Emerging Women

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Missional in Suburbia Seminar

I thought that I would post this in case there are any readers from the Philly area.

“God always shows up in the most God-forsaken places.”
—Alan Roxburgh

In some ways, it doesn’t get any more God-forsaken than suburban America. This “Missional In Suburbia” seminar will take a look at two important topics: Suburbia and the Church. For some people, there is a sentiment that its impossible to really be the church in the ‘burbs. But for others, we believe that this is the place that God has called us. If we are going to stay, we need to ask what it means to “be the church” in a culture that is defined by comfort, consumerism, isolation, wealth, strip malls and hidden poverty.

This one-day seminar will focus on the development and culture of suburbia and the opportunities and challenges that this context presents the Church. We are honored to have Al Hsu, author of The Suburban Christian, lead the discussion along with some other local pastors and thinkers.

This one-day conference is open to all and will be helpful for pastors, lay leaders, and members of congregations. Our goal is to have some substantial discussion around practical issues that relate to the everyday practice of the Church and the Christian life.

Event Details:

* Location: The Well (Feasterville, PA)

* Cost: $25 (includes lunch)

* Dates: August 9, 2008 (On Friday night, August 8, there is an optional “open house”/”meet and greet.”)

* In Partnership With: Philly Emergent cohort, Ecclessia Network, and C4ML at Biblical Seminary

Register online now at: church.thewellpa.com

Labels: Church, Events

posted by Unknown at 3:49 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 0 comments

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

How to Avoid Dueling Jesus'...

...or something like that.

So, I'm going to be spending some of my vacation time this summer with extended family members who are in a different place, spiritually and socially speaking, than am I. If history repeats itself, I will probably be on their short list of people to "convert" to the One True Way (tm) at some point during the visit. ;)

I have absolutely no desire to have a Jesus duel during our visit. These aren't individuals that I see very often in person, and If I wanted to have a religious debate I'd stay home and surf Christian message boards.

During previous visits I've skirted around their questions by changing the subject. Most of the time this works pretty well, but there are certain topics (i.e. "You need to find a home church!" ) that just. won't. go. away.

How do you deal with repetitive conversations like these? Is there a good way to say that topics X, Y and Z are off-limits?

(As an aside, I'm pretty good at saying "no" or "I don't want to talk about that" with family members that I see more often. It's the ones that I see once in a blue moon that I have more trouble setting boundaries with.)

Labels: boundaries, Church, Emerging Church, family

posted by Lydia at 9:57 AM

¤ Permalink ¤ 4 comments

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Women's Ministry - What is it Good For?

As a continuation of the last post and a few other things I have read recently, I thought I would just bluntly ask the group here the question - "what good are women's ministries?"

This is not to assume one answer or another, or to necessarily question the existence of Emerging Women, but to get honest responses. Have you benefited from such ministries? Have you been hurt? Are they a good thing in general? What dangers do they hold? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Labels: Church, women's ministries

posted by Julie at 11:49 AM

¤ Permalink ¤ 13 comments

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Christianity in Australia

In light of the recent discussion here regarding different expressions of Christianity around the world, I want to point out a recent Synchroblog put together by Matt Stone on Christianity in Australia. In honor of Australia Day, he invited bloggers from around Australia to comment on "What does it mean to be a Christian who’s Australian? What does it mean to be an Australian who’s a Christian?" He has provided his own thoughts and provides links to the other participating bloggers. It is well worth the read so I advise you to head over there to check it out.

Labels: Christianity, Church

posted by Julie at 6:13 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 1 comments

Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The Birth of Christ

Oh my God.
I have just seen the most REAL and BEAUTIFUL telling of the birth of Christ.
Wow.
I've grown up hearing the Christmas story.
And that can be a drawback, because when I hear "and this shall be a sign to you, you shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger" I don't visualize an actual Middle-Eastern manger, I visualize a 4th grade girl wearing a white sheet and a silver tinsel halo.
Nothing wrong with sweet 4th grade girls, but that image misses the beautiful reality of what really happened the night of Jesus' birth. This movie brings it all back and makes it real.
Rent this movie this Christmas!
For me, The Nativity Story was a great way to gently push aside the evangelical traditional pageanty renditions of the story and see it again for the first time.-SW

Labels: Christmas, Church

posted by Sensuous Wife at 10:27 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 2 comments

