09.17.04
Posted in culture at 5:14 pm by
Today I was a bad christian. I cleaned the house and used swiffers instead of a mop. I deserve to be thrashed because I’m not a good steward of God’s earth. I suppose that’s nothing new though. Here’s the things that I did today that made me a bad christian.
- I spit my gum out of the car window instead of throwing it in the trash.
- I kindof got sick of proofreading essays for masters students of accounting so I didn’t really catch everything I probably should have.
- I used waaaayyyyy too much dishwasher detergent.
- I cleaned the toilet without wearing gloves.
- I said shit at least 154 times while working on an essay for school.
- I drank a Pabst Blue Ribbon (there’s a story here but you’ll all just have to wait) rather than a “real beer.”
- I didn’t pray before lunch.
- I didn’t eat breakfast.
- I did pray before taking my morning dump (the toilet looked plugged and I couldn’t wait, so don’t blame me…anyway, God made my crap go bye-bye) and I think that might just be sacrilege.
- I forgot to brush my teeth–I’ll do it now, dear, ok, I’m back.
- For just a minute, I stopped caring if our house got cleaned for our company tonight.
All things I could’ve done better. But didn’t. Unfortunately, that’s a pretty tame day for me. My friends, that’s what’s so amazing about grace. That I’m allowed to keep on messing up and still be blessed.
Permalink
09.16.04
Posted in politics at 9:53 pm by
I’ve been a busy boy for the past few days. Work has been as action packed as reading personal essays for masters students for grammatical errors. Truly, my dear friends, it sucked. At any rate, other than my brain feeling like it’s been sloshing around in a bucket for about 8 hours, I’m back.
I have this feeling of responsibility to you, my readers (both of you), to get something written and published. I hope you’ll forgive me from time to time if I miss a day or two, unless you’re dying to hear about my research ideas or what my thesis is about (and those things even bore me sometimes.
Anyhow, I was listening to NPR during my hour-long drive today. I try to stay current with world events. The state of affairs in Iraq are currently less than desireable. What frustrates me is the rhetoric we get from both sides of the aisle. Of course, being a liberal those statements I find most offensive of those of dear old W.
Car bombs and bodies and 1000 dead, and Iraq is better off? I apologize but it’s hard to buy this. News flash to both parties–it’s impossible to PROVE whether or not the world is SAFER since president Bush came into power. Casting a vote based upon the safety of our country is a blindly cast vote.
What we should be casting votes on isn’t what the candidates are telling us to cast votes on. We should be basing our vote upon WHAT THE CANDIDATES WILL DO TO ENSURE OUR SAFETY or what they will do to effect peace. As far as I know neither candidate has really ever weighed in on an actual P - L - A - N of action in Iraq. Or a real plan of action as to what the next steps that should be taken in the war on terror.
Give me something to vote on. Stop playing to my emotions–give me facts. If Kerry really wants to do win the upcoming election I think he needs to force the issue that Bush has no real effective strategy in the war on terror. It’s a shoot first ask questions later strategy. Of course, Kerry hasn’t done a glowing job of unveiling his roadmap for the middle east either. BUT…and here’s the big but…he hasn’t proven himself to be capable of mounting a pre-emptive strike against nations based on scant evidence of nebulous weapons of mass destruction.
Ultimately, I’m just tired of election season. I need a break from incessant reporters, radio programs, and yes, even blog entries. I’m going on election strike. No more posts. That’s my election promise to you my readers…I wonder how long it’ll take me to break it.
Permalink
09.14.04
Posted in culture, philosophy at 10:19 am by
First off I’m not sure whether one spells optimism, optomism or optimism. Frankly, I don’t give a rat’s ass, so all you grammar nazis can stick it. I’m going to stick with optimism because I like the way it looks, or I may use them interchangably. After all, wasn’t it Thomas Jefferson who said that it is a poor person who can only spell a word one distinct way?
