Fun in Church

Posted on

Can we have fun in church?  Like, really have a good time and take pleasure in God’s world in church?  I’m not asking if it is possible, or if that is the purpose of church, but if we are even capable of allowing ourselves to have fun in church.

A couple of weeks ago in church the topic was having faith like a child.  The teaching time ended with our pastor throwing bouncy balls around the room instigating an all-church ball fight followed by finger-painting and blowing bubbles.  Yes, my church is a tad quirky.  But what I took away from that morning was not so much the childlikeness of these acts, but how odd it was for people to allow themselves to have fun in church.  We were tearing down our barriers, abandoning church propriety, and simply allowing ourselves to be in the moment enjoying life.  It felt good.

Now I am one of the first to argue that the point of church shouldn’t be to attract and entertain the masses.  Coming to church to hear what we want to hear and sing our favorite songs has very little to do with following Jesus.  But neither does checking our personalities at the door and assuming a generic “churchgoer” persona every time we gather at church.  For some churches that involves pretending that monotone recitation and droning songs are actually soul-inspiring and their preferred way to express their spirituality.  For others it’s dressing up in the church costume (never been in fashion anywhere anytime dowdy skirts, ugly floral shirts, dark hose, and unstylish yet still uncomfortable shoes), clutching that oversized study-Bible, taking sermon notes you will never read again, and mindlessly singing lyrics you don’t really believe while hoping no one finds out that you really enjoy Lady Gaga and had a couple of beers with friends the night before.  For most churches personality and pleasure are so denigrated that the idea of allowing oneself to have fun in church (or even admit that you have fun outside of church) is beyond comprehension.

But if we can’t enjoy God’s diverse creation and express our true selves when we gather as the body of Christ, where can we?  I know life shouldn’t be dichotomized into sacred and secular, but it seems like we’ve divided it in truth into church and then all the places we really experience God.  Why is spiritual joy constrained to uncomfortable pews when just about every person in those pews would admit that they experience far more joy at a day at the lake with friends or playing a game of catch with their kids?  Why do we have to turn to TV and dinner clubs to connect with others who can express with us the intense pleasures to be found in good food?  For that matter, why are our blog conversations about theology far more meaningful that what we get at church?  Sure, I get that all of life can be called “church,” but so why is real life kept away from the place where we gather as the church?  God created us to experience pleasure, to take joy in the wonders of creation and the church has decided to blatantly ignore that part of ourselves within its walls.

I know it goes against our cultural conditioning to allow ourselves to be who God created us to be as we gather as a church, but I wish having fun in church wasn’t so taboo.  Throwing bouncy balls around in church felt weird because it was weird.  We let down our guard and enjoyed the moment.  We let the lines between the church façade and the enjoyment of life blur for a moment and something magical happened.  I’m not saying here that we should get rid of structured church, or teaching, or songs and liturgy, just allow God to be bigger than all those things.  God gave us so much in this world to take pleasure and find joy in, why do we pretend to ignore that in church as if we are ashamed of God’s gifts?  Let’s have fun in church, or at least stop hiding and start embracing and celebrating the holiness of how created us to experience and enjoy pleasure.  We all already admit such things are from God, why do we act otherwise when we gather as the body of Christ?

Read more

The World Cup and Human Trafficking

Posted on

When South Africa was selected to host the World Cup, there was much rejoicing and reflection on how far the country had come. From the days of apartheid where human beings were not treated as fully human, the country has worked hard at reconciliation. The world used to forbid South Africa from even participating in global sporting events like the Olympics because of apartheid, so certainly, hosting an event like this was a great symbolic act for the country. No one is naïve enough to assume that all is well in South Africa. Dire poverty and economic disparity still plague the country. Old resentments still surface, as forgiveness is not always easy. As with most countries, racial wounds do not heal quickly.

But amidst this celebration, it is troubling to hear one of the major stories coming out of the World Cup is the issue of all the sex slaves trafficked into the country for the event. While human trafficking is common for any major event like the World Cup or the Olympics, the problem is seemingly worse in a country like South Africa. The U.S. State Department considers South Africa to be a source of sexual slavery and forced labor, as well as a destination for human trafficking from other countries and a transit nation for the modern slave trade. South African human rights groups estimate that 38,000 children are trapped in the country’s sex trade. While there have been disputed reports regarding how many people have been trafficked in for the games, the fact remains that it is occurring.

