The Bible in Three Easy Steps

I am entering my second (and final term!) term in helping my church conference put on its winter retreat for youth.  I came into this pastoral position acknowledging that I am not a good event planner even though over half of my time is directed towards those birth to 25 (and many still consider me the 'youth pastor').  I can act zany with the best of them at times (me as the hippy prophet Isaiah receiving his vision) but other than drama I tend not to lean towards fun events.  I am really hoping to plan and entitle an event "The Least Fun You Will Ever Have" some time but perhaps when my next position is secured.  Anyway, I am posting because for this winter retreat I volunteered to lead three sessions on "The Bible" (I figured only three would be required).  Session 1: The Formation of the Bible. Session 2: The Story of the Bible. Session 3: The Bible Today.

Now feel free to criticize these categories but I thought they were a place to start.  What I am hoping to do move the context away from a purely apologtic 'defence' of the Bible.  I am not sure if perhaps I should begin with a bit of epistemology and distinguish the relationship between modern science and Bible.  I will likely also focus on canon and community (looking at least a little at James Sanders) recognizing emphatically the many (and mostly unknown) hands that were a part of leading to their flasy youth devotional Bible.  I think testimony is important recognizing the ongoing communication that surrounding (and was included within) the Bible's formation.  In any event I hope to elevate the human end of the Bible while still recoginizing it is as revelation.  I hope to post more as this unfolds.  The problem is always getting started with youth.  I need something zany don't I . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

God Forbid . . .

My mother-in-law was out for a visit recently (no not a set-up for a bad joke) and visiting Chapters she said I should pick out a book. After much soul-searching and gnashing of teeth and I was trying to decide between Taylor's A Secular Age and Zizek's In Defense of Lost Causes. I thought I would wait for the paperback of Taylor's tome (it also seemed a little referency for me) and decided on Zizek. Some of his work is joyfully accessible, namely chapter two's abundant movie critiques. However, all too much of it is still a little over my poorly formed political and psychoanalytical head. I was caught by a section on his critique of democracy, or his critique of the critique of democracy. Zizek views Wendy Brown's work on Nietzsche as all too un-Nietzchean as she reducing him to one who simply nudges us from slumber with no real attempt at changing us towards "a positive liveable project 'beyond democracy.'" He goes on characterize her application of Nietzsche and here I immediately read the word pastors in place of theorists. Fair . . . unfair?

Brown thus accomplishes a domestication of Nietzsche, the transformation of his theory into an exercise in 'inherent transgression': provocations which are not really 'meant seriously,' but aim, through their 'provocative' character, to awaken us from out democratic-dogmatic slumber and thus contribute to the revitalization of democracy itself . . . This is how the establishment likes its 'subversive' theorists: harmless gadflies who sting us and thus awaken us to the inconsistencies and imperfection of our democratic enterprise - God forbid that they might take the project seriously and try to live it . . .

The only change I might make is that in the church we also don't like to get stung. This is all the more acute for me as this Sunday I will be preaching on the relationship between Europeans and Canadian aboriginals . . . throw in the fact that tomorrow our prime minister will be offering some formal apology for our residential school system that sought to 'assimilate' natives into the European construction of Canada.

Read More...

Summary only...

Pastoral Care to Men

Previously in this series;
Preface to Theology and Gendered Ministry
Framing Gender Differences
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 1; Graham Ward's Cities of God
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 2; Graham Ward's Christ and Culture
Theology and Gendered Ministry: A Critique of (Some) Contemporary Men's Ministries
The conclusion to my work in this area was little thin but for anyone following this thread here it is.