Headless requested a bit of expose on my comment about cynicism and optimism. The quote was this:
After all, an optimist who is critical is a person who has hope–a pessimist who is critical is a cynic. I think I am the former.
I believe, strongly that an optimist should indeed be the most critical person in the world. I strong statement, I know. Here’s why I think it. An optimist is a person with a vision, a desire for a good future. They can see that good future. At this juncture an optimist has two choices. They can critique society and work to confirm their hypothesis about the general possibility of goodness, or they can sit on their ass and while away the time hoping for external change.
I would clearly distinguish between these two types of optimism. The latter is an empty optimism. There seems to be a belief that finding the good is somehow outside of their realm of effectiveness. I don’t buy this. We’ll call this “rose-colored glasses optimism.”
The former is the kind of optimist that I am, I hope. I have a vision and I believe strongly that I can affect change so that my vision can be realized. This doesn’t mean that I will ever completely realise my vision in my lifetime. But, I will die trying. Let’s call this optimist “transformational optimism.”
Within transformational optimism, the optimist seeks to isolate all of those things that plague society, the academy, the church, the state, the family, and the global community (not an exhaustive list.) Once those things are isolated–and it’s a never ending process–the transformational optimist sees wrong, speaks out against it, and takes action to rectify those things which she sees as injustice.
Too often–if not in every case–realism is simply a thinly veiled pessimism or cynicism. (I’m really using pessimism and cynicism synonomously here.) The realist, in my estimation, is really fooling her or himself. Either the realist is a cynic or an optimist. I would argue that realists are not.
For example, the realist that sees hope in a situation and seeks to affect change in a situation. To me, regardless of whether or not they believe that they can affect change in their lifetime, this person is a transformational optimist. I think that this realism though is a rarer breed than it’s more defeatist cousin.
That other realism is the realism that seeks to call optimism foolhardy and pointless.
Okay, let’s dip down out of the abstract clouds for a moment to bring this back to reality. I was writing about my church, and why I think it sucks the shit straight out of my ass sometimes. (How’s that for a metaphor, Just Pat? 
) BUT, my reasoning for doing so is that my church has the makings of being a wonderful, inclusive, and loving community on a number of different levels. Were I to keep my mouth shut and not “do” anything about the bad things I see at my church that would squarely put me into one of two camps. Either the cynical and defeated camp or the rosecolored glasses optimist camp.
Truly transformational optimists NEED to speak out criticism. It’s one of our highest callings. But along with that critique there needs to be another component that distinguishes us from our cynical sisteren (different than sistern, or a cement holding tank for water, this term is the gender justification for years of using the term bretheren mindlessly to the exclusiveness of the term). That component is hope.
Hope, to me, is what distinguishes an optimist from pessimist. Indeed if all that hope came from me alone, I wouldn’t have enough to be called a transformational optimist. Fortunately, hope comes from the vision of a transformed society that scripture gives us.
Thank the Lord, my hope is not my own.
So, what do y’all think?
Permalink
09.13.04
Posted in philosophy at 9:34 am by
It’s hard for me to tell this story. It still rather hurts. But, I think part of the healing process for me is to find some of the truth that’s wrapped up in the situation. Part of the reason it hurts is that I’m certainly part of the cause of the hurt. In a way I’m partially at fault for the way things went down. I just get so fired up sometimes.
It all started not this past summer but the one before. That’d be the summer of 2003. Calvin College played host to a new festival–the festival of faith and music. (Which is, by the way, coming back to Grand Rapids this year if any of y’all is particularly interested in the influence or confluence of popular music and faith. I know I’ll be there–my friends Kari and James are on the planning committee.) It’s an offshoot of sorts of the popular Festival of Faith and Writing, which, by the way, is also a wonderful use of a few April days.
Anyway, I didn’t go to the Festival of Faith and Music. But, circulated at that event were some magazines from a new publisher, Relevant Media Group. If you’re at all farmiliar with Relevant, as they’re commonly referred to, you would also know that they’ve published a few of Steve Stockman’s books, for example Walk On: The Spiritual Jouney of U2, an essential for a U2 fan such as myself.
