« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »
February 27, 2006
Things Are Happening.
Some may recall that I was feeling like this...
...about this place:
Today, I'm feeling more like this...
...or this
Also, I think that this guy...
...would look great at this place...
Still, we'll keep waiting and praying, always trusting that God is kind. My heart is not anxious, and I am thankful.
Posted by elissa at 02:24 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 23, 2006
gifts for the gods
Sometimes, I like to read the online version of my hometown paper, The Honolulu Star Bulletin. Sometimes, the stories that I read remind me that my little island in the Pacific is still a world apart from the rest of her sister states. Take, for example, this article on the recent desecration of a couple of altars.
When I stop to think about it, the disparity of the religious atmospheres in Honolulu and in Chattanooga still takes me aback. I grew up seeing rocks wrapped in ti leaves as gifts to the gods. The tangerines, rice cakes, (unopened) beer cans, and even jars of baby food at graveyards were unremarkable, even expected. Attending funerals or memorial services for extended family at Buddhist temples was a part of life. On the street, I was more likely to meet a nominal Buddhist or a practicing pantheist than a Christian.
It's difficult to explain the lasting impact of growing up in a Christian home while still in the midst of a culture that tended to dismiss my faith as "white" or "western"...and antithetical to our island life. It is still a little strange to be here, now, in the "Bible belt." I still do a double take when I see small piles of rocks in parks or front yards. It takes a second to remember that those are probably the results of children's games or a landscaping effort...not an ahu lele to the gods.
Posted by elissa at 05:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 22, 2006
Generosity in Contentment
God gives His mercies to be spent;
Your hoard will do your soul no good.
Gold is a blessing only lent,
Repaid by giving others food.
The world's esteem is but a bribe,
To buy their peace you sell your own;
The slave of a vainglorious tribe,
Who hate you while they make you known.
The joy that vain amusements give,
O! sad conclusion that it brings!
The honey of a crowded hive,
Defended by a thousand stings.
Oh fearful thought! be timely wise;
Delight but in a Savior's charms,
And God shall take you to the skies,
Embraced in everlasting arms.
-- William Cowper, "God Gives His Mercies to be Spent"
I enjoy Cowper; he is somehow able to articulate and answer the anxieties that I often weave about myself. The first two stanzas here just make sense to me. I'm learning to live the last two.
Posted by elissa at 12:55 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 21, 2006
Dear Professor, Let's Be Buds
An article in the Times reports the strange effect that e-mail is having on student-professor relationships. E-mail has happily enabled greater professor accessibility, but many students are inadvertently abusing the tool. Somehow, students now think that sending off a quick "I have a hangover, so I'm not coming to class" electronic missive is an acceptable practice and worthy of clemency. Other students deluge professors with bizarre and inane questions or are embolded to complain petulantly about grades. Often, the tone is casual, presumptuous, or downright imperative. To me, this says more about a cultural mindset than technology.
Still, this article offers strange comfort to me. At least now I need not blame the contents of my inbox solely on my age or adjunct/assistant status. After all, if a professor at UC Davis can receive this from a student:
Should I buy a binder or a subject notebook? Since I'm a freshman, I'm not sure how to shop for school supplies. Would you let me know your recommendations? Thank you!
...then I need not be too distressed by similar notes:
I'm not sure what to put on the top of my paper. Am I supposed to put my name up there? Or do I need to make a cover page? What should go on that? Thanks.
At least, that's what I'll tell myself.
Posted by elissa at 04:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 20, 2006
Locks, Keys, and a (Still) Physical Plant
Upon arriving at work this morning, I tugged ineffectively at the Writing Center door. For one of the first times in its existence as a gateway to superior grammatical and semantic structure, the door was locked. But, I was ready. After all, Physical Plant* had deemed me responsible enough to own a key to this hallowed hall of learning. I jingled my keys importantantly. Unfortunately, the door refused to be impressed; my key did not, by any stretch of the imagination or exertion of personal strength, fit the lock.
