Should Christians Apologize?
Over at the Justice and Compassion blog Pam Hogeweide posted her thoughts on the Seeds of Compassion event. While I continue to be amazed at the resistance in the Christian community to even talking about compassion with others, I was intrigued by a sub-conversation that arose in the comments to that post. One commenter in particular expressed her opposition to the idea that Christians should be apologizing for evil done in our collective past. The reasons for her opposition are summed up as follows -
1. People of other religions are jerks too. Why should Christians apologize if others are not expected to as well. She wondered why “Christians [are] the only ones groveling around and begging forgiveness for the disrespectful behavior of only some of the members of their religion?”
2. Christians really haven’t done all that much that is bad. Or at least all the good we have done outweighs the bad.
3. People shouldn’t have to apologize for stuff they were not personally involved in. She wrote, “if YOU have not partaken in toxic Christianity, then I am not sure you need to apologize for something you didn’t do. It is not YOUR fault that others calling themselves Christians have acted like jerks.” For her, “an apology implies some personal culpability.” As an example she wrote, “As a white person, it is not my fault that black people were treated unfairly a century ago. I would take that further even and say that as a white person growing up in the SOUTH, it is not my personal fault. I do not owe black people an apology. (actually, the government is still trying to weasel it out of me via affirmative action: I said I am sorry with the fact that my law school admission doesn’t count as much as if I was certain minorities, whether I wanted to or not).”
Of course others on the thread attempted to engage with her often to no avail, but her perspective haunted me. While she didn’t cross into MD territory and say that we need to be jerks for Jesus, the utter lack of ability to expression compassion for the other surprised me. Her first objection, revealed more of a sense of entitlement than love. Sure I can admit that other religions have done evil as well, but I will not refuse responsibility for my own religion until I feel like other people have taken responsibility for theirs. If I always waited for others to seek forgiveness before I forgave, would I really be extending forgiveness or just gloating in their groveling? I though similarly about her second objection. I don’t think evil is graded on a sliding scale. No amount of good negates the need to take responsibility and apologize for wrong actions. The call for an apology (or the act thereof) is not intended to silence or ignore good done. I’m not a fan of “yes, but” apologies (from my toddler or from adults). Trying to evade responsibility and escape needed amends by attempting to paint oneself in a better light cheapens the apology. There is a time and place for lauding accomplishments, just not as a means of avoiding an apology.
But it is the third excuse that really bothered me. Even if it is true that someone is entirely innocent of wrongdoing, the group they have chosen to associate with is not - and that is how those who have been hurt by that group (or just outsiders in general) will view that individual. Either that individual can act arrogantly and deny responsibility or they can accept what full membership in that group entails - both the good and the bad. Christianity’s main themes are those of mercy and forgiveness. We are willing to accept the “unfairness” or original sin, but are too prideful to accept the unfair baggage our religion carries. It just doesn’t make sense, especially not to the outside world curious about who we are.
That said, I find it hard to believe that any individual Christian can ever truthfully claim to not have partaken in wrongdoing or toxic Christianity. (just like no white person can ever truthfully claim to not have participated in racial injustice in some form or another). Beyond the fact that just the act of denying responsibility for Christianity’s evils appears as self-centered toxic Christianity to many, most Christians today are living the benefits of Christendom - benefits that came at the expense of others. American Christians are living with the wealth and resources of “Christian” operations like Manifest Destiny and attempts to “Christianize and civilize” other nations (mostly as an excuse to rape their land of it’s resources). The denominations and doctrines we bicker about exist because they were the ones willing to slaughter and torture dissenting viewpoints. Ministries and churches are built (and get rich) on messages of hatred - give money to help Israel kill those Palestinians, or to make sure our students don’t know gay people exist, or to support the IRA, or even fund corrupt dictators and conflict diamond schemes in Africa. It’s hard to be an American Christian and not be connected to some group involved in such things. So even if you have never Bible-bashed, manipulated someone to say a prayer, or burned someone at the stake most Christians are receiving the benefits of toxic Christianity. There is no out of sight out of mind excuse than can work. The connection to wrongdoing is there and if we have compassion at all for those we have hurt, we will take responsibility to apologize if not make amends.