At the time, I worked at Calvin. Eventually, a copy of the magazine made it back to my little cubicle. Initially, I liked what I saw. A magazine that was willing to examine the influence of Christianity on pop culture and the kicker AND VICE VERSA! (It bears importance that I’m not interested in critiquing the magazine in this post–although, I’ve offered a thought or two on the general philosophy that undergirds their mission elsewhere in these hallowed pages.
So, initially, I liked the magazine enough to look up the website. Lo and behold, what do I find but a message board community. My heart jumps for glee. I had recently started the earliest incarnation of badchristian.com so I was thrilled to find like minded folk out there. I joined the message board community that day.
Message boarding can become an obcessive behavior, and quickly. The minute I got home from work, or at lunch hour, Relevant Boards became my creative, cultural, economic, and political outlet. I was surprised to find, however, the sharp disagreement that many of my progressive views regarding things like homosexuality, affirmative action, being a democrat, or being anti-Bush garnered. This sharp disagreement was a good thing. It sharpened both me and my adversaries (and yes, I think the use of the term adversaries is warranted in this case.)
Admittedly, I had a hard (and hot) head. I was out to change minds and radically transform the community into a “like-Brandon-minded” place. Funny how that never works. And here is my first critique of the place, which really has to do more with the medium of a message board, than with the Relevant Boards themselves. Each person stands (or should stand) on equal ground. Arguments move back and forth. It’s far too easy to use the place as a battle ground than anything else. Listening is kept at a minimum. It could be both good and bad that views share equal value–in this case it seemed bad.
For example, on a blog I can write whatever it is that I please. You may disagree vehemently, but ultimately all you can do is offer a comment. The main point is the same–my post. The words are there for all to evaluate before commenting or having other (more or less influential folks) evaluate that post publicly before you read it. My words remain largely untwisted by your perspective. On the Relevant Boards (the RB ) folks seemed to take almost sexual pleasure in the twisting of words to validate their opinions. The place was–and seems to continue to be from my infrequent visits–a breeding ground for the use of the straw man fallacy to tear down not just positions but people. I did this to folks and folks did this to me. Largely, along with our mutual passions for the truth, I blame the medium for this. People there, again, myself included, used the place wrongly. Arguing became an end in and of itself, rather than argument’s close bedfellow: discussion. Discussion, is of course, a MEANS to an end either of agreement or of respectful disagreement.
It’s not to say that this never happened or happens on the RB. But it is certainly not the central stated goal of the place.
Over time, I softened my messages regarding politics, theology, and the like. I didn’t relinquish my views but valued community over the idolotry of winning an argument. There were a few things, however, that I did not relinquish. These things eventually led to my demise as a Relevant Board community member.
I held, and still do hold, that the leadership of the RB was not and is not representative leadership. The moderators and administrators of the forum were made up of folks who banded together. This I understand and certainly condone. A united front is necessary for good leadership. However, a united front does not necessarily imply that each voice has the same opinions. The active leadership of those boards seemed to be to be biased toward the conservative faction. Thus it doesn’t surprise me that the overwhelmingly continuously active faction of the boards remained to be the conservativeish bunch.
Needless to say, I wasn’t in the clique. However, due to my hard headedness, I stuck around. I wasn’t about to be forced out of a community because of my “scandalous” political or theological views…even if I was accused of spurious logic by folks who hadn’t the philosophical training of a goat.
Eventually, after one two many deleted “liberal slanting” posts from myself and others, I expressed my frustration with the supposed deletion and alteration of such threads by the leadership of the board. Further compounding my frustration was the fact that it was never taken up with me when I was to have a post changed. It seemed that there were several “sacred cows” not to be touched by liberal reason running around in cognito on the RB. I touched a cow.
