On Becoming an Imaginative Female Theologian Who–Oh, you know what I'm talking about…

I can’t remember if this is part three or part four, but I assure you it’s the last part.

I didn’t know what to expect when I began telling you my story. Your responses and support means a lot to me. One never knows if when one opens their mouth if it’ll be like the talking stain from the Superbowl commercial. So thank you for your encouragement. I’ve needed it these days.

Now we get to the femininity part, which is why I started this series in the first place. I drifted off into other things because I realized those other things affected me much more than my gender does.

Of course, my gender affects me. It’s why I married a man instead of a woman. It’s why I curse Eve once a month. But I don’t think (although God only knows the truth of the matter) that it affects how I see or do theology like my personality does. I’ve found kindred spirits in men and women in this process.

What my gender affects is how others see me. I’m not talking long hair stuff, I’m talking the assumption that I must be going into women’s ministry or that I must be good at secretarial work. To the former–I love speaking to women’s groups, teaching women’s Bible studies, connecting with other women. In fact, tonight I begin teaching a new series for a women’s group. However, I also love teaching mixed groups, connecting with other artists, book-lovers, movie-goers in general.

To the latter assumption, that I must be good at secretarial work, I will only say that I worked with many groups who assumed that I would be the secretary merely because I was a woman.

Occasionally, I received surprised reactions from both men and women when I told them which program at seminary I was in. "Oh," they’d say, "That’s really admirable. Not many women do that program." Most of the time they meant well, but it made me wonder why they expected anything less of women than of men.

I realize that I sound overly sensitive at this junction. I want to affirm that I also received support and respect from other men and women. But those other comments sometimes made me feel like I was not just working hard at the program itself, as was everyone else, but fighting for my right to be there (Beastie Boys, anyone?).

Which meant in the beginning, I spent too much time trying to prove that anything you could do I could do better (fifty points for that reference).

It’s hard to write that, to admit that. My pride. Bristling. Proving. Fighting. All for my pride. Perhaps I should have labeled today’s post "confessions." In fact, I just added it to the tags. This was not my prettiest moment.

But God is good. He put people in my life who affirmed me, men and women who interacted with me, who discussed theology and philosophy without a thought to my gender.

It came to heads at the church we attended. Our Sunday School teacher needed a substitute, and I volunteered. News that I’d be teaching traveled the vineyard and before I could say "hypostatic union" an email popped in my inbox. Thanks, but no thanks. We can’t allow a woman to teach. Instead, they drafted someone who was untrained and who didn’t want to teach.

This is an odd metaphor, but I felt kidnapped. Knocked over the side of the head and shoved somewhere I didn’t belong. A very small somewhere. And it made me claustrophobic.

To make a long story short (too late!–another fifty points for that reference), that situation facilitated some conversations between my husband and I. It also became the breaking point. Because my husband and I no longer felt that we could minister in that church for several reasons, we left. (I’d like to point out that we attempted to minister in different ways–I didn’t feel comfortable in their women’s ministry at the time; we attempted to start an Art and Theology small group but there wasn’t much of a response; Chris was involved in several things but began to feel like he couldn’t do what his heart desired in ministry.)

We began a year-long journey toward a new church (I’ll spare you those details) and found ourselves at our current church–a church that makes me feel home again with ruby slippers. This church embraced my gifts, embraced my crazy imaginative self even when I told them that Scrabbles gave me nightmares, embraced my gender. 

Maybe I only needed to click my heels in the beginning, but this is the journey that brought me where I am–an Imaginative Female Theologian Who Loves the Arts.

It means everything, and it means nothing. I’m uniquely created by God. And no matter what, I belong to Him.

I find myself asking again, what does it mean to be female? To love shopping? To be the emotional one? To want pretty colors?

We know that’s not the answer. Those aren’t bad things, but that’s not the essence of being female. In fact, I know just as many men who fit the above descriptions as I do women. We could talk about the differences between men and women. There are some, physically and emotionally. But the humanness of us has more similarities.