Monday, October 15, 2007

Ending Domestic Violence

Bob Carlton has an excellent post up titled What If Male Faith Leaders Stopped Bullying & Started Preaching The End Of Domestic Violence This Month ?. Because October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month he calls for pastors and youth pastors (mostly males) to take a stand for good. He writes,

What I am saying is that:

perpetuating a mindset where women are treated like property

where masculinity is equated with power and dominion

where jocularity and "radical" trappings are used to mask privilege and oppression

all of these things are the breeding grounds for the manner in which religion is far too often a co-conspirator in the domestic violence that is rampant in our world.
...
Rather than use our power to bully or sit silently or perpetuate violence, how Jesus-like would it be if men of faith worked to end violence and include women to their rightful place as 'full humans, emotional and rational, leading and being led, protecting and protected, gifted and limited".

Thank you Bob for this. I encourage everyone to go read the whole post.

Labels: Church, Gender Issues

posted by Julie at 12:18 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 2 comments

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

What Pastors Get Paid

So I know there has been a lot put out recently deriding millionaire pastors, but I found this recent study put out by Christianity Today on what us average folks make more relevant. You can read a summary of the study at the Out of Ur blog. But I especially thought this part regarding what female pastors make was interesting -

Female solo pastors earn more than male solo pastors.
Okay, so there aren’t many female solo pastors; in American churches responding to our survey, only six percent of solo pastors are women. Still, it’s intriguing that female solo pastors reported 10.4 percent higher total compensation. Their average salary was 8.6 percent higher than men’s ($49,219 compared to $45,259); and better housing and retirement benefits made up the rest. Why the difference? Why do female solo pastors earn, for total compensation (includes health insurance, retirement, and continuing education), $62,472, when their male counterparts earn $56,558?

My first hypothesis went like this: “Since there are precious few women hired as senior pastors—only 2.5 percent, in our research—women stay in solo pastorates longer, and their longevity leads to higher pay.” But that hypothesis doesn’t hold up: for solo pastors, the number of years served makes next to no difference in pay.

The more-likely explanation is regional. We know that solo pastors receive the highest pay in the New England and Pacific states (not surprisingly, given the higher cost of living in these regions). And these regions probably have the greatest cultural acceptance of women serving as solo pastors. Thus, women solo pastors tend to find work in regions with a high cost of living, and consequently, get a higher salary.

And before we assume that the church runs counter to the still-prevalent cultural practice of paying women less than men for comparable work, women were paid less than men in every other church position surveyed (except for secretary). On average, females earned approximately 80 percent of the compensation of males. Or, in other words, males earned about 30 percent more than females.

I think their explanation (female pastors are more accepted on the coasts which also have a higher cost of living) makes sense. I also wonder if the women who are solo pastors serve in mainline denominations that have established programs for things like health insurance, retirement, as well as sufficient funds to pay pastors a living wage as opposed to the (mostly) men who serve in smaller more conservative churches that have no resources and pay poorly. What are your thoughts or reactions to studies like these?

Labels: Church, Gender Issues, Women in Ministry

posted by Julie at 10:03 AM

¤ Permalink ¤ 3 comments

Friday, August 24, 2007

Defending the Faith

The recent discussion (here and elsewhere) on the whole Mother Teresa and doubt topic got me thinking about how we handle faith under attack. Many people are attacking Mother Teresa and Christians in general right now. But as seen even here, this issue is one that has caused pain and questioning for many Christians. They are confused by such a revered person admitting to doubt and are coming face to face with their own doubts. Such issues are hard enough on their own, but are made much more difficult by the presence of criticism. When one feels the need to assume a defensive position, it become much harder to honestly work through one's own feelings, questions, and doubts. Take the metaphor of a city under siege in defense mode - the resources and energies of the city are spent in preserving what is already there (safety, food, water) and not in creating art or debating philosophy (no matter how much value they may hold). It is hard to grow and develop when one is attempting to defend all that one holds dear.

I am reminded of my faith journey in high school as compared to college. I grew up in a rather conservative evangelical church. Those who thought differently than my church (Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans...) were not considered real Christians and the ideas of non-believers were to be avoided (or ridiculed). But I attended public schools where I had to defend my "faith" (or what I thought was my faith) on a constant basis. That involved standing up for creationism and absolute truth and standing against abortion and homosexuality - the essential core doctrines of my faith at the time. But given that I always found myself in the position of defending those beliefs, I never had the chance to examine or question why I believed them. Then I went away to a Christian college where a lot of those basic beliefs were assumed. I felt the freedom to question and explore different expressions of Christianity within the safety of that context. I ended up abandoning some of my earlier assumptions and coming to a deeper commitment of faith in the process. But I needed the safety of that environment to be able to do that.

