Relaunching Emerging Parents

Posted on

I just wanted to let everyone know that the Emerging Parents blog is getting going again. We have moved to www.emergingparents.com and are looking for submissions to help get the conversation there rolling again.

As I posted on the blog –

This blog originally emerged as the result of a conversation at the 2007 Emergent Gathering. While many of us were eager to explore our own faith and dig deep into the hard questions, we were less sure about what that meant for our kids. Do we just continue molding their faith in the traditional ways even as we question those very traditions ourselves? How do we integrate our values of justice, sustainability, and simplicity into this fast-paced consumeristic world? What does it even mean to raise kids in a connected pluralistic world?

We all realized that navigating our way through these questions is something that must be done in community. We can bring our questions to each other, share our ideas, and be there to encourage each other along the way. Having the space of a blog to do that seemed like a perfect way to connect with each other. And over the past year this blog has served to host such discussion and provide that encouragement.

So to help spark the conversation anew here, we are relaunching the blog in this new format. I (Julie Clawson), Sarah-Ji, and Brett Watson will serve as moderators to help bring meaningful topics and resources up for consideration here. But this will still be a space fueled by those interested in exploring parenting in this emerging postmodern world. We need your input and submissions to create the conversation here. So send us your stories, articles, pictures, book and movie reviews, and questions. Write about that conversation you had with your preschooler before bed or ways you see your teen reaching out to others. Tell us about that family activity or what you’re struggling with. We make this conversation what we want it to be. (send any submission to emergingparents (at) gmail (dot) com).

So drop by the blog and join in the conversation there!

Read more

Liturgy

Posted on

Recently a conversation has developed in a post from last fall, Vespers at the Orthodox Church, on the purpose of liturgy and worship. I know very little about liturgy and barely understand what I do know. So I want to ask some questions and relate a bit of my experience. These questions aren’t meant to condemn, just to relate my confusion. I would love to hear from those who do participate in and love liturgy. Here’s part of the recent conversation –

“I understand in theory how liturgy is meant to feed and fill worshipers”

But that’s just it — liturgy isn’t meant to do that. Expecting to be fed and filled is part of the consumerist mentality.

Liturgy is “the work of the people”. It’s not directed towards the people; it is done by the people, and directed towards God.

And that is the chief difference between liturgical worship and other kinds. Non-liturgical worship may directed towards the people, to instruct them, to edify them, or to entertain them. But liturgical worship is done by the people, and directed towards God. So it’s definitely not “seeker sensitive”.

Now I’ve confessed here before that I am a very low church mutt. I grew up not only thinking denominations were bad, but that Catholics and Orthodox weren’t really Christians. I didn’t even start attending “big church” until I was in 6th grade and instead spent the worship hour hearing stories told by puppets and singing songs with motions. My first liturgical experience was at a Vespers service at Westminster Abbey when I was 12. And, I kid you not, I spent the whole time thinking I was participating in idolatry because of all the kneeling.

At the same time I seriously can’t stand singing songs in church for worship. I liked it back in youth group days when that involved upbeat rhythms that prompted a somewhat uninhibited letting go of the self. But honestly there is much more a sense of that in pagany drum circles than in any church. And while in theory singing songs is a way to worship, thank, or praise God – I generally hear people mention how singing connects them with God. It is a personal relationship issue, using things they like to help them feel close to God.

So it is with this low church “worship as personal experience” lens that I look at liturgy. I know it’s technically the “work of the people” and like low-church worship theoretically directed to God, but I have a hard time really understanding that. In one sense I’m uncomfortable with the system having never participated long enough to become accustomed. Recitation, repetition, kneeling, standing, crossing oneself, putting to the same flat music any number of different hymns or verses – none of it seems done by me. Instead I feel directed to perform and scorned for not knowing the right steps.  How exactly is it “my work”?  Is it a ritual meant to be done by me but in spite of me?

