- we defrock people based on who they love
- a bishop can say things like, "pastors are not ordained to preach their own theology. They are ordained to preach the doctrine of the church" and be praised for the promotion of uniformity, instead of questioned for their lock-step adherence to broken creeds and outdated theology
- or things like, "it is okay to be gay, as long as you remain celibate."
- inclusive language has gone the way of the dinosaur in most church settings
- we have whole "congresses" on evangelism where we worry about reaching out to "pre-christians" and transmitting the "orthodox faith."
- headlines such as "pro-homosexuals to lead worship" and "lesbian to speak at women's division" stir up huge controversies in caucus group newletters
- christian spirituality is made "chicken-soup-for-the-soul-like" with sappy feel good stories of empty triumphs
- fashion is circa 1970 and obesity is all the rage (particularly among frumpy pastor women types)
I suppose I stay because I have hope that things can be better...but sometimes that hope is hard to find.
Can you tell I am having a bad day?
25 comments:
Heh. You are having a bad day.
So...don't be a Methodist today and leave tomorrows for what they become and decide if you'll be Methodist then.
Remember, you don't have to "be Methodist" to be in Methodism.
I suppose I stay because I have hope that things can be better...but sometimes that hope is hard to find.
Girl, you aren't kidding.
I agree with the goat. When I was pastoring (and even now) I feel like I have to decide every day whether this is something I can be part of. Even now I don't know.
Our mutual friend NanMo used to say that some of us are called to be prophets within the institution and some are called to be prophets outside of the institution. What a difficult thing to discern.
So, to top off my bad day, Josh and I decdided to have a date...should have been nice, right? Only the movie he chose was so depressing and violent that I cried the whole way through!
NOTE: Do not see Children of Men if you are having a bad day.
That looks really intense. Does it at least have a happy ending?
Well, if you can move past mass destruction, nightmarish images of an apocalyptic worldview, and violence that replicates what is happening in places liek Iraq and Darfur, then perhaps maybe. I just can't get the images out of my head.
It is actually quite "christic" in its portrayal of salvation/hope through a poor, outcast baby. The story revolves around a miraculous pregnancy of an illegal immigrant who discloses her pregnancy for the first time in, you guessed it, a manger.
I am sure there is a lot of very positive theological reflection to be unearthed from the movie, I just couldn't handle two hours of non-stop violence.
Well, if you wanna be cheered up, I suggest "Dreamgirls" and "Volver." They're both awesome and, mostly, cheerful. Well, "Dreamgirls" has some sad parts, but most of it is just awesome singing and dancing and eye make-up.
By the way, yes, I noticed the strange obesity at your indoctrination, er, I mean ordination. The fat ladies with the ribbons? Weird.
But the most offensive term I've heard in a looooong time is "pre-Christian." Aargh.
Ted,
Frumpy pastor women are quite the phenomenon in mainline churches.
Don't you know women can't be in the pulpit unless they either a) look like men, b) are androgynous, or c)completely asexual and unattractive? Gaining weight and wearing sack-like denim jumpers and dreamcatcher necklaces help with all three of the above options.
Women's sexuality is a no-no in the church.
Danna and I pinky-swore that we would never hesitate to tell each other if we were turning into "frumpy pastors."
I have to say that the commissionees and ordinands in NoIL this past year were, on the whole, a pretty darn good looking group of folks. I was hoping the tide had turned away from obese and frumpy, but I guess it's not so.
Yes, NoIL is a much younger and hipper conference. We still have lots of returner learners.
TLS... how exactly do you bring about change to the denomination? Do you have to become a national leader or something? Forgive my ignorance. Why not just leave the denomination? BTW, in the Baptist church, if you've got ovaries you can't stand behind the pulpit. Not even to sing. No, you must stand to the side of the pulpit holding a microphone in your hand. No joke.
Jenn- That is the question, isn't it? I'm of the theory that social change takes both change from within and change from without. I've cast my lot for the within (for the moment).
