Emerging Women

I was listening to a lecture for a class I’m taking in seminary this week, and the teaching professor said something that totally threw me for a loop. He was talking about the difference between true peacemaking and appeasement, and he said that we have cheapened the concept of forgiveness. Referencing Luke 17:3-4, he said that we should listen again to what Jesus actually said:

“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.”

Which could imply that if he doesn’t repent, you shouldn’t forgive him.

I’ve been taught that forgiveness has two dimensions: 1) the actual act of forgiving someone – no longer holding them accountable for what they did to you (tho how this actually works in the context of some choices having consequences I don’t always quite know) and 2) the emotional benefit that comes from forgiving someone. Bitterness and unforgiveness do as much – if not more – hurt and damage to our own hearts as they do to the person towards whom we hold them…. So shouldn’t we forgive? At least in theory, even if practically our relationship with the person in question is altered by whatever fall-out there is from the situation? According to what Jesus says here, maybe not…

What do you think about this? I’m happy to say that I don’t think there are any situations in my life that make this question pressing, but there have been in the past and there probably will be again someday, so I’m hoping to think this through a bit while I’m not emotional.

Hi all. Weekly Round-up time once again!

Sally has some wonderful thoughts on Celtic Spirituality.

Jemila reflects on diamonds.

Ashley has a great post about learning to say no as a woman.

Makeesha reflects on telling people what to believe.

and I wrote about differect ways Christians engage with other cultures.

Have a great weekend. I’m off next week to the Emergent Gathering in New Mexico. We will be hosting an Emerging Women lunch and discussion for whoever is interested. I hope to see a few familiar faces there!

Welcome to EW’s Tuesday Book Discussion. I wanted to pose a couple of questions for you from the discussions for us as well as a couple of quotes that resounded for me in my reading.

First, the questions:

1. Are all religions equal?

2. Do all religions address the same God?

3. Is it okay to participate in a religious holiday of a religion other than your own?

4. Is it possible to separate religion from politics?

Next, what does the following quotation mean to you?

“Knowledge is finding out something for oneself with pain, with joy, with exultancy, with labor, and with all the little ticking, breathing moments of our lives.” Thomas Wolfe

Lastly, after reading the below quotation, reflect on a moment that served as a formation moment in your life.

“We have two or three great moving experiences in our lives – experiences so great and moving that it doesn’t seem at the time that anyone else has been caught up and pounded and dazzled and astonished and beaten and broken and rescued and illuminated and rewarded and humbled in just that way ever before.” F. Scott Fitzgerald

So I finally got around to watching the TV shows I TiVod last week and saw Jon Stewart’s interview with Bill Clinton on The Daily Show (watch the clip here). What struck me were the cultural assumptions about gender that clip revealed (and yes I know this is a satire show and those assumptions were most likely deliberate).

Stewart of course had to talk to Bill Clinton about his wife’s presidential run. My point here isn’t about if Hillary should or shouldn’t be president, but the gender assumptions associated with that. During the whole segment, Stewart kept pushing Bill to talk about how weird it would be to have his wife in a position of power over him. Stewart made pillow talk jokes, and implied that one’s manhood would be in question if one’s wife were to be president. Bill to his credit did everything he could to avoid those paths Stewart was trying to lead him down.

Now I know that the Bill and Hillary thing is different in a way because she is running for the position he once held and all that, but the gender assumptions aren’t limited to their relationship. Even when Bill was president people took offense that Hillary played such an involved role in politics. Unlike other First Ladies she wasn’t just a pretty accessory who shows off the White house Holiday decorations to the press and occasionally gets involved in “good causes.” I remember frequently seeing bumper stickers that went something along the lines of “Impeach President Clinton and Her Husband Too!” Now I was not a Clinton fan at the time, but I still found those bumper stickers offensive for the assumptions they made about women, especially women in power.

