Excuse me while I step up on my soapbox for a minute or so here. Lately I have been thinking a lot (and I mean A LOT) about what it means that the Kingdom of God is now and not yet, and what our role is in that. I, like many people, get excited about the Kingdom of God and the restoration it will bring. I get even more excited when I think about the fact that the Kingdom has broken into our world now with the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ. Yet what that means for us is something pretty incredible, and something that will scare most of us.
I have been in many conversations lately about what it means for men and women to lead alongside each other. What has surprised me over and over is the fact that most people that I am talking with agree with me, and yet I have been continually called to something "higher." (Note: if you are one of the people who has said this, please, please PLEASE do not take offense
to being referenced here, I mention it because it has helped me connect some much needed dots...in fact I am so grateful for our conversations...and there are many of you).
So, I have begun to wonder, what is this higher calling? What does it mean to advance the Kingdom without challenging power structures or working for equality? Is the gender issue (or racial issue or class issue etc.) a sub-point to the gospel, or is it integral? I think I would argue it is the latter, many would say it is the further.
So, why do I think that if we are to be about the Kingdom we must be about the various "issues" as well? First of all, because I believe Paul when he says that in Christ there is no male or female, slave or free man, Jew or Gentile. I believe that those words sum up what it truly means that the Kingdom has come to earth. Secondly, because I mean it when I pray the Lord's Prayer and ask for God's will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. For these two reasons, I have to believe that seeking reconciliation, redemption, equality and transformation have everything to do with the Kingdom, and there is no "higher" calling.
I believe that the separation we feel as men and women has more to do with the Fall than with Created order, and so if domination and subordination are results of the fall, not creation, and I also believe that the Kingdom is about restoration, then I must believe that working for men and women to be equal is a major part of the Kingdom, because it is a major part of the Fall.
Let me give an example of what I'm talking about: I was recently in a great conversation with a pastor who is doing amazing work in the mid-west. The church model he has set up is awesome; as the church grows instead of getting larger they plant another site, so they are a multi-site church, with pastors being raised up from the congregation. They all meet together to discuss the Bible in a midrash-like group. Therefore, the are gaining multiple perspectives from a variety of people, yet when I asked about the voices of women and minorities he said there were some that attended, but none that were part of the teaching circle.
So, they work this man is doing is great, and the churches are growing. And yet I am left to wonder, is this the higher calling that people continue to refer to? I mean, yes, he is doing Kingdom work...and yet I would say he is not at the same time. People often say that liberation and feminist theology don't dream big enough...but I would argue that it is the "higher calling" mentality that does not dream big enough, because they do not dream big enough to see equality and redemption as part of their work. This pastor is doing great things, but he is doing them apart from seeking restoration of racism, sexism, and classism. These churches have a platform to do amazing work in these areas (as do many organizations...this is just one example of many) and yet the "Kingdom" takes precedence. What does it mean for us that we think we can do kingdom work apart from seeking reconciliation and restoration?
I would say it has to do with power...the one thing we love to talk about and do nothing about. You see, what this structure does is continue to keep those with power up front at the expense of those without, and then claim it is for the sake of the Kingdom. We advance the kingdom by ignoring those who have been oppressed and ignored? That seems so contrary to
Jesus. I mean, yes, Jesus did not topple governments or make all of these issues go away, and yet when I study the gospel I see a God who challenges power structures with everything he does. He is born to a poor family, he talks with women, he eats with sinners, he walks through Samaria. I see Jesus, who brings the Kingdom, always engaged with these issues and influencing them subversively with his whole being...and when you put the name God in place of Jesus, you begin to see the heart of God.
So, I see it as a struggle between the now and the not yet. When the Kingdom comes in full there will be no more racism, sexism, classism etc. Restoration and reconciliation will come in full. And yet the Kingdom is now, and that is what I see in Jesus. Jesus lived the Kingdom and its principles in his sphere of influence, and I believe we are to do the same. If we are advancing the Kingdom in spite of these issues then I think we need to seriously reconsider what the Kingdom is. For maybe we need to dream big enough that the work we do does include the challenging of power structures and the equality of all in the Kingdom. It means laying down your leadership life so that those who have not been heard can be heard. It means creating space for those without a voice to speak...it is to do the subversive work of redemption now wherever we can.
How do we begin to dream big enough that equality is kingdom work and not just a sub-point to the gospel? How do we live lives of redemption and reconciliation? What is the kingdom anyways?
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Mere -
Wow. You are not lying when you say you have put some thought into this topic – your thought and your struggle with it are both evident. The beauty of blogs is that they are a context that can contain stream of though – so in that sense, it is fun to read your stream of thought.
Now onto my response.
There are so many questions and so many points raised in this post that it is almost impossible to grab at a suitable starting part. So I will just dive in and see where I end up. I will follow suit with the post and let the stream of thought be delivered through my fingertips.
