“If it’s meant to be, it will happen,” said the esthetician doing my nails this afternoon. I think this is probably the nicest sounding load of garbage I have ever heard. First of all, it doesn’t grammatically make sense. Globally, it doesn’t make sense in our world. Because what if “it” never happens? And “if it’s meant to be,” does that mean we simply sit back to watch and wait to see if we are one of the lucky ones who are meant-to-be-ers? And if we pour everything into making “it” happen ourselves, doesn’t that destroy the ethereal nature of the phrase “if it’s meant to be…”
For me, this phrase then leads into the discussion of how involved God is in our own, personal lives. Does he personally direct single people to find each other? Or do people find each other? And what about single people that don’t actually want to stay single? Can we simply say to them, “I guess it’s just not meant to be…”? How about a woman who can’t have kids even though it is her greatest heart’s desire? Is it simply just not “meant to be”?
And who are we to say what’s to be or not to be? That’s my question…
I am curious to know if you have ever said or heard this phrase and your own response to it within the context of faith and trust in God’s direction in our lives...
Duncan says the issue of how do we talk about these things with each other is as important as our theology...
Why is it so difficult to do these conversations well?
I found myself retelling my experience of visiting Bethlehem in May yesterday. The primary point of interest -the argument by our intructor that the translastion "there was no room at the inn" is ridiculous. In the Middle East hospitality is an extremely high cultural value and that much more so within a family. Given Joseph is travelling to his ancestoral home it is inconcievable that they would not have family in Bethlehem and equally inconcievable that family would not have hosted them. However, given the census it is very possible that there was a lot of family in town and that this may have made accomadations cramped. A typical Judean house at the time was a four room house: the family's sleeping quarters, the kitchen, the storage/work/animal room and the front room - where guests were entertained. Therefore, our instructor argued that it is far better to understand the meaning as there was no space in the guest room (of the family house) and so Mary and Joseph stayed/gave birth in the storage/animal room (which was empty since the flocks were in the fields). This room would have contained a stone manger (as pictured below) for when the animal were there and being stone was not the type of item that moved much. So you can now spend the rest of Christmas break redesigning your nativity set...
Freedom, it is what we all dream of attaining and in the West, we have much of it. In Canada we have the freedom to have individual morals and religion. We have the freedom of our own thought belief, and expression without the fear of being punished. We have the freedom to meet as an assembly and we also have the freedom of association. It is amazing that we can think and act out on our opinions with any fear of punishment, like this blog perhaps. We have the freedom to enjoy life, and to pursue what we want when we want it. Yes, we love and value our freedom. In fact we love it so much we take for granted what a privilege it is to be free. The West thinks it has a right to be free and free they are, at least in the realm of politics and individual thought.
There are those however that feel that they have been oppressed by stronger powers that exist. They rightly feel that the minority they associate with has been unfairly persecuted because of who they are as a minority. Those specific people are Latin Americans, Black people, and Women. Each minority has been persecuted and oppressed by another people group and the oppressed have fought to be treated equally.
Along with the quest for equal treatment, there has arose differing theologies to justify the differing causes. They are formally termed, Liberation Theologies and each minority has its own liberation theology. All liberation theologies rightly exist because of a failure of traditional theology to meet the needs of the people. Traditional Western theology does not always meet real life and therefore for these minorities are left questioning if God is real when then see a failure by western theology or at least the people to hold to it fail to intervene. James Cone said that traditional white theology cannot move past intellectualism into real life. Thus these minorities take it upon themselves to create a theology that meets people where their situation meets them. There would be no need for liberation theologies if traditional theology was not so obsessed with rationalism and intellectualism. Real theology is intellectual, but also meets people practically. If it does not, then God is just some abstract idea and never becomes anything more than an academic exercise. The failure over 2000 years of traditional church theology was to translate intellectualism into practicality and because of that oversight liberation theology was born. Latin American, Black, Feminist theologies are different in their own right, but they are all termed liberation theologies because they have one common belief. That belief is that the basic problem in humanity is the need for freedom. Each theology views it self as the weak group being oppressed by a forceful people. People that hold to these views would hold that the Holy Bible always deals with the oppressed. They would point out that Jesus always went to the outcasts of society. They would also look to the exile of Israel as justification of this view. Liberation theologies hold to the view that God is active in our world, that he is involved with those who are suffering. According to them, they do not see God is active in traditional western theology.