I was publicly informed–which I certainly don’t mind as my comment was a publicly posted one–that I was an ass, a trouble maker, and that my comment spoke for itself as to my immaturity and foolishness. I would be permanently banned from the message boarding community. A permanent ban. As close as I can tell, it’s because I questioned the leadership.
Now that’s dangerous leadership. If it had just been me, it wouldn’t be so bad. But this has become something of a pattern there. (I think a few of us banned folk should get some sort of badge or something for being permanently excommunicated.) It’s this that frustrates me. The theology of a permanent ban is, to me, utterly reprehensible. I simply cannot imagine a reality in which Christians FOREVER cut ties with other Christians because they vehemently disagree. I would liken that to my saying that since Rev. Falwell and I disagree vehemently, he deserves to be cut off from the fellowship of the church.
Had I been treated with love and respect, I wouldn’t have been nearly as venemous as I admit that I was. So, from all this mess, I’d like to draw out some truths.
Disagreement between majority and minority voices is a tenuous relationship. Not bad, but tenuous. That disagreement must be handled carefully. When the majority is in leadership, the majority has a special responsibility to the minority. The minority must be treated with special reverence–they are an endangered voice. In the case of the RB that endangered voice is systematically chased off under the guise that it’s not the voice but the attitude behind the voice that’s the problem.
I posit this: that reprehensible attitude didn’t come from nowhere. We see this in the Church now days as well. Majority players seem to think that because they don’t get all upset about things that when minority players do–they’re in the wrong. The truth is that the attitude comes, not from the disagreement of views, but from being cornered from every which direction. Then compound that with being censored by a uniminded and immature leadership, these things make up a recipe for a mess.
Of course, we don’t just see this on the odd message board. We see this all over the Church. I won’t give you examples, I’m sure you can dream up some of your own very personal ones.
I also hold that a leadership determines the rise and fall of a community. A particular community may see itself as thriving–and many you ask in the one of which I spoke would call themselves that–but without leadership from a true representation of voices from every level, a community is doomed. They might not see it, their rose colored glasses may blind them from the ugly truth, but their community will not last.
I don’t long to be let back in. That’s not what I want, or need. What I want is for others like myself who wander their way to the RB website to find a thriving, loving community. Who, despite their race, political affiliation, or sexual orientation feel like they are valued, and represented members of the body of Christ.
Without a change, this may not happen.
**Disclaimer: The above is my opinion. Others will differ, but my opinion stands. You may feel free to post your opinion in the comments, your posts will not be edited for vulgarity, profanity, or unkindness for any reason. So, please choose your words wisely. They will be your bond. The one exception is that any anonymous comments will be deleted.
Permalink
Posted in culture at 12:06 am by
I lifted this fair and square from the Greenbelt website. Written, I believe, by Pip Wilson. It was written as a reminder to Greenbelt attendees to be prayerful about patience. I thought it might be useful for your Monday commutes, days at work, and other general well being.
Help us remember that the idiot who cut us up in traffic
is a single Mother who has worked nine hours that day
and is rushing to Greenbelt to cook a meal and settle the kids down
so they can have a good first day at the festival
and spend a few precious moments with her friends
who have saved hard to get to Greenbelt.
Help us to remember that the pierced, tattooed, disinterested young man
who can’t handle his change correctly
is a worried YMCA Hostel resident who is behind in his rent
and cannot afford the cheapest hotdog on site.
At the same time balancing his apprehension over his fear
of not getting on well with the group he came with.
Remind us Lord, that the scary looking young woman
rolling her eyes and cannot stop moving her body,
is a recovering slave to addictions
that we can only imagine in our worst nightmares.
Remind us that the scars of the self harming woman,
scarred for life,
is just like me with my scars
that and hinder and equip at the same time.
And remember that we, maybe,
can just hide ours better.
Help us to remember that the old couple
walking annoyingly slow through the festival site
and blocking our process
are savouring this moment,
knowing that, based on the biopsy report she got back last week,
this will be the last year that they will be at Greenbelt together.