But beyond my unfamiliarity, my underlying questions are what is the purpose of this work and why do those who abide by various forms of liturgy insist that theirs is the best (or only) way of doing church? I don’t understand how some 17th or 18th century program represents the highest calling of the people. How exactly does chanting verses fulfill our call to serve others? If it’s not meant to “feed” those doing it, how can it be for the benefit of others? Similarly I’ve had Catholics, Orthodox, and Presbyterians quite forcefully tell me how their formulation of the liturgy is the only real way to worship. To an outsider if often seems like they are insisting that the correct incantation and sequence of pew calisthenics is the magical formula that (abracadabra) creates worship. Or that God is too small to be found outside of whatever century’s chosen formulation they happen to settle upon.

So all that to say I’m confused about liturgy. I’m not one of those who want to push some crappy low church model instead, to me insisting on the rightness of any form seems culturally imperialistic and a far cry from worship. So I’m honestly asking those that participate in liturgy why. Why do you do it? How is it the work of the people? What is it’s purpose? Is it the only or best way?

Read more

Facebook, Dick Cheney, and the Imago Dei

Posted on

So I started this post a few days ago, and then I had to laugh when Rick spoke on this topic at church today. Life works like that a lot – repeated reminders to drive ideas home. So anyway…

If you’re networked online at all I am sure at some point in recent weeks you have been tagged with the Facebook “25 Things” list. And I’m sure you’ve also heard your fair share of people complaining about it. Now I understand the “I just don’t have time to participate” complaints, but then there are those that are slightly more disturbing. Some asked why anyone would bother reading such spam from their imaginary playgroup. Others asked why they should care about boring random facts about their “friends.” Finding out the details of others’ lives and sharing the details of their own just seemed like too much of a waste of time. I found it interesting that people were willing to network with others, but not interested in actually getting to know them. But sometimes it is hard to get beyond our self. We want people to know us (love us, respect us…), but we aren’t willing to deal with the spam of their thoughts, struggles, and mundane life details.

It reminded me of what former Vice-President Dick Cheney said in an interview this past week –

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Ignoring Facebook friends and promoting terrorism might seem like a strange connection, but hear me out. Both attitudes are based on the same self-centered attitude. It is our status and our sphere that we are trying to protect. With Facebook we can simple decide to keep the Other as Other – view their input as spam to be ignored, their lives inconsequential to our existence. On the national scale that “me and mine” focus moves beyond simple brushing others aside to a stance that encourages the destruction of that which is different. Either way the idea of loving our neighbor (or enemy) is ignored in favor of protecting our own interests.

As Cheney pointed out, following the Christian principles of turning the other cheek and respecting the image of God in others cannot be adhered to if we place our own interests first. He of course sees that as a good thing and continues to call for the preemptive destruction of those different than himself. I agree with Cheney that national self-centeredness and Christian principles by nature contradict each other, but I prefer to go with the Christian principle side. Instead of our self-centeredness insisting that others love and respect us while we either ignore or destroy them, we can perhaps start to respond with that very love and respect. Not in a passive way that destroys our own self, but with strong active engagement that preserves the image of God in both ourself and the Other.

And even if we aren’t quite ready to obey Christ and love the terrorist, we can maybe reach out and actually connect with Facebook friends.

Read more

Book Review – Eve’s Bible

Posted on

I tried to like this book, I really did. But some things are just a little too over the top. The idea of Eve’s Bible by Sarah S. Forth sounded good – an examination of women in the Old Testament that would help women as we encounter scripture. I’m all for digging deep and focusing on these often forgotten women (like in the upcoming synchroblog), but Eve’s Bible doesn’t exactly serve to help women encounter the Bible so much as tell us that we’re stupid if we don’t despise the Bible for how it depicts women.

It took me nearly a month to sludge through the book. This is in part due to my limited reading time these days, but also because of how poorly it was written. The author alternates between academic prose, bitch fests, nonsensical charts and oddly placed series of leading questions. I guess I should have been wary of an author who felt the need to place “Ph.D.” after her name on the cover like she was trying to prove that she had something intelligent to say. But let’s just say I had a hard time following her train of thought. I liked her overviews of biblical women and their historical settings, but was kept guessing as to whether she would provide commentary on the stories, suggest alternative interpretations, or simply ask me as a reader how the story made me feel.