The last point of commonality between all liberation theologies is that all four theologies interpret the Bible in light of their experience. Most liberation theologies will see the Bible as a history book and teach that the message that comes from it, is that God lifts humanity up out of the dark pit of slavery. This can be good but it can also be a tiny bit misguided. Instead of reading the Bible and then applying what it has to say to our life circumstances, they are letting their life circumstances determine what the Bible dictates. This can be dangerous for liberation theologies because although the theme of freedom does run throughout the Bible and that does apply to when people oppressed, it doesn't mean that the main oppression comes from that particular group's experience. Main oppression is a result from sin and Christianity is about freedom from sin which results in freedom from other situations like slavery. Feminist theology is, “is the critical, constructive and creative re writing of Christian Theology. It regards women and their bodies, perspectives and experience as relevant to the agenda of Christian theology.” Like all liberation theologies, this one arose because men, even Christian men were treating women poorly. Women wanted to be treated as an equal. Women were thus being oppressed and men were the oppressors. Feminist theology seeks to free women from this oppression by showing the value that God places on women. However, if the focus is on the external issues, the underlying problem will not be dealt with, only the symptom. When the oppressed feel freedom from their various oppressors they will find themselves frustrated because they will deal with similar issues that deter themselves from living life abundantly. The core issue, humanity's natural tendency to live life selfishly in sin, will manifest itself in a different way.
To be fair, every Christian who does not identify himself through a liberation theology needs to take time to seriously evaluate if their own theology is lacking in the areas the discussed theologies represent. Would there be a need for feminist theology if we properly addressed the value of women in the first place?
Feminist Theologies seeks to explore what God is like beyond is “male” characteristics. Feminist theologians seek to prove to women and men that God values women and Christianity isn't a man's religion. People who hold to this view have trouble using strictly male language to describe God. They would argue that using only male terminology excludes women from relating to God. They foresee two main problems that occur when God's maleness is focused on to the extreme. The first extreme teaching is because God is strictly referred to as male it subtly teaches that men are closer to God. The second issue would be that because Jesus was male, men resemble Jesus more because they are physically alike, which in turn gives way to the idea that women cannot be saved the same way women can.
The fact that Jesus was a male raises questions about the extent of atonement, if a male messiah can actually save women. Feminist Theologians struggle what it means for Jesus to be male in light of that fact that this theology interprets the Bible in light of women.
Lessons Learned:
A positive outcome of Christianity from this perspective, is that it shows that God does value women every bit as much as he values men. It points out that we as a Christian culture have not given women the respect that they deserve. The social stigma that we have given to women is that God created them as an after thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women were created as the finishing touch on creation. That's not to say that they're above anything else in creation; it just means that when women were created it was the last thing to display the glory of God.
This theology shows us that God created men and women in the image of God. That shows that there is something about women that reflect the glory of God in a way that masculinity is not able to reflect. We have to thank feminist theologians for making us aware of these facts.