[Excursus] The bolder ones among us may have, at this point, marched confidently over to Physical Plant and indignantly demanded a new key. I, however, am strangely insecure in my ability to use keys. I spent much of my girlhood trying to reconcile the fact that I turned the key away from the doorjam to open our house door but towards the doorjam to open the car door. Or something. The whole lock-key-turn-open relationship never standardized itself enough in my psyche. After five minutes of standing at the Writing Center door, however, I decided that a jaunt up to Physical Plant was entirely justified. [/Excursus]
It took some persistence, but once at the Physical Plant office, I convinced the nice man that no matter what the official label declared, my key did not work. After some careful comparison with the almighty key database he agreed that he needed to cut me a new key and ushered me into a nearby workroom. I was expecting an imposing, whirring key cutting monster. Instead, my friendly Physical Plant employee reached into a box and pulled out a metal contraption that stood about as high as an old fashioned typewriter, but with half the width. He tucked a blank key into a slot and then turned a large, numbered dial on the contraption's side and pressed a lever. 9. Punch. 7. Punch. 1. Punch. Tiny golden bits of metal clinked onto the table. 6. Punch. 0. Punch. 6. Punch.
"Now I just need to stamp it," he told me. He retrieved two small, shallow boxes, each containing neat rows of what appeared to be miniature chisels. He picked out the "H" stamp, poised it carefully on the key head, and then knocked its head smartly with a hammer. Each letter and number in the key's identification stamp was similarly imprinted, one by one, with an echoing report. "This should work," he said confidently, handing me my new, shiny key. This one, I'm happy to say, worked flawlessly.
Does your college or employer eschew technological key-cutting advances in favor of personal craftsmanship? Mine does, and I find it strangely delightful. Two points for Physical Plant.
* I know they call themselves "Facilities Management" now, but you can't make clever 1980's pop song puns with that name. "Let's get Physical (Plant)" remains a fond memory.
Posted by elissa at 02:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 17, 2006
A Coconut in the House of Representatives
Jason, J. Earle Tyler, Ellis, and Lydia, I dedicate this post to you:
You've likely heard that the House of Representatives recently passed a resolution stating that "no United States assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel." You've probably also heard that the vote was an overwhelming 418-1, a rare show of unity in a Congress increasingly split on party lines.
All this leaves me with the unusual privilege of telling folks, "Hey, guess what! You know that lone vote against the resolution? Yeah, that was my home state's congressional representative,
Neil Abercrombie." w00t.
Perhaps this will actually help our tourist industry. Folks from across the nation, spurred by intense and peverse curiousity, can fly out to observe the strange and magical place that produced this political anomaly.
I leave, quickly, before the coconut puns start falling... oh dear.
Posted by elissa at 04:47 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
February 16, 2006
"God Be With You Until We Eat Again"
Last night, Paige and I cooked two huge pots of Italian Sausage Soup as dinner for our hungry small (read, twenty something people) group. After everyone had finished eating and we settled down for our Bible study, our leader, Henry Henegar, remarked that eating together has an almost sacramental quality for Christians.
Henry reminded us that Jesus, after His resurrection, was recognized by his disciples when he "broke the bread" with them. And in Acts 2:42 we read, "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." In the early church, food and fellowship were tied closely together; the daily reality of our physical need for sustenance intertwined with worship to the One who provides.
Noel and I both grew up in families that emphasized the ministry of food and hospitality. At my church in Honolulu, the congregational motto could be summed up as "God be with you until we eat again." Since getting married, Noel and I have made a practice of having Covenant students over for Sunday dinner on a regular basis. (Before he moved, our friend Jason alternated hosting duties with us.) It is not the most elegant of settings. With twelve of us packed around the table in our mismatched kitchen, demands for personal space fall to the wayside. But, we make a point of making the food special or, at the very least, a celebration of not being in the cafeteria. We've had a Chinese feast, a gourmet pizza extravaganza, spicy curries, savory soups and stews, and a spread of desserts. And the conversation always delights, rolling from smaller clusters to tablewide discussions on the day's sermon, politics, culture, the church, future plans, or tales of childhood derring-do. There is something intimate about feeding others. The food meets such a basic need, but somehow it also becomes a conduit of grace. There is rare concord in conviviality.
Not to say that it always comes naturally. My introverted self grows weary at the thought of my house flooding once again with people; my cautious purse balks at the thought of once again buying food for fourteen. But once I am cooking, I am delight again in a rejection of gnosticism and asceticism. The rhythm of cutting and preparation, the aroma of garlic and onions sizzling on the stove, and the steaming, colorful spread set on the table are good things, things rich with anticipation and joy. The food and companionship of Sunday dinners and Wednesday small groups foreshadow the greatest feast to come, the wedding banquet of Christ and His bride.
