worship.
It is because of the way the Bible depicts God's attitude towards women that I have, for the past several years, essentially denied that I am a Christian. "Not a Christian" is probably not an accurate description of one who affirms the Apostle's Creed, but it was the best I could during this time. Now that I am willing to re-consider orthodox Christianity, I am still faced with the same problem: What do I, as a feminist, do with the fact that the Biblical (and historical) record show God to be something of a misogynist?
Returning to Evangelicalism isn't an option: Evangelicals of all stripes will deny God's misogyny, because to not do so would undermine their own theology. Admitting that God is a misogynist would mean either denying the holiness of God or the accuracy of the Bible. Evangelicals won't make this choice.
But those of us who don't accept the Evangelical doctrine of Biblical inerrancy have a little more wiggle room, but few satisfactory answers. Theological modernists/liberals, of course, will simply argue that the Bible reflects the biases of its authors: Yes, the Bible is sexist because the men who wrote it were sexists. Therefore, women (and men ,for that matter) can blythely ignore everything the Bible has to say about women, and, for that matter, anything else we don't like. A viable approach, of course, but not one that is particularly consistent with a religion that is supposed to have at its center the worship of a decidedly anti-modern, contradictory God: Grace/judgement, King/Servant, Incarnate/Transcendent. In fact, I strongly believe that a God who makes sense is most likely not a god at all.
I am instead choosing to believe that the Bible contains the story of God and God's people (in this age, on this Earth, at least). I choose to believe that the God depicted in the Bible is holy, but that those men who composed the Bible were not always so. I choose to believe that a holy God wept as women were raped in his name. I choose to believe that as each Biblical writer joins the communion of saints he is made aware of his bias and his folly, and that he weeps with God as women suffer because of his words. I also choose to believe that it is the responsibility of the Church on earth to carefully consider that which they consider to be "inerrant", lest they undermine the holiness of the God that they worship.
And this is why I stopped being an evangelical.
I am aware of good organizations such as Christians for Biblical Equality (CBE)who, IMHO, are fighting a losing battle in their efforts to advocate for women's rights and dignity within evangelicalism. They have some great people asking some important questions. The trouble is that they want to make the Bible out to be a poorly understood women's liberation tract, and for this they are being perpetually mocked and condemned by anti-feminist evangelicals.
Frankly, I think the anti-feminists, despicable though they are, have a point.
CBE's main problem is that they focus on the "problem passages" of scripture which seem to suggest a permanent, God-ordained subordination of women in all things. There are a few of these, though not as many as the gender hierarchalists over at The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) would like for everyone to believe. (In fact, I'd argue that CBMW is being profoundly silly in their assertion that there even is such a thing as "Biblical Manhood/Womanhood".) The gender debates (i.e. over whether women are really supposed to submit to and obey their husbands, whether husbands are really an authoritative "head" over their wives and children, whether women should be ordained or allowed to teach authoritatively within a mixed gender setting, etc) are never going to end, because even the best Bible scholars are going to have a hard time getting the already-persuaded to agree with their interpretations. Evangelicals will continue in these debates, though, because Evangelicals have no recourse to tradition, progressive revelation, or a magisterium. What the Bible says goes: There is no other authority for evangelicals.
As I noted earlier, the Bible does not offer a detailed theology of gender. There are no long philosophical passages that explain the "true nature" of men and women. (Indeed, I think that Christians tend to make themselves look very silly when they attempt to make the Bible do this.) Women are women and men are men in the Bible, and Biblical characters tend to express their natures in a variety of ways: The Bible paints pictures of women who are fierce and submissive, sensual and chaste, maternal and murderous. Male Biblical characters also boast a full range of personality flaws, quirks, and traits. While the Bible encourages all believers to exhibit the fruit of the spirit, it does not hold up a prototype "man" or "woman" to which males and females must conform.
But it is also important to consider that while the Bible doesn't offer clear cut instruction as to how to be "male" or "female", it is hardly a textbook of feminism. Women do not fare well in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, where rape is a sactioned warfare tactic, rape victims are put to death for being too frightened to scream, women and girls born without hymens (or who are married to men with small penises) risk being stoned, and "godly" men offer up their daughters and concubines to violent mobs to ensure the safety of their male guests. Ignoring these "Texts of Terror" as Phyllis Trible called them, undermines the assertions of both CBE and CBMW in their attempts to assure women that they are valued by God and that God has placed his calling on their lives. The God depicted in the the Bible doesn't value women (much). In fact, I would call into question the notion that such a God is in any way holy or deserving our worship.
It is because of the way the Bible depicts God's attitude towards women that I have, for the past several years, essentially denied that I am a Christian. "Not a Christian" is probably not an accurate description of one who affirms the Apostle's Creed, but it was the best I could during this time. Now that I am willing to re-consider orthodox Christianity, I am still faced with the same problem: What do I, as a feminist, do with the fact that the Biblical (and historical) record show God to be something of a misogynist?
Returning to Evangelicalism isn't an option: Evangelicals of all stripes will deny God's misogyny, because to not do so would undermine their own theology. Admitting that God is a misogynist would mean either denying the holiness of God or the accuracy of the Bible. Evangelicals won't make this choice.
But those of us who don't accept the Evangelical doctrine of Biblical inerrancy have a little more wiggle room, but few satisfactory answers. Theological modernists/liberals, of course, will simply argue that the Bible reflects the biases of its authors: Yes, the Bible is sexist because the men who wrote it were sexists. Therefore, women (and men ,for that matter) can blythely ignore everything the Bible has to say about women, and, for that matter, anything else we don't like. A viable approach, of course, but not one that is particularly consistent with a religion that is supposed to have at its center the worship of a decidedly anti-modern, contradictory God: Grace/judgement, King/Servant, Incarnate/Transcendent. In fact, I strongly believe that a God who makes sense is most likely not a god at all.
I am instead choosing to believe that the Bible contains the story of God and God's people (in this age, on this Earth, at least). I choose to believe that the God depicted in the Bible is holy, but that those men who composed the Bible were not always so. I choose to believe that a holy God wept as women were raped in his name. I choose to believe that as each Biblical writer joins the communion of saints he is made aware of his bias and his folly, and that he weeps with God as women suffer because of his words. I also choose to believe that it is the responsibility of the Church on earth to carefully consider that which they consider to be "inerrant", lest they undermine the holiness of the God that they worship.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
You scored as Neo orthodox. You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God's most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.
Neo orthodox71%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan68%
Roman Catholic57%
Emergent/Postmodern50%
Modern Liberal36%
Charismatic/Pentecostal32%
Reformed Evangelical32%
Classical Liberal32%
Fundamentalist21%
What's your theological worldview?
Neo orthodox71%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan68%
Roman Catholic57%
Emergent/Postmodern50%
Modern Liberal36%
Charismatic/Pentecostal32%
Reformed Evangelical32%
Classical Liberal32%
Fundamentalist21%
What's your theological worldview?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
