I'm finally getting to the last post of the introduction to my summer project going here--I read this material fairly quickly, but then getting time to sit down and write about it has proved more challenging. We'll see if this "summer project" actually gets done in the summer!
Anyway, the final book I am reading as part of this project is Freeing Theology, a collection of essays on the various Christian doctrines by Catholic feminist theologians. It may be surprising to some that one can be both a Catholic and a feminist, but actually a good portion of the most renowned feminist theologians are Catholic. Perhaps this is because they have more to fight against, and the academy is their only choice since they cannot go into official parish ministry. At any rate, this book was written in 1993, but I think it is still useful in seeing how these doctrines can be explicated from a feminist perspective. As Catherine Mowry LaCugna, the editor of this book and the author of the short introduction, says, "This is not a book about feminism or about the Christian tradition but an example of doing theology from a new perspective" (LaCugna, ed., 1993, 1). This book was also written to be used in a classroom such as the one for which I originally read it. It doesn't include all the traditional doctrines, so I'll have to use other sources for a couple of the topics, but it gives a sampling of the way feminists look at these doctrines, staying firmly in the Christian tradition while questioning the "androcentrism" we have inherited.
(Androcentrism is a term coined by Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, I believe, in her wonderful book In Memory of Her: a feminist theological reconstruction of Christian origins. I don't have that book with me right now so I won't give you the exact citation. Anyway, it means that Christianity assumes the male experience to be normative and central, while the female experience deviates from that norm. She counters this with historical and biblical evidence that Christ's intentions were not thus, and that even the first couple of generations of Christ-follwers did not live this way. As the community became more formal and norms of belief and leadership became established, the egalitarian impulses of Christ's message were suppressed, though never completely eradicated.)
The first chapter of this book is called "The New Vision of Feminist Theology: Method," and is written by Anne E. Carr. She writes about the method of doing theology from a feminist perspective. Part of this method is reminding us that we all come from a particular context with our own assumptions which inform the conclusions we reach. While theologians of the past have not called themselves "contextual," their theologies have yet been shaped by (and shaped) their particular context. They think and write as they do because of the culture and the time period in which they were born. The questions they ask are shaped partially by that context, and the issues at hand in their generation. Since the Enlightenment, many people have tried to get rid of that "contextual," subjective part of theology, attempting to look at theology rationally and objectively. The problem with this, feminists say, is that no matter what, we are all shaped by our context. Feminists and other "contextual theologians" simply state their assumptions and context and see it as an asset as they look at theological questions from their particular vantage point. Rather than becoming discouraged because we cannot get an "objective" view of God or decide based on replicable evidence whether or not a particular faith claim is "true," we recognize that we can each see a different angle, and because of the particular place in which we are located, we can help inform the whole.
Carr highlights the work of two important feminist theologians, and the way they talk about the method of theology from a feminist perspective. She discusses Rosemary Radford Ruether and Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, two of my heroes (heroines?)! In her work Sexism & God-Talk Ruether says: "The critical principle of feminist theology is the promotion of the full humanity of women. Whatever denies, diminishes or distorts the full humanity of women is, therefore, appraised as not redemptive" (qtd. in LaCugna, ed., 1993, 13). Therefore, the goal of feminist theology is not really to promote any major, unfounded agenda or to negate the humanity and worth of men. Instead it simply seeks to remind the Christian communities that women are human being, also created in the image of God, and equally capable of connecting with and interpreting revelation from God.
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza's work focuses on the early church. She is a biblical scholar who sees in the biblical text traces of the egalitarian community that attempted to exist, and the debate that began very early in the life of the church regarding the role of women in leadership and interpretation of revelation. She even calls into question whether things that we take to be anti-women were in fact meant thus, or whether through tradition we have learned to understand them so. I won't go into all that, because it would take forever, but she makes excellent points regarding many difficult passages in In Memory of Her.
I think it's important to include a feminist voice in my little study here, because a) it's important to me, and b) there was no such thing as "feminism" during Barclay's time, and I think in many ways feminism goes along with Quakerism very nicely, but adds an extra element that early Friends just weren't thinking about yet. Like Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, early Friends apparently looked back to the early Christian community as one of relative equality, regardless of race, gender or social class. They pre-empted feminism in many ways, although traditional roles were still in effect to some degree in households and such.
I think at times Barclay was too much under the sway of Enlightenment thought and did not give adequate thought to context, either his or anyone else's, so having a theology that emphasizes the context of the individual is helpful.
I also think that feminist theologians pick up on a theme similar to Quakers when they emphasize the personal experience of the one doing the theology. For Friends, we emphasize that everyone is able to hear and respond to God. Feminists give us a helpful insight when they remind the church that we sometimes block our collective understanding of revelation when we say it must occur within certain boundaries, which have traditionally excluded huge populations of people from the process of listening to and interpreting what we hear from God. This caution is still important for us as Friends, although we in theory believe God can speak to and through anyone. It is important for us to continue listening to "that of God in everyone," in whatever way God wants to speak. As we listen to the experiences of those around us we test them against history, the biblical record, our community, and our own understanding of God, but we allow new voices to come in and soften the barriers we put up around what "counts" as revelatory experience and what is "acceptable" theology. We stand for something, yes, but within that there is incredible freedom to explore the mystery of the intimate, incarnate, transcendent God who is simultaneously within and beyond.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
intro part 2
I chose the other two texts for this self-imposed summer project because a) I've already read most of them, and b) I really appreciated many things about them and the theologies presented. The main deficiency in this project is that all these texts are written by white Westerners (well, I'm not sure about whether all the women in Freeing Theology are white, but a majority of them are anyway). For my seminary systematic theology courses we also read works of Black theology, Asian theology, Latino/a theology, and other feminists/womanists. (We also read several other "traditional" theologians.) But in order to keep this project somewhat manageable, I'm going to limit it to these three texts.
Daniel L. Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding was written for use in a classroom as a slightly-more-than-basic introduction to the traditional Christian doctrines. Migliore was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary until he retired at the end of this school year. I never got a chance to take a class from him, but he seems like a genuine, thoughtful person, and I appreciate the way he wrote this text. I like the way he states his objective for this text: he wants "to offer an introduction to Christian theology that is both critically respectful of the classical theological tradition adn critically open to the new voices and emphases of recent theology" (Migliore, 2004, xiii). In other words, he presents theology from the past, and tries to incorporate contemporary and more contextual theologies, but he does not accept either kind without critical reflection.
