this week we talked about christianity around the world in class. as you can imagine we barely scratched a tiny bit of the surface, but one thing that we talked about was the role of women in missionary work. although women couldn't be ordained ministers, they were allowed to have leadership roles in missionary settings. at first women just supported missionary work, but then they began to be sent into the field as teachers, nurses, and deaconesses.
in many mission areas, the native peoples were looked down on as heathens and as less than white people. christianity was understood as the "white man's religion," so white men were supposed to be the ordained ones doing the preaching and presiding at holy communion. although native populations were encouraged to evangelize those around them, they were not seen as able to administer the sacraments. as missionary work increased and spread, this created a dilemma. there soon were more christians among the native populations than missionary men who could preach and administer the sacraments.
since there weren't enough white men, they began to allow white women to fulfill those roles. the reasoning was that although white women weren't as good of an option as white men, they were "still better" than native peoples. the hierarchy created is especially poignant when considering who was being converted to christianity. by and large the outcasts of the societies where christianity was being preached were the ones converting. in india the "untouchables" were converting but not nearly as many brahman were. so, christianity had a huge pull for those who were outcasts because of its message of radical love and inclusion and yet at the same time it would not allow just anyone to preach and administer the sacraments.
to be fair, in some places, such as india, indigenous clergy were ordained fairly quickly, which was important because good leadership is the key to keeping a movement going. overall, though, white women gained more equality with white men because of racist ideals that allowed white women to do official ministry so that it could remain white people doing the ministry.
this has interesting implications today because so much of society and movements for rights are put into competition with each other. instead of working against sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, etc. together in collectives, the different movements are played against each other. it can be a fight for equal wages for women or a fight for equal wages based on race, but it couldn't possibly be a fight for equal (and livable) wages for all people (please, not the sarcasm). this is smart by the powerful because if there's infighting further down on the pyramid, then nobody has time to look at the top of the pyramid and try to bring down the whole pyramid. if we looked at the whole kyriarchy, instead of just one system of oppression, what a change it might make.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Monday, April 18, 2011
seminex
ever since i first heard about seminex, i've been fascinated by it and wanted to learn more about it. seminex is another name for concordia seminary in exile (this link is coming down on april 29th, so please check it out before then), which is also known as christ seminary-seminex. the pastor of my home congregation growing up went to seminex, but back then i didn't really know what that meant. it wasn't until later on in college and, really, this year in seminary, that i knew much about it. i'm now in my second class with a professor who has come from seminex. last semester i was privileged to take "pentateuch and wisdom literature" with dr. ralph klein and this semester it's "church history 2" with dr. kurt hendel.
both of these professors have pushed me in my thinking and helped me to grow and develop more nuanced ways of understanding the world. my theory is that while living through losing a job and being deemed a heretic, those who were involved in seminex had to do a lot of soul searching to figure out what it was that they believe; to sift through the nonessentials and get down to the real essentials of christianity. this means that they've thought about it a lot more than many people probably do.
when i began in the candidacy process, the evangelical lutheran church in america (elca) had a document for all wannabe ordained and rostered leaders to sign called "vision and expectations." the elca still has this document, though it has since been edited. overall, the document is really awesome and provides guidance and things to consider as we become and are ordained to ministries of word and sacrament/service in the church. the reason i did not sign it was that it included the expectation that "homosexuals" remain celibate. while i could have, technically, signed that i would abide by "vision and expectations," it seemed quite clear that when it stated "homosexuals," it really meant anybody who could potentially be in a same-sex or same-gender relationship, which meant me.
while i considered what might happen if i were to fall in love with someone of the same gender as a wannabe lutheran pastor, i was drawn into the story of seminex. in some ways, extraordinary lutheran ministries (elm) has played a similar role to that of seminex. when the elca refused to ordain people because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, elm ordained them. elm made a way for people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to do the ministry to which god was calling them.
seminex made a way for people with differing beliefs to do the ministry to which god was calling them. though elm is more to do with sexual orientation/gender identity and seminex has more to do with interpretation of scripture and doctrinal beliefs, there is a common declaration of (to put it more tamely than others have) "so what! we're doing it anyway." both groups were forced out of their mainstream and chose not to let that mainstream win. they chose (or were forced) to find a way to keep following god even when the powers that be said no.
soon after being entranced into candidacy, the elca voted in the churchwide assembly of 2009 for a variety of things (among them the malaria initiative). many people have forgotten about most of the stuff voted on, but one thing that has been (and perhaps always will be) connected to the elca churchwide assembly of 2009 was the vote regarding human sexuality. the vote included adopting the social statement on human sexuality, allowing congregations that wished to to bless same-sex marriages (my word not theirs), respecting the variety of views held by those within the elca on issues of sexuality, sexual expression, and gender identity, and allowing people in "lifelong monogamous same-gender relationships" to serve as ordained and rostered leaders of the elca.