For games meant to symbolically celebrate a country’s efforts to see all of its citizens as full human beings worthy of respect, the widespread presence of human trafficking simply undermines that message. But while the country might be responsible for not trying harder to prevent trafficking in their borders, the real problem comes from the tourists and fans that create the demand for sex slaves. When the world gathers to celebrate sport and national pride together and the result is thousands of women and children abused and oppressed, good sportsmanship is nonexistent.

So what causes a celebration of national identity and a love of sports to end up in the oppression and demeaning of women and children? Is it an expression of power? Misplaced masculinity? There’s been much talk about what the governments did or did not do to prevent the trafficking, but why aren’t we talking about how to get fans to stop raping children as part of their celebration?

Read more

Matter Anthology

Posted on

matter1matter1The Matter Anthology v.01 is now available for preorder from Shechem Press. Assembled from the presentations at last fall’s Matter Conference this is a collection of essays, poetry, and images that explore ideas of creative theology. From Peter Rollins’ foreword to the anthology –

“When theology falls into the hands of the poet, something profound takes place. We can find that through the theological dis-course we come into contact with ourselves with all the difficulties and possibilities that entails.

Through ideas like Creation, Fall, Salvation, Eucharist, Heaven, and Hell we come face to face with what it means to be human.

This collection of essays, images, and poetry represents an attempt to put theology back into the hands of the dreamers. To give it back again to those who would speak lies in order to reveal the deepest, most transformative truths.”

The theme of the conference was “Christian Relationships”: our relationship with God (Hebrews 12), our relationship with the church (Hebrews 13), and our relationship with the world (Romans 12). There were many fascinating presentations and I look forward to having those ideas collected in this anthology. My essay, “This Is My Body – Nourishment, Sustainability, and Sacrifice as Response to Eucharist” is included as well.

So if you are interested in exploring the intersection of theology and art I encourage you to order a copy and explore the world of creative theology.

Read more

The End of Men?

Posted on

atlanticcover201007We subscribe to The Atlantic, but since most of our copies head straight to Mike’s gym bag for reading while exercising, I generally only see them months later. So the first I heard of Hanna Rosin’s recent controversial article ”The End of Men” was through Twitter. More specifically through tweets mentioning “the sin of America” and “the destruction of our country” which generally were a reply to or a retweet of @pastermark (Mark Driscoll). So with my interest peaked and my guard raised, I had to find out what all the neo-reformed guys in my twitter list were heralding as the harbinger of destruction for our country. Not surprisingly the answer was women.

Read the article. It’s a fascinating report on the state of gender in America. Most specifically it cites the statistics showing that by far more women than men are receiving higher education degrees these days and that women are now the majority in the workplace and in managerial positions. I’ll admit, I am not a fan of Hanna Rosin nor her approach to writing about gender issues (her piece on breastfeeding seriously pissed me off). And this article is as equally annoying as it is fascinating – most fascinating of course being who is responding to it and who is most offended by it.

The article basically tries to explain why women dominate schools and the workforce these days (numerically at least, men still earn more and hold the top positions of power). She explores why men are more likely to be out of jobs, unmotivated to get higher education, and unwilling to adapt to the current age. She writes –

What if the modern, postindustrial economy is simply more congenial to women than to men? For a long time, evolutionary psychologists have claimed that we are all imprinted with adaptive imperatives from a distant past: men are faster and stronger and hardwired to fight for scarce resources, and that shows up now as a drive to win on Wall Street; women are programmed to find good providers and to care for their offspring, and that is manifested in more- nurturing and more-flexible behavior, ordaining them to domesticity. This kind of thinking frames our sense of the natural order. But what if men and women were fulfilling not biological imperatives but social roles, based on what was more efficient throughout a long era of human history? What if that era has now come to an end? More to the point, what if the economics of the new era are better suited to women? … The postindustrial economy is indifferent to men’s size and strength. The attributes that are most valuable today—social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus—are, at a minimum, not predominantly male. In fact, the opposite may be true. 