The idea is that there is something wrong about a woman being in a position of political power. Some men think it is a challenge to their manhood to answer to a woman. If anyone watched the TV series Commander in Chief a couple of years ago you saw this theme played out (well at least after the point in the season where Rod Lurie was removed from creative control and they started pursuing stupid plots like that…) In that show, when a woman (by accident not election) became president, her husband entered an identity crisis and basically abandoned his family so he could prove himself. This is the American idea of what it would mean for a woman to lead. The focus is less on her abilities and qualifications, and more on her sexuality and its impact on men.

Now I fully understand that people don’t support Hillary for a number of reasons other than her gender, but as the campaign continues it is disheartening to see the gender card continue to be played against her. Is the country really still so sexist and afraid of women in positions of power? What will it take to truly get beyond that? For those of you in other countries (especially those that have elected women as heads of state) do you see a different dynamic at play?

So I know there has been a lot put out recently deriding millionaire pastors, but I found this recent study put out by Christianity Today on what us average folks make more relevant. You can read a summary of the study at the Out of Ur blog. But I especially thought this part regarding what female pastors make was interesting –

Female solo pastors earn more than male solo pastors.
Okay, so there aren’t many female solo pastors; in American churches responding to our survey, only six percent of solo pastors are women. Still, it’s intriguing that female solo pastors reported 10.4 percent higher total compensation. Their average salary was 8.6 percent higher than men’s ($49,219 compared to $45,259); and better housing and retirement benefits made up the rest. Why the difference? Why do female solo pastors earn, for total compensation (includes health insurance, retirement, and continuing education), $62,472, when their male counterparts earn $56,558?

My first hypothesis went like this: “Since there are precious few women hired as senior pastors—only 2.5 percent, in our research—women stay in solo pastorates longer, and their longevity leads to higher pay.” But that hypothesis doesn’t hold up: for solo pastors, the number of years served makes next to no difference in pay.

The more-likely explanation is regional. We know that solo pastors receive the highest pay in the New England and Pacific states (not surprisingly, given the higher cost of living in these regions). And these regions probably have the greatest cultural acceptance of women serving as solo pastors. Thus, women solo pastors tend to find work in regions with a high cost of living, and consequently, get a higher salary.

And before we assume that the church runs counter to the still-prevalent cultural practice of paying women less than men for comparable work, women were paid less than men in every other church position surveyed (except for secretary). On average, females earned approximately 80 percent of the compensation of males. Or, in other words, males earned about 30 percent more than females.

I think their explanation (female pastors are more accepted on the coasts which also have a higher cost of living) makes sense. I also wonder if the women who are solo pastors serve in mainline denominations that have established programs for things like health insurance, retirement, as well as sufficient funds to pay pastors a living wage as opposed to the (mostly) men who serve in smaller more conservative churches that have no resources and pay poorly. What are your thoughts or reactions to studies like these?

I am new to the emerging women community and just wanted to take the opportunity to introduce myself.
I am a twenty-seven year old woman who recently finished a master’s degree in life experience and Marriage and Family Therapy. I have spent the past year and half blazing my way out of my own personal hell and am finally beginning to emerge on the otherside. In the process, I have wrestled with my own humanity as well as my Christian faith. It has been a crazy adventure in learning how to love myself, others, and ultimately God.
I read Peter Rollins’ book, How (Not) to Speak of God, several months ago, and have in turn become increasingly interested in the emerging church/community. I have a passion for reading and discussing new and evolving philosophies and theology, and I am currently looking into doctorate programs where I can complete a religious studies program focused on the emerging church.
All that to say, I am honored and very excited to now be a part of this community. I am looking forward to interacting with other like minded individuals as I continue to explore this intriguing new movement.

So many assume that disobedience was the first sin, and representative of every bad choice that we might do thereafter.

Adam/Eve didn’t know that to disobey was bad though, remember? They didn’t make any knowing choice and by all standards were therefore unaccountable.

After they ate the fruit, they lost love for themselves (evidenced by shame) and lost faith in God’s unconditional love (evidenced by fear). They became aware of the commandment in a new light and concluded that they were bad. They couldn’t love themselves through their mistake, so they didn’t expect God to either. That doesn’t make any of it true!