though the decisions made at churchwide in 2009 were diverse and applicable in many situations, when the phrase "churchwide 2009" comes up it almost invariably translates as "letting people who aren't straight be pastors." this does a disservice to all that happened at churchwide, and yet i can't help but refer to churchwide 2009 (or the 2009 policy change) when i talk about why i can be a pastor. i don't have to take another route to follow god's call in my life.
we are a reforming church (that whole "lutheran" thing). that means that we need renewal and change in order to hold true to god's call. if we are not open to change, then we stop being god's church and become individual people's church. when that happens, we can only hope that groups such as those involved with seminex and elm emerge to reflect deeply on god's call and to carry out god's work until the church can catch up.
both of these professors have pushed me in my thinking and helped me to grow and develop more nuanced ways of understanding the world. my theory is that while living through losing a job and being deemed a heretic, those who were involved in seminex had to do a lot of soul searching to figure out what it was that they believe; to sift through the nonessentials and get down to the real essentials of christianity. this means that they've thought about it a lot more than many people probably do.
when i began in the candidacy process, the evangelical lutheran church in america (elca) had a document for all wannabe ordained and rostered leaders to sign called "vision and expectations." the elca still has this document, though it has since been edited. overall, the document is really awesome and provides guidance and things to consider as we become and are ordained to ministries of word and sacrament/service in the church. the reason i did not sign it was that it included the expectation that "homosexuals" remain celibate. while i could have, technically, signed that i would abide by "vision and expectations," it seemed quite clear that when it stated "homosexuals," it really meant anybody who could potentially be in a same-sex or same-gender relationship, which meant me.
while i considered what might happen if i were to fall in love with someone of the same gender as a wannabe lutheran pastor, i was drawn into the story of seminex. in some ways, extraordinary lutheran ministries (elm) has played a similar role to that of seminex. when the elca refused to ordain people because of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, elm ordained them. elm made a way for people of all sexual orientations and gender identities to do the ministry to which god was calling them.
seminex made a way for people with differing beliefs to do the ministry to which god was calling them. though elm is more to do with sexual orientation/gender identity and seminex has more to do with interpretation of scripture and doctrinal beliefs, there is a common declaration of (to put it more tamely than others have) "so what! we're doing it anyway." both groups were forced out of their mainstream and chose not to let that mainstream win. they chose (or were forced) to find a way to keep following god even when the powers that be said no.
soon after being entranced into candidacy, the elca voted in the churchwide assembly of 2009 for a variety of things (among them the malaria initiative). many people have forgotten about most of the stuff voted on, but one thing that has been (and perhaps always will be) connected to the elca churchwide assembly of 2009 was the vote regarding human sexuality. the vote included adopting the social statement on human sexuality, allowing congregations that wished to to bless same-sex marriages (my word not theirs), respecting the variety of views held by those within the elca on issues of sexuality, sexual expression, and gender identity, and allowing people in "lifelong monogamous same-gender relationships" to serve as ordained and rostered leaders of the elca.
though the decisions made at churchwide in 2009 were diverse and applicable in many situations, when the phrase "churchwide 2009" comes up it almost invariably translates as "letting people who aren't straight be pastors." this does a disservice to all that happened at churchwide, and yet i can't help but refer to churchwide 2009 (or the 2009 policy change) when i talk about why i can be a pastor. i don't have to take another route to follow god's call in my life.
we are a reforming church (that whole "lutheran" thing). that means that we need renewal and change in order to hold true to god's call. if we are not open to change, then we stop being god's church and become individual people's church. when that happens, we can only hope that groups such as those involved with seminex and elm emerge to reflect deeply on god's call and to carry out god's work until the church can catch up.
Friday, April 08, 2011
what is an evangelical?
"we cannot, therefore, separate our lives in christ from the situation in which god has placed us in the united states and the world."
"we confess that we have not acknowledged the complete claims of god on our lives."
"we acknowledge that god requires love. but we have not demonstrated the love of god to those suffering social abuses."
