Great post. Amazing. Well-written. Gives voice to passions I have also felt.
http://www.emergingwomen.us/2009/07/13/we-will-be-whole/comment-page-1/#comment-5357
A must-read for men… and women June 12, 2009
Loving this post at Gifted for Leadership, concerning women’s contributions to church leadership throughout the ages! Read it if you’re an egalitarian. Read it if you’re a complimentarian. Read it if you’re undecided on the matter. Just please read it.
Speaking Against Myself March 24, 2009
For my theology and culture class, we were asked to respond to Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, on the issue of women and head coverings. I couldn’t help but chuckle a little bit, because of my Mennonite background. In some circles “the covering” is still an issue, even today… not so much in the larger denomination (Mennonite Church USA) but certainly in the smaller and more conservative groups. Anyway, here is my essay in response to Paul.
————————————————————————————————–
As I search these verses for meaning for today, in suburban America, I cannot help but look back a few chapters to put this passage in context. Chapter 9 immediately catches my eye. In verse 19 of that chapter, Paul says: “though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them.” Then he goes on to warn against idolatry and to encourage the Christians of Corinth to “do everything for the glory of God” (10:31), whether they are eating or drinking or serving or worshipping. In my opinion, the key to interpreting 11:1-16, is actually found in the last verse of chapter 10: “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so they may be saved.”
I think Paul’s approach to the issue of women’s head coverings has everything to do with furthering the Gospel in Corinth. Just as he admonishes the Christians to eat whatever food is given to them when they are houseguests of an unbeliever (10:27), not themselves questioning where it came from; he contends that women should not bring disgrace upon themselves by putting away their head coverings (11:6). The meaning in this passage for us today, in general terms, is to examine our social structures and “judge for ourselves” (11:13) what is behavior that will bring offense, and what will nurture relationships that may win converts to Christ. Neither meat offered to idols nor women’s head veilings are issues that we grapple with in suburban America, yet the underlying principal Paul uses to approach these issues is central to following Christ in the here and now. The principal itself is counter-cultural in America—to give up our right to choose for ourselves how we would like to conduct our lives, so that we might not bring offense to anyone; but rather open doors to new relationships with non-believers.
Paul’s deepest passion was to see the Gospel spread and new churches flourishing, and he believed that imitating Christ, the bringer of the Gospel, was the way to do this (11:1). In Paul’s mind, the way to imitate Christ was to lay down his life, lay down his rights, making no claims to his personal freedom. The hymn Paul quotes in Philippians 2 seems to shape his Christology and thereby, his life as a disciple of Christ (“he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing… taking on the very nature of a servant/slave…”). Thus, Paul was a first-century man, living in a first-century world, teaching fledgling Christians what it meant to empty themselves and follow the way of Jesus in the nitty-gritty of their daily lives.
This passage has often been used to further arguments for male-only leadership in Christian churches. In verses 7-12, Paul addresses issues of proper lines of authority based on the second Creation account in Genesis 2. What I find interesting is where his interpretations of the second Creation account lead him (and yes, I am being very intentional about saying “the second creation account,” because in the first account both men and women reflect the image of God. Paul is being selective here). The fact that woman was created for man and not man for woman, is not the end of the story. The fact that man was created first and woman created out of man is not the end of the story. The end of the story is that neither men nor women are independent of one another, but that they come from each other and all of them come from God alone. Men and women need each other and depend on each other for different things, which is just as it should be. I do not believe that Paul sees the birth of the Church as an opportunity to push for equal rights for women or for the subservient position of women. Which statements of Paul in this passage concerning women should bear more weight for us? Neither. His point is to do what will bring honor to Christ. Paul views being found ‘in Christ’ as an opportunity for us to lay down our lives in service to one another and to God, not as an opportunity to demand what should rightfully be ours.
