sex or race: pick one

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.

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.

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

call me a socialist, but...

...chances are, i am.

this week in church history we learned about two very important people in the area of church history who were not theologians: charles darwin and karl marx.  i'm actually quite a fan of both, but for this week's purposes, karl marx is my man.  other important information: in the theology of martin luther king, jr., we have created colloquys (basically just means groups to present to the class on a specific topic) and the topic my group within the colloquy has is a comparison of mlk's theology to liberation theology.  needless to say, it's not really feasible to talk about liberation theology without talking about latin american liberation theology, which is arguably the the "original" liberation theology (though some people were in the process of developing different forms of liberation theology at the same time, though the different groups were mutually unaware of each other).  this has allowed me to dig back into my liberation theology books from undergrad, which has been great.

anyway, karl marx.  even before dr. hendel stated in class that karl marx greatly influenced liberation theology, i had been thinking about that as i read for my mlk class.  communism and socialism are very similar (and oftentimes used interchangeably), though marx would probably argue that socialism is just a stepping stone to communism.  i tend to locate myself in more of a socialism camp than a communist camp (probably due to the connection in my head between communism and the ussr) and many times i feel like jesus is there (perhaps because in gospels like mark jesus works within the system - healing, but still having people do the ritual things that need doing to be declared clean by the temple).  that's a bit off-topic, but i do think that karl marx provides an interesting lens to actually, openmindedly think about christianity and jesus.

karl marx's communist theory affirms the idea that human history curves to a place of justice.  this is very clearly articulated in mlk's famous quote, "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice" (found in "where do we go from here?"), and liberation theology holds to the belief that not only does it bend towards justice, but that god is bending it towards justice.  as marx articulated the need for understanding societal change with respect to material and economic goods, so too does latin american liberation theology very clearly state that god makes an "option for the poor" (Introducing Liberation Theology, Boff & Boff, p. 44-45).  it is the socioeconomic poor who are the source of liberation theology and those who are not socioeconomically poor are called to struggle with those who are and to stand in solidarity with them.

while marx was very intelligent and had really good ideas (and i could go on about the similarities of liberation theology and marxist communism), the one thing that karl marx lacked is god.  for him, religion was simply the "opiate of the masses."  this has been true for far too long.  liberation theologies come in as they reclaim the church's role as a prophetic voice rather than a pacifying voice.  as god cries out, the church is called to cry out against injustice.  that is what the role of religion should be.  so, on second thought, perhaps karl marx was right about religion.  lately it seems to be the opiate of the masses, but when will it use its power to teach people how to behave (as marx put it) to teach people to act in a way that lines up with god's will for creation?  perhaps instead of demonizing communism, we should consider its critique of religion and what it might mean to get back to our roots, to follow jesus into the margins, and to do theology by doing liberation.

unions, divisions, and reappropriation

this week in church history, we discussed the declaration of prussian union by king friedrich wilhelm iii.  as the tercentenary of lutheran reformation - specifically of the 95 theses and the augsburg confession - king wilhelm was calvinist, but his people were lutherans, so to celebrate, he declared that the lutheran and reformed traditions were to share full communion in prussia.  the main lutheran doctrine is and was the doctrine of justification (we are justified by grace through our faith), which does not subscribe to predestination, whereas the reformed church teachings do and did prescribe to predestination.  for many this was a nonnegotiable distinction.  this meant either going to jail, which many of them did for a bit, or leaving. 

the anti-prussian union confessionalism resounded with me as i considered the past year and a half during which i had my first encounters with members of the reformed church.  while we meet under fairly unusual circumstances (serving as year-long young adult missionaries for our respective churches in the same program working with roma in central europe), we had some interesting discussions regarding our faith and beliefs.  in the various conversations, it was abundantly clear that we share much in common, yet there are important enough differences that we wouldn't switch to the other's denomination.  this was the case for the anti-prussian union after the declaration of the prussian union by king wilhelm.  