What does it mean to be female? Some would say that it means being a wife and a mother. Those are elements, but not a definition. After all, that would exclude people like me who don’t have children and would exclude many women who are single. Here’s what I think: It means created by God to enjoy Him, to enjoy my husband and my family and my friends and the gifts God gave us, to serve Him and to love my neighbor as myself.

Confessions of a Musician

Time to ‘fess up. I want to be cool but haven’t been on top of the latest and greatest since The Clash, Depeche Mode, and Erasure. Sure, I listen to the Edge, which pretends to be hip but is probably more for the leftovers like me who think we’re still hip. The Edge’s musical selection hasn’t changed much in 10 yrs. Maybe a new song here and there. I feel oh-so-edgy when listening to this station, but really, the Edge mixes a soup with Kurt Cobain and Wheezer broth and the occasional zest of someone new.
I don’t have time to weed thru all the fad crap to find the one or two gems. And let’s face it, most new music is sold on an image. This is not just for the Brittany Spears. This is for the emo and the goth and the punk and the bohemian. You have to look a certain way. You have to look non-conformist, sometimes like you’re on drugs with dark mascara smeared around your eyes, pasty skin, and hair that looks like it hasn’t been showered in weeks when in all reality it has been washed and greased in mommy and daddy’s mansion this morning. Or you have to wear the right glasses or the right clothes (and it doesn’t matter which style you are in, there are right clothes). This makes me hate images, no matter what that image is, and I want to have a certain image just like all the others who say they hate images.
Back to me, though. You see, in all honesty, while I try to talk shop like I know exactly what’s going on with My Chemical Romance or The Colours or what-not, with the exception of U2, I’d rather be at the symphony or a Broadway show. I’d rather be talking Sondheim. Right now, am I listening to some punk music? No. I’m listening to Stravinsky’s Firebird. (Who, when you look at it, was the punk of his day – I mean, his Rite of Spring caused a riot. Literally.) So now you know. I’m not cool.
While we’re being honest: I just looked online to fill in another name of some cool band besides My Chemical Romance. I don’t know who The Colours are. Shame, shame.

Confessions

I was thinking of calling this post “Confessions of a …” but we all know that that is overdone. Cuz, you know, just “Confessions” is so original.
Confession #1: I don’t think David Sedaris is “razor sharp witty” as the cover raves. I’ve wanted to read his books for the past couple of years. Finally, finally, I made it to his name on my booklist and checked out two of his books from the library. I started Me Talk Pretty One Day yesterday. Nothing. I was generally amused, even laughed out loud once. But “razor sharp”? Nah. I feel like less of an artist. This is supposed to be a defining book for me. Oh, yes, so right on. I’m a musician, a philosopher-theologian, and a writer. And don’t forget drama queen. Nothing. This calls into question my identity. Maybe it was just a bad day. Rainy, cold, wanted to sleep all day.
Confession #2: I am needy. I hate being needy. Whine, whine, whine. Writing is work. I don’t wanna work. I want to be inspired. Boo-hoo. The middle of my book is boring. Whatta I do? Boo-hoo-hoo. Ah, shat ap, sitya butt down an’ write. I refer you to exhibit A. Drama queen.
Confession #3: These past two days have been odd eating days. Instead of regular meals, I’m having popcorn, an apple, and hot chocolate for dinner. (I do make a great hot chocolate, if I say so myself.) This morning, I want hot dogs for breakfast. No, Mom, I’m not pregnant. Ooh, Erin, will you send me one of those hair muffins?