I realize that I am a woman at an evangelical seminary, a pastor of worship, a former youth pastor, and someone who often speaks strongly on behalf of egalitarian church leadership. How can I, in good conscience, be saying all of this in my essay? I do have a fairly sensitive justice radar and a hot temper to go along with it. I am not afraid to say what I think most of the time, either. I am an egalitarian. However, I have come to believe that those of us who are passionate about issues of justice and equality must work for those things on behalf of others and not ourselves. If I am fighting for my right to preach, my right to lead or my right to hold authority; then I am not following Christ. And I have difficulty even typing those words. But isn’t that what Paul says over and over in his epistles—serve, love, empty yourself for Christ’s sake, submit, follow in Christ’s footsteps, become a slave in order to win some to Christ? In a freedom-loving, independence-loving, rights-loving society such as ours; these words are tough to swallow. I am called to stand up for the orphan, the widow, the poor, the oppressed; but I am not called to stand up for myself. I am “not seeking my own advantage, but the advantage of many,” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:32.
1 Corinthians 11 is a step toward self-emptying love. It can be used to argue for culturally specific guidelines for women or for universal guidelines for women. Perhaps the Holy Spirit knew that both patriarchal groups and feminist groups would need the tempering this passage offers. We are not called to be independent of one another, or to lord anything over each other, male or female. We are called to empty ourselves for the other. If that means covering my head, shaving your beard, dressing up when you’d rather dress down, serving coffee when I’d rather be preaching, cleaning toilets when I’d rather be teaching, or for some maybe it means leading when they’d rather be invisible… whatever it means, it should be for Christ’s honor and for the sake of others, not for our own sake.
The never-ending conversation January 26, 2009
Last Tuesday our seminary cohort sat down to (try to) tackle 1 Timothy 2 and the issue of the role(s) women should play within church. It has been years since I have heard anything new in this conversation. Basically, it’s all in how you read the text, how you understand the ancient context, and how you hold the whole Bible together. Reading only one of Paul’s passages on women or one of the Gospel stories where women play a major role or one of the Old Testament narratives involving women is dangerous. It’s dangerous because then one misses the depth and the contradictions that lie within the passages of this Book that we call our Authority.
As I wrote my paper last week and continued to think about this issue once again, this thought occured to me: my call in Christ, whatever specifics it might hold (preacher? teacher? pastor? shepherd? leader? who knows!), is a call to lay down my life just as Christ did. This call that I claim is a call to service, to slavery, to self-emptying love. Yes, even those who suffer injustice, whose voices are ignored or marginalized, who are abused and neglected— the call is the same for everyone. Part of me recognizes the deep truth in that and responds to it. Another part of me rages against that. I was born with a very sensitive justice radar, and my instincts rise up and urge me to take a stand against injustice. Someone has to name what’s wrong in this world WRONG. I am realizing now that this urge to stand against injustice is a gift, a very good thing, as long as I am using it on behalf of OTHERS rather than myself. My call is to lay down my life and not to take it up again. Ouch.
This is not say that I think I should stay in a situation where I am being marginalized or my voice is not taken seriously. I think at times in our lives, it may be completely appropriate to step away from a task for the sake of our own mental, emotional, spiritual health… perhaps even for the health of the group in which we were serving… and to state the reasons why: “This position was not life-giving for me. I found it difficult to function in healthy ways here. I do not believe I was a good match for this group.” On the other hand, if we are stepping away out of a desire to punish them for what they did to us, or to teach them something or get back at them… can you sense the difference in the attitude? One is Christ-like living. The other is not.
Here is a great quote from The Shack by William Young (p. 148ff):
[Jesus is speaking here] “Mack, don’t you see how filling roles is the opposite of relationship? We [God] want[s] male and female to be counterparts, face-to-face equals, each unique and different, distinctive in gender but complementary, and each empowered uniquely by [the Holy Spirit] from whom all true power and authority originates… I came as a man to complete a wonderful picture in how we made you. From the first day we hid the woman within the man, so that at the right time we could remove her from within him. We didn’t create man to live alone; she was purposed from the beginning. By taking her out of him, he birthed her in a sense. ” “Oh, I get it, ” Mack interjected…”If the female had been created first, there would have been no circle of relationship, and thus no possibility of a fully equal face-to-face relationship.” “Exactly, Mack… Our desire was to create a being that had a fully equal and powerful counterpart, the male and the female. But your independence with its quest for power and fulfillment actually destroys the relationship your heart longs for… Just like love, submission is not something that you can do, especially not on your own.”