Now I don't pretend to assume that most Christian schools afford people that opportunity (not that all people found it at my college either), but it seems like we are in desperate need of such "safe places." Places where we are free to question and push ideas without being made to feel guilty or defend our most basic assumptions. If we can't get past the questions of "is there a God" or "is truth relative" then how can we ever truly grow? Those are needed questions at times, but sometimes the answers must just be taken on faith in order for us to move the conversation (and our emotional/mental/spiritual heath) along. But where are those safe places? It seems to me that the church should in a sense serve that function, but most people view the church as unsafe and unhealthy. How can this change or where else can we go?

Labels: Church, Culture, Spiritual Formation

posted by Julie at 9:27 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 10 comments

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Thoughts

I'm writing two posts in one! Firstly I just quickly wanted to recommend that you read September's Tuesday book club book - "The Faith Club" it is an excellent book which I have really enjoyed reading. The interfaith dialogue is great and I have learnt things about Islam and Judism which I never knew before. I'm really looking forward to the Tuesday discussions.

A few weeks ago (apologies as I've been on vacation) Julie noted in her weekly round up that some of us from Emerging Women had taken part in a synchroblog called "Things I learnt from Church (which didn't prove true and what I'm learning lately)" I wanted to hear some of your thoughts here. What sort of things have you "learnt" from church which you now realize were not true and how would you say your faith is growing lately? Have you found your belief is God put to the test through your "emerging" journey or has it been more strengthened? Do you find your emerging journey difficult or is it more of a relief? Has it put you in conflict with loved ones and close friends?

Labels: Church, Emerging Church, Spiritual Formation

posted by Lyn at 4:59 AM

¤ Permalink ¤ 26 comments

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Using Labels

What does it mean when the common label given to a group of people is a negative description imposed upon them? At a recent seminar on poverty reduction for Haiti I attended, the presenter's historical overview of Haiti was interrupted by the woman sitting next to me. She mentioned that she would greatly appreciate it if he would stop referring to people as slaves. Those were men and women who had slavery forced upon them, not people whose core identity was that of being a slave. Slavery was a horror they had to endure, not the essence of who they were. The presenter thanked her for bringing that distinction to our attention and proceeded to integrate her suggestions into his talk.

We all use labels to self-identify and make sense of our world. They are unavoidable and often necessary. As a culture we have attempted in recent years to move away from offensive labels or ones that objectify others. Reducing a woman to a particular body part is far from acceptable speech. And no one would ever categorize victims of sexual assault merely as "the raped." No, we attempt with our words and labels to respect people and focus on positive categories. Yet the negative label of oppression, "slave," is still in common usage. Even in a presentation on how we can overcome the negative effects of slavery the term is so common its usage is assumed - until someone challenged it and forced us to consider the implications of our words.

This woman’s request forced me to consider the negative label we as Christians use all the time - "the lost." I've heard from a number of people who have had that label imposed upon them that they find it highly offensive. They do not appreciate having others insist that at the core of their identity they are mistaken, misguided, or just plain ignorant. They dislike being seen in terms that generally imply that they are a project to be saved not a person to be loved or respected. I understand that we as Christians do hold certain theologies of sin and redemption, but perhaps we need to seriously consider the impact our use of labels has on the very people we are trying to reach. That may mean abandoning the practice of assigning labels to people who are not like us altogether. And maybe, just maybe, it may mean getting to know, love, and respect people as people.

Labels: Church, Community, Emerging Church

posted by Julie at 4:30 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 8 comments

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Rewards, Punishments, and Faith

In the discussion on Children's Books, Amy wrote -

Julie, you mentioned staying away from the reward/punishment style of raising children. What do you use instead and do you have a particular way you church applies this to its children's programs? I've noticed recently that our kids ministry uses a lot of candy/sweet rewards, especially to offerings. It's a competition of boys vs. girls. Not that a little candy is horrible thing, but I wonder if there's a more effective way of teaching our children to give just because it's the right thing to do, or out of true compassion for missions, etc.