Unhealthy Results:
Egalitarianism is not the same as Feminest theology. Egalitarianism is the idea that because men and women are equal there is no difference as far as roles are concerned. However, in practice it shares a similar goal of making women equal to men. This is a good goal!!! However, just like feminist theology (in practice not in doctrine or idea) Egalitarianism is ONLY focused on making women equal. Which is the wrong idea because God’s heart on the issue is men and women would be one AS HE IS ONE. Each member of the Trinity plays different roles and even submit to another member. Although we do have a lot to be thankful for because of Egalitarianism there is a huge danger if men and women use this theology as their core belief. The danger is that if emphasized too much, it will contribute the all ready growing problem of men not going to church. In his book, Why Men Hate Going to Church,, David Murrow states that todays church is driving men away. He states that we have overemphasized the female characteristics of God at the expense of the male characteristics. We have made the church too feminine. This is not the oneness that we see God desires. As a result, unchurched men don't go to church because they feel it's for women or extremely effeminate men. (How do you get an Alpha male jock who has never been to church before to sing love songs to Jesus, another guy ?To the unchurched man singing I could sing of your love forever to Jesus, a man, is - well -weird). The two demographics that are more likely to attend church are women and older adults aging from fifty and up. (Even with male leadership) The demographic that is least likely to attend church are men and young adults ages eighteen to twenty-nine.
Egalitarianism could be harmful because it is contributing to the cause of why there are a lack of males in churches today. It is almost as if they are fighting a battle they've all ready won - a church more feminine. Because the church has emphasized masculinity for so long, feminist theology seeks to make itself known. The church has focused on the feminine so much that we have lost the masculine. If that is true, then we are in danger of losing our men and also a part of God's image that cannot be seen through femininity. A good example of this trend is in the emphasis on women's ministry at church. It's not uncommon to have a fully developed women's ministry, with someone in the church directing the whole sphere of women's ministries. But men's ministry is a breakfast once a month and a church work bee.
Egalitarianism could also be dangerous because of its lack of teaching on the value of masculinity. In an effort to make women feel valued, as they should, we have stopped talking about the value of men and as a result there are men who feel like they don't understand what it means to be a man anymore. Our culture makes fun of men by portraying them as dumb, stupid, and uncommitted. Feminist Theology can be dangerous in this regard because there little to no affirmation of what masculinity is truly about. All that men hear is that men are bad for suppressing women and therefore we need to talk about the value of women. The problem is it happens at the expense of the value of men.
Listen to what Mark Driscols address about this issue:
If this doesn’t sway you because it’s all theory and conjecture, let me make it real for you: The Majority of people that attend make up a church conjection in North America are women. The split is varies between 60/40 with male leadership. That’s traditionally what it looks like. When women are the lead role that ratio changes from something close to almost 85 female. So right away guys don’t go to church even when men lead. It doesn’t seem wise to me from a purely practical point to make the situation worse by making women the primary leaders in church. I can hear you now, “ Dan, that’s a weak argument. It’s not my problem if men are too insecure to come to church because women are the primary leaders. They should get over it.” Fair. I can see that but I want to suggest two things in response to this:
1) Men think that church is too feminine even when men lead. So women leading compounds the fear that women will not be able to relate God to men.
2) If you’re response is to just get over it, I question the true motives of women in ministry. The Gospel never requires people to believe the same things we do before they come to church. If the attitude is to simply get over it, they may never come to church, they may never know Jesus. No you don’t wait for people to get to a certian level - you take them as they are and train them and teach them to the level you want them. You might say, “That's fine they can go to a church were men lead. There are plenty of those” But again, where is your heart at? What's more important to you, fighting for the right, or the gospel? Why would you intentionally turn people away from church who would otherwise go, just because it is your right? I would gladly give up my rights as a youth pastor to a female sponsor who could teach my girls how to be awesome women of God. I could go on, about all the problems that come along with Egalitarianism, like how a growing number of women who don’t want to feel required to lead because if they don’t they are somehow fostering a spirit of suppression by encouraging men to lead. Listen to what Ms. Jensen says in her address to the Australian government ( a woman speaker I might add) on this issue on. Listen to what she says about being too tired….