In Genesis 1 & 2, 1 Corinthians 11, Ephesians 5 and 1 Timothy 2, I see this theology. Mutuality, partnership, mutual submission, servanthood, a willingness to empty oneself for the other. There is no grabbing for position or power. There is no concern for proper hierarchy or positional authority. The concern is an unbroken circle of relationship.
“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man or man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman, but ALL THINGS COME FROM GOD.” 1 Cor. 11:12
Do I still get angry when I encounter systems that marginalize and devalue female wisdom and leadership? Yes, of course I do! Am I learning to let God be the justice-bringer? Am I learning to love and serve those who believe differently than me? I sure hope so. I want to be faithful to Christ’s call.
Living as an Exile December 27, 2008
As our seminary cohort prepares for our week-long trip to Italy in May, we are required to read and respond to several books. One of them is Exiles: living missionally in a post-Christian culture by Michael Frost. I have only just begun reading this book. So far, it is inspiring. Frost asks us to imagine ourselves living in exile, since Christendom no longer reigns supreme in our American society. We must come to terms with the fact that we have lost our place of privilege, and we must consider how we will respond– retreat? assimilate to the dominant culture? or, Frost would say, live dangerously… Here are some interesting and thought-provoking quotes that I am chewing on:
“Exiles are driven back to their most dangerous memories, their recollections of the promises made by Jesus and his daring agenda for human society. Exiles are prepared to practice a set of dangerous promises, promises that point to the kingdom and are not caught up with the prevailing values of the empire. Exiles will mock the folly of that empire by offering a dangerous critique of a society wracked by greed, lust, selfishness, and inequality. And finally, exiles will sing a repertoire of dangerous songs that speak of an unexpected newness of life. What makes these things dangerous is that they are practiced under the noses of those who don’t care to hear them. When no one in the empire wants to be cast back to the radical story of Jesus or to see the biblical promises being enacted, the reaction can be brutal at worst, disdainful at best. How much more dangerous, then, it is to criticize the empire when everyone seems so satisfied with it as is” (p. 10).
“Jesus was the ultimate exile. Thinking equality with God a thing not to be grasped after, he humbled himself and allowed himself to be ‘exiled’ on earth. And like all good and faithful exiles, he enters fully into life in this host empire without giving himself over to it completely” (p. 29).
Frost makes these comments about the way we read the Gospel stories (our dangerous memories) and respond to them: “We still want to assist Jesus by making him grander, more ’saviorlike’ than he really appeared, and in doing so we domesticate him. We want to wrench him from the pages of the New Testament, where he is presented as a real man who suffered and died and rose again. And yet, the incarnation remains an offense of monumental proportions. Theologically, the idea of God presented in human flesh is absurd enough, but as if to emphasize that the incarnation calls for action, not just reflection, God’s human manifestation ocurs in an exceedingly ordinary way… the one thing we can’t bear for Jesus to be is ordinary, for his ordinariness invites us to follow him by providing us with a template of how to be Godlike even as an ordinary human being… the appropriate response is personal allegiance to this Messiah, not merely a reliance on the benefits of his work” (p. 37).
I am challenged by Frost’s thoughts here. Do I live like an exile in my world, fully-engaged in it yet not given over to it? Do I live like Jesus lived, or have I so removed him from ordinary human life that I let myself off the hook from following in His steps? What are my dangerous memories and dangerous songs? How do I offer a dangerous critique of this empire that I live in? I wonder…
Reflections on Acts December 16, 2008
I wanted to post some of my reflections on what the book of Acts has to teach us as American Christians living in the 21st century. This is actually an answer to one of our take-home quiz questions. To my cohort brothers from seminary– I’m trusting you to not read this until AFTER you’ve finished your quiz (if any of you are reading this post right now).
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
In a paragraph or two, and in contrast to other NT books, what do you think Acts has to teach or challenge our contemporary American context? What are some practical ways in which you could use the book to do so?