For those of you who have never heard of the debate about rewards and punishments let me give a bit of a background. This is a discussion that is popular in alternative parenting circles, some education circles, and is making its presence known in Children's Ministry settings. While there are many people writing about the subject, the most well known author is Alfie Kohn. His book Punished by Rewards is the most prominent treatment of the subject (and the source of much emotional debate). Here's the brief summary of the book to help give a framework for this question -

Our basic strategy for raising children, teaching students, and managing workers can be summarized in six words: Do this and you'll get that. We dangle goodies (from candy bars to sales commissions) in front of people in much the same way that we train the family pet.

In this groundbreaking book, Alfie Kohn shows that while manipulating people with incentives seems to work in the short run, it is a strategy that ultimately fails and even does lasting harm. Our workplaces and classrooms will continue to decline, he argues, until we begin to question our reliance on a theory of motivation derived from laboratory animals.

Drawing from hundreds of studies, Kohn demonstrates that people actually do inferior work when they are enticed with money, grades, or other incentives. Programs that use rewards to change people's behavior are similarly ineffective over the long run. Promising goodies to children for good behavior can never produce anything more than temporary obedience. In fact, the more we use artificial inducements to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what we're bribing them to do. Rewards turn play into work, and work into drudgery.

Step by step, Kohn marshals research and logic to prove that pay-for-performance plans cannot work; the more an organization relies on incentives, the worse things get. Parents and teachers who care about helping students to learn, meanwhile, should be doing everything possible to help them forget that grades exist. Even praise can become a verbal bribe that gets kids hooked on our approval.

Rewards and punishments are just two sides of the same coin -- and the coin doesn't buy very much. What is needed, Kohn explains, is an alternative to both ways of controlling people.

This approach forces us to rethink discipline, competition, and parenting strategies. I first encountered these ideas when I was studying methods of Children's Ministry. The discussion there revolved around two main issues. One was the tendency to use rewards/bribes to get kids to do things in church (memorize verses being the most prevalent). We saw the impact that such systems had on actually reducing love and respect for the Bible and its utter long term ineffectiveness in retention of those verses (much less basic understanding thereof to begin with). We also explored how the language of behaviorism has infiltrated of presentation of the Gospel (mostly in evangelical settings). Often people are asked to follow Jesus in order to receive the reward of heaven or avoid the punishment of hell. Long term studies that track and compare how people are called to faith (behaviorism influenced decisions or gradual inclusion into the family) have shown that the psychological issues and faith struggles are much greater in those who were given a reward/punishment option. (not that heaven and hell are not real, but that they should not be what manipulates us into choosing to follow God).

Most people don't like to discuss this issue because it forces them to consider different parenting/ministry styles than what they grew up with. The logic is that, it worked for me/I'm okay why waste energy trying to change things. But studies have shown that such a system of behaviorism does more harm than good. I like the idea of rethinking our strategy for motivating people, but I fully admit that I am still trying to discover practical strategies for implementation. I have started to evaluate what the ultimate goal of all of my interactions with my child is. Am I encouraging her to be the kind of person I want her to be (good, kind, loving), or am I using my power over her by giving or witholding my love in the form of rewards and punishments in order to get her behavior to be the way I find most comfortable?

Before I mention a few suggestions Kohn gives as alternatives, I would like to here from you all. What is your reaction to the rewards/punishment issue? What do you see as good alternatives?

Labels: children, Church, parenting

posted by Julie at 2:55 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 36 comments

Saturday, April 28, 2007

The Lord's Prayer for the Here and Now

Each week at Midtown Christian Community we rehearse the Lord's Prayer together. I love the connection this prayer brings to Christians throughout the centuries, and I revel in the almost poetic way it names so many of the things that are important to my faith in the here and now.

Recently I have been thinking about what the Lord's Prayer would sound like in the context of my church and our current culture. Last week I finally put pen to paper, metaphorically speaking, and tonight we read the result responsively as a congregation. It proved to be a moving experience. It is quite long, so I have provided a link to The Lord's Prayer for Midtown at my personal blog if you care to read it. Christ be with you.

Labels: Church, creative writing

posted by Linda at 7:39 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 1 comments

Saturday, April 14, 2007

They like Jesus but not the Church

The touble is with being a late comer, is that you risk posting something which has already been discussed before. I've had a look back and can't find anything, but apologies if this post is more like deja vu to some of you!