while it is important to recognize the differences and to acknowledge the key factors that make us lutheran (or reformed, catholic, etc.), it is also important to remember our commonalities.  this comes through in the elca's full communion with the episcopalians.  our essentials are consistent and our non-essentials are free to be as diverse as they may be.  one unique thing is the historic episcopate.  because lutherans don't care much about the historic episcopate (that the bishops have hands laid on them by people who had hands laid on them by people who had hands laid on them by...peter) and the historic episcopate is an essential for episcopalians, lutherans let the practice and belief of the historic episcopate be part of our practice.  in this way, we honor our full communion with the episcopalians, holding to what we take as the essentials and being willing to compromise on things we don't consider essential.  when it all comes down to it, that's how ecumenism works anyway.  honoring our neighbor's faith while holding true to our own (sometimes a delicate balancing act).

another type of lutheran confessionalism, which we discussed was from the erlangen school.  adolph von harless believed that we should be aware of what we confess as a church, but that that heritage cannot simply be passed from one generation to the next.  we, as lutherans, as christians, as inheritors of wisdom must engage with our individual and communal contexts in order to engage with our confessions and our doctrines and theologies.  afterall, it has been said that "a religion that doesn't change ceases to remain the same."  this connects with repristination theology in that it tried to recover lutheranism.  it tried to get "back to its roots."  the problem with this was that the reformation and luther's changes were viewed and interpreted through the lens of the age of orthodoxy (previously mentioned here).  this meant that the role of scripture (the idea of sola scriptura) were understood as stringent biblicism. 

the key to each of these types of confessionalism is firstly to be aware of them.  as we seek out what our theology is and how we want to be confessional, we need to continue to engage with our local and global contexts as well as with our ancestors of the faith, but we need to see both in light of each other.  when we look to our heritage, we need to remember from where we look.  for example, when i look at luther's statements about jews, i need to remember that i am looking at then in light of the holocaust and the nation of israel, among other things.  we also need to engage our current situations in light of our faith tradition.  how christians have engaged the world should inform us as we seek to engage the world as well (whether it's informing us on what to do or what not to do is also something to keep in mind).  we cannot simply reappropriate our ideas of the roots of our faith, we must thoughtfully engage with them from where we are today.

john and charles: 2 of 19 (though only 10 survived infancy) who created a movement

as we discussed methodism today in class, i couldn't help but think of my college roommate, who happens to be a united methodist.  she has been visiting me this week for her spring break and i shared with her some of what we had been discussing in class.  she pointed out that before and during her years at college, her congregation was going through a period of immense turmoil.  as with many congregations, great turmoil usually impacts the church's budget.  the intriguing part was that the very methodist congregation knew the value of giving and so the congregation continued to collect money in offerings.  the difference came in with respect to where the collection went.  since people were unwilling to support the pastors, they refused to give money that would support the pastors.  instead, they designated their offerings to missions.  While the church stopped paying its apportionments (the required amounts paid to the conference, or what we lutherans refer to as a synod), and almost went without water and electricity, it never stopped funding missions, and funding them strongly.

this is a lesson we could all learn.  my home congregation is currently having money troubles because of its own turmoil, but imagine what a difference it would make if people still gave and recognized the importance of social justice and work in the world.  my congregation hasn't ever been stellar at benevolence, but if the money that's recently been taken away from our congregational budget went directly to benevolence or mission, our identity as a congregation would become very different.  it is a very different way of living out our vocation and mission as a church: giving money out into the world, even when we are unwilling to give it within the church.  this is not only a part of supporting the missions of the church, but it is a way to honor giving as a spiritual practice for individuals and to recognize that it is of great importance to people on a personal level as well as being a way of sharing love in the world.

this could go for the elca as a whole as well.  what if people who were upset with the elca churchwide decision to hold all ordained and rostered leaders to a high standard while allowing them to also live a life of love and commitment with a spouse or partner didn't just leave the church?  since they are clearly still welcome and their opinions and views are clearly still welcomed in a church that tries valiantly to embrace contradictions, what if they didn't take away their synod benevolence and the money they generally set aside to global mission?  what if they continued to support the church, but maybe designated their funds to missions areas?  would the church have to find a new identity?  would the church not only find a new way of understanding its center as christ, but also of understanding why we as individuals and congregations give?