There are (at least) three themes that stand out in reading the book of Acts. The first is the church in conflict. This theme is clearly important to Luke, as he puts the Jerusalem Council in the center of the narrative. As the Gospel spreads and the diversity of the growing group of believers multiplies, conflict increases over issues of praxis. What does faithfulness to Jesus look like? Does it look different for different ethnic groups? Are there things all Christians everywhere do or don’t do? While conflict is addressed elsewhere in the NT (such as in some of the Pauline letters), the issue of ethnicity and the conflicts that arise due to ethnic differences is unique to Acts. Certainly it is an issue churches continue to struggle with today. Acts has much to teach us about how to grapple with issues that threaten to divide Christian groups.
Another theme that could speak powerfully to American evangelicals is citizenship. A careful study of the various interactions between the apostles and those in authority reveals an interesting balance between submission/respect/participation in society and claims of loyalty to Jesus and His Kingdom alone. Peter and John are bold and steadfast, but not disrespectful to the Jewish council (chapter 4). Paul preaches about one true Lord, Jesus Christ, and His Kingdom; yet he also takes advantage of the privilege of being a Roman citizen (see chapters 22-25). It should be noted that he is clever in playing his enemies against one another, too (also in those chapters). In a nation such as ours, with uneasy claims to a Christian heritage, a study of Acts could challenge us to rethink what it means to place our full allegiance with Jesus Christ, yet live peacefully and charitably in this society. Are there times and places to stand against American authority and what the government may ask of us, gladly bearing the consequences for the sake of Christ? Are there appropriate times to appeal to the advantages of American citizenship, for the sake of the Gospel? Paul addresses similar issues in his letter to the Romans, chapter 13, but the issue is played out in the Acts narrative in a unique way and in more depth.
One last theme that is unique to Acts is contextualization of the Gospel. In this NT narrative alone do we see the movement of the Gospel from culture to culture, the expression of church evolving as the message spreads. We have examples of sermons preached to different groups of people, to Jews in the early chapters and to Greeks later (chapter 17). As our culture changes, as postmodernism takes hold more fully in our communities, how can we contextualize the Gospel as the apostles did? What about our language and symbols need to change, so that people can hear and receive the Good News? Acts speaks to these issues very well.
The text bugs me! October 6, 2008
I could make a pretty long list of the scripture passages that make me uncomfortable, that my spirit does not resonate with, that I just plain don’t get. One of them is in Matthew 15, the story entitled “The Canaanite Woman’s Faith.” This story does not depict the Jesus I know. The Jesus I know is extravagant with his grace, lavishing it on all those who humbly place themselves before him. He is harsh at times, with the proud, the unrepentant, the stubborn ones who refuse to see or hear him. But those who seek mercy from him find it. Always. Until this story. It grates me. There are many explanations offered for Jesus’ attitude and words in this story… some think he’s being sarcastic; some think he’s simply illustrating a point to his disciples and knows this woman can “handle it.” To be blunt, I think he sounds like a jerk, and I don’t like it. I know that sounds disrespectful and irreverent, but that is partly my point in this post.
My point here is NOT to (try to!) explain the meaning of this passage. My point is this: I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the Bible and its purpose and its form and its nature; and I have come to believe that it is not supposed to be a clear and concise, linear message. It’s supposed to bug us! It’s supposed to irritate and grate and keep us off balance. When we think we’ve got it figured out, it throws us off again. When we’ve got our systematic theology neatly packaged in our textbooks, scripture explodes the formula once again.
I’m a committed Christian pacifist, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon. I will die before I will kill another human being– I believe that is the way of Jesus. But here comes the Old Testament, with all its blood and gore (some of it even God sanctioned!). It keeps me off-balance, keeps me from becoming too comfortable in my theology. Keeps me asking questions and wrestling with my faith and theology. I feel like Jacob, wrestling with God, “Give me what I’m asking for!”
So God’s Word makes us uncomfortable and keeps us wrestling with God and God’s Truth… the same, I believe, is true of the Church. We have each other to keep us from becoming too comfortable. We argue and rehash the text. We argue systems and theologies and doctrines. We make each other mad, make each other uncomfortable, tick each other off. And I believe it’s supossed to be that way. Sometimes I wish it weren’t. Why does it have to be such hard work? Wouldn’t we get more done in this world if we didn’t spend so much time on “the issues?” Instead of arguing Jesus, we could shut up and BE Jesus.