There are of course numerous issues that are currently typical of men’s experience. In The Care of Men issues revolving around employment are among the most pressing for men.[1] What I want to focus on is that when ministry is geared specifically to men then I would argue that the issue is primarily and most often what it is to be a man. This may appear tautological or assumed within the fabric men’s ministry but given the framework of contemporary men’s ministry I would maintain that it is of primary concern. There is near consensus among the various men’s ministry websites that something has been lost. What has of course been lost is that time when masculinity simply was when there existed a male ontology as Ward put it. Men have not done the work that women have in terms of gender reflection. In the development of women’s self-understanding there appeared to be an integration of masculinity. I am thinking particularly of the iconic image of Rosie the Riveter that pointed both to physical and economic strength for many women.[2] This has not been mirrored in men’s ministry. The Seven Promises of the Promise Keepers include nurturing a close relationship with a few men and developing a strong marriage but nowhere include the need for greater internal or external relationship with femininity.[3] Recent GodMen events do not allow women to attend and state clearly that only men can understand the specific needs of men. There are scores of men’s ministry websites popping up all the time and I have yet to see prominent feminine images. The converse rather is true with hypermasculine images of warriors, muscles and athletics are dominant. The primary message is to fight and win back what was lost.

As I think of my own church context it is true that less men are actively involved in the life of the church. Many of the popular expressions for public discussion include sports. Part of the argument coming from men writing on this issue is that the church is not challenging enough for their ‘warrior’ or competitive nature. I would argue that retreating into nature (or sports) to be among men is just that, a retreat. Not that it is wrong but that if it is not equipping to encounter the sexual difference within themselves, among themselves and in relationship to women then the time spent there will likely be reduced to playing ‘cops and robbers’ or King of the Castle where dominant masculine expressions repress the holy tension of sexual difference. I suspect that if adventure, risk and strength are sought they may be found in exploration of internal and external sexual difference.

---

[1] Christie Cozad Neuger, “Men’s Issues in the Local Church: What Clergymen have to Say,” in The Care of Men, ed. Christie Cozad Neugar and James Newton Poling (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1997), 46-69.

[2] Wikipedia, Rosie the Riveter, retrieved April 3, 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosie_the_Riveter

[3] The Seven Promises of a Promise Keeper, http://www.promisekeepers.org/about/7promises.

Read More...

Summary only...

Theology and Gendered Ministry: A Critique of (Some) Contemporary Men's Ministries

Previously in this series;
Preface to Theology and Gendered Ministry
Framing Gender Differences
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 1; Graham Ward's Cities of God
Understanding the Gendered Jesus - Part 2; Graham Ward's Christ and Culture

Given the preceding discussion on gender (see above links) it is important to ask the question of what is implicitly involved in men’s ministry, particularly in North America. The general history of gender in the modern West appears to be the movement of women from an inferior form of male to a distinct and ‘opposite’ sex (though still inferior). Then came a growing movement among women attempting to establish themselves as fully equal humans able to participate in all of life to the extant that particular individuals are able. This led to a crisis within masculinity as men were forced to redefine their own identities or to reject emerging feminist identities. It is important to ask why this led to a crisis among men.[1] I would suggest that the crisis among men relates directly to power dynamics inherent within any social system. Whether within a family or in a society an internal shift always creates pushes and pulls within the whole system. The reactions to change often expose those who are poorly self-differentiated, those whose own life was dependent on the stability or subordination of another.[2] In social terms this can be set more clearly in terms of power and law. In The History of Sexuality Foucault explores the “‘analytics’ of power: that is, . . . the specific domain formed by power relations.”[3] Dealing particularly with sexuality Foucault states that power is always established in relation sex in a negative expression, one of “rejection, exclusion, refusal, blockage, concealment or mask.”[4] This leads to his next statement which is that “sex is placed by power into a binary system: licit and illicit, permitted and forbidden.”[5] Which is further developed into a “cycle of prohibition” and “the logic censorship” which relegate aspects of sex into non-existence. Once caught into this framework the cycle is self-perpetuating and self-justifying. “One must not talk about what is forbidden until it is annulled in reality; what is inexistent has no right to show itself, even in the order of speech where its inexistence is declared; and that which one must keep silent about is banished from reality as the thing that is tabooed above all else.”[6] The stability of the dominant system depends on the ‘inexistence’ of that which is under its power.