Mostly, I stay, because I do not want to abandon the church...and this is on many levels. I don't want to abandon such a rich tradition of social justice that has been part of the methodist heritage for over 200 years; I don't want to abandon progressive Christians already in the denomination; I don't want to abandon all the many GLBT children in or to be born in the denomination; I don't want to abandon Wesley (our founder); I don't want to abandon my theological and faith home...I am Wesleyan after all. And I certainly don't want to hand over lock, stock and barrel, the progressive, mainline denomination to a bunch of fundies.
Our denomination, along with the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, has been targeted by the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD) for a "takeover" of sorts...like what happened to the Southern Baptist Convention (they used to be socially liberal until the fundy coup...Jimmy Carter is a SB after all). There has been millions of dollars poured into these denominations by the IRD, not for the churches themselves, but rather to create a base of political support since people who go to church are more likely to vote. Their agenda as spelled out in the grant proposal a few years back included: anti-gay, pro-nuclear proliferation; anti-environmental regulation, anti-abortion and another one I can't remember off the top of my head.
There are two books out about their work in these mainline denominations: A Moment to Decide (Presbys) and United Methodism at Risk: a Wake-up Call,(UMC). You can also google IRD and find lots of blogged stuff...e.g. http://chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2005/10/the_evil_empire.html
I am not about to give up on my vision of a fully inclusive church dedicated to the radical gospel of bringing forth God's commonwealth of peace and justice here on earth.
At the end of the day, I suppose I am just stubborn.
In my mini-rant, I forgot to mention that indeed there are national organizations which promote chnage in the UMC of which I am a part. I serve on the board of both the Reconciling Ministries Network and Reconciling Clergy, both national groups that seek to coordinate the movement for full inclusion. It is linked in the sidebar.
I decided that I needed to leave for myself. In general, I think I live with more peace. On the other hand however, I regret that I couldn't hold out for a better vision for the church. Whether we decide to leave or stay and fight, it sucks that the church which I love so much behaves so badly towards "others" who are different.
Amen to that, Dave.
One of my best friends is a woman Episcopalian priest. I've learned a lot from her. She is, however, the stereotypical denim jumper-wearing 70s flashback, I'm afraid. LOL. She would agree with me, too! :D I think the Methodists are lucky to have you on their side! :)
I now dress way better than ever before in my life, if only to prove that women can be sexual and pastors too.
My favorite outfit is my black trumpet skirt with fun, feminine high heels and my clergy collar. Knee high black boots are also quite fun. Oh, and for my lecture at the American Academy of Religion, I wore a black lace bustier under my suit.
Though when not in an oficial pastor role I prefer jeans and fuzy sweaters.
Hmmmm. So you deliberately sex it up when you're preaching? Interesting!
Well, not for preaching as much as for interactions with other clergy and when I am do advocacy work. I particularly like to sex it up at annual conference (the gathering of all the clergy).
Though my congregation is full of gay men which assures I always dress well when I go to church.
I don't want to abandon Wesley (our founder)
Tiffany,
What is it about John Wesley that connects with you? Why do you consider yourself attached to him in such a way that departing the denomination would be abandoning him?
I am pretty familiar with Wesley's theology, and while I don't stand with his Arminianism, I would consider my self a lot closer to his theology than you. Since you and I clearly have much different views of Scriptural authority, the atonement, eternal judgment, and evangelism as the method of salvation from our sins, by grace through faith - and since I agree with Wesley on these doctrines that I would consider core to his theology - where are you in agreement with him?
I'm not trying to start a fight; it really is puzzling to me. If you are tolerant enough to answer me, you won't have to worry about me starting some nonsense here. I can abstain from further response unless you prefer otherwise.
HT- I am glad to see that you are not "starting a fight" because I don't do that on my blog. This is supposed to be safe space and I'd like to keep it that way.