not all of john wesley's ideas resonate both with me and with current methodists.  for example, while wesley and i agree quite a bit regarding the eucharist, current methodists tend to favor a more occasional practice.  also, wesley and i tend to hold very different views regarding tea and alcohol consumption.  we all do, however, seem to agree with the emphasis he placed on working for good in the world.  the love we receive from god cannot be contained simply within ourselves.  the only way to fully experience the love god has for us is to respond to it in love towards others. 


on a related note, i also learned that much of the success of the methodist movement can be credited to charles wesley, who was not only a prolific hymn writer (many of the hymns in our "lutheran" hymnal are, as my college roommate pointed out, written by charles wesley) but also was apparently much more sociable and friendly, especially in one-on-one interpersonal settings.  being the guy that people "actually wanted to hang out with" seems to have gotten him and the methodist movement as a whole quite a bit further than simply being the preacher who considers the whole world to be his parish.

ortho-dox and the change of faith

in class last week and the week before, we talked about "orthodoxy" (orthodoxy, according to its greek roots means correct teaching, which for many church goers means doctrine) and specifically the lutheran age of orthodoxy, which lasted from about 1570 until about 1740.  during this time, scholars wanted to preserve, explain and elaborate, and systematize theological teachings.  the goal of systematization was to define what it meant to be lutheran: what were the essentials and the non-essentials.  up until this time, faith and religion had not been based as much in rational explanation, but during the age of orthodoxy, those doing systematic theology began to rely heavily on philosophical arguments to back themselves up.  they went to great lengths to articulate precisely what was necessary for the church and what was not.

johann gerhardt was a proponent of the idea that scripture is the source for theology.  this is not a bad thing, in fact it's a good idea, but it becomes problematic in how it has played out in christianity since then.  since scripture is the source of theology, for gerhardt, it was made "normative, authoritative, and trustworthy" (from my class notes).  this is not anything new, but with it came the idea that since it's the inspired word of god, it must be infallible.  the logic is that since the holy spirit inspired the biblical writers, the words they wrote must be infallible, since god inspired them.  the concept of the bible being dictated to humans by the holy spirit or the holy spirit moving the hand of the human writing is actually not a view held since the beginning of christianity.  it was during this age of orthodoxy that it really took hold.  that's in the late 1500s!!  still, that is what gerhardt used to get to the idea that if doctrine comes from scripture, and if scripture is infallible, then doctrine must be infallible, too.

this is a viewpoint that is very evident in fundamentalist christianity today.  people argue that since the bible is the inspired word of god, it must be infallible.  they seem to change the definition of inspired from "imbued with the spirit to do something" to "dictated word for word by god or another heavenly being."  that is a big difference.  my call to ministry is inspired by god, but god did not sit down with me face to face and clearly state: "emily, i want you to be an ordained pastor in the evangelical lutheran church in america."  it was something i had to discern and make sense of in my own way, which means it has my own personality in it, much like those who wrote and edited the various books of the bible.

once we get to scripture, however, we still have to figure out how to interpret it.  this is where theology and doctrine coming from scripture (and therefore also infallible) is problematic.  much of history has been written and recorded by men.  not only that, but by fairly well-educated, probably middle or upper class men, who probably have quite a bit of power in their society.  so, when they do theology, they come at it from their unique perspective.  however, when we state that there is only one interpretation of scripture, we lose the impact their experience has had on their theology.

the core problem, however, is deeper than doctrine or the inerrancy of scripture.  since theology in the age of orthodoxy became so focused on having inerrant doctrine to go with inerrant scripture, what it meant to have faith changed as well.  faith became less about trusting god (as martin luther stated) and more about believing the right thing.  again we recognize this in christianity to the extent that people are required to believe certain things about jesus and about god, rather than to trust god with the mysteries and the questions.  it goes something like this: "if i believe the right thing in the right way, then i will have faith and i will be saved."  note, if you will, the conspicuous absence of god in that sentence.