The name of his text comes from a quote attributed to Anselm, a Medieval theologian, that the task of theology is "faith seeking understanding." Theology is not simply regurgitating what people have said in the past, but "Christian faith prompts inquiry, searches for deeper understanding,d ares to raise questions" (2). I appreciate Migliore's caution that "faith causes us to do more than think" (7). As we do theology, we have to realize that if we're just sitting around thinking and writing about the intricacies and inanities of various doctrines, we aren't doing theology. To do true theological inquiry is to think about things, then act on them, then reflect on that experience, and go out and act on our thoughts some more. (Practical theologians call this "praxis," and perhaps do a better job of living this theory out more often than systematic theologians, but at least Migliore addresses this and sees it as the ideal.)
Migliore lays out four helpful "Questions of Theology" (pp. 10-14):
1. Are the proclamation and practice of the community of faith true to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as attested in Scripture?
2. Do the proclamation and practice of the community of faith give adequate expression to the whole truth of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ?
3. Do the proclamation and practice of the community of faith represent the God of Jesus Christ as a living reality in the present context?
4. Does the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ by the community of faith lead to transforming practice in personal and social life?
I appreciate these questions as ways to think about theology, rather than just explicating doctrines created by human beings. I think the parts of theology that Quakers have traditionally rejected come in when theology ceases to address these questions. When "theology" is only theoretical, when it does not prompt action in the world for the sake of others, it is useless. On the other hand, it is also not Christian theology when it's not focused to some degree on the Bible and the life of Jesus, historical and present in the Spirit who moves in our midst. I think Quakerism and other denominations witness to the struggle between tradition and contemporary revelation. How do we understand past revelation in a way that is still relevant? How do we make sure that the "revelation" we receive today is actually revelation and not just false prophecy? (I would define "false prophecy" as "things that make give us the impression of happiness without taking into account past, future, other people or the world in which we live.") But that's getting into the next chapters' topic, so I won't say too much about that now. Suffice it to say, I think the way Migliore explains the task of theology is helpful and, when stated thus, is something with which Quakers can be in complete agreement.
Daniel L. Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding was written for use in a classroom as a slightly-more-than-basic introduction to the traditional Christian doctrines. Migliore was a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary until he retired at the end of this school year. I never got a chance to take a class from him, but he seems like a genuine, thoughtful person, and I appreciate the way he wrote this text. I like the way he states his objective for this text: he wants "to offer an introduction to Christian theology that is both critically respectful of the classical theological tradition adn critically open to the new voices and emphases of recent theology" (Migliore, 2004, xiii). In other words, he presents theology from the past, and tries to incorporate contemporary and more contextual theologies, but he does not accept either kind without critical reflection.
The name of his text comes from a quote attributed to Anselm, a Medieval theologian, that the task of theology is "faith seeking understanding." Theology is not simply regurgitating what people have said in the past, but "Christian faith prompts inquiry, searches for deeper understanding,d ares to raise questions" (2). I appreciate Migliore's caution that "faith causes us to do more than think" (7). As we do theology, we have to realize that if we're just sitting around thinking and writing about the intricacies and inanities of various doctrines, we aren't doing theology. To do true theological inquiry is to think about things, then act on them, then reflect on that experience, and go out and act on our thoughts some more. (Practical theologians call this "praxis," and perhaps do a better job of living this theory out more often than systematic theologians, but at least Migliore addresses this and sees it as the ideal.)
Migliore lays out four helpful "Questions of Theology" (pp. 10-14):
1. Are the proclamation and practice of the community of faith true to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as attested in Scripture?
2. Do the proclamation and practice of the community of faith give adequate expression to the whole truth of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ?
3. Do the proclamation and practice of the community of faith represent the God of Jesus Christ as a living reality in the present context?
4. Does the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ by the community of faith lead to transforming practice in personal and social life?
I appreciate these questions as ways to think about theology, rather than just explicating doctrines created by human beings. I think the parts of theology that Quakers have traditionally rejected come in when theology ceases to address these questions. When "theology" is only theoretical, when it does not prompt action in the world for the sake of others, it is useless. On the other hand, it is also not Christian theology when it's not focused to some degree on the Bible and the life of Jesus, historical and present in the Spirit who moves in our midst. I think Quakerism and other denominations witness to the struggle between tradition and contemporary revelation. How do we understand past revelation in a way that is still relevant? How do we make sure that the "revelation" we receive today is actually revelation and not just false prophecy? (I would define "false prophecy" as "things that make give us the impression of happiness without taking into account past, future, other people or the world in which we live.") But that's getting into the next chapters' topic, so I won't say too much about that now. Suffice it to say, I think the way Migliore explains the task of theology is helpful and, when stated thus, is something with which Quakers can be in complete agreement.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
intro to my summer project
In my last post I said I was going to start a summer reading project, comparing Barclay's Apology with two other theological works. Since I have accountability, I'd better do it, right? So my plan is to post at least once a week on various theological doctrines, either explaining how all three books express these doctrines in one post, or doing a couple posts that explain each book on its own. I'll give you my "syllabus" for myself, so that if you want to read along at home you're more than welcome to do so. Then I'll begin with a discussion of the introductory material/chapters of each of these works, and why I chose them.
Week 1: Introduction (this week)
Dean Freiday's forward to Barclay's Apology
Faith Seeking Understanding, Migliore, chapter 1
Freeing Theology, ed. LaCugna, chapter 1
Week 2, (week of) June 29: Revelation
Barclay Propositions 1 & 2
Migliore 1-43
Freeing Theology 59-82
Week 3, July 6: The Trinity
Barclay 20-26 (he doesn't have a separate proposition on this)
Migliore 64-91
Freeing Theology 83-114
Week 4, July 13: Scripture
Barclay Proposition 3
Migliore 44-63
Freeing Theology 31-58
Week 5, July 20: The Fall
Barclay Proposition 4
Migliore 139-162
Freeing Theology 139-160
Sexism & God-Talk, Rosemary Radford Reuther, 159-192
Week 6, July 27: Salvation & Christology
Barclay Propositions 5 & 6
Migliore 163-222
Freeing Theology 115-138
Week 7, August 3: Justification & Sanctification
Barclay Propositions 7 & 8
Migliore 223-247
Freeing Theology 235-259
Week 8, August 10: Predestination
Barclay Proposition 9
Migliore 117-138
(If anyone can suggest a good feminist source on this I'd appreciate it!)