In a way this is about getting over “me-centered” Christianity. One’s faith isn’t just an individual thing, disconnected from history or the rest of the world. We are part of a community of believers and (like it or not) we need to be willing to fully be a part of that community. Recognizing the faults present there is a necessary first step to helping make things better and to understanding why others view us the way they do. Sure it can be uncomfortable when someone lays the blame of say the Crusades or hurtful statements by Dobson, Robertson, or Driscoll fully on you. But it seems more in line with the way of Christ to admit such things are wrong and apologize for them instead of getting angry and attempting to defend yourself or them. Of course, I haven’t always done a good job at this, but it is a habit I am attempting to develop. I’ve discovered that choosing to identify with a community can be a struggle, but it also is vital to growing a deeper and more holistic faith that focuses on loving God and others and not just myself.
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: History, Church | 17 Comments »
Religion Fit for Public Consumption
I was reading about the history of Christianity in America the other day and I came across an interesting phrase. The author was addressing the ongoing need in our nation for there to exist “a religion fit for public consumption.” Such a religion of course serves not only to unify people but to create decent and compliant citizens. In essence it exists as both the opiate of the masses and the backbone of the country. It is something the Founding Fathers saw as a necessary element in creating a society even if they imagined themselves above participating.
I was struck at how tied to such a religion we Americans tend to be. This is a religion that dovetails with our lives as they already are. It shores up our economic systems, promotes civic duty and pride, and never attempts to challenge the status quo. It meets basic spiritual needs, helps create healthy social networks, and helps promote moral systems. Such a religion is safe, fit for public consumption, FDA Approved so to speak.
So it is no wonder that religious movements that challenge the civic system are derided or labeled heretical. Instead of appropriately keeping the system running, these religious movements counter-culturally offer revolutionary challenges. They don’t support life as it already is, but offer alternatives that question the basic assumptions and values of such ways. Their leaders ask hard questions and make uncomfortable statements. These religions are less about something the public consumes and more about leading lives of transformative justice, love, and mercy. You know the sort of stuff the Bible refers to as “true religion.”
These aren’t religions that form the backbone of a nation. Anything that retains the right to question the nations will never get it’s stamp of approval. A religion that actually affects the lives of its followers in radical ways is not “a religion fit for public consumption.” It never will be. So why do I still see more churches caring about being fit for public consumption than about following true religion? How have we been so deceived into idolatry?
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Politics, History, Church | 3 Comments »
Thoughts on Emergent Gatherings
I assume most emerging folks have heard by now that the Glorietta Emergent Gathering as it has been will no longer be occurring (more info here). It’s apparently grown too organized, too structured, too different than what it once was. Given those changes the organizers are shutting it down to make room for other sorts of gatherings/events. While I understand the rationale behind the decision, I find it a bit sad. Granted I was never part of the early days of the Gathering. As hard as I tried to make it in earlier years, I was only able to attend the past two Gatherings. So apparently all I saw was the more structured, on-ramp for the newbies sort of event. And I guess I was one of those newbies trying to find my place and my voice in this conversation. I got to hear the reminisces of the “good old days” and the complaints about how things have changed, but I also seriously appreciated what I experienced. And personally I’m going to miss that.
We are being encouraged instead to seek out local events or to put them on ourselves as alternatives to the Gathering. On one hard this is a great idea. Finding others in one’s area to meet with and provide encouragement to through things like cohorts is a wonderful thing. And having put on a few local emerging conferences, I know the value of those events as well. Those are times for like-minded people bound by geography to find each other. I’ve had fun at these events and have been blessed by the people I encounter there. Sometimes these things develop into ongoing community, sometimes they don’t. As we’ve discovered with the Chicago cohort, we have an email list of over 300 contacts, but rarely see more than a dozen at any given gathering. Often people show up once or twice, attend the big events with the big name speakers, ask to be part of the network, affirm that they aren’t crazy for asking these questions, and then never plug into community. It meets a need, often a very vital need in their faith journey, but lacks a certain something for those of us committed to the emergent community for the long haul.