To say that Wesley's theology revolved around particular doctrines is not quite right. Wesley saw himself as a reformer/revisionist for the Anglican Church. In that regard he did not seek to re-write official Church doctrine or even create a new Church. His goal was to revive the Church in his day. This means that most of his theology is not found written down in doctrinal forms but rather lived out in practices unique to the Methodist movement: like class meetings, love feasts, conferencing, connexionalism and itinerancy.
Wesley himself did not think much of doctrine. Theological opinion was always secondary to the love of God and neighbor and the quest for holiness.
Also, the "doctinres" you chose for the supposed "core" of Wesley seem more like your own than Wesley's.
Wesley understood that scripture could only be understood in light of reason, experience, and tradition. While he held traditional views of the atonement, his blended model of the three classic theories create space for new interpretations. Wesley believed in universal salvation...so there was no eternal judgment for him (read On Religion). And I'm not sure how you understood salvation through evangelism. For Wesley salvation was a process that began at birth when we each receive God's prevenient grace (everyone gets this Christian and non). At the moment of justicfication, we are led into an awareness of Christ and then grow in our lives through sanctification, opening ourselves more and more to God each and every day as we strive toward holiness/holy living (which Wesley understood as justice or right relationship).
In terms of why I feel called to the Wesleyan tradition, there are several points:
1. Wesley's understanding of universal salvation and the availability of God's grace to all...grace that can never be taken back
2. Wesley's emphasis on justice, including his economic ethics, preferential option for the poor, and radical inclusivity (you see this paraticularly in regard to ecumenism, but also in his willingness to empower the marginalized, like women and slaves, to positions of leadership in the movement). This strain remains strong in the stream of Wesleyanism known as United Methodism
3. Wesley's understanding of the primary nature of God as love
4. Wesley's understanding of sanctification, growing in grace and holy living as seeking to build God's Commonwealth on earth.
5. Wesley's empowerment of the laity
6. Wesley's notion of the importannce of connexionalism and itinerancy
7. Wesley's method of discernment through holy conferencing
8. Wesley's emphasis on the need for communities of support and accountability in growing in grace
9. Wesley's mode of interpreting scripture through the lenses of experience, reason and tradition
10. The openness of the movement to embrace all people
11. Wesley's understanding of the means of grace
12. Wesley's sacramental theology that opened the sacraments to all, believer and non alike
There is much that Wesley and I might disagree about today...but that type of comparison would be anachronistic. I believe that if Wesley were alive today his own theology would look radically different. He loved learning and education and always availed himself of the latest scholarship. I believe that while his theology of grace and love would remain constant, the details would look different given the different context of the day.
Wow, Tiffany, I'm keeping this saved on my computer until the end of time. That is so well articulated. I've read it three times and I'm still amazed. Can I be smart like you one day?
Tiffany,
Thank you for taking the time to explain your position. I would point to source document historical evidence to demonstrate Wesley's belief in eternal judgment (Sermon: On Eternity), eternal damnation (Sermon: Of Hell), the regulative principle of Sola Scriptura(The Works of John Wesley, VII, p. 340, The Letters of the Reverend John Wesley, vol II, p.117), evangelism unto salvation (Sermon: The Scripture Way of Salvation), his belief in the importance of true doctrine(Sermon: True Christianity Defended and Sermon: Scriptural Christianity, which also applies specifically to evangelism). In fact, he felt that doctrine was so important that he engaged in a series of public writings back and forth with George Whitfield and John Gill regarding the doctrines of grace. I was unable to locate anything by Wesley called "On Religion". Can you please send me an ISDN number or other reference whereby I could locate it? It seems a radical change of direction from all the other writings of Wesley I have come across, and am intrigued by it. Whitefield misunderstood Wesley to be a universalist, while Wesley misunderstood Whitefield to espouse no human responsibility, but such is the case in many such monergism vs synergism debates about grace.