Week 9, August 17: The Church
Barclay Propositions 10 & 11
Migliore 248-273
Freeing Theology 161-184
Week 10, August 24: The Sacraments
Barclay Propositions 12 & 13
Migliore 274-300
Freeing Theology 185-210
Week 11, August 31: Ethics & Politics
Barclay Proposition 14
Migliore 330-353
Freeing Theology 211-234
Disclaimer: I will be at camps two of these weeks, and one is Yearly Meeting sessions, so I might not actually get to all this within this timeline, but I'll try! We may have to bump it back, but my goal is to finish this within the official "summer."
Now for a short explanation of each of these texts and why I chose them.
I read Migliore's text and Freeing Theology for (I think) the first semester of my systematic theology course in seminary, and it's been in the back of my head since then that I should do some kind of somewhat-systematic comparison of the theologies presented with the Quaker explication. Barclay is the first (relatively) systematic Quaker theology, and arguably the only one to date. (If you know of others, let me know--I would be interested in reading them. I suspect that perhaps something from Ben Pink Dandelion would fit this category, but I haven't read much of his stuff, although I'd like to read more. Someone at some point in one of the comments on my blog suggested John Punshon's book, Reasons for Hope, but that is more a history of Friends, not a systematic theology.) I've read a good deal of Barclay's Apology, but not in the order it's written--mainly just to compare it to whatever else I'm reading on a certain doctrine. Barclay wrote his original work in Latin, published in 1676, and he translated it into English in 1678. I'm reading Dean Freiday's edition in "modern English" (1967).
For this week I just read Freiday's introductory materials on Barclay's life and the Apology itself. This was helpful to me, not only to get a feel for Barclay's personal context, but to set him in the midst of the historical-theological timeline. Freiday gives helpful and brief comments about Barclay's and Quakers' theology compared to those around him. He talks about Barclay's reaction to Calvin and Luther, Wesley's reliance on Barclay's thought on perfection, and the contemporary debates to which Barclay refers in his text as well as those who responded to his work. Freiday says that Barclay loosely used the order of doctrines presented in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (catechism created for the Anglican church in the 1640s), although he does not address all the questions therein or necessarily in that exact order. For a general overview of Barclay's thought on major doctrines, this introduction is very helpful if you don't have time to read the whole Apology or want extra insight into the broader picture of Barclay's thought.
I think I will leave my explanation of the other two texts for another post (or two), because this one is getting quite long already. So look forward to that in the next day or two.
Week 1: Introduction (this week)
Dean Freiday's forward to Barclay's Apology
Faith Seeking Understanding, Migliore, chapter 1
Freeing Theology, ed. LaCugna, chapter 1
Week 2, (week of) June 29: Revelation
Barclay Propositions 1 & 2
Migliore 1-43
Freeing Theology 59-82
Week 3, July 6: The Trinity
Barclay 20-26 (he doesn't have a separate proposition on this)
Migliore 64-91
Freeing Theology 83-114
Week 4, July 13: Scripture
Barclay Proposition 3
Migliore 44-63
Freeing Theology 31-58
Week 5, July 20: The Fall
Barclay Proposition 4
Migliore 139-162
Freeing Theology 139-160
Sexism & God-Talk, Rosemary Radford Reuther, 159-192
Week 6, July 27: Salvation & Christology
Barclay Propositions 5 & 6
Migliore 163-222
Freeing Theology 115-138
Week 7, August 3: Justification & Sanctification
Barclay Propositions 7 & 8
Migliore 223-247
Freeing Theology 235-259
Week 8, August 10: Predestination
Barclay Proposition 9
Migliore 117-138
(If anyone can suggest a good feminist source on this I'd appreciate it!)
Week 9, August 17: The Church
Barclay Propositions 10 & 11
Migliore 248-273
Freeing Theology 161-184
Week 10, August 24: The Sacraments
Barclay Propositions 12 & 13
Migliore 274-300
Freeing Theology 185-210
Week 11, August 31: Ethics & Politics
Barclay Proposition 14
Migliore 330-353
Freeing Theology 211-234
Disclaimer: I will be at camps two of these weeks, and one is Yearly Meeting sessions, so I might not actually get to all this within this timeline, but I'll try! We may have to bump it back, but my goal is to finish this within the official "summer."
Now for a short explanation of each of these texts and why I chose them.
I read Migliore's text and Freeing Theology for (I think) the first semester of my systematic theology course in seminary, and it's been in the back of my head since then that I should do some kind of somewhat-systematic comparison of the theologies presented with the Quaker explication. Barclay is the first (relatively) systematic Quaker theology, and arguably the only one to date. (If you know of others, let me know--I would be interested in reading them. I suspect that perhaps something from Ben Pink Dandelion would fit this category, but I haven't read much of his stuff, although I'd like to read more. Someone at some point in one of the comments on my blog suggested John Punshon's book, Reasons for Hope, but that is more a history of Friends, not a systematic theology.) I've read a good deal of Barclay's Apology, but not in the order it's written--mainly just to compare it to whatever else I'm reading on a certain doctrine. Barclay wrote his original work in Latin, published in 1676, and he translated it into English in 1678. I'm reading Dean Freiday's edition in "modern English" (1967).
For this week I just read Freiday's introductory materials on Barclay's life and the Apology itself. This was helpful to me, not only to get a feel for Barclay's personal context, but to set him in the midst of the historical-theological timeline. Freiday gives helpful and brief comments about Barclay's and Quakers' theology compared to those around him. He talks about Barclay's reaction to Calvin and Luther, Wesley's reliance on Barclay's thought on perfection, and the contemporary debates to which Barclay refers in his text as well as those who responded to his work. Freiday says that Barclay loosely used the order of doctrines presented in the Westminster Shorter Catechism (catechism created for the Anglican church in the 1640s), although he does not address all the questions therein or necessarily in that exact order. For a general overview of Barclay's thought on major doctrines, this introduction is very helpful if you don't have time to read the whole Apology or want extra insight into the broader picture of Barclay's thought.