When the world no longer defines success according to certain supposedly male characteristics, then those men no longer dominate. Women have opportunities to achieve that were denied us before and we are ready and willing to take advantage of them while the men mope about the changed world. And moping they are. Predictably, the loudest outcry about these statistics is coming from the strict hierarchicalists within Christianity. Those that believe women should be at home in the kitchen while men prove their headship by providing are naturally upset that that women now comprise a majority (albeit slight) in the workforce. As Al Mohler writes regarding the importance of this article –

God intended for men to have a role as workers, reflecting God’s own image in their vocation. The most important issue here is not the gains made by women, but the displacement of men. This has undeniable consequences for these men and for everyone who loves and depends on them. 

The failure of boys to strive for educational attainment is a sign of looming disaster. Almost anyone who works with youth and young adults will tell you that, as a rule, boys are simply not growing up as fast as girls. This means that their transition to manhood is stunted, delayed, and often incomplete. Meanwhile, the women are moving on.

What does it mean for large sectors of our society to become virtual matriarchies? How do we prepare the church to deal with such a world while maintaining biblical models of manhood and womanhood?

The elites are awakening to the fact that these vast changes point to a very different future. Christians had better know that matters far more important than economics are at stake. These trends represent nothing less than a collapse of male responsibility, leadership, and expectations. The real issue here is not the end of men, but the disappearance of manhood.

According to those who uphold the so-called ideas of biblical manhood and womanhood this trend spells disaster. Matriarchy! The end of manhood! The fearmongering has begun. Not only can they blame women for original sin, the demise of the church, but now the complete destruction of our culture. And in part they are right. The idea of manhood as defined by strength, aggression, and dominance that they have constructed and sold as the universal way God created all men to be is under attack. For a time in history that definition of a man (which played into men’s selfish desires of what they wanted to do anyway) prevailed, generally at the expense of women, racial minorities, the disabled, and men who did not fit those molds. But culture has changed and those traits assumed to define manhood are no longer most suitable for success in our society. In fact aggression, rugged individualism, and testosterone driven egotism won’t get you very far these days (except in the church).

Rosin rightly points out that perhaps the gender stereotypes that we once viewed as universal are in truth merely cultural. If we keep defining men according to what put them on top in ages past, there is going to come a point where men are going to fail (which according to the article is happening now). Men don’t have to fail for women to succeed, but they will if they keep being fed lies about what it means to be a man. There are two ways we can respond what this article reveals. We can value the character traits that work in a postindustrial age – which are neither masculine nor feminine – and encourage people to develop those skills (social intelligence, open communication, the ability to sit still and focus according to Rosen). Or we can keep banging the drum that our cultural stereotypes are universal and in fact God-given and freak-out about the end of the world.

In my opinion these proponents of biblical manhood and womanhood are sailing a sinking ship (and aren’t that biblical either). They are so afraid of their cultural assumptions being challenged that they’ve lost sight that those assumptions are in fact cultural. While others will read this article and celebrate that women now have opportunities and then work hard at helping men and boys overcome years of false programming regarding what they were told a man had to be, some will continue to live in fear of the idea that God values and gifts women as well as men. That truth is finally being seen in society in major ways. The question remains if Christians find ways to help both men and women succeed, or will the church continue to fail men in its attempts to keep women down?

Read more

Children, Church, and God

Posted on

One of the joys of vacation Bible school (VBS) is watching what the kids take away from the week. Having such an intense daily experience where the kids get to “do church” and learn about God outside of the ways they normally do truly does affect their lives. My kids, for instance, have been singing the songs from the week around the clock. I hear my daughter singing to herself as she lies in her bed at night, and even my barely verbal toddler has got the “na na na” chorus down. These songs, these ideas, these themes are part of their life now even if they don’t fully grasp their meaning.

As an adult who knows that she will never fully understand her own faith or the ways God works in the world, I get that the kids will only partially understand what they are singing or what they are learning. But they are internalizing these ideas in a loving and safe environment. That is how God is working in their lives in the moment.

Of course, that partial understanding can be amusing at times as well. As my daughter sang a VBS song about dancing and singing for her king, I asked her who her king was. She gave me a weird look and after thinking for a moment said her brother’s name. She explained that he was the person she liked to dance and sing with so he must be her king. We had a nice little chat about God being the king of kings, but I was moved that at the age of 5 she grasped the joy and exuberance of worship that song suggests far better than most of us.

God is working in these kids’ lives — often in ways we don’t plan or expect. Creating the space for them to experience God is, for me, at the heart of what it means to serve children. And often in helping create that space, the children in turn teach me something and draw me closer to God.