I've been spending time reading Dan Kimball's book They like Jesus but not the Church which I'm really finding interesting. I've blogged a little more in depth about this on my blog. What I really wanted to ask here is what do you think of when you hear the words Church, Christian and Jesus?

If I’m honest when I hear the word church, I automatically think of bricks and mortar, not the body of Christ. Christian makes me think of a follower of Christ, but I always wonder in what sense they follow him. Jesus, what can I say? Absolutely amazing guy, Wow - I can’t take in all of the mercy and grace. My lord.

It would be great to hear what some of your thoughts are. Also if you are interested Dan has an article on the subject in the latest issue of outreach magazine

Labels: Book Discussions, Church

posted by Lyn at 9:55 AM

¤ Permalink ¤ 10 comments

Friday, April 06, 2007

My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

It's Good Friday, the darkness before the dawn for the Christian church. The day that the Catholic Church feels most vulnerable, with every tabernacle bare of the Blessed Sacrament and Christ's comforting presence.

After the joy and comfort of the Pesach Seder that marks Maundy Thursday, the altars are stripped bare, the Blessed Sacrament is moved to the altar of repose, and darkness, grief and vulnerability mark the Church until the candle of hope is lit, at the beginning of the Easter Vigil. The Catholic Church embodies these phases beautifully with the Triduum - essentially one liturgy over three days marking each part of the story and the emotions that ensue.

I go to Tenebrae (Latin, "darkness") each morning of the Triduum, which is essentially Matins and Lauds, including the sung Lamentations of Jeremiah, psalms, readings, and an ending sequence that is spine-tingling. On Saturday, the Oratio Jeremiae is sung. It is a beautiful way to begin each day of the Triduum and focus on what lies ahead.

Today, Good Friday, is a day of brutality, grief, silence, numbness - and fear that the light of tomorrow's Easter Vigil may not come. In a superb sermon today, the celebrant spoke of visiting Rwanda, how there are some events that are beyond words, that we must grieve, but offer the action (in Catholic terms, mass) that Jesus has given us: "Take, eat; this is my body, which will be given up for you."

A few weeks ago, my friend Jan and I were discussing Christ's words from the cross, as she was writing some meditations for some Lenten concerts she was organising. "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" took up most of the conversation, as we talked about Jesus' emotions at that moment, and I said, in a flash of intuition:

"Jesus was angry. Jesus was angry at God."

As I listened to today's sermon, that conversation came back to me. We always talk about the grief of Good Friday, and well we should. But why is it that we always avoid the *anger* in those words of Jesus? We say, "See, he felt forsaken, so it's ok for us to feel that way. He's taken it on for us," or we talk about his momentary doubt. But we never talk about what one author calls his "anguished reproach" of God, the fury unleashed in Jesus Christ Superstar's Garden of Gethsemane:

I only want to say
If there is a way
Take this cup away from me
For I don't want to taste its poison
Feel it burn me,
I have changed -
I'm not as sure as when we started
Then I was inspired...
Now I'm sad and tired
Listen, surely I've exceeded
Expectations
Tried for three years
Seems like thirty
Could you ask as much
From any other man?
...
Why, why should I die?
Oh, why should I die?
Can you show me now
That I would not be killed in vain?
Show me just a little
Of your omnipresent brain
Show me there's a reason
For your wanting me to die
You're far too keen on where and how
But not so hot on why
Alright I'll die!
Just watch me die!

Many people were shocked by this portrayal of Jesus: we are so often presented with him as going meekly to his slaughter, and how like a lamb going to its shearing, opening not his mouth.

What, we expect this passionate man who had just upset the money changers' tables in the temple to go to his death without opening his mouth? He did, and boy, *how* did he. That anger, that reproach is embodied in "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

As a society, as a world, we have huge problems with anger: we see its destructive capability - emotionally, physically, globally, and we try to push it away, down into our Shadow, where we don't have to face it, hoping that the pressure of everything on top of it will turn it into some sort of diamond - we'll even take cubic zirconia, thanks very much!

Instead, it blows as explosively and predictably as Old Faithful, the geyser in Yellowstone Park, spraying everyone and everything in its path.

We forget that, as Jesus shows us in JCS's Gethsemane and on the cross, that an open, honest expression of anger can be controlled, *transformative* and often, the mark of an intimate relationship. Beneath Christ's anger lie the very human emotions of doubt, fear, pain, and dare we say it - a sense of betrayal: "I have done everything you asked of me, why *this*?" And it is Jesus' intimacy with God, His complete trust in God's unconditional love, that allows him to speak so openly of his anger, fear and pain.