I think I will leave my explanation of the other two texts for another post (or two), because this one is getting quite long already. So look forward to that in the next day or two.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
back in the NW
Well, as my father-in-law commented yesterday, it's been a while since I've blogged. I mean, it's not like I've been busy or anything! OK, maybe the last week or so I haven't been THAT busy, but...anyway, I've taken a little break.
In the last month I finished my German class, graduated with my Master of Divinity degree, packed up, drove a moving truck across the country with a several-day stop in the Tetons, moved in and got mostly unpacked, and started swimming lessons with my kiddo. (Here's a picture.) It's been a fun and full month.
Right now my days are mainly filled with taking care of myself and Espen. I haven't really had time to take care of myself for a while, so it's really been nice! I get up most mornings at 6am, do centering prayer for a while, then do yoga until Espen wakes up. I got a new bike for graduation and that has been so awesome! I've never in my adult life had a bike that actually fits me and works well, so it's quite a revelation that biking can be fun and not that difficult. Espen and I very rarely use the car, because we have a great bike trailer with enough space for a bag or two of groceries or whatever else we need to carry (although that makes biking somewhat more difficult!). We've visited most of the parks in the area at least once, and even gone over to a F/friend's house not too far away, forgetting she lives on a HUGE hill! (I thought I was going to die. When I visit Leslie this summer she'd better know I really love her!)
"Taking care of myself" also means reading novels. I haven't read tons, but I read a little each day and relish the fact that I'm not procrastinating when I do so! I finished Eat, Pray, Love, which I really enjoyed, and I'm working on Bridge of Sighs.
My upcoming goals are to a) learn Spanish, and b) read Barclay's Apology as well as a couple other theological works, and compare and contrast Barclay's theology with others. I plan to compare his to two books I read in seminary. One is Daniel Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding, in which he lays out the different theological doctrines with explanations from various perspectives from Christian history. The other is Freeing Theology, a collection of articles by various feminist theologians, edited by Catherine Mowry LaCugna. I'm going to try to set myself some assignments as if I was reading these for a class and had to write reflection papers or something. We'll see how that goes! Check back in and see if I'm doing my self-imposed homework...
In the last month I finished my German class, graduated with my Master of Divinity degree, packed up, drove a moving truck across the country with a several-day stop in the Tetons, moved in and got mostly unpacked, and started swimming lessons with my kiddo. (Here's a picture.) It's been a fun and full month.
Right now my days are mainly filled with taking care of myself and Espen. I haven't really had time to take care of myself for a while, so it's really been nice! I get up most mornings at 6am, do centering prayer for a while, then do yoga until Espen wakes up. I got a new bike for graduation and that has been so awesome! I've never in my adult life had a bike that actually fits me and works well, so it's quite a revelation that biking can be fun and not that difficult. Espen and I very rarely use the car, because we have a great bike trailer with enough space for a bag or two of groceries or whatever else we need to carry (although that makes biking somewhat more difficult!). We've visited most of the parks in the area at least once, and even gone over to a F/friend's house not too far away, forgetting she lives on a HUGE hill! (I thought I was going to die. When I visit Leslie this summer she'd better know I really love her!)
"Taking care of myself" also means reading novels. I haven't read tons, but I read a little each day and relish the fact that I'm not procrastinating when I do so! I finished Eat, Pray, Love, which I really enjoyed, and I'm working on Bridge of Sighs.
My upcoming goals are to a) learn Spanish, and b) read Barclay's Apology as well as a couple other theological works, and compare and contrast Barclay's theology with others. I plan to compare his to two books I read in seminary. One is Daniel Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding, in which he lays out the different theological doctrines with explanations from various perspectives from Christian history. The other is Freeing Theology, a collection of articles by various feminist theologians, edited by Catherine Mowry LaCugna. I'm going to try to set myself some assignments as if I was reading these for a class and had to write reflection papers or something. We'll see how that goes! Check back in and see if I'm doing my self-imposed homework...
Monday, May 11, 2009
belated: forum on youth ministry, day 4
I didn't get a chance to post anything about the last day of the youth ministry forum. I had my German exam that morning and then I was exhausted, and then a F/friend from home visited for several days, which was fun, and then...well...I guess I have no excuse for the last several days. I've just been vegging out and not doing much of anything besides a bit of work and taking care of the kiddo.
Anyway, the last day of the forum was also excellent. I attended the final session by Douglas John Hall in my extended seminar, "What Christianity is Not." Then I went to electives called, "Lifecasting: Teens & Technology" by Andrew Zirschy, and "The Courage to Hope: Caring for Troubled Youth" by Greg Ellison. The conference rounded off with another plenary lecture by Andrew Root, author of Revisiting Relational Youth Ministry. All of these were excellent, but I'll try to just give a brief summary of their main points and what stood out to me.
Douglas John Hall entitled this lecture, "What Christianity is Not: a 'Religion of the Book.'" I found this very interesting, because he pointed out that it is not the Bible which is the Word of God--even according to the Bible. Instead, God's Word is living. It became incarnate in Jesus Christ and is active in the world today. Read without this living Word, the written words of scripture are meaningless. To me this seems like a very Quaker idea, but he backed it up with staunch Protestant names: Calvin, Luther, Barth, and going back further, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. It's good to know Quakers are in "good" company! Read through Hall's eyes, I actually like Barth... Hall emphasized that God's Word is prophetic, meaning it can't be once for all time, it can't be something codified and contained in a book. The Bible is a reminder of God's action throughout history, but we listen to the Word today because the living Word is a Zeitgeist, the Spirit of the times, speaking into our current context words of prophetic hope and peace. At the same time, Hall emphasized we need to get to know the Bible. He said, "Christianity isn't a people of the Book, but without the Book it isn't Christianity." I think both sides of this are things that we as Friends need to remember, and it is this very delicate, paradoxical line that often divides us. But we need both.