Read more

Forgiveness, Fear, and the Mosque at Ground Zero

Posted on

I’ve become used to seeing images of protests on the news recently. While a few years ago these were displayed as sure signs of anti-American sentiments, they are now a mainstay on the nightly news. Hardly a day goes by without seeing some sign calling Obama a Muslim socialist or demanding that the government not take away Medicare in order to pay for socialized heath care. But it was seriously disturbing to see the images from New York City yesterday of the protest of the Muslim center going in two blocks from the site of Ground Zero. The planned center is being built in an old Burlington Coat factory building and will include a fitness center, community meeting rooms and a mosque. Basically it’s the neighborhood YMCA with that weird contemporary church plant meeting in the yoga room on Saturday nights. But it’s Muslim and therefore has drawn out the haters.

islam911The organization Stop Islamization of America, a self-proclaimed human rights group, organized the protest on Sunday. This group’s mission is to ensure the preservation of freedom of speech against Islamic supremacist intimidation and attempts to make the United States compliant with Shari’a [Islamic law]. After reading about this group and seeing some of the photos Samir Salmanovic posted from the event as he stood in solidarity with Muslims (including the one here), I couldn’t help but reflect on the tendency in this country for us to fear and hate the other.

It is an odd balance American’s strike between forgiveness and hate. On one hand we become obsessed with stories of extreme forgiveness. The Amish women who chose to forgive and love the families of the man who killed their children so captured our attention the story was even turned into a movie. We prize such extreme acts of love almost to the point of fetishizing them, and yet when the offenders are too different from us we cling to our hatred. I remember listening to my grandfather’s tales of World War 2 and first realizing this strange tension between forgiveness and prejudice. He fought on the German front as a naval officer, he was part of the D-Day invasion, ferried Patton across the Rhine River, and had his best friend blown away in the foxhole next to him. Year later as a man of German descent himself, he had easily forgiven the Germans for the war and yet still spoke with extreme contempt about the Japanese. Forgiving those like us is easy; extending mercy to those who are other is where our fear often strangles our compassion.

This fear of the other prevents us from seeing the world clearly. Our belief in our own rightness clouds how we see the other. During my time at Wheaton College there was much debate about changing the school’s mascot from that of Crusader. While it was eventually changed to the Wheaton Thunder, many people could not understand why there was any reason to change it at all. They thought it was preposterous that any person (especially Muslims and Jews) would be offended by the image or judge modern day Christians by the past actions of historical Crusaders. Yet, even in the church we daily judge Muslims by the actions of a few of its members. So while we applaud the Amish women for their acts of forgiveness, the fear and hatred sparked by the events of 9/11 still inform the average American’s opinion of Muslims. So to the protesters, the building of a Muslim center and mosque so near the site of Ground Zero is just another act of violence – a threat to American supremacy. There is no forgiveness of the terrorists and the grudge against them is extended to all Muslims.

I, like many of the Muslims involved, understand the need to tread carefully here. Even in working for peace and reconciliation one has to be aware of how one’s actions might offend people who have been previously hurt. This is why Wheaton eventually did change its mascot, out of a desire to promote love and healing instead of reopening old wounds. But it is pure fear of the other that is sparking some to say just having Muslims near Ground Zero is offensive. It is heartbreaking knowing that many of the protesters are there claiming to represent Jesus while they scream their message of hate. This isn’t just about protesting political ideas, but a demonstration of our bondage to sin. The images of the protest hurt as they mock everything the faith I follow claims to uphold. As I wait to see how this current drama unfolds, I can’t help but wonder what it will take for American Christians to move from just fetishizing forgiveness to actually letting mercy and compassion for all rule our hearts.

Read more

Violence from the Past

Posted on

The day after we here in the U.S. paused to remember the men and women who had died fighting for our country, the fight continued from beyond the grave. On Tuesday in the town of Göttingen, Germany, a World War 2 era bomb exploded killing three people and injuring six others. The strangeness of death coming from a conflict long resolved, the destruction of former enemies now become close friends, gave me pause as I read the headline.

My first thought in the “what a tangled web we weave” category, was to wonder if the Allied airmen dropping those bombs some years ago ever thought that their action had the potential to kill their unborn grandchildren. Or that one day we would live in a globalized world where the idea of Germany and America being at war with one another would be utterly preposterous. And still the violence and the hatred of a time gone by had its latest causalities in 2010.