Creator God, remind us each day that, of all the gifts you give us,
the greatest gift is love.
That it is not enough to share that love with those we hold dear.
But those for who,
on first impressions,
make us shudder, or sigh or grunt with irritability.
Open our soul and press your finger tip right on that part,
the part to raise your love to the surface.
So it touches the practical.
The proactive.
The love department.
Permalink
09.12.04
Posted in faith at 1:17 pm by
This tradition of writing about my church that I’ve started has become one of my favorite moments of my week. It should be noted, I think, that while I am pretty critical of some things that go on there, I really do like the place. Perhaps that’s why I’m so critical. I’m looking for the perfect church, but I’m content too because I know the “perfect church” doesn’t really exist.
So, I guess the moral of the story is this: Don’t picture a cynical, hateful pessimist sitting in the pew from week to week taking notes on the slightest little thing he doesn’t like. That wouldn’t be accurate at all. In fact, I think that it takes an optimist of the highest order to be critical. After all, an optimist who is critical is a person who has hope–a pessimist who is critical is a cynic. I think I am the former.
At any rate, today in church we began by singing some hymns! I have got to say, I really get sick of singing lousily written praise drivel in church. It was really nice to sing some hymns again. Now, the order of worship still sucked (translation: it didn’t make any sense that we were singing songs in the order we did and the worship didn’t have the least bit of “flow,”) but singing an old hymn or two–albeit to a guitar rather than an organ–allowed me to forget about the details of liturgy that were notably absent. I sang my heart out this morning like I haven’t for months. It felt good.
If I were to have any gripe this morning I suppose it would have to be with the “alter call” portion of the service. It’s not really an alter call per se. The pastor says a prayer which he calls his “sorry, thank you, please” prayer. Essentially, it’s a prayer that walks people through the steps of asking for forgiveness and repentence and accepting Salvation. It’s probably not the technique I would use for evangelism, but I really don’t have a problem with the prayer, either.
What really holds me up is the concept that one minute a person could be listening along and all of a sudden they pray this prayer and their life is completely transformed. Does it really work this way?
Your knee jerk reaction is, “YES! Of course it works that way, Brandon!” It’s my knee jerk reaction too. But I’m not so sure it’s right. Perhaps on some abstract theological level praying this prayer radically transforms a persons life. But on a completely “non-abstract day to day grit and grime of daily life” level this prayer doesn’t do shit. When our pray-er goes home her alcoholic husband will still have just gone through 8 or 9 cans of Pabst Blue Ribbon and will be watching NASCAR, ready to beat the shit out of his wife because she didn’t have dinner out to him by 12 noon. It’s this that our “quick-fix” community has failed to recognize.
We tell people, on the one hand that “Salvation won’t end all suffering in our lives.” But, we go on portraying our lives as unblemished, perfect. No wonder folks get turned off fairly quickly after they get “saved” they feel like their salvation must not have worked just right. Somebody must have messed up when casting the spell, because bad shit is still happening to them.
I think if we really want people to authentically find a relationship with Christ, we need to stop having them say a “quick fix” prayer, and teach them they joys of community. We don’t need to have them accept Salvation; we need to teach them salvation through our actions. Allow them to find a more meaningful Salvation through living in community together.
By the way, after the prayer we proceeded to return to our “a-liturgistic” worship roots as we sang to “God kicks ass and takes names songs:” The battle belongs to the lord, and Awesome God. Of course these had nothing to do with the sermon…but what do I expect.
Thank God for the people! They, along with the diety we all share, make the place worthwhile.
Permalink
09.11.04
Posted in fun at 3:02 pm by
Here are a few good little corners of the internet (because I’m too lazy to come up with my own little corner on a beautiful Saturday.)
This one is from Mad Magazine courtesy Eschaton.
An AMAZING blog that is an autobiography of the journey of healing for a person recovering from abuse.