(I hope there's sushi there).
Posted by elissa at 03:59 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 15, 2006
A Purple Love Note
Posted by elissa at 03:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Love and Irony
I admit it. I wanted to blog something sweet and wifely for Valentine's Day. Glancing at my archives you, gentle reader, can of course see that I did not. It wasn't completely a matter of time management or writer's block, either. You see, in my mind, writing a simple Valentine's profession of love would have broken two of the cardinal rules of hip blogging: 1) never admit to celebrating a holiday that Hallmark also celebrates and 2) never say anything without a touch of irony. Sincerity is rarely hip.
Thankfully, this morning, I realized that, as Jane Tompkins writes in her seminal essay "Sentimental Power: Uncle Tom's Cabin and the Politics of Literary History,":
...twentieth-century critics have taught generations of students to equate popularity with debasement, emotionality with ineffectiveness, religiosity with fakery, domesticity with triviality, and all of these, implicitly, with womanly inferiority.
She argues that sentimental novels actually evidence an underappreciated "intellectual complexity, ambition, and resourcefulness," and can actually function as catalysts for change. In some ways, she argues, they are more effective and valuable than the rational, ironic, modernist discourse we cherish.
So.
Noel, you love me so well that events like Valentine's day become superfluous; I am already sure of how you care for and delight in me.
Hmm. This all didn't come out as unironic as I had hoped...
Posted by elissa at 12:09 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 13, 2006
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Chuch: Gender and the Arts
The "faculty forum" on Gender and the Arts brought together art professors Jeff Morton and Kaybe Carpenter with English professors Pat Ralston, Gwen Macallister, Clif Foreman, and Jim Wildeman. Each gave a brief (okay, so Morty's wasn't that brief) statement and then the panel entertained questions from the audience.
Morton began by giving a brief visual history of 20th century feminist art. During a time when "pure form," minimalism, and literalism was all the rage, women artists reintroduced the body and the personal to art. Feminism, Morton argued, "can teach us something about how the Word became flesh." We have a God who is both God and human, and there is something significant in how that affirms the body. There is something about being human and exploring our differences.
Wildeman barked, "Imagine a life that you can live." When pressed to expand on this idea, he explained his fascination with Charlotte Bronte's novel Jane Eyre and how, in his view, it allows young women to imagine a life that they could live, a life where the heroine turns down two different men, once for moral reasons and once because her suitor "could not love her as she deserved to be loved." Reading such things, Wildeman argued, allows a young woman to say, "I can choose a path that is unpopular in my circles, but the important thing in the end is my integrity."
Ralston related some of her experiences in teaching Medieval and Renaissance Writers for the first time. Students, male and female, were amazed and skeptical that there were actually enough quality female authors during this time period to merit an entire course on their work. Through the course of the semester, Ralston was encouraged, however, by her students willingness to open the canon and to explore and champion these "hidden" writers. Too many students, Ralston said, think that feminism began in the 1960s and that it is a four letter word. The reality, though, is that many women throughout history have championed the cause of free speech and expression and development for women. We can all be taught by and find delight in these writings. The common notion is that we read in order to join the human race. If we want a clearer picture of the human race and hope to understand it in its wholeness, we need to be listening to the voices of men and women from the past and encouraging the publishing of women's voices from the past.
Carpenter began by framing the value of art. We know things by our experience, she said, and writers and artists give us a picture of experiences that we ourselves may never have. Thus, we need to hear (or see) women speak because it gives us a fuller picture of the human experience. Furthermore, the images that artists are creating affect what we expect of ourselves as men and women. The arts, whether we realize it or not, affects our views of gender and identity.
Macallister echoed Ralston and Carpenter, relating her own story of teaching 20th Century American literature and having a male student complain over how "many" female authors he had been required to read. (Four). She emphasized, too, the significance of reconsidering the canon.