While I have met some wonderful people though the local events, cohorts, and conferences, I still find that most of my emerging interactions occur online. My community is scattered across the states (and the world). There are members of this community who I have only met at the big trans-regional events like the Gathering. So while I still love the idea of and will continue to help organize regional events (yes I am think of a Texas Emerging Women gathering soon), I’m going to miss the opportunity to connect with the larger emergent family. And while the idea of a National EV Conference is appealing, I doubt it will be as open-source, fun, and inexpensive as the Gathering. I doubt we will see whole families there or have the chance to cook meals together. So I’m going to miss the family reunion/pilgrimage that was the Gathering. And I’m curious how it’s absence will affect the nature of the conversation - will it truly spark more grass-roots conversations or will everything just default towards more and more structure? In other words, how can the spirit of the Gathering be maintained without the Gathering itself actually existing?
Tags:
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Events, Emerging Church | 6 Comments »
Self Help and the Bible
I have a really hard time with self-help books. I am always finding them to be either too specific or too generic. Either the book gives you a blueprint for the exact 12 things you need to do to improve whatever in your life or it gives no practical advice whatsoever. I generally find the overly specific suggestions laughable. I’m okay with lists of possible ways one can say encourage creativity in your kids - I have the freedom then to adapt what I find useful to my circumstances. But I’m not a fan of the formulaic step-by-step scripts for ensuring a compliant child or showing your husband you appreciate him. How cheezy is it to assume that all people are exactly the same and that saying a certain sequence of words will have the same effect on every child or husband? Maybe it’s my inner non-conformist emerging, but I don’t do scripts like that.
But I also equally dislike overly generic self-help books. These books present ideas that sound great - of course I want to “be a better friend” or “love my child unconditionally” - but they are lacking in specific advice for how exactly to do that. I’m sick of books that latch onto one phrase and repeat it incessantly without ever fleshing it out. I find this a lot in devotional books. They can be all about drawing closer to God, but I think they assume that if they just convince me that I need to draw closer to God (by endless repetition of that phrase) then it will magically happen. Did they ever stop to think that I would never have picked up the book if I wasn’t already looking for ways I could make that happen? That’s why I don’t “do” devotional books, I find them generally pointless. I’m Goldilocks searching for the just right balance motivational concepts and practical advice and so far it’s been hard to find.
So as I was reflecting on some of the disappointing books in this genre recently, I began to think about how this relates to some of my issues with the Bible. Often the way the Bible was presented to me fell into one of these extremes. Either it was taught in sweeping generalities (if you just believe/trust/pray everything will work out). Or it was interpreted with the addition of long lists of how exactly one should live (here are the words you can never say, the movies you can never watch, the ideas you can never question in order to be a good Christian or a Christian at all). I got sick of these interpretations. The Bible felt trivialized, it was just another bad self-help book that didn’t deliver. It felt wrong to read a single verse about the early church praying in Acts and then be told just to pray more (or be given the formula for prayer). It didn’t work for me.
It took years before I realized why this self-help spiritualization of scripture bothered me. As with most self-help books it didn’t come across as genuine or authentic. I wanted something that made sense within the context of real life, not just a mantra I could chant. So it helped once I started reading whole passages at a time from the Bible and paying attention to the historical context of the whole thing. Verses no longer mere devotional ideas, but part of a bigger picture. The church in Acts didn’t just pray, they prayed for specific things and “therefore” certain things occured in their communities. It was all authentic and meaningful within certain contexts and in relation to individual lives. To me that’s much more meaningful than slogans or lists of rules. Ideas, plus guidelines, plus examples make sense to me. That’s the type of “just right” advice I can follow and learn from. But maybe that’s just me.
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Personal, Bible | No Comments »
Book Review - My Beautiful Idol
So I recently joined the group of Ooze Select bloggers which basically means I get to read cool books and review them here. Works for me. The first selection I was sent was Peter Gall’s My Beautiful Idol. Before I go any further though I do have a confession to make. While the book was just recently released by Zondervan, an earlier version titled Gall came out a few years ago. My confession is that I was sent that version to review then and I never read the book. So my apologies. But I must say that my failure to read then was completely my loss since I greatly enjoyed My Beautiful Idol.