We forget that burying anger destroys relationships. What if Christ hadn't expressed his anger and doubt to God? It would have put up a barrier between Him and God, as surely as it does in human relationships.

So why can't we face Jesus' anger with God? Perhaps because facing the fact that the Son of God was angry with the Father would force us to face the fact that *we* are angry with God - somewhere, somehow, to some degree. It would make us examine our relationship with God and force us to drop that barrier with God and let our relationship with Him transform us. And that's scary. It's easier to seek the mythical 'perfect' relationship that we imagine Jesus had with God, rather than the full, deep, passionate, authentic relationship He *did* have. It's safer to approach an asymptote than to fully enter into a relationship as our true selves, willing to fall as deeply as it takes to live it properly.

What we must remember is that Jesus expresses his anger from the heart - not to lash out, not to manipulate, not sideways towards someone it isn't really directed at - and that is why it is transformative: his hands and his heart are open, not clenched. He asks questions such as "Would what I've said and done matter anymore?", and uses words such as "sad", "tired" or "forsaken". It's between Him and His Father, and that's where He works it through.

And so, He moves forward, towards acceptance and the greater intimacy with God that is His at Easter, uncertainly at first:

Then I was inspired
Now I'm sad and tired
After all, I've tried for three years
Seems like ninety
Why then am I scared
to finish what I started
What you started
I didn't start it
God thy will is hard
But you hold every card
I will drink your cup of poison
Nail me to your cross and break me
Bleed me, beat me
Kill me, take me now
Before I change my mind

but later, with absolute trust after expressing His anger and sense of abandonment from the cross:

"It is finished. Father, into thine hands I commend my spirit."

May being completely authentic and vulnerable in our relationship with God - from the joy and love to the rage, fear and doubt - give us the courage to do the same.

Labels: Catholicism, Church, Holidays

posted by Pragmatic Mystic at 2:19 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 4 comments

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

New Church - The Well

We've added a new church to our list of member's emerging churches - The Well. This church is new, with its first services/gatherings kicking off on April 15. Those of you who were at the recent Emerging Women Gathering spent time in prayer with Sarah who is deeply involved with this community. They could use all of our prayers as they get started.

I love "The Story of the Well" they have posted on their site -

The Well Community
Albuquerque, New Mexico

A farmer raises sheep. He has two ways to keep them in his pastures. The first option is to build a fence. This will keep his sheep inside, near home, and it will keep other animals out. His sheep are protected from all outside influences.

The second option is to dig a well. Yes, all of the animals in the region will water there, but the sheep will stay close.

People are rather like sheep--and our churches are rather like fenced pastures. But the Man we claim to follow, Jesus, claimed to be a spring of "living water". I believe Jesus is a well. He doesn't place fences around his believers, nor does he keep others at arm's length. Instead, he welcomes everyone to drink freely.

Labels: Church, Community

posted by Julie at 1:11 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 3 comments

Monday, April 02, 2007

Easter for the Outcasts

Becky Garrison recently made me aware of an article she wrote for the God's Politics blog about a very interesting upcoming Easter service. Titled Easter for the Outcasts this is a look at an experiential new perspective on the implications of Easter. From the article - "Transmission, an underground Manhattan church, is working with sex workers and artists to celebrate Mary Magdalene's role in the gospel resurrection story, her personal relationship with Jesus, her witness on behalf of the risen Christ, and contemporary sex worker issues." The take on this is interesting (and no it isn't just a reworking of gnostic ideas).

Read more about the service here.

What are your thoughts? reactions?

Labels: Church, Holidays

posted by Julie at 6:02 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 5 comments

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

International Faith Experiences: The Grey Line

A story:

A few weeks ago I participated in a program that outfits unemployed Canadians with new or gently-used clothing. For a nominal fee, about a dozen of us were allowed to "shop" for a week's worth of formal and casual business outfits. Volunteers assisted us as we hunted for clothing that suited each of us the most. The charity that organizes this program is secular, but the program itself operates out of the basement of a local Baptist church.

I arrived at the side entrance of the church a few minutes early that day. By the time the doors opened 20 minutes later, nearly a dozen women would be waiting patiently. We were Black, White, Asian, and Latina. We were teens who wore flip flops and halter tops despite the slightly chilly weather, recent immigrants who spoke English as a second language and struggled to understand and to be understood, and middle-aged moms who rushed in at the last second with two kids in tow.