"we acknowledge that god requires justice." (gonzalez, 386)
this is an excerpt from the "chicago declaration" adopted by a group of evangelical leaders in 1973. i will be the first to admit that much of the time i have looked down on "evangelicals." not necessarily individual people who identify as evangelical, but the group. the group that is so very visible as the "moral majority." the group that seems to really be another word for republican fundraising. this is not something i'm necessarily proud of, but it is an accurate description of my most recent attitude.
one of the people that began to change this view is jim wallis. he is the head guy for sojourners, a evangelical group/company/magazine that is deeply rooted in social justice work. according to dr. hendel, he would fall under the category of neo-evangelical. this is a group of people who take seriously scripture (in terms of engaging intellectually with scriptures and taking seriously their authority and the locus of their authority), social justice, and evangelization (bringing the good news). evangelicals locate themselves across christian denominations and have been around for decades. different aspects of evangelicalism can trace back to the reformation, the great awakenings, and the pietist movement.
evangelicals have a bad reputation because of some particularly vocal evangelicals who also seem to be tied closely to the purse strings and voting constituency of the republican party. this is very sad, but it's not completely inaccurate. there are many evangelicals who vote republican because a well-known evangelical leader tells them to. there are, however, many evangelicals encourage voting for issues rather than famous people, no matter what a person's political party might be.
this is all in addition to a rather large group of evangelicals who happen to also call themselves "lutheran" (we are, after all, the evangelical lutheran church in america). the elca calls itself evangelical, yet are we? at its heart, perhaps evangelical truly is "one who affirms the centrality and cruciality of christ’s work of reconciliation and redemption as declared in the scriptures" (from donald bloesch as stated during class). do we, as a lutheran church affirm this? do we affirm it in our actions or simply in our words? the elca has some pretty great statements (on human sexuality, incarceration, etc.), but what about our actions? is christ's work of reconciliation and redemption evident in the actions and life of the church?
perhaps, but sometimes that's hard to see. how am i seeking reconciliation and redemption? are we bringing good news to those who hunger for it? is our hunger for the good news found in others? how rooted are we in the radical love and grace of god? are we bold to proclaim god's love to all people? to fred phelps, to prostitutes, to white, middle-class suburban churchgoers? to the world? how do we engage with the world?
so, though i am still working on changing my attitude towards evangelicals, i'm working really hard on taking a page out of their book and engaging with the tough questions of what it means to be evangelical and keep christ fully integrated and implicated in my unique position in this world
"we confess that we have not acknowledged the complete claims of god on our lives."
"we acknowledge that god requires love. but we have not demonstrated the love of god to those suffering social abuses."
"we acknowledge that god requires justice." (gonzalez, 386)
this is an excerpt from the "chicago declaration" adopted by a group of evangelical leaders in 1973. i will be the first to admit that much of the time i have looked down on "evangelicals." not necessarily individual people who identify as evangelical, but the group. the group that is so very visible as the "moral majority." the group that seems to really be another word for republican fundraising. this is not something i'm necessarily proud of, but it is an accurate description of my most recent attitude.
one of the people that began to change this view is jim wallis. he is the head guy for sojourners, a evangelical group/company/magazine that is deeply rooted in social justice work. according to dr. hendel, he would fall under the category of neo-evangelical. this is a group of people who take seriously scripture (in terms of engaging intellectually with scriptures and taking seriously their authority and the locus of their authority), social justice, and evangelization (bringing the good news). evangelicals locate themselves across christian denominations and have been around for decades. different aspects of evangelicalism can trace back to the reformation, the great awakenings, and the pietist movement.
evangelicals have a bad reputation because of some particularly vocal evangelicals who also seem to be tied closely to the purse strings and voting constituency of the republican party. this is very sad, but it's not completely inaccurate. there are many evangelicals who vote republican because a well-known evangelical leader tells them to. there are, however, many evangelicals encourage voting for issues rather than famous people, no matter what a person's political party might be.
this is all in addition to a rather large group of evangelicals who happen to also call themselves "lutheran" (we are, after all, the evangelical lutheran church in america). the elca calls itself evangelical, yet are we? at its heart, perhaps evangelical truly is "one who affirms the centrality and cruciality of christ’s work of reconciliation and redemption as declared in the scriptures" (from donald bloesch as stated during class). do we, as a lutheran church affirm this? do we affirm it in our actions or simply in our words? the elca has some pretty great statements (on human sexuality, incarceration, etc.), but what about our actions? is christ's work of reconciliation and redemption evident in the actions and life of the church?
perhaps, but sometimes that's hard to see. how am i seeking reconciliation and redemption? are we bringing good news to those who hunger for it? is our hunger for the good news found in others? how rooted are we in the radical love and grace of god? are we bold to proclaim god's love to all people? to fred phelps, to prostitutes, to white, middle-class suburban churchgoers? to the world? how do we engage with the world?
so, though i am still working on changing my attitude towards evangelicals, i'm working really hard on taking a page out of their book and engaging with the tough questions of what it means to be evangelical and keep christ fully integrated and implicated in my unique position in this world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)