My Beautiful Idol falls into the genre of spiritual memoir and is being compared to the styles of Anne Lamott and Don Miller. I love Lamott and refuse to read Miller, so my response to those comparisons is “kinda.” What I can say is that this is a very different sort of memoir - it goes places one really doesn’t expect in these sorts of books. Namely Peter has no qualms about being brutally honest and blunt as he recounts the period of spiritual searching and awakening he went through during the 1990’s. He is not afraid to tear down the cliches and idols of the Christian culture nor to just outright question the conventional wisdom one finds in the church. This is a culture I am familiar with and so I resonated with much of what he was describing. I was also amused to recognize so many of the artifacts of the 90’s “contemporary Christian subculture” in his descriptions - from the bad music and “bible studies” to the ubiquitous presence of Mountain Dew.
I had two main issues with the book though. The first is entirely personal and situational, but I have come to the conclusion that books or movies that include scenes of mothers or babies dying in childbirth should come with a warning label. This is like the third time I’ve been blindsided by such a book this pregnancy, and while I am not usually an overly emotional person, those sorts of things really really get to hormonal pregnant women. So a little warning would have been nice. (and no this isn’t a huge part of the book, just one event in a spiritual journey…)
My other issue is more spiritual/theological. The book endeavors to expose the idols we create of our own spirituality and ability to serve God. It explores how we can trust too much or take too much pride in our good works. Often we elevate such things above the realities they entail and spiritualized them into pithy nothingness. I loved the way Peter revealed those ideas through his story, but I was left with too much bitter pessimism. Because so much in Christianity is fake and idolized, he seemed to go too far in rejecting the value of any pursuit of good works. There was very little balance or acceptance of the paradoxes of Christian life. The sarcasm, wit, and gritty reality sometimes overpowered any whisper of hearing where God actually was working. I know the memoir just represents a period of his life, and I’m not looking for a sugary happy ending or anything, just more of a “where do we go from here” wrap-up.
My issues aside, My Beautiful Idol is a good read. Engaging and challenging if one is willing to be pushed outside the box of typical Christian spiritual assumptions.
Tags:
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Church, Book Reviews | 5 Comments »
Frat Boys in Haiti
My mom recently pointed out to me a piece (True Gentlemen Go Global) from my brother’s fraternity alumni magazine. It dealt with a group of SAE frat guys going down to work on a school and hospital in Haiti - very similar to the work our church has done with New Life for Haiti. Having heard Mike’s take on such a project, I was curious about the frat boy response. These guys referred to themselves as missionaries since they were vaguely connected to a missions group, but they were clear that they were different. They were not the typical missionaries with “guilt complexes” ready to serve.
Even still as they reflected on the trip, their reasons made sense. They said, “coming to Haiti, being a missionary — it wasn’t about doing something good in a poor country or helping paint a room even bringing medical supplies to a village in the middle of nowhere. It was about a promise. It was about an obligation. It was about the realization that you have the capacity to give, which means you have the duty to give.” The men felt good about (as it was described) fitting into the “traditional Baptist framework of Haiti, [where] it’s understood that those who are blessed to turn those good fortunes into blessings for others. You receive a blessing in order to give them away.” (I don’t think they’ve heard that that is a traditional biblical framework…)
This sounded very similar to the Christian groups I’ve heard report on their experiences. But then the article continued to go on about all the hardships the guys suffered - getting their parents to let them go someplace so dangerous, sleeping in stuffy cabins, having to walk in unlit areas at night, and having the local children get in their way while they tried to help improve their school. But most saw that it was worthwhile to give up a week of vacation so their presence could be “a gift to the Haitians.” But even with all the talk about having a duty to give and be a blessing, there was this incident reported -
In our American hometowns, we’re used to streetlights and headlights and constant illumination, but the streets of Pignon, Haiti, where only a few lights shine on a few street corners, most of the village sits in darkness. Dirt roads, winding and confusing in the daylight, became pockmarked mine fields. Low cinder-block walls become tripwires. To make matters worse, we had been told that things at night were not nearly as friendly for Americans as they were during the day. Nothing we encountered helped the general sense of unease that had settled on the group since a breathless messenger five minutes prior had told us we were needed urgently. “Will,” he said, out of breath and speaking to the trip’s leader, “the doctors need you at the hospital. Now.”