The elective on teens and technology was also excellent, and connected much more with youth ministry, which was helpful. Andrew reminded us that youth turning 19 were born in 1990, the year the Worldwide Web was created. That's pretty crazy! Anyone 19 and under has grown up with the Internet(s) as commonplace. He talked about ways teens are changing technology, and ways technology is changing teens. Basically teens are changing technology by making it ever more a tool for social connection. But technology is also changing teens. Although we have Facebook, what are such social networks doing to "face-to-face" interactions? Why are teens (and others) so drawn to such online social networking opportunities? Why do teens feel the need to text people all day and even throughout the night? (He told us that teenagers are the lowest demographic of people in the USA with computers who don't have email addresses--lower than the over-70 demographic. Why email when you can text?) Andrew's main point was that youth desire true intimacy, and they're looking for it in places other than the church, because they're not sensing that kind of intimacy available in the church. He asked the poignant question, "Does your church serve communion, or is it communion?" In Quaker circles maybe we would answer, "None of the above," but the point of our time of silence (whether for the whole meeting for worship or only a portion) is designed for us to commune with God. That's all well and good, but do we commune with others as well? Do we intentionally live communion in a way that creates intimate relationships with others in our meetings, and spreads out to others in the world? Andrew suggested this is much more important than whether we have the newest technology in our meetinghouses. What teens are looking for is relationships, not technology--they only use technology as a tool to build intimacy.
After lunch I went to the "Courage to Hope" elective. Greg Ellison taught the course and did an excellent job. I think the teaching style itself was one of the most interesting things I learned in the class. He incorporated drama, video, role playing (unbeknownst to the rest of the class he had several participants role play "troubled youth" throughout most of the class period), small group and partner discussions, and passionate speaking. The information he taught was also important. It fit well with the "Lifecasting" session, although from a different angle. Basically, both classes were emphasizing the fact that youth have no real place or purpose, and that can lead to loss of hope. Youth who can, try to fill this void with technology, and with trying to create intimacy, to be known, through casting their lives out on the Internets, pleading to be seen by someone, anyone. Other youth are made to feel invisible because of their race, class, disability or something else, and they lose hope over their future. They don't even feel safe to be seen, so "Lifecasting" might not be very appealing to them. Instead they act out in anger and violence either against themselves or others. Ellison suggested "solution-focused brief therapy," where you help with someone in this state of despair to use solution-talk (not dwell on the past), think of exceptions to their negative view of the world, and do role plays or imagination journeys where they think of themselves at the end of life, giving advice to their grandchildren (which means they have already made it that far, so they must have a future!). He based a good deal of this, he said, on Donald Capps' Agents of Hope (even though he, ironically, went to Capps' school and was made to feel invisible because of his race).
Andrew Root's lecture covered a lot of what he wrote about in his aforementioned book, but it was good to hear it again. He tried to bring his ideas down to earth by giving suggestions for real youth ministry. He said a real relationship has to be both open and closed. A major problem with "relational" youth ministry as it is often practiced is that the youth minister thinks they have to be always open: they have to be always available, an open book, for youth to come around at any time. Instead, a real relationship needs to have boundaries. This makes a person real, gives them dimension, not just a person I can use to meet my own needs but someone who has needs themselves, who has struggles, who has places of mystery. We need to create boundaries or barriers around ourselves that not only protect our own personhood, but also show others where they themselves stop and we begin. It's a process of helping us all become more truly human, and in the midst of this process we encounter the Divine Presence, who is there in the midst of our contextual suffering and unknowing. In this way we become partners with youth, on a journey to encounter God more and more fully, as we help one another become our true selves.
So, that was the conference, and my last seminary credit! It was a good way to get my last credit and I'm grateful for the experience. I have one more little thing to do for German and then my Masters of Divinity is complete! Graduation will be in a couple weeks, then we head home to the beloved Northwest.
Anyway, the last day of the forum was also excellent. I attended the final session by Douglas John Hall in my extended seminar, "What Christianity is Not." Then I went to electives called, "Lifecasting: Teens & Technology" by Andrew Zirschy, and "The Courage to Hope: Caring for Troubled Youth" by Greg Ellison. The conference rounded off with another plenary lecture by Andrew Root, author of Revisiting Relational Youth Ministry. All of these were excellent, but I'll try to just give a brief summary of their main points and what stood out to me.
Douglas John Hall entitled this lecture, "What Christianity is Not: a 'Religion of the Book.'" I found this very interesting, because he pointed out that it is not the Bible which is the Word of God--even according to the Bible. Instead, God's Word is living. It became incarnate in Jesus Christ and is active in the world today. Read without this living Word, the written words of scripture are meaningless. To me this seems like a very Quaker idea, but he backed it up with staunch Protestant names: Calvin, Luther, Barth, and going back further, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. It's good to know Quakers are in "good" company! Read through Hall's eyes, I actually like Barth... Hall emphasized that God's Word is prophetic, meaning it can't be once for all time, it can't be something codified and contained in a book. The Bible is a reminder of God's action throughout history, but we listen to the Word today because the living Word is a Zeitgeist, the Spirit of the times, speaking into our current context words of prophetic hope and peace. At the same time, Hall emphasized we need to get to know the Bible. He said, "Christianity isn't a people of the Book, but without the Book it isn't Christianity." I think both sides of this are things that we as Friends need to remember, and it is this very delicate, paradoxical line that often divides us. But we need both.
The elective on teens and technology was also excellent, and connected much more with youth ministry, which was helpful. Andrew reminded us that youth turning 19 were born in 1990, the year the Worldwide Web was created. That's pretty crazy! Anyone 19 and under has grown up with the Internet(s) as commonplace. He talked about ways teens are changing technology, and ways technology is changing teens. Basically teens are changing technology by making it ever more a tool for social connection. But technology is also changing teens. Although we have Facebook, what are such social networks doing to "face-to-face" interactions? Why are teens (and others) so drawn to such online social networking opportunities? Why do teens feel the need to text people all day and even throughout the night? (He told us that teenagers are the lowest demographic of people in the USA with computers who don't have email addresses--lower than the over-70 demographic. Why email when you can text?) Andrew's main point was that youth desire true intimacy, and they're looking for it in places other than the church, because they're not sensing that kind of intimacy available in the church. He asked the poignant question, "Does your church serve communion, or is it communion?" In Quaker circles maybe we would answer, "None of the above," but the point of our time of silence (whether for the whole meeting for worship or only a portion) is designed for us to commune with God. That's all well and good, but do we commune with others as well? Do we intentionally live communion in a way that creates intimate relationships with others in our meetings, and spreads out to others in the world? Andrew suggested this is much more important than whether we have the newest technology in our meetinghouses. What teens are looking for is relationships, not technology--they only use technology as a tool to build intimacy.