I had to chuckle when I started to read the post, it was a chuckle because I knew, at least in part, where some of this thought got triggered. It came in a conversation that we still need to have in regard to this very issue. I'm glad I was able to help you put your thoughts together. But in reading the rest of the post I kept hearing you say, “Those people (that you were having these conversations with) are wrong and I am right.” So in that vain, how is the very power that you are talking about being used differently (kingdomly)?
I think it would help me to understand your view of the kingdom if you were to define equality. Because what I think I hear you saying is that in equality there is no misuse of power. In other words, in the kingdom power takes a back seat because power (separation) was a result of the fall. If what I hear is true, then I have to push back a little. I believe that power will always be present, even in the kingdom. The interplay of power in human interactions is part of what makes this world hard to live in, and yet, if we do live in the “now and not yet” then I have to believe that every aspect that exists currently will exist in the kingdom. So with that in mind, the question becomes, what is the “now” of power, therefore, what is the “not yet” of power? I guess maybe what I am pushing back against is the ideal of equality. I don't believe that God is a communist (nor do I believe that he into democracy) and so I can't believe that what god ultimately seeks in equality. Sure, before the fall Adam and Eve “felt no shame” but does this mean they lived in an egalitarian relationship? The female and the male souls are distinctly different and both reveal differ aspects of their creator. Therefore, is equality providing the female with what the male “has?” Is equality providing the male with what the male “has?” I don't think that it is. For even in this there is still power at play. So what does it mean to first acknowledge that God created two different 'categories' of souls and then to pursue equality? This shifts the conversation for me, and helps me escape the trap of creating one big “unisex” environment. For me to be male I need, desperately need, females to be more female. This is reconciliation to me, for this shift does not involve (simply) shifting power structures, it involves the mind, body and soul.
Now, you it is possible that you are thinking right about now “Well Joel, you are white male that never has to think about power, because whatever you want is handed to you.” Part of this is true, but I can't, and hate myself for being things that we given to me (i.e. race and gender). But what I can do is use this power that is given to me and turn it outside of myself onto something of the kingdom. For if I fight against this power instead of using it then possibly, just possibly, I might be missing something that God weaved into me when he chose to place my soul in a white male body.
Those are my thoughts, care to mid-rash about it?
Joel
Hey Joel,
Thanks for the response! I would love to midrash over this idea...it is one that obviously affects me deeply, and one that I think needs to be talked about more in constructive ways.
Many things struck me in your response, but here are a few of them. First, yes our conversation was one of the many that helped with this post, but again, there were many!
Equality...difficult word. Thank you for asking me to further explain/define. Once again, a much needed dot to be connected in this crazy conversation. One thing with that is tied into what you said at the end, you need women to be more like women. I think that has been a stumbling point for many feminists, because many have had to assimilate to a male way of leading in order to challenge power hoarding. I am not in favor of this at all...I do believe that God created men and women differently, and I love being a woman.
The problem here is equal opportunity. I think if we are honest, most men do not value the voice of a woman. They may begin to think about "leading with women"but have they even thought about being led by a woman? There is a posture of men that their view is "normal" and so often women have to write about their "non-normal" point of view, rather than leading as a woman does.
Also, that line of needing women to be more like women has been used to keep gender roles in place, because the women who want to lead/teach/preach/own a company/lead a Bible Study/be a manager etc. etc. etc. want what men have. I totally want women to lead like women, but this is more about the opportunity to lead. I know this isn't what you meant by that when you said it, but that is often how that line of argument is used.
Additionally, the idea of power in the Kingdom is an intriguing one. I think Jesus at least gives us a hint to what it is when he says the first shall be last, and the last shall be first. There will be crazy paradox in the Kingdom. Something you said at the end which is so hard/beautiful/encouraging. The idea of using that power for something outside of yourself. It's hard to write this, but I wonder what it would be like for men to begin to use their power in a way that laid their life down. It seems like this last shall be first, first shall be last thing is harder than any of us want it to be. What would it be like if intelligent/fabulous men who were invited to speak at a conference said "I could do that, and do a great job, but I'm tired of men headlining, and so I am going to use my power to create room for someone else, and I am going to expose places where power hoarding is taking place." That is a terrible call, one I do not envy. But until someone says enough (someone who is not marginalized) it will not change. It breaks my heart to even think about that, because I know the men who would be willing to do that are the men who most deserve to be heard.
Sometimes this power thing just so saddens my heart it makes me want to give up. But I see it as a justice issue, and so no matter how hard I try I can't be indifferent. Yet I hope to be constructive and loving. I hope to weep for those who do lay their life down for others, and I hope to do the same. This gospel is maddening at times.
I would love to get some MDiv students together to do an actual midrash over the issue. I think it would be a beautiful thing for us to sit down and honestly talk about this.
Thanks again for your response, sorry for my lengthy one!
~Mere
mere -
You took my thoughts and put just a slight slant on them that allowed me to see yet another funky angle to this whole conversation.