This was a problem. Either someone from our group had done something colossally stupid, something that couldn’t wait to be remedied in the morning, or the hospital’s owner had returned early from his trip and needed our help. After carefully making our way through trash and dirt-filled streets — praying that the village’s sole generator didn’t switch off, leaving us in total darkness — we stepped through the hospital’s iron gate, the one that warned us to leave our guns at the door, and looked for friendly faces. We were alone; no one spoke English. The only others around were poor Haitians, looking for healing the way the faithful congregate at a church in times of distress. The scene was looking even more grim until we found a friendly face: The doctor who sent for us.
“Thank you for coming,” he said. “A woman on the operating table needs a blood transfusion. She is very sick.”
We didn’t know what to say, so we looked at him blankly.
“We need one of you to donate blood.”
This wasn’t what we expected. These 11 men, undergraduates from the University of Arkansas, had signed up for a mission trip to build things and make friends, not to serve as donors for a woman in danger of bleeding out from an emergency hysterectomy. The next three minutes were a flurry of discussion. “What’s your blood type?” they asked each other. “What if we’re not a match?” “Is anyone O-positive?” “Is it even safe to give blood?”
Very few things prepare anyone for decisions like these. One week before Christmas, when friends and loved ones 1,600 miles away were making plans to go out on a Saturday night and were finalizing holiday travel plans, we were wondering who was going to save the life of a poor Haitian woman. It soon became apparent that no one was going to volunteer.
Will Smith, our man in charge, made the final decision. We weren’t going to serve as donors. Making difficult decisions is part of being a leader, part of showing the right path. Without warning, Smith faced a choice he didn’t want to face and, using his best judgment, decided he couldn’t put any of his men at risk.
“Thank you for considering helping us,” the doctor said when Smith told him of the group’s decision. “I will do my best to save this woman.” Our walk to the hospital was through the fading twilight, which did little to calm any fears, but the black night sky that greeted us on the walk home was as dark as our thoughts. Haiti needed our help in more ways than we could give.
The article never tells what happened to the woman, although it does later call the hospital the “Mayo clinic of Haiti.” To be honest I don’t know what I would have done in that situation. But I was shocked at how different their response to the trip and this situation were from the typical Christian response. Maybe it is our “guilt complex,” but the sense of obligation Christians have to care for others no matter the cost didn’t factor into this story. I have no problem with what these guys are doing - serving others and moving out of one’s comfort zone are always good things. But I found the whole thing curious and a bit depressing. How much can we really help and love others when we aren’t willing to really be with them and learn from them? A few days ago I blogged about how compassion is part of what Christ called us to. So this example of what service without Christ’s call to love looks like grabbed my attention. Honestly, I don’t want to disparage these efforts, I’m just pondering what it does take to move people to true compassion.
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: mission, Culture | 5 Comments »
What is your name, What is your favorite color…
Something fun for the weekend (HT - Deb)
1.YOUR ROCK STAR NAME (first pet, current car):
Frosty Aztec
2. YOUR GANGSTA NAME (fave ice cream flavor, favorite type of shoe):
Pistachio Birkenstock
3. YOUR NATIVE AMERICAN NAME (favorite color, favorite animal):
Green Puppy
4. YOUR SOAP OPERA NAME (middle name, city where you were born):
Michelle Dallas
5. YOUR STAR WARS NAME (the first three letters of your last name, first two of your first name):
Cla-Ju
6. SUPERHERO NAME (2nd favorite color, favorite drink):
Brown Tea (um, that boring…)
7. NASCAR NAME (the first names of your grandfathers):
Stormy Donald
8. STRIPPER NAME ( the name of your favorite perfume/cologne/scent, favorite candy):
Pleasures Divine 
9. TV WEATHER ANCHOR NAME (your fifth grade teacher’s last name, a major city that starts with the same letter):
Simmons Sacramento
10. SPY NAME (your favorite season/holiday, flower):
Summer Hyacinth
11. CARTOON NAME (favorite fruit, article of clothing you’re wearing right now):
Strawberry Jeans
12. HIPPIE NAME (What you ate for breakfast, your favorite tree):
Granola Magnolia (fitting)
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Fun Stuff | 1 Comment »
Jesus and Compassion
I read something in the comments the other day over at Eugene Cho’s blog that I haven’t been able to stop thinking about. The post was in relation to the whole Seeds of Compassion event. I’ve been slightly disturbed by the outcry from some sects of the faith as to why Christians (Doug Pagitt and Rob Bell specifically, apparently Desmond Tutu doesn’t count to evangelicals) would participate in an event with the Dalai Lama and other non-Christians. Then after the fact the complaints turned into certain voices getting their panties all in a bunch because those guys didn’t give the four spiritual laws or something. I tried to ignore those fringe voices trying to cause trouble, the whole idea of not being in dialogue with people of all faiths is so farcical that it hardly deserves comment. But then I started hearing other issues raised - ones I found infinitely more disturbing. This comment illustrates the issue well -
Christ does not call Christians to ‘make the world more compassionate and a better place’. Christ calls us to proclaim the Gospel message of Christ Crucified for sinners. This message is not compatible with any other religion or spirituality.