I’m fully aware that if any war could ever be called a “just war” it would be World War 2. I also know that this could simply be seen as a freak accident. But it isn’t just in Germany where the conflicts of the past still reach into the peaceful times of the present — harming generally those with no stake in the fight. The poor farmer in Laos whose legs were blown off when he overturned a bomb leftover from when his country was used as a pawn as the colonial powers of the West fought for control in Vietnam. The three children killed in Columbia when they triggered a landmine while playing a game of soccer. The people in Japan dying from cancers caused by the atomic bombs dropped in their country. The children born with birth defects because their parents were exposed to Agent Orange in the Vietnam War. Wars never end when a treaty is signed or peace declared.

It can be easy to dismiss these as simply the vicissitudes of life, but I wonder if that is just a way to avoid dealing with the issues. Our news channels don’t give us body counts of those we’ve killed in Iraq or Afghanistan because that would make the conflict too real — too human. Thinking about the lingering effects an act of violence might have seems to do the same. In the moment the goal of winning trumps any understanding of the enemy as a real person. Considering that in a decade one might be sitting down for a cup of coffee with the person one is attempting to kill today isn’t conducive to gaining the upper hand today. But the future still comes.

I recall first understanding the strangeness and regret hindsight can elicit when in grad school I sat down for a lunch with a friend from the Ukraine and we joked about the duck and cover drills we practiced in our grade schools. Each of us was conditioned to hate the other, sure that our respective countries would launch an attack at any moment. And now we were in school together, studying missions theology, eating sandwiches at the local deli. It is easy to question why I assumed she was my enemy then, I just wish I had had the courage to do so when I was a child.

I know how simplistic it sounds to suggest that a long-term perspective be applied to the conflicts of the present. Most would answer that the peace of tomorrow can only come through the violence of today. But how many of us would look at our closest friends and tell them that if we could travel back in time we would have no problem killing their grandparents. So why are we interested in killing people today whose children will go to school with our kids in a few years? Are we okay with the bomb we dropped today killing our allies in Afghanistan in 70 years? I hope if anything good comes from this incident in Germany it is that some of these questions start being asked. It’s complicated and messy, but that’s what generally happens when we take the time to think beyond the moment.

Read more

After Pentecost

Posted on

What type of spirituality can it be when one can feel good in one’s spirit but still be a white racist, a sexist, a heterosexist, or an ignorer of the poor? Spirituality should make us feel so good that we cannot stand seeing the sins of the world. We would then be so filled with the Spirit that we would seek to change the world.” – Dwight Hopkins in Opting for the Margins

When I read that quote recently my first reaction was that in my experience the very opposite has been true. Apart from being the place where we are so filled with the Spirit that we have no choice but to spend our energy on creating a better world, it is actually in the church where I hear the most excuses as to why Christians shouldn’t get involved. It’s really a strange thing to think about. On one hand, it’s hard to argue with the sentiment expressed in this quote. If we are truly filled with the Spirit we will care so deeply about the things God cares about that we couldn’t help but devote ourselves to seeking to serve. In practicality, it is of course harder. I know I often fail miserably at the whole “devote my life to creating a better world” thing. But I at least do my best, or know that I should be doing more.

What really confuses me though are the Christians who find any excuse to not work for a better world. I couldn’t even begin to tell you the number of times I’ve heard the phrase “but Jesus said the poor will always be with us” used as a reason why Christians shouldn’t care for the poor and suffering. It’s not that the phrase is even used as comfort to those who feel like their efforts are not doing enough. It’s straight out used as a God-given reason to do nothing. And not just do nothing, but often to actively oppose or resist other Christians who are trying to do something. And it’s usually followed by some sermonette about how the poor are poor because of their own sinful choices. I even heard a pastor pray once after Katrina hit New Orleans for God to help the people there even though they don’t deserve it because they are such sinners.

Now, of course, it’s trendy in the church to label any sort of work that helps the poor as socialism. I read an article recently that said Christians who supported health care for all were in fact breaking the 8th Commandment. By saying that all people regardless of income level deserve basic health care we are stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Apparently the only time that’s acceptable is when it is in blockbuster form and includes lots of scenes of gratuitous violence. But in the day to day, “when I was hungry and you fed me, when I was sick and you took care of me” has been spun as actually being anti-Christian.