I don’t know, though. If we had it all figured out, if we lost this sense of confusion and struggle, if it was all cut-and-dry, figured out and published… would we really get more done? …or would we sit in our comfortable chairs, waiting for the world to come to us? One author I’m reading right now, Timothy Johnson, says we learn Jesus in praxis. We have to practice His life in order to learn the depth and breadth of who he is. He defies explanations and busts out of any boxes we try to put him in. The only way to know Him is to put one foot in front of the other in daily life.
Maybe it’s good to be irritated, then. It keeps me walking.
Preaching September 29, 2008
I believe I mentioned (a few posts ago) that I’ve been reflecting on and re-thinking my perspective on preaching… wondering why and how and in what way I believe it should be done. I remember listening to my father preach during my growing-up years. I connected with his style. He is passionate about exegesis and about teaching both theology and praxis, mapping out what the author and The Author are doing in a passage so that we can grasp it and live into that truth. He’s an academic and an intellectual (little wonder I connected with his style, eh? 
).
Over the years, I have heard many other preachers as well, both men and women. I’ve heard the three-point preachers (this is what it means, go and do this in your life, ultra-practical), the soap-box preachers (every topic is political in nature, they’ve got the answer to every current controversy), the scare-tactic preachers (who either want to scare you into heaven or out of hell or out of your current sin), and the the feel-good preachers (God loves you no matter what, you don’t need to change a thing). I’m obviously over-generalizing these categories… and to be honest, each one of these stereo-types has its strength. There is reason to be scared. There is reason to feel very safe and secure in God’s Love. Christian faith IS political, and scripture IS of course practical to our lives.
I am struggling, though, to figure out who I am as a preacher. I am partly all of these things: an intellectual, a political activist, practical, passionate, compassionate… and on top of being this strange mix of things, I also have a growing conviction that when we as preachers do the practical application FOR our listeners, we can actually make lazy disciples. Lord knows, we don’t need any more of these. Every person should be doing their own application, because the application will be unique to each of them in their own personal context. So bottom line– I cannot hear myself preaching as any of those aforementioned preachers, and not exactly like any of the preachers I have had the privilege of hearing over the course of my life (those some of those have connected very closely with me and my style). I want to be uniquely me when I preach. I simply haven’t figured out how to do that yet.
Beyond the question of ‘how do I, Kris Anne, preach’ is another more general struggle. I am having my doubts about how preaching for 30-40 minutes is helpful to the Body of Christ. No one listens for that long (I believe studies have shown that the longest anyone can listen is about 10-15 minutes). So why do we keep going on for another 15-20? I know it is vitally important to teach scripture. I recognize the role that scripture plays in shaping the people of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit. I love working with scripture and delving into it WITH people! And that is exactly the problem. Preaching isn’t done in conversation… it’s the preacher talking about what they think, what they believe, what they alone hear the text saying. It’s a very narrow perspective, though I’m sure they hear a message from God that is important and truthful. I know I’m called. I know I’m gifted… as of yet, I’m just not comfortable with that kind of monologue. Part of it may be that I just need practice, but another part of it is that I do not believe preaching a 30-40 minute sermon from behind a podium, in front of a gathered congregation in the pew, is what preaching was in the Old or New Testaments.
My pastor and mentor at Highland Park Community Church gave me a book on Sunday. I started reading it immediately, because my next sermon is coming up at the end of October (yikes!). The book Jayne gave me is called Countdown to Sunday: a daily guide for those who dare to preach by Chris Erdman. I am devouring it (almost literally! … I have to give this copy back to her, though, so I am trying to refrain). Erdman talks about the life and ministry of pastors, and doing preaching “on the run.” This does not mean short-cutting the study. He believes in hardcore exegesis! What it does mean is that the old-school pastor’s schedule (spend the entire morning in study and sermon-prep, spend your afternoons and evenings with people) does not apply. Study of scripture is sprinkled throughout the pastor’s life; meditation on what you’ve studied is done in the car, by the bedside, during the meetings. I haven’t finished the book yet, but I also gather that “preaching on the run” is done without a manuscript, or even extensive notes. The information and the scripture have marinated inside the preacher all week, as she has lived and worked among the people– thus, when she gets up there in front of her people to preach, all the things that she needs to include, to fill out and support her BIG IDEA, come naturally forth. Not to say that no planning has been done… her big idea (or main point) is firmly fixed. She knows where she’s going. What she allows to be born in her in that moment, is HOW to get there. That part is not planned ahead of time.