The idea was that Christians have no place at an event discussing compassion since that has nothing to do with Jesus. I don’t deny that we are called to proclaim the Gospel (although I have a feeling that I might differ with the commenter on what exactly that involves), but to say that Jesus didn’t call us to spread compassion? Has this person read the Bible? Ever? Does she ignore the story of the good Samaritan and the subsequent command to “go and do likewise.”? Or ignore Jesus’ call to give food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, and care for the least of these? Or Jesus’ proclamation that he came to set the oppressed free? Or his commands to love, bless, and pray for even our enemies? Or his response when he witnessed the lack of compassion in the Temple?
Often when some of us talk about the full Gospel, or about reclaiming the message of Jesus, we are told “but everyone believes that anyway” (implying we should stop talking about it). The idea is that just because it isn’t talked about, or takes a secondary place to preaching a doctrinal formation doesn’t mean that people have forgotten about it. But here I see the full extent of the dichotomy between doctrine and the Bible in action. When some can claim that being a Christian has nothing to do with making the world more compassionate I know petty prejudices have usurped scripture.
Perhaps since such commenters refuse to engage with people of other faiths, they may not have heard how many people see Christianity as utterly irrelevant because of this dichotomy. I’ve heard numerous people dismiss Christianity because all we care about is converting people to our club and not about meeting their real needs. They have not heard of Christ’s call to love, to give aid, and to make disciples who do the same. This truncated Gospel not only distorts scripture, it hurts our message. I would prefer truth to be discussed and demonstrated, but sadly that doesn’t always happen. But even more disturbing - are there really people who think compassion is a bad thing? how has the church let this happen?
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Theology, Social Justice, mission, Emerging Church, Bible | 4 Comments »
Subversive Blogger
So I just noticed a few of the recent links to my blog. Over the last few days, I’ve been labeled as “feminist priestess blogger” and given a Subversive Blogger Award (thanks Mak). Given with differing intentions, I guess they go together well. The Subversive Blogger Award was started by Jake Bouma and is fitting of my blogging style of late.
“Subversive bloggers are unsatisfied with the status quo, whether in church, politics, economics or any other power-laden institution, and they are searching for (and blogging about) what is new (or a “return to”) - even though it may be labeled as sacrilege, dangerous, or subversive.”
The rules of participation are pretty straightforward:
1. If you are tagged, write a post with links to five subversive blogs.
2. Link back to this post on JakeBouma.com so people can easily find the origin of the meme.
3. Optional: Proudly display the “Subversive Blogger Award” somewhere on your blog.
That’s all there is to it. Keep in mind that this award is meant as an encouragement to bloggers to keep doing what they’re already doing - being subversive (however you interpret it). May we never forget that Jesus (and His message) was the original and ultimate subversive.
Alright so onward with my nominations. Some of these bloggers are getting double tagged because they are just that cool.
1. Kathy Escobar - for her good questions and fresh ways of looking at things.
2. Grounded & Rooted in Love blog - a subversive church
3. Matt Stone - for asking the hard questions about worship
4. Friendly Atheist - for moving the atheist/Christian conversation forward in healthy ways
5. Empire Remixed blog - rethinking everything
Thank you all for your subversiveness (is that a word?) and continue in the good fight.