A woman in a business suit walked up to the church with me. Neither one of us had realized until we arrived that this program was located in a church. And then it happened: music. Christian music. Gospel music blaring, squawking from a speaker I hadn't noticed was attached to the side door of the church. I wasn't familiar with the song, but I do remember that it said something about the importance of perseverance through all of life's struggles. The woman who stood beside me sighed, said "I can't believe this" and began to walk down the street. She stopped at the very edge of the church's property and placed her cellphone to her ear.

While their choice of music did surprise me, I wasn't offended by it, but it did seem a little out of place for the situation.

The doors opened and we walked in. Later, when I was in one of the change rooms, I heard the woman talk to one of the volunteers about the music. She didn't believe in "that stuff." While she didn't have a problem with what other people believed, she really wasn't interested in being forced to absorb those messages in this type of situation. (Or something to that effect.)

I don't know what is the moral of this story. There probably isn't one, but the things that woman said have been echoing in my mind. I wish I could have picked up more pieces of the plot (who played the music? did they do it intentionally or do the speakers operate on some sort of timer? has anyone ever complained before? was the woman in the suit simply having a bad day?) before the day ended. But I didn't.

Upcoming posts in this series will discuss topics like the role of women in various Canadian churches, GLBT faith experiences, evangelism, as well as other examples of the challenges (and advantages!) of living in a religiously diverse society.

Labels: Church, Culture, International Experiences

posted by Lydia at 11:50 AM

¤ Permalink ¤ 27 comments

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

21st Century Women: How Will We Be Portrayed?

So, I just finished reading a review of J.M. Adovasio, Olga Soffer and Jake Page's "The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory".

In the book, the authors argue that anthropologists have been reading far too much of our culture into what little we know of prehistoric ones, especially as it relates to the role(s) of women in each culture. It's fascinating stuff....or at least it is to this social science geek. :)

While reading the article, I started to wonder what anthropologists of the future might infer about the world we live in today.

For the purpose of this exercise, assume that the majority of their primary, written sources (that is, sources that were written now, not sources that will be written about us in a thousand years) on the fabric of our lives come from the church: some of the more modern translations of the bible, books that were written for and about Christians, etc etc. The ruins of secular buildings are accessible in this scenario, but for some reason they have very limited access to anything written outside of Christianity.

I have two questions for you:

1) What do you think the anthropologists will completely misunderstand about women living in our time?

2) What things do you think they'll get right?

Labels: Church, Fun Stuff, Women in Ministry

posted by Lydia at 11:54 AM

¤ Permalink ¤ 10 comments

Monday, March 05, 2007

International Faith Experiences: Overview of the Church

Click here to read part one of this series.

While the population of Canada is only about a tenth the size of the U.S., three-quarters of us live within 160 kilometers of the U.S. border. A similar percentage live in urban areas. As a result, it has been my experience that the church dynamics up here are similar to the dynamics in larger cities down south... at first glance.

Most Christians in Canada attend church with people who agree with them, especially when it comes to one's theology.

One of the benefits of living in a large city is that it's much easier to find other Christians who agree with you on issue X. Do you believe that it isn't biblical for women to be pastors? There are ten churches down the street that feel the same way. Are you a woman who feels called to be a pastor? There are many other churches up the street who will welcome you with open arms. This phenomenon can also be observed by those of us who are GLBT Christians.... as well Christians in many other categories. (Future posts will delve more deeply into these issues).

So far, this probably sounds a lot like many U.S. cities. To a certain extent the cultures of large cities in the U.S. and in the States are very similar in this regard. However...

Canadians tend to be more reserved than Americans. I've spoken to other Americans who live in or are visiting Canada and who have noted a slight coolness up here. It's not an unfriendly culture, the social and personal boundaries up here just tend to be a little higher and a little tighter than they are down south. People are a little less likely to strike up a conversation with a stranger, and most of the time groups of Canadians are a little less noisy and boisterous in public than would be a similar group of Americans.