I’m playing around with this idea. Is this the kind of preacher I am? …not sure yet. So far it feels right, though. Totally scary, but right. As I often do, I offer some quotes from the book, in closing. Let me know what you think.
———————————————————————————-
“The truth is costly. It is not safe. It runs up against the powers of death that would sooner have us cocooned inside safe, gated communities or behind safe, gated sermons that comfort people and assure them that their desire to live long, wealthy, and healthy lives is just what the gospel wants them to have– all the while living lives locked inside a banal existence, terrified by death, and supporting anything and anyone that will promise to keep us safe… The prophets rarely said what the powers wanted them to say; instead they dropped their masks, opened a vein and bled for God… and blood heals, in more ways than one” (p. 21-22).
“I am free to live in the moment, with the sense of God with me and me with God. I am free to trust in the truth of God and therefore free to preach more humanly. To be me. To celebrate the creative Word. To utter these words with wild abandonment to their own power. To trust that my fragile words have a creative power that is not my own. All God asks is that I speak lovingly, daringly, and as truthfully as possible, dropping my masks, opening a vein, and bleeding” (p. 26).
“Preaching for me invariably falls flat, is too much work, and fails to be honest and free when I am too self-conscious– when I’m worried and anxious about the task of preparing the text and hosting it among the people, when I’m worried and anxious about how I am doing and if I’m right enough or good enough or relevant enough. After many years at it and among various congregations, preaching is at its best in me precisely when I am LEAST self-conscious, when I am absorbed in the moment, when I care as little as I possibly can about how I’m coming across to the congregation; when I am engaged, present, absorbed in or actually inhabiting the text as if lost in rapt attentiveness and adoration” (p. 32).
——————————————————————————-
O God, please reveal to me who I am as preacher. Teach me how to faithfully “host” the text among your people. Teach me how to inhabit the text in the moment of preaching… and to truly see the people who are seated before me in that moment. Help me to bleed. Amen.
A Story Worth Telling August 15, 2008
This Sunday, I’m preaching a sermon on worship as a way of life, a LIFE-ORIENTATION as one author puts it (based on Romans 12:1-2). What do our lives revolve around? Where do our loyalties lie? Toward what or whom are we turned? The answers to these questions reveal what or whom we worship.
I’m using the following story as an illustration of a life that is devoted to God, a life of true worship. It took my breath away.
——————————————————————————-
A Botswanan woman, married with children, watched, in what must have been an agonizing mix of sorrow and anger, as her husband strayed from her. She wasn’t sure what exactly he did on all of those nights away from home. He never told her. Eventually he left for good.
Time passed. Her life as a mother and provider continued. Then she received news. Her husband was sick with AIDS and dying. He had found his way back to his parents home in a neighboring village, but when they learned what his illness was and how he had been infected, they refused to care for him. As committed Christians, they were ashamed of their son’s behavior and his disease. They would not help him. He was paying the price for his sin.
Also a committed follower of Jesus, this man’s wife made a different decision. She recalled their marriage vows. Her husband had betrayed those promises… he had cheated on her and probably also infected her with HIV. She had every right to walk away and leave him to his miserable death. Every right. No one would blame her. But she had also made vows to him and before her God. Instead of turning away from her husband and abandoning him to the bitter agony he had earned by his own selfishness, she laid down her rights. In an extraordinary demonstration of grace, she took him back home. She cared for him– bathed him, fed him, held his hand as he died… she loved him.
This was true love of God and love of her nearest neighbor, though he had acted more like her enemy.
“Therefore, I urge you, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God– this is true worship.” Romans 12:1
——————————————————————————
**This story, in a different form, can be found in the August 5th, 2008, issue of The Mennonite, a publication of the denomination Mennonite Church USA.**