You see what we’ve done? In an effort to make women equal (which is something to fight for) we devalued men, and well they have given up and fallen silent. Should it happen? No. Did it happen? Yes. Egalitarianism doesn’t have an answer to it because we made the focus women being equal instead being one as God is one. We’ve made men feel devalued in the name of making women strong. We have even seen in the last decades a push to give women equal status. For years prior in our civilization and in many other Western Civilizations, women have been treated at times, as the lesser sex. That has been wrong and needed to change. Men over the years have abused and mistreated women. But now, we are an enlightened civilization; recognizing that it doesn't matter what sexual organs we have; we are equal. We as Christians know our worth is not from what we do, but what God sees in us. However, we think like the world when it comes to this issue of value and women. While it is an advancement in our civilization to give women equal status, there have been unintended consequences in our current society.
We have devalued the role of men. Don't misunderstand, women are equals and needed to be treat as people, not as objects but because we as a culture don't want offend women, the timeless value of a man has been devalued. It is politically correct in our culture to make fun of men, portraying them as stupid, dumb, lazy sexual animals that cannot control their sex drives (Peter Griffin, Homer Simpson). If we protrayed women like that in our commecials, we would get sued. In some ways, in postmodern culture, we are no longer equals, but the lesser human. On Mother's Day in churches, we give our women flowers and tell them how great they are and on Fathers day, we beat up men by telling them they need to do better job. Do you know what the curse of a man is? In Geneisis God tells Adam that from now on weeds will come out of the ground. So in other words Adam still had to do the same job he did before but this time with endless weeds. Could you imagine how that felt? No matter how hard he worked it would never be good enough, there would still be weeds. In the same way in the heart of every man is this fear or thought that no matter how hard we work, no matter hard we try - to be a good father, or husband or worker, even if we try our best to correct the sins of our fathers by making sure our women feel equal, our toils will never be good enough. And we have created a church culture that that presses into this wound.
A church in Vancouver BC, surveyed its men (150) and asked them what they want women to know about men. One man responded by saying, “Men struggle with what it means to be a man in society today.” How did this happen? Over the years we have downplayed the role and value of men in order not to offend women in the feminist movement. If we are taught that women can do everything a man does what is the benefit in being a man? This is why I stated that picking a theology based upon the pain another one has caused is not good. Often what happens is we say I choose Egalitarianism because I was hurt but when it’s pointed out that Egalitarianism has done similar things the only options are to a) ignore the failures of the doctrine b) Place a value on which person’s pain is more important and pick one. This is known as picking the lesser of two evils. But who are we to tell other people that their sin should be tolerated for the greater good? This is why you can’t pick what you believe on this issue based upon what happened, because there are both good and bad experiences and it just becomes a merry-go-round about who has the best war wound. This is also known as the victim mentality. The healthiest way to go about this to to ask what is the character of God like? THEN ask if people have been abused within this camp? THEN determine why? Is it because of the doctrine? Or is it because people are using it an excuse to sin just like the church used the passion story as excuse to be racist against jews? Repent. Then we ask ,"Since we are made in his image, which doctrine best represents this?
As of tomorrow, we enter the last month of 2011. A year marked by the motto "why not?" as established last new years in New York. A trip which was made possible by the phrase it was to inspire. It has been a year of travel, transition, creativity, and new endeavours. Do a super intense internship? Why not? Be homeless for the summer? Why not? Embrace unemployment? Why not? Start a blog? Why not? Write a book? Why not? Shoot a painting? Why not? Start Grad School? Why Not? Move to Vancouver? Why not? Occupy Everywhere? Why not? Stay up all night doing home work? Why not?
In the course of these adventures I have discovered many excellent responses to our courageous question which launched us daringly into many new, difficult, challenging, and rewarding circumstances... However, as I begin to reflect on a year that has been filled with extremes and as I anticipate rest, renewal and rejoicing over the Christmas season, I am moved almost immediately to nostalgia. It has been a year of life shared deeply, with deep friends. Beginning as we slept 3 or 4 to a bed stumbling on top of each other in a tiny apartment in New York, an experience I'm we were sure had deepened or destroyed our relationships, to graduation, to Israel, to unemployment, from artistic endeavours, new jobs, to weddings, to new schools... memories have congealed into a glassy rose coloured past to be reminisced over as we return to favourite restaurants, share a cigar, and in either slurred or perfectly enunciated speech share the deep love and respect we hold for each other. Friendship is about life lived together and that is something that has happened significantly and deeply this year.