Since we operate within a Christian construct we have this thing that is commonly referred to as "the fall." Now, whatever one's belief on this matter is one thing holds true -- we intuitively feel as though we are not who we ought to be. For both men and women this plays out differently. Keeping in mind the categories that Dan Allender uses to describe the curse -- that being that men feel like they are not enough and women feeling like they are too much. The thought that you helped trigger, particularly when you gave the example of men voluntatily stepping aside, was this -- I wonder how our gender specific curse plays into this category of power?
The reason I thought this is that I completely agree with your statement of "I know the men who would be willing to do that are the men who most deserve to be heard." And yet, this is so damn difficult for a man to do when men often use seminars and conferences to help mask the pain they feel from not being enough. For a man to stand in front of thousands of people and deliver a talk is incredibly soothing for the man's curse. So for a man to step aside and allow the woman to step in is requiring that the man play into the very curse that he is trying to escape from. Obviously, a difficult, difficult thing to do. And yet, incredibly necessary. But what is also necessary, for the woman that then gets invited, is to lead in a womanly way. Now, granted this may sound like a "duh" sentence, but there have been times that I have sat at a conference or seminar and watched a woman lead like a man. This in turn (at least in the way we are talking about it) accomplishes nothing -- other than woman getting more air time.
This goes back to my previous statement (which you appropriately pushed back against) of men need to be men and women need to be women. Redemption will not occur until spaces, and structures, are created that embody the soul of a woman. Currently "public spaces" are incredibly masculine.
So the way I see it is that one of the first steps is for men to acknowledge this reality, therefore giving up their power to control and allow the structures to change. Then, coincidely, women create "public space" structures that are feminine. This, if done well, does not just transfer the finite amount of power that exists, but creates an entirely different reality.
This would be an incredible gift to both men and women alike.
Joel
Mere and Joel,
Joel told me about this fantastic conversation. Having read the comments. I have this question for all of us, but first a brief point.
A couple of weeks ago at the big picture as we were collectively processing the film, one of the comments made by a prospective student went something like this: "Condemnation doesn't lead to redemption, it only makes the individual more likely to commit the sin for which they are being condemed".
If this is true, then how does one name injustice, without condeming?
mere, joel, tim…everyone,
I am thoroughly enjoying this conversation, and am learning much from all of you. I have to say that many of these thoughts are difficult for me to digest to the point of having a response because it is so new for me to look at these struggles, and to actually put words to feeling something of them. So first I wanted to say thank you for being willing to bring this to a place of conversation, and maybe you can all help me process some things, both here and as the conversation continues, because I have a lot of questions. So bear with me as I try to sort through some this…I would love to hear your responses.
There is a part of me that hesitates even entering this conversation, because it can be so abstract and difficult to wrap my mind around. But I have this feeling that many people think this conversation is not worth having, or just that it isn’t a necessity. And for awhile, a part of me wondered the same thing. Yet in wondering, I knew that nothing could change without conversation…or could it? It seems that if we were all seeking to live into a way of being that truly reflects how we have been created as individuals, everything would change. And I believe that. But a part of living as we were created means living in community, and that means wrestling with the things that hinder community…and this would be one of those things. So...
On one hand, I am wondering about the generalities of the questions how do women lead as women, and how do men lead as men. They really are great questions to ponder…but in considering them, I am also a little dumbfounded. It feels kind of restrictive…at least upfront. If someone were to ask me to consider how I lead as a woman, I would be, and am actually, very confused. Maybe even annoyed. And maybe I just don’t know what might be meant by that question. However, it seems a better question is how do I lead as Jen…and how do I lead in relation with those around me, now. Of course part of how that plays out absolutely has to do with me being a woman, but it will still most certainly look different from how you lead, Mere. And Joel, how you lead will likely be different from Tim. So in that sense, I just wonder what it does to consider the overall theme of how women lead as women and how men lead as men…when it seems such a particular thing that has to be figured out within the context of each community…because it looks different for every person, and for every community. Even here…how we each lead together within this particular context of Mars Hill may look quite different from how we will lead with others within the context of different communities simultaneously or hereafter. [I don’t mean this in the sense that we become different people in every situation, but simply that communities are different…and how we “lead” really is affected by the whole community]. Can it really be generalized and/or should it be generalized so much? Or do you think there’s something I’m missing?
Because I desire so much for us all to be able to look one another in the eyes and to see one another without having to first deconstruct things based on gender, this conversation can be really exhausting. But the reality is that although I don’t believe it, or don’t want to believe it, there is still at times this sense within me that next to a man’s voice, mine is inferior, and it can be quite a battle. So this is where I am in entering this conversation…and I’m curious where everyone else is. Maybe the blog isn’t the context for this (or maybe it is)…but to me that is something that seems to be a really important part of the discussion…both this one in particular, and as it continues to occur in other places.
Post a Comment