What it did make true, was that they were disconnected from God because they were disconnected from love. “God is love” (1 John 4:8). That means that they were dead! (Just like God warned – imagine that.)

God, who is represented as a loving father biblically, then is strolling through the garden and doesn’t see his children anywhere. Concerned (NOT enraged imo), he inquires (NOT booms imo), “Where are you?” If your own children were hiding because they had just painted their rooms with ketchup, you would still wonder where they were. If you were accustomed to their little voices and laughter, you might grow concerned by their silence.

They were disabled and did not reveal their true selves to God, they did not stop believing the lies that they were telling themselves. They didn’t truly come clean and open up.

Rather than shouting “What have you done!!”, God will have immediately known the consequences for their actions. If our children drank poison, we wouldn’t flare our nostrils and shout. We would sound concerned and plugged in, “Oh no! What have you done?!” Why wouldn’t God who paints himself as a parent sound loving and soft in his concern as well?

Are the struggles found in our own childhood interfering with our hearing God in a functional way?

God then tells them what was going to happen because of what they had done. Always concerned for them, and knowing the fig leaves not to be such a great covering for his shame ridden and fear filled children, he dressed them in animal skins.

They will have passed their own dysfunctional thinking on to their children. In 1 John 3:11-14 the people were compelled by the author to love one another, and not to be as Cain, who killed his brother because his own works were evil. Hebrews 11:4-6 says that Abel’s sacrifice was offered by faith.. BY faith. It was his faith that made his offering righteous. Cain lacked faith, and so his offering was a lesser sacrifice. In Jude 1:11, the “way of Cain” was to err in the likeness of Balaam for gain.

Remember Balaam? His “ass” spoke to him, after he beat it. He was willing to be hired to curse Israel, though through him God would declare otherwise. He would find himself reciting words that very closely resembled that which God said to Cain, “God is not a man that He should lie, or a son of man that He should repent. Has He said, and shall He not do it? And has He spoken, and shall He not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19).

(“If you do well, is there not exaltation? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is toward you; but you should rule over it.” Genesis 4:7)

Balaam was originally interested in lying for Balak’s wages. God’s will superceded his own, not allowing him to do so. Rather, Balaam knew that God was not a man that he would lie.

This lie about Israel’s curse, will have had many more implications. Israel was enlisted as mediators (Priesthood) and rulers (Kingship) if they kept the covenant made with God.

One of the first reminders to Israel by Jesus was that the law could be summed up in loving God and (the one “like” it), loving your neighbor. How could humanity, having been disconnected from love ever have kept the law?

Cain, lacking in faith, would take the life of his brother similarly to Balaam’s desire, so that he could have God for himself. Yet, what was this lacking in faith which drove the people of the bible to wish to obtain God for themselves? Is this not defined in the garden? Is this not the lack of faith in love itself?

There was a grave need for reconnection and the good news was that Jesus was going to do it. A universal resurrection was to take place – just as death entered the world through one man, life would enter through another (Romans 5:12). Just as “all died” in the work of Adam, so “all” would be given life through and by Jesus (1 Cor 15:22).

The world would not be disconnected from love eternally, a Savior had come. Death would be destroyed in that any validation that could be found in the law to believe the lie, was removed. Love actually fulfilled that law in demonstrating righteousness in contrast to it.

The law condemned. Humanity was bound to sin and death through it. The entire point of that law was to make sin known, so that love might be known in comparison to it. It served its’ purpose, so we are freed from it, and even by it.

The law was understood as right living. It was the measuring stick for which humanity determined itself “good” or “bad”. Love transcends “good” or “bad” in the very same way that we love our own children through their mistakes.

Did God not demonstrate the same?

The sin of believing the lie still abounds. The good news, is that since we were unable to go to God, God has come to us. We are unable to disconnect from God’s warm embrace. If only for a fleeting moment, we might all feel that.