Canadians tend to be a little less willing to seek out conflict than their American counterparts. As I mentioned in the last post, apologies abound up here. If someone who has lived in Canada for more than a few months were to accidently step on your toe while you're both walking down they street, they'll apologize. But if you were the one to accidentally step on their toes, they'll apologize anyway. My husband once (jokingly) said that this is because "we're awfully sorry for placing our feet where your feet were trying to go." :P

One of the downsides of these cultural trends is that (IMO) it encourages Christian Canadians to seek out relationships with people who already agree with them a little more often than it happens with Christians in the States. Churches up here seem slightly less likely to "live the tension" of conflicting beliefs among their members than do similarly-sized churches in the States.

On the positive side, Canadians don't fight about issues like women in ministry or the acceptance of same-sex couples in a Church as often. Christians who disagree with one or both of these tend to pick churches that agree with them rather than getting nasty about it. This may be due more to living in a large, rather liberal city than it is a Canadian thing, but one just doesn't hear of Churches up here bashing people who are gay or moms who work full-time while raising kids. There seems to be a quiet sense of tolerance up here that I don't see as often down south.

Upcoming posts in this series will discuss topics like the role of women in various Canadian churches, GLBT faith experiences, evangelism, and the challenges (and advantages!) of living in a religiously diverse society. Let me know of any other topics that interest you. I'll do my best to cover them. :)

Labels: Church, Culture, International Experiences

posted by Lydia at 9:22 AM

¤ Permalink ¤ 7 comments

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Root canal or Women's Conference?

So at the NW Emerging Women gathering I was part of a few conversations about how so many of the women there hate women's gatherings. This is something that I have felt before. I was unsure about attending the first Midwest gathering last spring because of that (but went because I trusted the label "emergent"). Then in Rachel's reflections on the event (here) at the Conversation at the Edge blog she mentioned that she would rather have a root canal than go to most women's conferences. I agreed with her, and while we both found the Emerging Women event to be a refreshing experience, that revulsion remains. Jim Henderson asked why that was the case and a discussion thread has been started at the Church Rater boards here. Here's my random and opinionated thoughts that I posted as part of that conversation. I would encourage the women here to add your perspectives to the conversation.

So why am I averse to women’s stuff?

-generally women’s events are Christianity “lite”. The theology is very very poor (if it is there at all). Any bible study is surfacey and generally takes a lot of verses way out of context. Many women are still under the delusion that women are not allow to think critically, and so what is presented is shallow and you are looked on with contempt if you try to change that.

- many women’s gatherings are focused only on emotions. There is nothing bad about emotions (and I think a lot of other settings would do well to include personal reaction times), but emotions are not all there are. I want theology, history, science, literature, philosophy. I want scholarship, tradition, and experience.

- women can be bitches, especially in the church. The gossip disguised as “prayer requests” is nauseating. The cliques, the fights over room assignments, blah blah blah… Not an environment I want to be a part of.

- most women’s stuff I’ve attended before focus on a woman’s relationship with her husband and her kids. Basically they are all about teaching women how to be pigeonholed into certain roles that the conservative church thinks they should be in. I don’t want to go be told how I can better submit, or how to pray for my husband and children, or or to be a more efficient housekeeper.

- these events often support stereotypes and cheezy faith. The promo stuff always has flowers on it. There are “spa” options. The worship stuff is so fake and performer oriented. A bunch of women talking about a male God and not really examining who we are as women. It is a place to rubber stamp contemporary christian culture.

- and there are those who think (my biggest issue/struggle) that women who think women must be separate from men to develop spiritually are just hurting themselves. This is something I really struggled with as I became involved with Emerging Women stuff (and for which I still get angry emails about). We do not want to create a separate but equal setting. Women should be fully involved in all types of regular church (emergent) activities. But I have come to realize that some women need the space to question and grow into equality. They need to be empowered by other women and encouraged where they are at. Sometimes this can only happen among other women. So are there issues with it all, of course, but I (obviously) have come to see its necessity.

Anyway - sorry for the superlong post/rant.

As for gathering for women who don’t identify as Christ followers. — I haven’t been to any other events, but I know there are things like the BlogHer gathering this summer (in Chicago) that may be similar. I know the upcoming Midwest Gathering while it will have a spiritual emphasis is open to all - atheists, “pagans”, liberal and conservative Christians… Its an experiment, but I hope we could all learn from, encourage, and empower each other.

Labels: Church, Community, Gender Issues

posted by Julie at 12:15 PM

¤ Permalink ¤ 19 comments

Related Links and Resources

Blog Categories

Member Sites

Friends of Emerging Women

Emerging Churches

About Me

Previous Posts