Far from being so filled with the Spirit that we want to act like Jesus and love our neighbor, Christians today are finding whatever way they can to twist the words of Jesus to mean the exact opposite. It’s hard to love our neighbors. It takes sacrifice. It takes empathy. It takes repentance of our own sins. It is a lot easier to simple pretend that Jesus said something else instead. Why care for the poor when it is easier to continue to make money off of their oppression and call it prosperity and blessing? Why be filled with the Spirit when the status quo is so much more attractive? Why listen to Jesus when the pundits just make so much more sense?

It is nice to have our Pentecost Sunday and marvel in the pyrotechnics of the event. It’s great to talk with longing about amazing church growth where thousands join in one day. But after Pentecost – then what? Does the body of Christ really want to be filled with the Spirit and see the world through the Spirit’s eyes? Are we ready for that? Or is it just easier to give lip-service to the event, re-interpret Jesus for our own benefit, and do nothing?

Read more

LOST Narrative

Posted on

It’s been a busy week around here and while I originally told myself I wouldn’t do this, I feel like writing something about the Lost finale since it’s all I’ve been thinking about this past week.  Let me say upfront, that I fall into the “I loved the finale” camp.  Even now, I have a hard time thinking about it without getting choked up by the final scene in the church.  Sure, there were a lot of mysteries left unresolved, but the finale moved us beyond the need to master and understand the Lost universe.  To leave no loose ends would have turned Lost into a formula to be packaged instead of the story about life and community that it was.  But then again, I’m a Christian; my day to day life is about following a path of unresolved mysteries written about in book full of loose ends.  I think my life would feel hollow if everything I did or believed or if every person I met or event I attended made perfect rational sense or fit seamlessly into a narrative arc with a structured plotline.  Lost subverted the standard trite entertainment storyline, and left those mysteries wide open, leaving us with a story that pushed the boundaries of what modern storytelling is even allowed to do.

Lost, a story about the redemptive power of community, forced the viewer to enter into the communal act of storytelling.  Instead of consuming a product that told us what to think or enjoy, or even what questions we should be asking, Lost provided the space for the viewers to participate in the unfolding narrative.  Our story intersected with the stories of the passengers of Oceanic flight 815; who we were, what we valued, what truths mattered to us simply became another thread in the developing story.  The questions we had, the mysteries we debated were not thrust upon us by the writers of the show, but formed through the community brought together around the common center that was Lost.  The finale gave us a glimpse of how important a community formed around a certain event can become, and invited us as viewers to continue to create meaning out of the never ending intersection of our own stories.

This isn’t what TV is supposed to be about; this isn’t what modern storytelling is even about.  And it’s certainly not what the modern American individualist has been conditioned to be all about.  But the way Lost captured our attention and the way it (especially the finale) connected us on a visceral level to the longing to be a part of something bigger than just ourselves demonstrated that perhaps “the way things are” is not how they are meant to be.  “Live together or die alone” was a central theme to the series, utterly undercutting the messages most of us have been taught to believe our whole lives.  Participating in community, understanding the world and even our whole lives as communal rather than individual acts, is unsettling and challenging to some, but spoke to hearts of millions of viewers who were all wanting to be part of something more.  Perhaps it is just that Lost was truly the first postmodern television series, but it took the pieces of what was expected of a TV drama, and handed them to the audience to hold in faith.  That act of trust allowed us to then step outside the binds of convention and discover larger truth that held far more meaning than a momentary “a-ha” ever could have dreamt of.

In reflecting on these themes in the Lost finale, I was reminded of this paragraph from Colin Greene and Martin Robinson’s book Metavista: Bible, Church, and mission in an Age of Imagination – The world we inhabit is a labyrinth of unfinished narratives, stories and plots.  As we intentionally or accidentally bump into them and enter these often strange, perplexing and disquieting worlds, so we become implicated in their intertwining, overlapping, sometimes imploding and at other times rapidly expanding plots and subplots.  As George Steiner contends, we may have to make a wager on transcendence, that there is in fact a hidden code, teleology, or design to these narratives that it is our task to decipher.  But to do so necessitates that we construe the text, the story or the plot in a particular fashion.  To refuse to do so as individuals and communities is to refuse to indwell the text and to become hearers only of the word and not doers (Jas. 1:24-25).  In other words, what has taken place is a failure of constructive imagination.