But what bothered me the most with the book was the overall negative perspective it took. Across the board the worst possible motives are assigned to God, biblical men, and the compilers of scripture. Even passages I’ve always read as celebrating women were reinterpreted to demonstrate how oppressed they were. The test for an unfaithful wife (Numbers 5) is presented as simply a way to control women, not a representation of God’s protection of women. Granted a lot of this is the difference between reading the bible through evangelical eyes which can see no ill and critical eyes which can see no good. I can see the truth in some of the criticisms – of course Ruth is caught in a system that values the continuation of the male line and so must compromise herself to survive – but it’s a one-sided presentation with no redemptive balance. I kept looking for a thread that turned the book into an actual guide and not just a condemnation, but I could find one. Can the author really call this a woman’s guide to the Bible if she constantly is saying that we need to completely rewrite the stories of biblical women, or cover the parts we don’t like with post-it notes, or that “girls are better off reading Judy Blume than relying on the Bible for guidance” (p.61)?

I have to admit though that I appreciated the brief overview of textual criticism, the exploration of how biblical women sought justice, and the discussion on the gender of God but they all seems like moot points when the author repeatedly insists that none of it matters because none of it happened anyway. While I am no literalist, I get equally annoyed by the assumption that “if it is in the bible then therefore it must be historically untrue.” For example Huldah. The author of course assumes that she was a fabrication added to the story at a later date to give it credence. She asserts that because of the oppressive nature of Israelite religion, Huldah could obviously not be a prophet but as a women must have simply been a priestess of Asherah. I find it amusing that the extreme liberal interpretations of scripture come to the same conclusions as the most conservative ones – women aren’t permitted to serve God so therefore we must reinterpret and rewrite scriptures that depict them serving. Change YHWH to Asherah or Junia to Junius because of preconceived notions that women are scum – it doesn’t matter if you’re liberal or conservative the effect is the same.  The book should have more truthfully been subtitled – “reasons for women to abandon the Bible.”

So Eve’s Bible was an educational but not exactly enjoyable read. I’m still waiting to find a good middle of the road/third way book on women in the Bible.

Read more

Carbon Footprint and Gardening

Posted on

Soil is precious to gardeners.  As a gardener there are times though when I must tread lightly and not disturb the soil.  Stepping on the soil compacts it which reduces aeration and impacts root growth.  So once the soil is ready for planting, I need to respect it and stay off.  Before I reach that point, however, I must prepare the soil itself – turning it with shovels, mixing it with compost, forming rows for planting.  These actions are invasive, but are what actually help make the soil more conducive to growing good vegetables to begin with.

I see my travel as an author/speaker much like this gardening process.  I am conscious of my carbon footprint and do my best to tread lightly.  I reduce my driving, refrain from wasting resources, and, of course, grow my own food.  But I also see benefit to traveling to be with others.  Whether to educate myself, to teach and encourage others about just living, or simply to build supportive friendships – the benefits of spreading ideas and providing community often have far greater impact in the long run than if we all made the choice not to travel.  In other words, helping people come together to discover how to reduce their carbon footprint, learn how to live simply, and find a community to support them in the endeavor will far offset the footprint traveling to the gathering created.

There are times to turn the soil and times to tread lightly.  Both can be beneficial.

Read more

Peter Rollins at Journey

Posted on

Speaking of Peter Rollins…

Saturday, February 14, 2009

10:00am – 3:00pm

Journey Imperfect Faith Community

3009 Industrial Blvd.

Austin, TX

Journey Imperfect Faith Community will be hosting Peter Rollins, Irish philosopher of religion and a leading thinker in emergent christian theology. Pete is one of the most important voices speaking about where Christianity is heading in the 21st century. All interested parties are invited to come and hear Peter speak and to interact with him as he discusses ‘Lessons in Evandalism.’ A suggested donation of $20 is requested from attendees to assist in supporting the event. All proceeds from donations will go to Peter to assist in supporting his work with IKON.

Here is Pete’s summary of the Lessons of Evandalism tour:

The current religious landscape is cluttered with various expressions of faith that claim to rethink Christianity at the dawn of a new cultural epoch. However such groups often accomplish little more than the repackaging and redistribution of faith as we currently understand it. A repackaging that involves flashing lights, video projectors and ‘culturally sensitive’ leaders who can talk about the latest mediocre pop sensation.