Foreman mused on the strange contradiction that appears when we consider male and female writers: if women are generally considered to have superior verbal skills to men, then why have there been so many great male writers, given the fact that they are handicapped? He answered his own question. "Mainly because of a longstanding affirmative action program. We men engineered it so that we men got a better education than the women had... But, as we all know, affirmative action really doesn't work well." There have been a number of women writers that have snuck through and established themselves at being important in the American tradition (Anne Bradstreet, Phyllis Wheatly, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Emily Dickinson, etc.) So what do men do with the fact that some women have slipped through? They redefine literature so that writing by women can no longer considered "literary." For example, sentimentalism was painted as a cardinal sin of true literature. Women were essentially defined-out of the American canon. Foreman also made an interesting connection between our American "frontier culture" and American writer's inordinate fondness for writing about men. Thus, you have the likes of Washington Irving, Herman Melville, and Mark Twain, among others. Nathaniel Hawthore is an exception to this tendency, but his female characters were still tightly contained within the traditions of the "pure white maiden" or the "evil temptress." Not until Edith Wharton and Willa Cather did we begin to get great female characters. These characters are important because of what they teach us about ourselves as humans.
Though only a few of the questions that followed these statements were directly related to questions of the arts, one did stand out. A young woman asked, "How would you advise young women who are hoping to engage or become successful in the arts?" Carpenter answered, frankly, that sacrifice will be demanded. It's necessary, then, to define what success means to you. Is it being shown at the Whitney or balancing a productive career with motherhood? Most of the women at the top of the arts are either divorced or single and they rarely have children. Dr. Kapic, from the audience, made the helpful point here that men who are at the top of their disciplines often also sacrifice (or ignore) a family life. The issue of sacrificing marriage and family for the sake of career is not a question only for women. It is complicated, however, by the fact that motherhood is tied so closely to womanhood, while fatherhood is not considered a major component of masculinity. (I have more thoughts on this that will likely develop in a later post...)
Posted by elissa at 04:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Chuch: Keynote 2
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church
Covenant College
February 11, 2006
Frank James gave the second keynote address, unpacking the history of gender and the church. The "more serious the discussion and the debate," he prefaced, "the more important it is to have some sense of historical context." To this end, he began by reading a series of quotes about women from the early, medieval, and reformation church fathers. These were not inspiring words.
The Early Church on Women:
Origin: "Women are worse than animals because they are continually full of lust."
Tertullian: "You are the devil's gateway, you are the first deserter of the divine law, you destroyed so easily God's image: man." And also, "Mankind, not woman, is made in the image of God.
Augustine: "I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man, if one excludes procreation. If the woman is not given to man to bear children, for what help could she be? To till the earth? If man needed help for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort and solitude. How much better for two men to live together..." And also, "For woman is not the image of God. Man alone is the image of God."
At a regional theological conference in France, Catholic bishops and laymen came together to decide this question: "Are women human?" In the end, they voted, 32-31, in favor of the fact that women were human.
The Medevial Church on Women
Aquinas: "A woman cannot be trusted... prudent men, therefore, tell their wives as little as possible about their plans. A woman is a botched male and by comparison with him she possesses a defective nature. In short, one should be on guard against any woman as against a poisonous snake."
Otto of Clooney: "To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure."
James paused here to make a caveat: there are always good men out there who do love their wives, but this is a discussion of the trends. And, as we entered the Reformation period, three major trends were evident:
1) women were routinely viewed as seductresses -- dangerous
2) women were inferior by nature
3) women are not made in the image of God
The Reformation Fathers on Women
Luther: "Although Eve was a most extraordinary creature, similar to Adam so far as the image of God is concerned, that is, in justice, wisdom, and happinesss, she was nevertheless a woman. For as the sun is more excellent than the moon (although the moon, too, is a very excellent body), so the woman, although she was a most beautiful work of God, nevertheless was not the equal of the male in glory and prestige.
Calvin: "Woman was created in the image of God but in a second degree."
At this point, the audience was reeling. Yet, as James pointed out, as Christians we are morally obligated to tell the truth even when the truth hurts. In this discussion, we will not be able to make progress unless we tell ourselves the truth. From these quotes, James drew several helpful observations.
First, history reminds us that all our heroes are flawed. The history of the church is full of examples of heroes with feet of clay. The Bible is profoundly honest about the frailty of the heroes of the faith. In the end, there is but one hero: the Lord Jesus Christ
Secondly, history reminds us that we have come a long way on the question of gender. At least we think women are image bearers now! Even better, we are no longer debating whether women are human. Given the history of the church, this is a big deal.