in making faith about specific beliefs about rather than trust in, god loses god's place in our faith.  faith becomes individualistic and self-centered instead of centered in a god who loves and connects all people.  so, while lutherans during the age of orthodoxy did bless us with many, many volumes of systematic theology, which few people will ever read in their entirety, they also set the ball rolling on a slippery slope, which has people believing that rather than believing in.

where is god?

since i've been back from slovakia, my journaling has taken on a new form.  instead of meticulously listing everything that happened, everything i did, and everything i felt each day, i've taken to writing down where i recognize god each day.  monday was a particularly interesting day, so i thought i'd share it with you (with a bit of elaboration, perhaps).

god is not just in my call (to ministry), but god is calling me to ministry at the margins.  god has been opening the doors to opportunities for growth and stretching in my classes and activities as well as sustaining me when i need new/more strength.

• not only in this past year, but throughout the past few years, I have been privileged to have a variety of experiences and meet a variety of people at the margins of society, whether that is in the queer (lgbtiq) community or working with roma (gypsies) in slovakia, even to this year's classes and groups and people i've met.  god continues to guide me and open me up to new opportunities to follow god's call.

god is always in smitha - her joy and *smile* (smitha means smile) and her generous hospitality.  the spontaneous invitation to tea today was a wonderful escape out of my thoughts.

• on my way back from monday's class, i ran into smitha who invited me in for some tea.  she is such a joy to spend time with.  today, in fact, i asked her to come out and play with me in the snow, so she and her two boys came to play with us in the snow.  we made snow angels (smitha's first ever, since she is from southern india) and then helped as my seminary classmates and friends tried to recreate a snow tower of babel.  overall, it was just a joyful time and i truly am blessed in the time i spend with her.

god was in the civil rights movement.  the film we watched today (from montgomery to memphis) showed actual footage of the movement.  i had heard about fire hoses being used, but i hadn't yet seen the ease with which they knocked people down - or the police dogs.  god was in every drop of blood and every tear shed that the arc of the moral universe might keep bending toward justice.

• while the arc of the moral universe continues to bend and has not reached its end, we are so much closer to that end because of the dangerous and deadly work done during the civil rights era.  as i witness the injustices around me and learn ever more of the sacrifices people have made for the sake of love and justice, i continue to be amazed and inspired.  nowadays there are many ways to be an active citizen of the us and of the world, whether it's through voting, petitioning, or protesting.  yet, sadly, so many people are apathetic.  perhaps it's because they have witnessed too much corruption in governments or because they haven't yet seen the effects of racism, sexism, heterosexism, able-ism, or any of the many and varied systemic forms of oppression at work in the world.  whatever the case, it is tragic and needs to be changed.  the only way to improve or change anything is to engage with it.  to seek out information and answers.  to ask questions and listen, really listen to the answers.  then take action.  if we can take action together to live lives in solidarity with each other, then we will be able to keep the arc of the moral universe bending towards justice.

ordination

so, while i was in colorado for christmas break, i had a really good conversation with a friend of mine about ordination.  he said that he doesn't believe in ordination.  after reflecting on that quite a bit over the past few weeks, i've realized that not only do i believe in ordination, but i think we should do it more!

the process of ordination in the elca (evangelical lutheran church in america) involves both individual and communal discernment and it is definitely a process.  the way it has worked (so far) for me is that i discerned god's call for me to ordained ministry in the elca.  this meant that i needed to go to seminary.  my discernment of call, however, was not enough.  it had to be accompanied by the discernment of a greater community, so i went to my church.  i told them i felt god calling me to ordained ministry and i asked for their support.  there were some who had been encouraging throughout my life, but my church had to come out and publicly support and affirm my call to ministry.

once those two steps happened, we started the candidacy process, a series of interviews throughout my seminary career, during which we explore where my strengths are, how i'm growing, and where my areas for growth are.  this is done with a candidacy committee from my synod (the rocky mountain synod) made up of lay and ordained leaders of many walks of life.