The questions to be answered in the coming month is what will next years motto be? How do our relationships transition as life moves us to different place? Will there be the new friends that we will journey, laugh and cry with, and how will they change us?
I anticipate this Christmas season as being celebratory with with old friends and new, with family, with wine, with food and champagne...
May we celebrate both the glory and misery of our lives, holding hands and cuddled together,
with shouting, laughter and tears,
with kisses and hugs,
with both hope and sorrow, grieving and joy...
May there always be pizza...
May water turn into wine...
May death give way to new life...
May life be lived together...
Amen.
Ok so I have attended two general assemblies, went on the march on Saturday and just hung out a bit. On the first day there was 3-5000 people who showed up. Which was both amazing and I think overwhelming. We had great weather and a great march and the village was established. People are learning on the ground why democracy is slow and not everyone is excited. But there was another significant turnout on Sunday as the group continues to work to nail down a consensus process. Part of this process involved breakout groups which allow crowd discussion and ideas to happen and move to the mic. This was the best part of the day. People worked hard at actually communicating - speaking and listening - it was respectful, empowering and effective. There was also an interesting win for free speech when a participant was able to disagree with the movement's non violent position from the microphone reasonably articulately.
I had the opportunity to talk about #OccupyVancouver last night to a friend and failed miserably to communicate the fascinating and inspiring and moral nature of this movement. While in some respects so far it has been a protester convention, everyone with their own pet project and priorities, protesting is not the primary focus of what the group is trying to do. #OccupyVancouver is literally recreating society in microcosm, from scratch. While they are united in discontent, the movement is incredibly proactive. I say movement because occupy camps now exist in 900+ cities globally. By looking at the created microcosm societies in New York and Vancouver (the only two I have significant information on) it is easy to see what they/we want.
Consensus participatory direct democracy is the format in which the community thinks through and decides things. What does this say? I believe it is a critique of partisan politics and Canadian elected dictatorships, which is effectively what a majority government is. Furthermore, it is the demand for greater direct access, control or voice in our communities and countries. I think there is a sense that the ballot once every few years has become an ineffective way of voicing political opinions or communal desires. I think that the successful overturning of the HST is a clear indication that citizens want clear accurate information and a voice and will not have things foisted on them any longer. Regardless of your opinion on the HST, the results demonstrate the power of direct democracy, people's willingness to participate and their distrust of government. Furthermore, the consensus model emphasizes the desire for unity and the good of everyone AND a belief that this is possible. It fairly questions the idea a 51% majority in the house of commons should have the right to make decisions for everyone. Interestingly, the other places where consensus models of governance and decision making exist are the Orthodox Church, a number of First Nations tribes and the Quakers (Please add more that you know of in the comments). There is the political question at stake: Do we just want stuff to happen or do we want the right stuff to happen? And also how do we know or find out what the right stuff is? I think the financial, and environmental crisis highlight the increased perception that taking the time to really make good decisions that really represent everyone and the good of the planet are what is needed, rather than efficient political structures that exempt personal voice or responsibility, encourage passivity and apathy and are influenced by corporate voices more than community voices. Furthermore, the democratic ideals are founded on the belief that together we can make better decisions - if you think that the majority of people are stupid and shouldn't have a voice then go live in China because that's how they run things over there.
To the end of creating a community that is safe and inclusive and takes care of everyone, #OccupyVancouver provides free food - everyone is fed, everyone is kept warm, everyone has a voice, everyone participates. They claim they are the 99% and they offer a vision of what society could look like if the 99% re-evaluated their goals of wealth and luxury, continually chasing that 1%. #OccupyVancouver, minus some prayers and songs, looks more like the Acts 2 church than any church I know of...