Throughout his Spring 09 tour Peter will be arguing that, in the midst of this arid landscape, there exist small but fertile sites of resistance. Groups who offer a way of thinking that not only challenges the way we express faith but fundamentally ruptures the way we understand it. He will argue that these pockets of resistance represent a growing, organic movement that are proclaiming the death of God, church and religion as we know them in preparation for their resurrection in a radically different form.

Through a mix of parables, philosophy and discussion Peter will be exploring the theoretical kernel of this emerging movement and addressing its dangerous, revolutionary and transformative potential.

Read more

Engaging the Other

Posted on

I recently was reading Peter Rollins blog where he posted the opening parts of a chapter based on his talks at the Calvin College conference. The chapter is titled “Beyond the Colour of Each Other’s Eyes: The Worldly Theology of Emerging Collectives.” The following section stood out to me –

This ritualistic enacting of the divine Kenosis, where we keep our shoes on but symbolically remove our ideological commitments, allows for those who have gathered to encounter each other in a different way than they normally would outside of the liturgical space. This encounter was beautifully summarised by Emmanuel Levinas in an interview when he commented that, if we see the colour of someone’s eyes, we are not relating to them. One way of interpreting this is by pointing out that, if we are not really listening to someone, we will be well aware of their external features, such as the colour of their eyes, the clothes they are wearing etc. However, once we get into a deep and intimate conversation will no longer notice these external features, we will no longer see the colour of the persons eyes. It is not that they have become invisible to us but rather that we have entered into what Martin Buber called an ‘I/Thou’ relation in which the objective nature of the other is encountered as emanating their subjectivity.

While I fully affirm the need to empty ourselves and get beyond labels and outward appearances in order to understand and love the Other, my gut reaction to his words is that he’s missing something. I think often in all of our ideological debating about how best to serve/love/know each other we get so wrapped up in ideology that we fail to even notice the color of each other’s eyes. Its not that we get consumed by appearances, but that we don’t even bother to care in the first place. Let me unpack where I am coming from here.

When I read Pete’s words, two other examples about eye color and the Other popped into mind. The first thing I thought of was something I read about the bestselling novel Twilight (and I bet Pete would love having his work compared to a teenage vampire romance…). The notion of eye color plays a significant role in the novel, in many ways it represents the person as a whole conveying their desires, their questions, and the nature of their soul. I read one woman’s response to the book where she mentioned the significance of eye color. As she was reading the books, her husband of 20 years was filling out passport applications for them and asked her from across the room what color her eyes were. Married for twenty years and he didn’t even know what color her eyes were. I have a suspicion that wasn’t because he simply looked past outward appearance and deeply engaged her soul either.

The other eye color reference that immediately came to mind was that old Revolutionary War command for the soldiers not to fire at the Redcoats until they can see the whites of their eyes. While that example promotes the otherizing of people, it reminded me that back then war was personal. Killing a person meant being right up there in their face – seeing the blood, gore, and agony your actions inflicted upon them. No matter what they were labeled, seeing the color of their eyes forced them to be a real human being. Today we can drop bombs on schools and hospitals with the pushing of a button. We don’t even bother to know who are are hurting – we don’t take the time to even acknowledge the physical existence of those we slaughter.

I think before we take the step to empty ourself for the Other, we have to first acknowledge the presence of the other. It can be easy to talk about them (like I am here) and contemplate moving beyond their otherness, but unless we first get close enough to see the color of their eyes all of that can never be real. So I’m all for going beyond eye color, but I think we need a healthy reminder get beyond ourselves long enough to actually see that color in the first place.

Read more

Emerging into Leadership

Posted on

Over and over again in my conversations with women in the emerging church movement, I hear the story of women awakening to themselves.  They realize that as women they too are created in the image of God and so in theory can serve their creator faithfully in whatever way they are called.  Intellectually, they understand this.  They want to engage theology, attend conferences, interact online, and visit discussion groups.  They want to have a say in the direction of the emerging conversation and lend their particular understandings to shape the movement.  They see in this emerging moment in time an opportunity for them to be fully alive as women, to grow their faith in new ways, and to be truly respected in the church.  But at the same time they have difficulty actually doing those things.