so, it's along and involved process, yes, but it is such an important process.  i am lucky to be looking forward to a job/career/vocation in which not only i can see myself, but my church and my friends and family can see me.  my call is not my own.  it is not just between me and god, but it incorporates the larger body of christ as well.  having a long and involved process means that i have a lot of people supporting me and affirming god's call in my life.

so, i believe in ordination and i think it should happen way more often than it does.  how different would it be if we as a church family ordained the teachers in our midst, affirming their gifts to teach and nurture the growth of children?  how different would it be if we ordained the child care providers both at our church and those who provide child care outside of our church setting?  how much more supportive and loving could we be as a church if we ordained others and affirmed their gifts for the variety of ministry (though oftentimes unacknowledged as ministry) they do each day?

thanksgiving

so, it's the day after thanksgiving and instead of going shopping, i decided to stay in hyde park and get some work done...then i got a bit distracted and here i am writing on my blog. such is life, sometimes. so, today i'm taking inspiration from a dear friend's blog and doing a list of things i'm thankful for.

i'm thankful for a year spent falling in love with a community of people in eastern slovakia

i'm thankful for the support i had in that year

i'm thankful for a fellow yagm who was my saving grace and shared her glee with me

i'm thankful for my fellow yagms (in the rca-inclusive sense) around the world who shared in the experiences with me and who shared in coming back with me at re-entry

i'm thankful for continued communication with some of those i love in slovakia

i'm thankful for visits while in slovakia from friends and family

i'm thankful for my return to the united states

i'm thankful to be back in the same country as my cerp

i'm thankful for pre-thanksgiving time with my favoritest roomie ever

i'm thankful for friends and family who love and support me and my journey to and in seminary

i'm thankful for seminary and the amazing learning and growth opportunities here

i'm thankful for open hearts, homes, and tables for relationships

i'm thankful for continued opportunities to be with people

i'm thankful for a church family that supports all of me in this journey

i'm thankful for opportunities to grow and push beyond my comfort zone, to challenge myself, and to find that me that is a bit hidden deep inside right now

i'm thankful to be surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses.

i'm thankful for my relationship to a loving creator who has counted every hair on my head

love, laughter, tears, miles, time, space, hugs, handshakes.  my year has been full and blessed with good and bad.  for that i am and hope to always be grateful

emily's creed

so, the other day, a friend asked me in an email what i believe and the following is what i came up with.

i question my faith and my beliefs all the time. it's not a bad thing. for example, the only time i really ever feel any kind of certainty about jesus' resurrection is on easter. if you ask me on easter, i'm confident that jesus rose from the grave. if you ask me at another time, then i'm not as sure.

doubt is a normal and natural part of your faith. a lot of people pin doubt against faith, but someone once told me that the opposite of faith is not doubt, it's apathy. struggling with what we believe and how we believe is how we grow in our faith. questions our beliefs, the things we've been taught since forever, is how we mature. it is necessary for us to grow.

anyway, you actually asked me about my beliefs so here goes:
i believe in a triune god, three persons in one essence in a way that i can't fully understand and can't even come close to fully explaining.
i believe in the person of god who created me and the world and everything in it and everything to come.
i believe in the god incarnate, jesus christ, who came to bring us back into right relationship with god. i believe that jesus loved fiercely and radically each person he met, but especially those who were oppressed. i believe that jesus' love is not the easiest thing to accept or to live into, but it is always there for everyone. i believe that jesus was tortured and killed on the cross and i believe that he rose again.
i believe in the person of god who works in and through us each day as the creative and holy spirit. i believe in the creativity and reconciliation that comes to each of us because of the holy spirit.
i also believe in people, that we are created good and that we are created in god's image, each and everyone of us just as we are.