Honestly, you answered my question with two phrases. "To say that Wesley's theology revolved around particular doctrines is not quite right" and "I believe that if Wesley were alive today his own theology would look radically different." Once we have declared those as the parameters, numbers 1 through 12, with complete intellectual integrity, truly could have been anything. The first allows you to discard anything you don't agree with, the second allows you to add anything else you want. This is completely consistent with your hermeneutic, as it should be.
Aside from Wesley's Arminian view of grace and his idea of an early complete sanctification, I would align myself with those in your list that he actually believed as well. I look forward to seeing John Wesley in heaven, and I pray that I may have one half the passion for lost souls that he had.
Thank you for your clarity and candor. Such traits are well needed in discussions like these amongst the churches.
Hammertime,
I believed you when you said you were not here to start a fight and answered you only because you said you would abstain from further responses. I naively thought you were interested in what I thought, rather than out to expound your own fundamentalist doctrine and mis-reading of Wesley.
Proof texting of Wesley is no better than proof texting of scripture. Both lead to gross errors and are tell-tale signs of a simplistic, uninformed and ignorant understanding of the nature of theological reflection.
I suggest you read the whole of Wesley's works in context. Wesley's theology changed over time in response to his own intellectual and spiritual growth and to the situations in which he found himself. To understand Wesley, one must look not only at his written work, but the ecclesial practices that shaped and informed his theology.
If theology cannot grow or change it is dead. Wesley knew that too.
The Wesleyan tradition is a large stream of theological reflection that began with Wesley. It has since grown through the guidance of the Holy Spirit to respond to the ongoing revelation of God in the world and the changing contexts through which She is known.
Tiffany,
expound your own fundamentalist doctrine and mis-reading of Wesley.
Proof texting of Wesley is no better than proof texting of scripture. Both lead to gross errors and are tell-tale signs of a simplistic, uninformed and ignorant understanding of the nature of theological reflection.
Of course.
Can you please direct me to "On Religion"? Thank you!
Dear Hammertime,
I was mistaken about the sermon title…it is Sermon 106 “On Faith: Hebrews 11:6,” not “On Religion.” You can find the sermon online at http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/106/
Here are a few of the citations I think you might find helpful concerning doctrine and orthodoxy.
This excerpt is from a letter Wesley wrote to the Rev. Mr. Clarke in 1756.
“7. Yet on one point I must add a few words, because it is of the last importance: I said, "Orthodoxy, or right opinions, is never more than a slender part of religion; sometimes no part of it at all." And this I explained thus: "In a child of God, it is but a slender part of religion: It is no part at all in a child of the devil." The religion of a child of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Now, if orthodoxy be any part of this, (which itself might admit of a question,) it is a very slender part; though it is a considerable help both of love, peace, and joy. Religion is, in other words, the love of God and man, producing all holiness of conversation. Now, are right opinions any more (if they are so much) than a very slender part of this? Once more: Religion is the mind that was in Christ, and the walking as Christ walked. But how very slender a part of this are opinions, how right so ever!”
And here in the Second Letter to Bishop Lavington
“I assert, "(1.) That in a truly righteous man, right opinions are a very slender part of religion. (2.) That in an irreligious, a profane man, they are not any part of religion at all; such a man not being one jot more religious because he is orthodox."
Or his sermon, “On the Wedding Garment”
“When things of an indifferent nature are represented as necessary to salvation, it is a folly of the same kind, though not of the same magnitude. Indeed, it is not a little sin to represent trifles as necessary to salvation... Among these we may undoubtedly rank orthodoxy, or right opinions. We know, indeed, that wrong opinions in religion naturally lead to wrong tempers, or wrong practices; and that, consequently, it is our bounden duty to pray that we may have a right judgment in all things. But still a man may judge as accurately as the devil, and yet be as wicked as he.”
I have no time for fundamentalist rhetoric. Happy Wesley reading.
Post a Comment