It is important to remember that the first statement on the domain of power and sex is its negative relationship. It is confusing that such extreme outcry has emerged from particular men and men’s group as to the apparent ‘feminization’ of the church. Though the vast majority of church leadership is male and church attendance is divided roughly 60 percent female and 40 percent male writers such as Leon Podles mourn the loss of the masculine church which he says men lost already in medieval period.[7] Were the ratio of leaders reversed feminists would be celebrating in the streets. I do not discount that as an institution the church is far more open to feminine expressions in comparison to other social institutions in the West. What I am interested in is the type of response this can engender in men. In family systems a well-differentiated individual is able to accept, even welcome growth and increased independence of an individual within the family. This is not the type of response typically encountered by men writing on this issue. Rather, what is being revealed is the power-relations that had been implicit in the church structure prior to these shifts. Podles assumes that the church and God were once explicitly masculine. Historically women in the church, as in biology, were relegated under the larger masculine hierarchy (Podles argues that masculinity itself, ‘that which separates,’ is analogous to holiness). This relationship follows the structure of power relations that Foucault describes. As women became ‘existent’ and emerged from outside the power structure the structure appeared to be destabilized but had no ‘positive’ response. On this subject Ward writes that “the reality of women calls into question the governing male ontology, the hierarchal ontology, which supports . . . exploitation.”[8] The only response was a renewed attempt to relegate women back into constraint and render them ‘annulled in reality.’ This type of response only seems to confirm that much of the church had functioned under an unequal power structure that did allow the creative tension of sexual difference as Ward outlined above. In Podles’ ecclesial construct feminization is a threat as opposed to a complementary or even necessary expression of the church. Podles writes that “Christianity is [now] a religion of and for women.”[9] And if this is wrong, as it is in his account, then the response is to restructure a church that is of and for men as opposed to a church that embraces male and female as divine expressions of being human. This is a negative power relationship. The only ‘positive’ content that tends to emerge from specific male ministries is the need for men to gather and express themselves in complete exclusion to women. What is ironic is that even this expression requires women otherwise there would be no framework for ‘separating,’ which is key in Podles understanding of masculinity (and even more ironically, key for Ward’s notion of sexual difference and ‘space’).

Understanding the contemporary context of men and the church aids pastoral care givers in their ability to discern the larger web of issues that may be implicitly or explicitly informing a particular situation. The questions that need to be asked include the following. To what extant should particular ‘male’ expressions be endorsed and what expressions need to be brought into greater relationship with feminine difference and space? What are issues for men as men and what are issues for men as humans in a particular social position? It is only after understanding the theology of gender relations that these can questions can be answered appropriately as a pastor.

---

[1] It should that other factors, such as economics, can also be attributed to the shift in masculinities in the West. See R. W. Connell, “The History of Masculinity,” in The Masculinity Studies Reader.

[2] With reference to family systems see Edwin H. Friedman, Generation to Generation: Family Process in Church and Synagogue (New York: The Guilford Press, 1985).

[3] Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), 82.

[4] Ibid., 83.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 84.

[7] Originally published Leon Podles, “Missing Fathers of the Church: The Feminization of the Church and the Need for Christian Fatherhood,” Touchstone 14.1 (Jan/Feb 2001). Retrieved April 2, 2008 from http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.1docs/14-1pg26.html. This article updates and applies is early work The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity (Dallas, TX: Spence Publishing Company, 1999).

[8] Ward, Christ and Culture, 138.

[9] Podles, “Missing Fathers.”

Read More...

Summary only...

Preface to Theology and Gendered Ministry

“The first thing that strikes the careless observer is that women are unlike men. They are the “opposite sex” (though why opposite I do not know; what is the “neighbouring sex”?). But the fundamental thing is that women are more like men than anything else in the world.”
- Dorothy L. Sayers

“The number 1 issue that doesn’t seem to be addressed in the United States in churches is men connecting with men. What we need, who we are, what motivates us and drives us is completely different. We have a whole new idea and whole new concept something that is so dangerous that to create a revolution we can’t do it the same way anymore. That’s why we’ve created an event called GodMen where men can be fully men raw, uninhibited and completely free to express themselves in the uniquely male way that only men understand.”
- Brad Stine founder of GodMen

“What I see as a manifestation of sexual liberation is God made a couple: Man and woman and not simply God made man. Might Christ be the harbinger of this living reality? Why is his sexual incarnation denied or else treated on a human plane alone?”
- Luce Irigaray

Read More...

Summary only...