After lunch I went to the "Courage to Hope" elective. Greg Ellison taught the course and did an excellent job. I think the teaching style itself was one of the most interesting things I learned in the class. He incorporated drama, video, role playing (unbeknownst to the rest of the class he had several participants role play "troubled youth" throughout most of the class period), small group and partner discussions, and passionate speaking. The information he taught was also important. It fit well with the "Lifecasting" session, although from a different angle. Basically, both classes were emphasizing the fact that youth have no real place or purpose, and that can lead to loss of hope. Youth who can, try to fill this void with technology, and with trying to create intimacy, to be known, through casting their lives out on the Internets, pleading to be seen by someone, anyone. Other youth are made to feel invisible because of their race, class, disability or something else, and they lose hope over their future. They don't even feel safe to be seen, so "Lifecasting" might not be very appealing to them. Instead they act out in anger and violence either against themselves or others. Ellison suggested "solution-focused brief therapy," where you help with someone in this state of despair to use solution-talk (not dwell on the past), think of exceptions to their negative view of the world, and do role plays or imagination journeys where they think of themselves at the end of life, giving advice to their grandchildren (which means they have already made it that far, so they must have a future!). He based a good deal of this, he said, on Donald Capps' Agents of Hope (even though he, ironically, went to Capps' school and was made to feel invisible because of his race).
Andrew Root's lecture covered a lot of what he wrote about in his aforementioned book, but it was good to hear it again. He tried to bring his ideas down to earth by giving suggestions for real youth ministry. He said a real relationship has to be both open and closed. A major problem with "relational" youth ministry as it is often practiced is that the youth minister thinks they have to be always open: they have to be always available, an open book, for youth to come around at any time. Instead, a real relationship needs to have boundaries. This makes a person real, gives them dimension, not just a person I can use to meet my own needs but someone who has needs themselves, who has struggles, who has places of mystery. We need to create boundaries or barriers around ourselves that not only protect our own personhood, but also show others where they themselves stop and we begin. It's a process of helping us all become more truly human, and in the midst of this process we encounter the Divine Presence, who is there in the midst of our contextual suffering and unknowing. In this way we become partners with youth, on a journey to encounter God more and more fully, as we help one another become our true selves.
So, that was the conference, and my last seminary credit! It was a good way to get my last credit and I'm grateful for the experience. I have one more little thing to do for German and then my Masters of Divinity is complete! Graduation will be in a couple weeks, then we head home to the beloved Northwest.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
forum on youth ministry, day 3
Today was more of a laid-back day at the youth ministry forum. We just had a plenary lecture in the morning and then worship, then the afternoon off for exploring the area (for the visitors), or, in my case, studying German and working at the coffee shop where I work once a week. Since I have a German exam tomorrow morning I can't write much, but I'd like to at least talk about the speaker this morning, briefly.
The lecturer was Obery Hendricks, and he was great! He teaches at a seminary in New York, I think. He wrote a book with a title that sounds very familiar to many of us as Friends (or especially any who read this blog who are Mennonite...), "The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Character of Jesus' Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted." He presented a lot of the same types of things I've been writing about here lately, regarding privilege, Jesus' radical call to break down social/political/economic/religious systems of domination, and the American "church's" complete complicity in that domination system.
One thing I found particularly good from his talk was a comment he made that was something like this: "I'm not talking a prosperity gospel, where only my situation within the same system is changed, but I'm talking about good news to the poor, which can only happen through changing the whole system, including the way we live our lives." I think this is so important for us to hear. It's not just that, as middle class American Christians, we want to make it so that everyone can live like we do. Instead, we have to be willing to change the system in which we live. The way we live automatically oppresses other people, so a) it isn't possible for everyone to live like we do because there have to be two classes of people--the oppressed and the oppressors--in the system we live in; and b) we wouldn't want everyone to be forced to live this way.
The question, again, is, "How do we start to implement this?" Yes, this is great advice, a prophetic word. But how do we go about doing the work of breaking down the systems in which we live? How do we go about refusing to cooperate with these systems on a large scale, or even on a small scale that is actually faithful (not just a token giving up of a privilege here and there)? How much giving up of privilege is necessary? Can I, as a white, middle class American, begin this work, or do I need to follow the lead of someone who is "oppressed"? (Do I count, since I'm female?) I don't know the answers to these questions, and neither does Hendricks, as he stated himself. But it seems to me like we need to start doing something, something big, as a Society of Friends. Something that will address the divide between "us" and "them," us who give and are so generous to those needy people, who are only needy because the way I live and earn money and buy things cheaply is because they are not paid adequately or treated justly.
What's our form of Quaker gray today? How can we rally for "fixed prices," as Friends did in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? How can we stand up against the oppression that happens every day in our country and because of our country, because of the way we live? How much letting go of privilege is enough? Even the way I framed that question shows my unwillingness to start down this road...
The lecturer was Obery Hendricks, and he was great! He teaches at a seminary in New York, I think. He wrote a book with a title that sounds very familiar to many of us as Friends (or especially any who read this blog who are Mennonite...), "The Politics of Jesus: Rediscovering the True Revolutionary Character of Jesus' Teachings and How They Have Been Corrupted." He presented a lot of the same types of things I've been writing about here lately, regarding privilege, Jesus' radical call to break down social/political/economic/religious systems of domination, and the American "church's" complete complicity in that domination system.
One thing I found particularly good from his talk was a comment he made that was something like this: "I'm not talking a prosperity gospel, where only my situation within the same system is changed, but I'm talking about good news to the poor, which can only happen through changing the whole system, including the way we live our lives." I think this is so important for us to hear. It's not just that, as middle class American Christians, we want to make it so that everyone can live like we do. Instead, we have to be willing to change the system in which we live. The way we live automatically oppresses other people, so a) it isn't possible for everyone to live like we do because there have to be two classes of people--the oppressed and the oppressors--in the system we live in; and b) we wouldn't want everyone to be forced to live this way.