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Blog Stuff | 3 Comments »
Making Room for Women’s Voices
I wanted to point out an intriguing post Rose Madrid-Swetman put up recently. As part of a reception Off the Map hosted related to the Seeds of Compassion event, she interviewed Rob Bell on the subject of women in ministry. She summarized the interview on her blog - here. But there were a couple of parts that really stood out to me.
First I liked the response from Rob (as summarized by Rose) about how he has come to view the whole women in ministry issue - He said that he used to hear the old argument that there are two sides to this theological position but now he says there are not two sides, if you hold to the position that oppresses (probably my word) women you are just wrong. I think this gets at the heart of the issue for many women. This isn’t about theology or esoteric debates, this is about oppression. And oppression is wrong. End of story. But most people really don’t get that.
The other part of the interview that stood out to me was Rob’s reaction to the question of how he uses his influence to help give voice to women. He apparently didn’t understand the question or why such a thing would be necessary. A small handful of “celebrity christian” speakers (like Brian McLaren) have made a point of not speaking at events that don’t give women a voice. They use the little power they have to help equalize the playing field and provide opportunities for those that are often overlooked. This isn’t about getting second rate speakers up there (as is often assumed), but making people aware of an issue that usually doesn’t cross the radar of conference planners. But Rob’s response was the more typical one - why is that needed?
I was interested in the comments around the web to Rose’s posing of this question. Some really didn’t get why having the voice of women present mattered at all (and of course others directly opposed such a thing altogether). Others wondered why important men like Rob should be forced to waste their time on the women’s issue. Others proposed that there are far greater issues in the world to pay attention to than than equality for women. Generally the same of excuses the church have given for years to avoid the issue. Sure they might think women should be in ministry and treated fairly, but why bother actually doing anything about it?
So I’m am grateful to women like Rose who are asking the hard questions (to prominent leaders at that) and who aren’t afraid to keep pushing for so-called beliefs to be actualized as reality.
Tags:
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Gender Issues, Church | 6 Comments »
Guilt and Unity
Something I often find myself struggling with is the call to be unified with other believers and my ability to put up with crap (to put it bluntly). I know I should get a better attitude and try to be more open and understanding and all that, but it honestly is a struggle. It’s not that I don’t intellectually acknowledge that we are all part of the church universal or that I don’t see other believers as brothers and sisters in Christ. But there are times when spiritually I just can’t handle week after week of soul-crushing interaction, theology, or worship. And I’m really sick of being made to feel guilty because of it.
Recently I have encountered numerous accusations against the emerging church that we are an elitist denomination who doesn’t know how to play well with others. Because we express dissenting opinions or rethink the mechanics of church, we are the outsiders who are destroying the church. If we would just shut up and deal then all unity will be restored or something. To an extent I understand that. There is so much division in the church that even unintentionally causing more is difficult for me. But the conditions of such unity are often too hard to accept. If I have to stop thinking and asking questions is it worth it? If I have to accept that shallow prayer requests, trendy music, and listening to lectures is all I need for spiritual growth? If I have to pretend that fill-in-the-blank “bible” studies (followed by craft time) are the only theology women need? Or that my highest calling is to be a good mom? I can understand that such things might work for some people, but I can’t do it. So why am I constantly told that I am wrong and divisive because of that?
I’ve heard from so many others who have completely left the church because of these issues. If they didn’t fit into one particular packaging of the church they were made to feel guilty. And of course leaving the church for the demonized denomination down the street was out of the question, so they just stopped going to church. The homogeneous one size fits all church appears to be all about unity of faith, but in reality how many people have had their faith destroyed because of it? I have way more questions than answers here. And I am sure that I’ve offended traditionalists of a variety of stripes. But as I become more comfortable with who I am and with choosing to seek God, I get more and more disturbed by the accusations leveled against me by those who boxes I don’t fit into.
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Personal, Emerging Church, Church | 16 Comments »
I still exist…
Really. I’ve been meaning to blog, honestly. I’ve just been at some doctor’s office or in the hospital just about every day this past week. Everything’s okay (ish) - just trying to keep complications from becoming more complicated. All of that and keeping up with life have just been too draining and overwhelming. Just thought I’d let you know.
Posted by Julie Clawson
Topics: Personal | 2 Comments »