Ramblings in a New World

I confess, I have not been a peacemaker. I confess, I have been more interested in tending to my wounds and validating my way of thinking. The question at hand is, can the divarication of the “new kind of Christian” (as termed by Brian McLaren) and the “traditional evangelist” (named by Robert Webber) be repaired? The western culture at large, as is well-known, is going through a shift akin to the Medieval times to the Modern era. While Post-Modernism may be the resting place (and hopefully receive its own name if so), or while it may be transitory, Christians are reacting to this alteration in differing ways. Unfortunately, instead of basking this conversation in love, both sides (it’s even unfortunate that I label them as sides) feel attacked, retreat, and become defensive.
The new generation expresses feelings of inauthenticity, of feeling rejected and/or unloved at times, of inability to enter into a meaningful relationship with God and/or community in the way that has been done for the past 100 years, of a desire to approach the Bible, still as the infallible voice of God’s revelation, with a different method at times. The “traditional” (and by traditional, we must understand that I mean the tradition of the past 100 years) church takes offense, understandably so. They feel that we are telling them that they have been doing things completely wrong and have led us pharisaically into a ditch, ruining the church. Of course, we are not saying this, but I understand how they would hear this. Their offense at what we say, as well as some misunderstandings and some fears at our approach, comes back to correct us so that the Word of God may remain pure in these frightening times. We both wrongly employ straw men, exaggerated figures that puppet a conclusion that serves our own arguments.
Side note, or side question: Do the “traditionals” believe that Christians are outside of culture while the “emerging” see Christians as tied to culture? This could greatly affect conversation. Also, many “traditionals” with whom I have spoken define post-modernism as a rejection of “absolute truth.” I have a different answer to that question. I would call it a rethinking of modernism. This has a complex and fragmented answer.
Side note: I dislike being camped with the “emerging.” I am excited about the post-modern change, and would even consider myself a pomo, but I think that being boxed in as an “emerging” is limited. The emerging church, I feel, is a great answer to the questions culture is asking, but it is not the only answer. Then again, how do you define the emergent church. Is it liturgical? Is it contemporary? Is it social? Yes, yes, and yes.
I have been married for a little over a year. One of the lessons Chris and I are learning in our young marriage is that sometimes the issue isn’t always about being right or wrong but why is someone feeling this way. How can we work together as a team to make the person feel more secure in love and in the plan God has for us?
I believe that two of the larger issues at hand in this conversation are missional and corrective.
Regarding missional, we, as the Universal Church, need to set aside “right” and “wrong” in order to try to understand why a large number of people feel a lack of authenticity in many churches. Why do so many feel that churches are inauthentic? Why do they feel unloved and rejected by the church? “Forms” and “approaches” need to be evaluated. In the same way that a missionary goes into a foreign mission field, so does the church need to go into the post-modern world. As N.T. Wright points out, we need to first figure out who we need to be for the world, and then set forms and structures for that. What are the questions of the culture? How are they asking these questions? Forms and structures need to be evaluated, and this needs to be in balance with 2000 years of global church history. What remains consistent and universal? I wonder if some in the “traditional” church might be surprised to see how much of their church is connected to modern ways of thinking. This has been appropriate in a modern world (and still is appropriate for the continuing modern world), but will not hold water in this new world. I wonder if some in the “traditional” church are more open than we think, once words and terms are clarified. How can we reach this new culture? How can we show them, as Christ’s body, Christ’s love and truth? This may affect worship styles; this may affect learning styles. Bible study formats, systematic theologies may resemble more of the Bilbao Guggenheim museum architecture than a skyscraper. This may affect preaching styles and apologetics. It may broaden the understanding of the gospel, not in the basis for salvation (Christ) but in how it is lived out everyday (Christus Victor model and social justice as well as personal salvation).
Side note: this “new” culture has many commonalities, shares some building materials, as the “old” culture, but scraps some materials and adds others. We’re still a western culture at heart.
I said there are two issues. The missional issue, I think, is where the majority of the fight resides. The second issue is addressing some of the inherent weaknesses in the western church. These are different issues for different churches and different denominations. I believe that both “emergings” and “traditionals” recognize and are addressing these issues.
This has been long and rambling. Much of this probably doesn’t make sense outside of my head. We all know the issues, but do we? Have we all been too caught up in our own causes to mend Christian relationships, being one so that the world may know that we are from Christ? So that the world may see something different in our union? Is my peacemaking reflective of a child of God?