The #Occupy movement has successfully imagined the possibility of imagining a better society with economic and social justice. They are actively working to not just offer ideas and suggestions, which there are lots of, but to also actually create it on the ground. This is exciting and inspiring I encourage you to find out more and get involved.
Last week I went apple picking with my mum. There was an apple tree behind the community centre and my mum recruited me to go up and pick the apple which were perfectly ripe and very delicious. I have always liked climbing trees and throughout my life I have made my mum nervous on many occasions as I placed myself in precarious situations. However, last week she was egging me on... "There is lot just out and up a bit farther," she said. And so I found myself probably the farthest out on a limb I think I have ever been. I was careful, I was cautious but I also pushed myself to the very limit because that was the place I needed to be to get the good apples.
The line between madness and genius is thin. The line between success and failure is thin. The line between life and death is thin. The thing I find interesting is that we are notoriously bad and knowing where the line is... We are notoriously bad at evaluation in general. The drummer before Ringo Starr, quit the Beatles because he thought they were no good. Way too many people go on American Idol and think they are great. We try and evaluate results but which results are relevant? Einstein had early speech difficulties, Van Gogh had no success while alive. Our understanding of the present and the stories that history will tell are often different...
At the entrance to the temple at Delphi it said in Greek, "Know thyself." "Who am I?" is one of the ancient philosophical conundrums... The task to know one's self is exceedingly difficult as there is certainly no agreed upon method. Furthermore it is not a question to be answered by a single individual given we are relational beings, our identity is wrapped up in much beyond our own individual psyche. We like to talk about self esteem, and bad self esteem as someone who doesn't know them self. However, "bad" is a judgement we make from the outside based on our perceptions. We are likely to disagree just a strongly with an unrepentant serial killer who has really "good" self esteem.
The line between confidence and arrogance is thin. My father in law says that it is the difference between seeking impress rather than express. And yet I am sure we can all resonate with the experience of knowing someone who liked to express themselves just a little bit too much... I know people who seem to be very comfortable with who they are and they are very "real" but what this looks like is often abrasive or uncomfortable. They are either oblivious or disinterested how there self expression impacts those around them. People deal with it. I put up with it. I find myself often a combination of frustrated and jealous of these people. Frustrated because they can be like a grenade; jealous because they can get away saying and doing things that I cannot, with an earnestness that I would have to fake.
Expectations may well be the death of you...
I find myself farther and father out on the limb of life. My ability to evaluate whether the branch can hold me or not is negligible. Although past experience tells me that I'm ok. But of course past experience tells me I'm ok because one is ok until one is not, one is alive until one is dead, the branch is holding you until it snaps. Will it snap? or will you get a delicious apple?
How much risk is acceptable? How do you determine risk? How do you psychologically manage to get in your car every day knowing the statistics of traffic fatalities: 32, 708 people died in the US last year in a traffic accident.
One of the many interesting things that emerged from this rather long summer of unemployment was the unique opportunity to work with Duncan on an art project. Based on Niki de Saint Phalle's work, which I saw at the Tate Modern art gallery in London on my way home from Israel in June, Duncan and I made our very own shooting painting. This art project was a journey. We started talking about it over cigarettes on the balcony and slowly were able to gather the necessary information and resources to make the project idea a reality. The reality involved several steps over many days and it is truly the movement from idea to finished product that is itself the art. It can be described as an exploration of creation, destruction and creation through destruction and in this way became a metaphor of hope for life itself. It is truly a collaborative effort, produced in and through community - crucial to both the process and significance of the piece. This week we have submitted our the piece along with Duncan’s documentary of the process to the Kariton Art Gallery located at Mill Lake, Abbotsford. In the upcoming weeks we will be notified if our project has been selected for a gallery display in the upcoming year (so stay tuned for more information). - Danielle