The question, again, is, "How do we start to implement this?" Yes, this is great advice, a prophetic word. But how do we go about doing the work of breaking down the systems in which we live? How do we go about refusing to cooperate with these systems on a large scale, or even on a small scale that is actually faithful (not just a token giving up of a privilege here and there)? How much giving up of privilege is necessary? Can I, as a white, middle class American, begin this work, or do I need to follow the lead of someone who is "oppressed"? (Do I count, since I'm female?) I don't know the answers to these questions, and neither does Hendricks, as he stated himself. But it seems to me like we need to start doing something, something big, as a Society of Friends. Something that will address the divide between "us" and "them," us who give and are so generous to those needy people, who are only needy because the way I live and earn money and buy things cheaply is because they are not paid adequately or treated justly.
What's our form of Quaker gray today? How can we rally for "fixed prices," as Friends did in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries? How can we stand up against the oppression that happens every day in our country and because of our country, because of the way we live? How much letting go of privilege is enough? Even the way I framed that question shows my unwillingness to start down this road...
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
forum on youth ministry, day 2
Today I spent another day at the youth ministry forum. I think it was a day well-spent!
First I returned to my extended seminar on "What Christianity is Not." The teacher, Douglas John Hall, suggested that what it is not is a religion. Instead, it is a faith. Religion is something that is aligned with a culture, with specific rules for living, taboos, etc. "Jesus didn't come to start a new religion, but to end religions once and for all." He talked fairly extensively about "established" religion as against everything Jesus stood for. I thought he was fairly "Quakerly," until I realized on the back of one of his books I've read, it says, "Hall is Karl Barth's type of theologian, with the Scripture in one hand and a daily newspaper in the other." I'm definitely not a Barthian, but I do appreciate that about Barth, and I like Hall. (I think I probably would have liked Barth if I met him, too, but I just don't like all of his theology.) Anyway, so I appreciated this lecture, although it still was not explicitly connected to youth ministry. I guess that's what the rest of our brains are for. (What, you mean we have to actually think???!) I've been thinking a lot lately about how to get someone to pay me to do ministry that breaks down the establishment who's paying the bills...something about not biting the hand that feeds me keeps coming to mind directly after, for some reason...
But as Friends, or at least as Friends who pay some of our ministers, how do we walk that fine line between "releasing" people to be ministers, and paying people to do what we want them to do? How do we ensure that the people we're paying are serving a prophetic role rather than being false prophets who tell us what we want to hear? I see this critique that early Friends warned against, and yet...it would be really nice to do ministry and get paid for it adequately. We'll see what happens.
Then I went to an elective workshop called, "Saying No is Not Enough: sexuality, teens and religion." It was led by Kate Ott, who works for the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing. She spoke practically and helpfully about how to present sexuality education in youth groups. She suggested helpful resources, gave us good statistics, and presented important insights. One of these insights is that we need to be careful about even our implicit sexuality education. An example she gave was prayers that focus completely on God transforming our minds and/or spirits. Do we neglect the body completely in our prayers? Do we think God is present in our physical beings as well as in the parts of ourselves that we call "mind" and "spirit"? Or are we basically Gnostic, thinking that it is only through transcending evil physical existence that we can come close to God? Another important insight, which I've heard before but was helpful to be reminded of, is that sexuality is more than just "who does what to whom." It is a part of our whole selves: our desire for intimacy, our senses, our identity, our health, and the way we act toward others. In the church if we either treat it as only an issue of learning about "plumbing," or just tell youth to "say no" without providing ways to meet needs in all those areas, we are not really being helpful.
After lunch I went to an elective workshop called "Youth Ministry Amidst the Culture of Youth Violence." I thought that sounded interesting in light of my views on the way violence is portrayed in our culture, and the way it is emulated. But unfortunately the teacher spent about an hour convincing us that violence is on the rise in the world, the United States, and youth (we probably don't have to be convinced of that if we're at the workshop--or at least we don't have to be convinced that violence is a problem that needs to be addressed), and then the last half hour trying to fly through PowerPoint on some ways to pick up on violent tendencies in youth, and Bible verses that help us address those issues. There wasn't much about how to actually go about addressing these issues in the context of youth ministry.
I think one of the main reasons there is so much violence in youth culture today (besides violent movies and video games, etc.) is the systems of domination and hierarchy that are in place, and a simultaneous undermining of authority. It's funny, because I think the fact that authority is being undermined is contributing to people feeling less accountable for their actions and therefore they can justify violence more easily; but at the same time, the systems of domination and oppression create a space where people see no choice but to enact violence against those more vulnerable. Also, the situation of being in high school often leaves youth feeling powerless and oppressed, low on the pecking order, and therefore some lash out with violence (through anything from bullying to mutual fights to school shootings). I would have liked to have gotten into more of this systemic stuff and how the church can be a countercultural force for youth, providing meaning and identity, and refusing to live within and put others under a system that oppresses them.
Then we had small groups and a break, and then we heard Andy Root, the keynote speaker. For my youth ministry class we read his book, "Revisiting Relational Youth Ministry." It's excellent. Did I already write about it? It doesn't look like it. Anyway, it was excellent, although I would take it even further. He says the traditional way youth ministry has been done is through "relational youth ministry," where the youth minister tries to build a relationship with a young person for the purpose of getting them to become a Christian. Although this is usually done with good intentions (wanting to share the joy/hope they've found), it ends up being manipulative, so that the relationship is a means to another end. Instead of delighting in being with that young person, the youth worker is really just using that relationship to coerce the youth to perform in a certain way. Therefore it is not a real relationship, but a tool to try to get kids to do what we want. In this kind of ministry we actually don't need a living God. All we need is a model. We look at the life and ministry of Jesus and try to do ministry from that model: using the tools we think he used to achieve our ends (or the ends we think Jesus wants us to get to).