so, that's my own "emily's creed," and it comes out far more confident than i necessarily feel most of the time, but my beliefs are not about being 100% on any of these. if i knew any of these things, it would cease to be faith, it would lose its meaning. faith is about not being certain, but believing anyway. people can say that believing unknowable things is stupid or silly, but we all do it, we believe in love, a concept that none of us can fully grasp. for me, my faith is about this inability to give up on hope, hope that there is something bigger, something beyond me, which is the source of all of our love and that something (god) is constantly working in and through us, so that everyone and everything on earth might know love and justice and peace.

why i'm glad to be lutheran

happy reformation day!!!  one of my favorite celebrations in the church calendar (aside from easter, i suppose), perhaps because it is very specifically connected to lutheranism.  anyway, this reformation day, my computer decided to join in the reform...long story short, i now have a new hard drive and none of my old hard drive stuff (biggest bummers about that: no class notes and no slovak music! :( )

anyway, i was planning on posting this weekend (before my computer decided to reform itself), so here's the post i was thinking about:



this is a message from the presiding bishop of the evangelical lutheran church in america (my lutheran church!).  in it he addresses bullying and makes sure that kids, especially the lgbtq (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans[gender/sexual], and queer/questioning) kids out there, know that they are beloved by god just as they are.  In this day and age where the radicalists seem to be getting more radical and more vocal, it can be hard for people to understand themselves as being beloved children of god, but that is what each and every one of us is.

bishop hanson also included the following links below his message:

Resources - (866) 488-7386

The Trevor Project
The Trevor Project is determined to end suicide among LBGTQ youth by providing resources and a nationwide, 24-hour hotline.  If you are considering suicide or need help, call: 866-4-U-TREVOR (866-488-7386).

BullyingInfo.org
BullyingInfo.org is a project of the Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP) focused on providing tools and resources for youth, parents, teachers and mental health providers to prevent and address bullying.

It Gets Better Project
You can watch more videos at ItGetsBetterProject.com.


something for everyone.  not everyone that participated in the "it gets better" project addressed bullying itself.  the primary focus was on those who are victims of bullying (which is what the first link is for).  i am deeply grateful to bishop hanson for including the second link, which provides resources for those working against bullying.

bullying is not just a problem in our schools, but as a friend told me, it is a problem in our society.  kids may be the most obvious victims of it, but there is bullying throughout our lives, at work, in neighborhoods, in our churches.  bullying is not ok, and we as a country, and especially as christians who are called to love god, love the stranger, love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us (among other things), are especially called to not only pray for those who are bullied and those who bully, but to work to change that: to bring god's love here on earth in a very real way.

taking off

so, i'm starting this new journey.  i just finished a year of service work as a volunteer missionary in a small village in eastern slovakia and i'm now beginning life as a master of divinity student in chicago, illinois.  it's quite the adjustment to be making, but i'm excited to share it with you.  i will try to update this blog fairly regularly; however, i will also be sending out emails about four times a year with more information on how i'm doing, so if you'd like to receive those emails, let me know :)

tomorrow classes begin.  i am both excited and nervous, anxious and full of anxiety.  i have been in chicago since the 26th of august and have been living in community with my fellow seminarians.  god has called me here.  this i know in my heart.  this place and these people have already begun to grow close to me.  i'm not perfect, but god is and god has a plan for my life.  these four years in seminary (and continuing after that), i will be working on a few things.

1. building bridges- we are in a world full of walls (and motes and sometimes even canyons), but what we need are bridges.  we need connections between people and we need connection with god.  i will be working on my own bridges that need work, both with other people and with god, but also on building bridges between others and with god.
2. making connections- it is through connections with other people and places that we are able to more fully understand each other and ourselves.  as i connect with new people and cultures, it is my prayer that i will also be able to connect in new ways with god.
3. seeking god's way- though i can't always find the right words to talk about god, there are moments when i feel god's presence more fully than anything else.  can i explain how that feels?  no, no way.  do i always trust it? not all the time.  am i trying? yes.  i'm seeking god's way for my life and for this world in which i live.  i am not perfect, but i'm ok with working on trusting god and following the path that god lays before me.  

so, as i go: please pray for and with me.  join me on this journey