It felt like a rather different conference this year than in the past. There was a huge emphasis on being a missional church---which I appreciate---however, the job of the worship minister generally falls under the camp of being the "attractional church". So, the age old question of "Do we in any shape or form resemble the church Jesus established?" becomes even more problematic to the wearied worship leader who is spending 6 hours a week on powerpoint slides that people only notice when they're missing. Even the scripture stating "they who have a new song or scripture, have them bring it..." seems only plausible for a house church size. Which throws us right back into the structured "institutionalized" worship time for large congregations, which (hopefully) does its prayerful best to be relevant, connecting, and honoring. [the only option to that is to be irrelevant, disconnected, rote and boring....which I believe to be also dishonoring].
Some of the ministers I met felt they had done much more ministry before they were paid ministers. But, as Bruce noted, no matter where you put your emphasis, "somebody's got to mow that grass". The most comforting illustration I heard was, "yes, we all need to be soldiers in the field--but somebody's got to be at the camp when it comes time to refuel."
I also found the class on gender & church to be very educational. The couple teaching were very humble and gracious, and some of their examples were extremely enlightening. They had worked as missionaries to Uganda. In that culture, women are generally topless, but what is worn below the waist (in the villages) is extremely important to their concept of modesty. Meanwhile, a couple of hours west in the larger city, things are very different. A young lady from the city wore jeans to church in the village, and the new congregation almost imploded. The missionary wrote a letter to them: thanking them for their good works, praising them for their new found Christian lives, etc. etc. Then he also urged the older women to have patience with the "changing" times and dress of the younger women. And then, he asked the young lady not to wear jeans. Obviously, that directive was not meant for all cultures of the world for all times...but suddenly this modern day missionary understood what it was Paul must have gone through. The critical question is this: does (whatever behavior) hinder the spread of the gospel?
Which, considering OUR area of being in the politically-correct- nation's- capital, how does the exclusion of women in the worship service look to our culture? We can have a woman vice-president but within our four walls they not allowed to read out loud or serve communion? Does it help or hurt the cause of the gospel? Worse, how are we then labeled...and how does our four walls become a barrier to spreading the message of Jesus Christ? Stuff to think about.
Let Us Adore – Anonymous
2 days ago
1 comment:
Jesus was unique in his time because, against the backdrop of a society dichotomized between the wealthy and the poor and segregated by ethnicity and gender, he dared to challenge the inequalities of his world. As Biblical scholar Walter Wink wrote, "Jesus violated the mores of his time in every single encounter with women recorded in the four Gospels." Jesus challenged sexist divorce and adultery laws and openly invited women to follow him and be taught by him. All this at a time when Judaism considered it obscene to even teach a women.
One of the most touching feminist gestures by Jesus, perhaps, was when he spoke to the Samaritan woman at the well. This was a double taboo because not only were Jews not supposed to speak to Samaritans, but rabbis were not allowed to speak to women. For this reason, the woman at the well asks "How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?" In response Jesus reveals himself as the Messiah. This instance was not a mere nicety, but a significant message to the world: Jesus was to be a beacon of light for women, who had suffered oppression for so long.
The fact that the modern church continues to justify sexual inequality by citing to a few lingering Judaic cultural nuances that appear in the Bible, while blatantly ignoring the spirit of inclusiveness and impartiality that that Jesus embodied, is un-Christian, self-serving, inexcusable.
As a woman who was raised in the church of Christ, I often feel like asking those men who dominated my religious upbringing, "Do you really think that you were 'doing as Jesus would've done' when you shut me out??? When you told me that it wasn't my place to speak? When you forced me into a subsidiary role and told me that I could never be a leader?" I, a woman who was, even as a girl, smart...independent...and... a born leader.
And so, there was no place for me in the church and that became clear at a very young age. That was, unless I wanted to resign myself to follow teachings which offended every fiber of my being. That, I can not do. By virtue of my God-given conscience, I can not subjugate myself. And as a woman who refuses to be subjugated and insists on equality for all people in all contexts, I carry on the legacy of Jesus in a way that the church of Christ (in all it's confused egoistic glory) has never quite been able to manage.
So, might the culture of sexual intimidation and subjugation in the church of Christ turn people away? Oh yes, it does. And in my specific case, it forever has.
Post a Comment