 

The problem isn’t so much women being told that they can’t participate or lead, although there are churches in the emerging movement that still set limits on women, for the most part women are fully affirmed.  The men in the conversations wish there were more women contributing their voices and stepping up into leadership.  But while such stepping up might seem perfectly natural to these men, I’ve encountered numerous women who feel they just can’t do that.  Even if they believe they can be leaders, the message that the church and their culture has imparted to them over the years is that nice Christian women just don’t do things like that.  They don’t assert themselves.  They don’t impose themselves on others.  They don’t show up where they haven’t been invited.  They don’t make a scene.

 

So in the very open source emerging network this creates a problem.  Women are affirmed, but with no one to officially invite them into the conversation, many women just don’t join in.  This of course creates a cycle where, because women don’t see other women in the conversation, they assume that not only are they not invited they are not welcome in that world.  So some women reject the movement in anger and others resign themselves to remaining on the outside simply wishing things could be different.

 

As a woman engaged with the emerging conversation, it is my hope to hear more women’s voices represented there.  But I do understand the psychological constraints many women face.  I don’t believe that they simply need to get over who they are and step up anyway.  I think men and women need to work together, mutually making sacrifices, to ensure that the conversation is a welcoming place for all.  Men should take the time to extend invitations to women.  They shouldn’t just assume that if women aren’t showing up to the conversation that they don’t want to be there.  Taking the time to make room for women, going out of their way to extend invitations, and showing a willingness to learn from women are just the sorts of encouragements that many women need.  But women too need to stretch themselves – not to lose themselves, but to examine what baggage is weighing them down and holding them back.  Women can help each other leave behind such constraints and develop into the people we long to be.  We can encourage each other and affirm to those who need the reminder that Christian women can be strong, engaging, and dynamic while exploring theology and stepping into leadership.

 

As much as those of us in the emerging conversation value natural and organic development, I think we all need a reminder that some things, like having women’s voices heard, take deliberate planning.  We must be aware of the needs of women who are struggling to overcome years of messages that convinced them not to step up.  Including these women isn’t something that will just happen, it will take work.   Constant awareness, intentional invitations, repeated encouragement, and the courage to take risks.  But these women are worth it.  We will all benefit from adding their voice to the conversation.

Read more

Reading with Discernment

Posted on

Apparently Lifeway Christian Stores has created a cute little (trademarked) label for certain books sold at their website. The “Read With Discernment” label applies to authors who “may have espoused thoughts, ideas, or concepts that could be considered inconsistent with historical evangelical theology.” Naturally, Brian McLaren and Rob Bell are on that list. Lifeway still chooses to sell these books “because we believe the books do present content that is relevant and of value to Christians and/or because pastors, seminary students, and other ministry leaders need access to this type of material, strictly for critical study or research to help them understand and develop responses to the diversity of religious thought in today’s postmodern world.”

While on one hand I find this amusing. Does Blue Like Jazz really need a warning label? You’ve got to be pretty sheltered if you find that book dangerous. But on the other hand I’m disturbed by the unspoken implication that the other books sold at their website don’t need as much discernment while reading. Apparently, if something agrees with historical evangelical theology then it gets a pass on reading with a critical eye. We only need to be discerning about those that are discerning about historical evangelical theology since such opinions are only valuable to those those who engage them “strictly for critical study and research.” So if an author encourages us to love others, portrays God in feminine form, or narrates a road trip with friends we need to be extra discerning. But if Beth Moore takes every other verse out of context then it’s all good because we don’t need to critically engage with someone safe.

I’d say either drop the label (or replace it with the “This Book is Dangerous” label they seem to be intending) or stick it on every book. I’d love to see extra discernment and critical thought applied to the typical devotional or Woman’s Bible Study. Discernment shouldn’t just apply to things we disagree with. We are instructed as Christians to be as wise as serpents at all times – not just when the authorities tell us to be.

(HT – Jeromy)

Read more