Lost has changed the way television works.  Sure, the old patterns of merely entertaining an audience and feeding them the nightly moral of the story will continue.  But with this one show, we were invited to not just reflect on the nature of community but to enter into the communal act of creating our own meaning out of our intersecting threads.  Our entire life experience – the books we’ve read, the films we’ve viewed, the philosophies we’ve debated, the religious paths we’ve trod – contributed to the construction of this particular narrative.  We had to take that wager on transcendence and were rewarded with a mirror into our own souls.  Storytelling must change in the postmodern world as our apparent interconnectedness is unavoidable.  Lost was the herald of that change.

 

Read more

Evangelical History

Posted on

I recently stumbled across the book The Young Evangelicals by Richard Quebedeaux. Published in 1974, it gives a sociological overview of evangelicalism in America and the emergence of a (then) new generation of Evangelicals. The author seemed to have hoped that this new generation (who were more globally minded and service oriented than their fundamentalist counterparts) would define the future of the movement. Of course in hindsight, there was a backlash against these more progressive voices (i.e. Jim Wallis…) and the Religious Right ended up gaining the dominant voice in the evangelical world.

What I found fascinating though was seeing a picture of Evangelicalism from this time period that mirrored exactly what I grew up with in the 80’s and 90’s and that still exists today. The young evangelicals of the 1970’s did influence certain streams of evangelicalism, but this more fundamentalist variety retained a dominant voice. Interestingly enough, the streams had so diverged by the end of the 1970’s that people today in either camp are often surprised that the other exists. It’s like how repeatedly on this blog when I share my personal church experience there are always a couple of people who say that I am misrepresenting evangelicals with my portrayals. Of course, not all evangelicals are the same, the stream they know and the stream I know are just very different. I just wish the discussions could sometimes get past the debate of “whose evangelical experience is correct?”

So for instance, take this passage from the book on the role of women in traditional evangelical churches (note – Orthodox here refers to the new orthodoxy of doctrinally correct evangelicals)

Orthodoxy has not yet taken Women’s Liberation seriously. In almost all non-Pentecostal Evangelical or Fundamentalist denominations, women are not ordained to the ministry. “Unmarriageable” types, however, may be encouraged by their churches to make the ultimate sacrifice – to become a missionary. Single females are welcome on the mission field, but not in the home pulpit. Alternatively, an aspiring young lady with a graduate degree in theology might be called by an Orthodox church to become an unordained director of Christian education – for less pay than her ordained male counterpart would get for the same job. But, for a marriageable young lady in the typical Fundamentalist or Evangelical congregation, the highest vocational aspiration she can have is to become the wife of a minister. Every Orthodox pastor – lest he be regarded as a playboy or, worse yet, a homosexual – must have a wife. In taking on a minister, the young woman will lose her identity completely. The ideal pastor’s wife is simply an extension of her mate – sweet, sociable but not aggressive, talented, above reproach in her behavior and, above all, entirely submissive to the will and career of her husband. As such, she becomes a “nonperson” in every sense of the word. P.58-59 

That perfectly describes (in far more blunt language than anyone would ever use today) the sort of evangelicalism I grew up in and still encounter on a regular basis. But many of the women I encounter online (i.e. those who already are educated and progressive enough to be participating in discussions about theology and religion), do their best to deny that women are ever treated that way within the evangelical world they know. While some of them do eventually take the time to reflect and admit that their voice has at times been silenced, they have never had to truly be seen as a “nonperson.” In my experience though women that are taught to lose their identity are also told that they shouldn’t think for themselves, and therefore rarely are present in conversations on religious matters. But it breaks my heart to see generations of women continuing to be taught to be nothing. I grew up in that environment and still have a foot in that world so I know it’s out there. But for many progressive evangelicals (or at least those with progressive evangelical roots), it can be easy to forget history and not grasp the nuances of our differences.

In some ways, just getting a glimpse of this history and understanding differences is helpful. I also wonder though if finding ways to say engage these “nonperson” women and help the ones who are cracking under the pressure of years of suppression of the self would be easier if we all were just open and honest about the sorts of pain that occur in the church without fearing tainting our own church’s reputations due to guilt by association? I don’t know, but sometimes a good understanding of where we all have come from helps mitigate that fear.

Read more