Third, history reminds us that Christian practice is often better than the principles that have been espoused. For example, although Augustine did not believe that women are not made in the image of God and saw her main role as a procreator, his autobiographical Confessions tell a seemingly contradictory story. It is a woman, his mother Monica, who played the central role in his life as a witness and spiritual warrior. Augustine specifically relates a time when he and his mother were praying together and had an extraordinary spiritual experience together, something that he always cherished. Martin Luther, too, said many harsh things about women. But, he loved his wife, Katie, dearly. Luther's whole conception of what marriage was changed the world. In fact, James suggested, "the reformation Luther wrought in the concept of marriage may have actually been greater than the revolution in doctrine." Luther stablished a new, non economic, reason for getting married: love. Furthermore, in his will, Luther makes Katie his executor, even though the practice of the time was to leave one's possessions to the nearest male relative. These men were often better in practice than principle.
Fourth, history reminds us that debate and controversy are not always bad. No one enjoys controversy, but God, in his mystery and wisdom has a way of using controversy to bring about advances for the kingdom. "God has made a practice in history of bringing light out of the darkness of controversy and debate."
Fifth, historically it seems that healthy debate enables us to ask more helpful questions For example, in the American church, the "racial" question has evolved radically over the last three centuries. It went from "Are African Americans property?" in the 1800's, to "Do they have the same civil rights as a white person?" in the 1960's, to "Can we blend our worship services and have African Americans and whites worshipping side by side in the same church?" Similarly, in the PCA, James said, our questions of gender have started to change: from "what are the limitations we place upon women in the local church?" to "What can women do?"
Sixth, and finally, history reminds us who the real enemy is. At this point, James may have been getting a little wired, because relating a post-Reformation controversy over the Lord's Supper he said, and I faithfully quote, "John Calvin got on his horsey," rode to Switzerland, and sat down with his counterpart in Zurich and came to an agreement, putting together a document that both could agree on. What motivated Calvin was the thought of how much he and this other man had in common versus the relatively small amount of differences. They also shared the same enemy.
James concluded, "In this discussion about gender, the enemy is not the complementarians or egalitarians, the ultimate enemy is the devil himself." We must not forget this in the midst of a serious debate that a spiritual battle is raging.
Posted by elissa at 03:27 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church: Keynote 1
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church
Covenant College
February 11, 2006
Carolyn Custis James presented a keynote address re-exploring the Bible's "blueprint" for women. She began be sharing the story of her personal struggle to reconcile the paradigm on which she had been raised and the realities of her own life. She had been planning on being a wife and mother, but it she had to wait a decade after graduating from college before she married. During this time, she realized that her theology really did matter. "What did it mean," she asked, "to be a woman, especially if you don't follow the usual path of being married and having children." Even after she was married, a battle with infertility and her husband's insistence that she use her theological training and gifts in the church forced her to ask, "Has God given a blueprint that is too small? One that doesn't fit all woman? Does God do His best and most important work through men?"
In unpacking this question, we begin, of course, with Eve, the first woman. "She is the lens through which we view our lives and the lives of women in Scripture." There are two main components to the prevailing understanding of Eve. The first is that Eve is often seen as "the temptress." If women are not kept in check, we will cause trouble in the church; men and women working together can only end in temptation. Secondly, we view Eve as a wife and mother, but we mistakenly assume that all women will be wives and mothers and we forget that someday the nests will empty or a woman may find herself widowed.
But, James argued, the Bible actually casts "a rich and expansive meaning for us as women." She presented three major things that God says about women. First, women are image bearers. We hear this so often that the shock has worn off, and yet this is the most important truth we can know about ourselves. Sometimes, James said, when we talk about gender as Christians, we are on the defensive from the culture. But, the Bible gives us a message about gender that "we need to go on the offensive with." In this paradigm of woman-in-the-image-of-God, feminism is a low view of women. "We are called to be like God, and there is no higher vision than that."