Romanes speculates about the sudden influx of hurricanes in Florida (by the way, I buy his explanation.)
A humorous little anecdote from Kristen about sweet justice.
Josh Rhoderick shares a humorous cartoon about bypass surgery.
For now, that’s all. But I reserve the right to come back and add more if I find other cool stuff!
Permalink
09.10.04
Posted in culture at 10:30 pm by
It occurs to me that I prattle at length every day or so and you people are kind enough to listen and read. But, truth be told, we know very little about eachother. Or, at very least I know very little of you and you of I. (Some of y’all seem to know eachother though…however that works?!?!)
So, meet me. My name is Brandon. I’m a whopping 25 years old, though I’ve got a few gray hairs! I used to work as an admissions counselor at a small private college–Calvin–in Grand Rapids, Michigan. After three years working in the pseudo real world I decided to throw in the towel. I quit my job and went back to grad school. That was two months ago. I’m supported by my wife both financially and emotionally.
4 days a week I drive to East Lansing to do my graduate program which I’ve mentioned before. At school, I’m particularly interested in leadership emergence in small group communication studies. It’s likely that my thesis and dissertation will concern this topic.
My wife and I (her name is Jen) own a home on Grand Rapids’ north east side. It’s quite a cute little place–we’ve gone all trading spaces on it. Though lately between fixing up the house, going to school, and finding time to sleep, there’s been precious little time for anything else to find room on my schedule. Nonetheless, we did find a bit of time tonight to purchase new curtains and curtain rods and get those up around the room.
Jen and I have two children. Well, fur kids to be exact. Paige (yes, named after Paige Davis) and Thelma (who was named after Thelma from Thelma and Louise…but we didn’t name her, she came that way from the shelter–Crash’s Landing–because she was so laize faire). Anyhow, Paige is Jen’s cat. By that I mean that Paige loves her mommy (Jen) and thinks her daddy (me) is an asshole. Thelma on the other hand loves anything that moves. Due to my proclivity toward insecurity I was naturally drawn toward Thelma.
My wife Jen is the brains of the operation. She’s currently teaching in order to support my habit of going to school compulsively. Once I’m done with school (there’s no more degrees to get) then Jen gets to do whatever she likes. At least that’s the current agreement. She downplays her intelligence, but I know better. I think that if pressed she’d tell you she wants to complete her PhD eventually as well.
I’m a PK. I know that didn’t surprise anybody, I was one of those badass preacher’s kids. Ultimately, though despite my badassedness my parents largely (though not completely) agree that I turned out.
Hmmm…that’s really all I can think of for now! But now it’s your turn, tell me about yourselves! I’m curious.
Permalink
09.09.04
Posted in culture at 5:42 pm by
In the last entry, the one about the sex of God, Just Pat had a wonderful comment about the true nature of fallenness being evident not only in the “second class ism” of women but also fallen in the way that we look at the nature of power. Specifically, our human concept of power is a fallen concept.
If you know me personally, you also know that it doesn’t take much to convince me that anything is fallen. I believe it all is fallen. However, in this case I want to take a different spin on the way we view power as a fallen structure. Traditionally, we view power as having some intrinsic nature that can be fallen. I would argue that power–like leadership, humility, or most other conceptual values–is not actually fallen. BUT, in every case without exception the way power is exercized IS beyond a doubt fallen. This is a minor change in the way we define fallen but I think that it could turn out to be key in our mutual understanding of this discussion.
So, power, in practice and observance and treatment is fallen. What the hell does that mean? I think it means this. We treat people as people of power based upon imperfect and fallen criteria. Two wonderful examples of the criteria we use are ethnicity and sex and money. People are given power on the basis of their skin color, whether or not they have a penis, and whether or not they drive a lexus. In this sense, rich white men have been given power regardless of whether they are truly deservant of that power. It also seems relatively logical that fallenness flows like a river out of this kind of power.