But what if it is the relationship itself that is the place where we meet God? What if it is only in that willingness to act as a "place-sharer," as Root puts it, that we are able to participate in the incarnation, the fleshiness of God in Christ? By place-sharer he means one who is present, listening, loving, challenging, reflecting, hurting and acknowledging the other's hurt...in short, being truly human. Instead of just following a pattern, we are participating with the living Christ in the lives, especially the suffering, of adolescents (and sometimes the suffering FROM adolescents). We can't do this with every kid in our youth group (unless there are only about 2-4 kids), but we can foster an environment where everyone in the worshiping community takes part in this ministry--mentoring as well as learning from youth, being real humans together who are struggling to encounter Christ in the midst of mundane and/or painful life circumstances.
Root will speak again on Thursday, and I have to get some sleep now, but that's a very brief synopsis of my experiences in the forum today.
First I returned to my extended seminar on "What Christianity is Not." The teacher, Douglas John Hall, suggested that what it is not is a religion. Instead, it is a faith. Religion is something that is aligned with a culture, with specific rules for living, taboos, etc. "Jesus didn't come to start a new religion, but to end religions once and for all." He talked fairly extensively about "established" religion as against everything Jesus stood for. I thought he was fairly "Quakerly," until I realized on the back of one of his books I've read, it says, "Hall is Karl Barth's type of theologian, with the Scripture in one hand and a daily newspaper in the other." I'm definitely not a Barthian, but I do appreciate that about Barth, and I like Hall. (I think I probably would have liked Barth if I met him, too, but I just don't like all of his theology.) Anyway, so I appreciated this lecture, although it still was not explicitly connected to youth ministry. I guess that's what the rest of our brains are for. (What, you mean we have to actually think???!) I've been thinking a lot lately about how to get someone to pay me to do ministry that breaks down the establishment who's paying the bills...something about not biting the hand that feeds me keeps coming to mind directly after, for some reason...
But as Friends, or at least as Friends who pay some of our ministers, how do we walk that fine line between "releasing" people to be ministers, and paying people to do what we want them to do? How do we ensure that the people we're paying are serving a prophetic role rather than being false prophets who tell us what we want to hear? I see this critique that early Friends warned against, and yet...it would be really nice to do ministry and get paid for it adequately. We'll see what happens.
Then I went to an elective workshop called, "Saying No is Not Enough: sexuality, teens and religion." It was led by Kate Ott, who works for the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice and Healing. She spoke practically and helpfully about how to present sexuality education in youth groups. She suggested helpful resources, gave us good statistics, and presented important insights. One of these insights is that we need to be careful about even our implicit sexuality education. An example she gave was prayers that focus completely on God transforming our minds and/or spirits. Do we neglect the body completely in our prayers? Do we think God is present in our physical beings as well as in the parts of ourselves that we call "mind" and "spirit"? Or are we basically Gnostic, thinking that it is only through transcending evil physical existence that we can come close to God? Another important insight, which I've heard before but was helpful to be reminded of, is that sexuality is more than just "who does what to whom." It is a part of our whole selves: our desire for intimacy, our senses, our identity, our health, and the way we act toward others. In the church if we either treat it as only an issue of learning about "plumbing," or just tell youth to "say no" without providing ways to meet needs in all those areas, we are not really being helpful.
After lunch I went to an elective workshop called "Youth Ministry Amidst the Culture of Youth Violence." I thought that sounded interesting in light of my views on the way violence is portrayed in our culture, and the way it is emulated. But unfortunately the teacher spent about an hour convincing us that violence is on the rise in the world, the United States, and youth (we probably don't have to be convinced of that if we're at the workshop--or at least we don't have to be convinced that violence is a problem that needs to be addressed), and then the last half hour trying to fly through PowerPoint on some ways to pick up on violent tendencies in youth, and Bible verses that help us address those issues. There wasn't much about how to actually go about addressing these issues in the context of youth ministry.
I think one of the main reasons there is so much violence in youth culture today (besides violent movies and video games, etc.) is the systems of domination and hierarchy that are in place, and a simultaneous undermining of authority. It's funny, because I think the fact that authority is being undermined is contributing to people feeling less accountable for their actions and therefore they can justify violence more easily; but at the same time, the systems of domination and oppression create a space where people see no choice but to enact violence against those more vulnerable. Also, the situation of being in high school often leaves youth feeling powerless and oppressed, low on the pecking order, and therefore some lash out with violence (through anything from bullying to mutual fights to school shootings). I would have liked to have gotten into more of this systemic stuff and how the church can be a countercultural force for youth, providing meaning and identity, and refusing to live within and put others under a system that oppresses them.
Then we had small groups and a break, and then we heard Andy Root, the keynote speaker. For my youth ministry class we read his book, "Revisiting Relational Youth Ministry." It's excellent. Did I already write about it? It doesn't look like it. Anyway, it was excellent, although I would take it even further. He says the traditional way youth ministry has been done is through "relational youth ministry," where the youth minister tries to build a relationship with a young person for the purpose of getting them to become a Christian. Although this is usually done with good intentions (wanting to share the joy/hope they've found), it ends up being manipulative, so that the relationship is a means to another end. Instead of delighting in being with that young person, the youth worker is really just using that relationship to coerce the youth to perform in a certain way. Therefore it is not a real relationship, but a tool to try to get kids to do what we want. In this kind of ministry we actually don't need a living God. All we need is a model. We look at the life and ministry of Jesus and try to do ministry from that model: using the tools we think he used to achieve our ends (or the ends we think Jesus wants us to get to).
But what if it is the relationship itself that is the place where we meet God? What if it is only in that willingness to act as a "place-sharer," as Root puts it, that we are able to participate in the incarnation, the fleshiness of God in Christ? By place-sharer he means one who is present, listening, loving, challenging, reflecting, hurting and acknowledging the other's hurt...in short, being truly human. Instead of just following a pattern, we are participating with the living Christ in the lives, especially the suffering, of adolescents (and sometimes the suffering FROM adolescents). We can't do this with every kid in our youth group (unless there are only about 2-4 kids), but we can foster an environment where everyone in the worshiping community takes part in this ministry--mentoring as well as learning from youth, being real humans together who are struggling to encounter Christ in the midst of mundane and/or painful life circumstances.
Root will speak again on Thursday, and I have to get some sleep now, but that's a very brief synopsis of my experiences in the forum today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)