But to really get anywhere without simply spinning our philosophical wheels, we need to determine what unfallen power is like. Perhaps that clouds the issue a bit, more clearly, we need to determine what the requirements for power should be. I’d like to make a few suggestions for what qualities those in power should have. Being a person of humility and a lover of justice would be two key things. A person of integrity, whose love of truth and equality supercedes thier love for personal gain. Likewise, it seems plausible to expect that this power should be a benevolent power.
Perhaps we’ve all been so trained by our culture to expect power to be something that it was never intended to be that now we’ve begun the propogation of a false power. It even seems quite plausible to imagine that had God been man today, he really wouldn’t have been seen as very powerful at all!
It’s quite possible (or probable) that JustPat meant something entirely different still about a fallen power. She may have meant that what we perceive as power isn’t really power at all. That we see those as powerful that have no real authority to call themselves powerful. This too is an interesting concept, though different than the one I just wrote about. I’ll need to think more about this.
Permalink
09.08.04
Posted in faith at 12:02 am by
Kristen M (I’m pretty sure that’s the Kristen M that I mean) left a comment on the Misogynistic worship experience that reminded me of a chapter of Dale Spender’s book about the naming of God. I’ve found the concept of the sex of God to be an interesting topic of late. Spender argues strongly for the idea that male dominance has been the central factor in the emasculation of God in many religions and cultures, Christianity included.
Particularly of interest, is the fervor with which Christians, often the conservative ones, defend the maleness of the first and third persons of the trinity. I’m not really going to get into an argument about the sex of Jesus. The part of me that is a conservative Christian wouldn’t argue the biological sex of God turned man–though from what I read in scripture I think I can make a pretty good argument for the gender of Christ (gender being a set of cultural norms that describe feminine and masculine) to be androgenous.
But as to the gender of the 1st and 3rd members of the Godhead, the historical record is much fuzzier. Scripture, of course, mostly utilizes masculine pronouns when referring to God. I wouldn’t expect any different though as the writers of scripture were integrally shaped by the patriarchal structures of the day. This certainly shouldn’t be taken as a sign that patriarchal society is the society that God intended. If we followed that logic slavery should also be not only acceptable–but perscribed by God.
So why do some Christians insist that the first member of the Godhead is God the FATHER? Truthfully, the most popular argument seems to be that it’s disrespectful to call God a woman! This shocks me. Hidden in this are several presuppositions, the most damaging is that being a woman makes a person (or God) less than man. It’s not even that well veiled. If we didn’t live in a society where men were in power, this wouldn’t be an issue.
Still another issue may be the nearness of calling God “Mother” to the new age or wicca movements. I think that it’s also plausible that Christians have become so afraid of the occult that they fear one of two things. One, referring to God as Mother will convince other church members that they’re on a highway to hell. The other possibility is that God will interpret our terminology as a sign of our occult belief system. If the former is the case, who cares what others think. Honestly, what our fellow Christians think about us should certainly be secondary to where we stand in God’s eyes. This brings us to option number two. Does God interpret our terminology as disrespectful? I doubt it. First of all, it seems unlikely that an omniscient God would mistake our terminology for a sign of worshiping the deciever. Second, God created women in her own image. It seems highly implausible that God would be offended by being referred to in the sex of one whom she created in her image.
The truth is, I think, quite simply that change is hard. We live in a society where patronomy is the norm. Folks perceive that calling God woman is dangerous, we don’t know for sure…but it might just be theologically wrong. Unfortunately, these same folks are ignoring another theological danger. A danger that Kristen pointed out well. This attribution of the maleness of God can create a church community that systematically excludes women.
For me, when I ask myself what the greater danger is, the answer is simple. For others it’s not so simple. But at very least I’d hope that folks would be at least willing to consider the fact that this issue 1. isn’t as open and closed as our culture and upbringing has taught us that it is and 2. has significant danger if we continue to idolize the maleness of God.
Permalink
« Previous entries · Next entries »