Secondly, women are to be an ezer. In Genesis, God says "it is not good for man to be alone; I will make an ezer (usually translated "helper") suitable for him." This word describing the woman is used 21 times in the Old Testament: twice for women, three times for nations, and 16 times for God. Some have proposed, given this usage, that the word be instead translated "strong helper." "What does that mean?" asked James. "Is she as strong as she wants to be? Is she strong, but without it affecting her rank?" A more thorough word study reveals that in the 3 occurences where the word is used regarding nations, it is used in a military context. Similarly, the 16 times it is used in relation to God, it is speaking of God as a warrior. Why, then, when we talk about women, do we put it solely in the context of "making babies"? It is appopriate to call a woman a warrior, argued James, because the world has always been a war zone. Other military language is used in the creation narrative: the man and woman are called to "guard" the garden and to "subdue" (meaning "conquer and defeat") the creation. This view of woman as warrior actually elevates both the man and the woman. It means that the man's need for a helper is not trivial and that the woman's call is vital. In this, "the vision that God casts for us is big enough to include every woman."
Finally, women are meant to participate in the blessed alliance. Although it is easy to become cynical about the "battle of the sexes," the Bible sees men and women working together as a "blessed alliance." This is "embedded in God's blueprint for humanity...God's image shines brighter when men and women work together" in relationship. In fact, man and woman were working together -- towards the common goal of cultural dominion and stewardship -- before men worked with other men or women worked with other women. This alliance was "lost in the fall but recovered in the gospel." The gospel not only forgives sins, but transforms relationships. Furthermore, this concept of the blessed alliance was advanced by Jesus in His ministry. Jesus engaged in deep theological discussions with women even when that was taboo in his culture. He called the Samaritan woman to proclaim the gospel to her village; He made known to a woman, first, His imminent arrival on earth; He entrusted a woman as the first eyewitness of His resurrection, even in a society where women were not accepted as witnesses in court. Mary of Bethany performed one of the first truly theological acts when she anointed Jesus' feet with oil in preparation for His sacrificial death. Such work with women continues to be modeled by the Apostle Paul. When Paul arrived in Philippi in Macedonia, the group he first ministered to was a gathering of women. Later, when he writes his epistle fo the Philippians, he thanks God "for your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now." The only ones there from the first day were women. Women are described as standing side by side, fighting for the good news.
James concluded, "There is no such thing as a healthy body when only half of the body functions. It is as though we have put a tourniquet on the body of Chirst." Like our brothers, we are called to be like Christ, to be warriors for the gospel. What, then, is our vision for ourselves, for our community, and for our church?
Posted by elissa at 09:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 12, 2006
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church: Historical and Sociological Dimensions
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church
Covenant College
February 11, 2006
History professor Dr. Jay Green and sociology professor Dr. Matt Vos did a joint presentation on the historical and sociological context for considering gender and the church. Professor Vos framed the discussion by noting that Covenant is not one big Bible department. Instead, there is a multiplicity of disciplines and in each the joint questions are: how can Scripture help us understand our disciplines and how can our disciplines help us understand Scripture? Punning Radio Shack, Vos quipped, "You have questions, we have more questions." Our disciplines have enabled the right questions to be asked.
Dr. Green continued by presenting what became the central theological insight of this debate: human beings live out their callings in God's world as time and space bound creatures. Theologians are unequal to tackling this question of gender and the church without addressing the time and space bound worlds we inhabit.
But where do rules and roles for masculinity and femininity come from? The traditional answer, still preferred among many evangelicals is biological essentialism. This view suggests that we operate in a fixed, non-negotiable order rooted in natural, biological distinctions between male and female. There is an irreducible essence that defines our identities as men or women. THus, certain pre-determined characteristics are seen as God-given and to transgress these rules is "not only anti-social but unnatural."
In recent decades, though, this idea was questioned as it became obvious that these "rules" seemed to vary based on ethnic identity, class status, location, etc. It was increasingly difficult to deny that ideas of man and womanhood have changed over time. That is, manhood and womanhood have histories. Now, it is generally accepted that conceptions of gender are socio-historio specific, created rather than rooted in some eternal ideal. Humans, then are not merely "biological animals whose sense of meaning emerge from their nature." We receive our sense of what it is to be men and women from the times and places we are born. By affirming this, Green said, one does not render biology irrelevant. Rather, biological features help to inform -- but are not sufficient for completely explaining -- the ways that societies define roles for each gender.
Next, Green addressed the question "what is the difference between sex and gender?" Sex is a biological term, signifying the anatomical and physiological differences that separate men and women. Gender, on the other hand, signifies the various meanings, roles, codes, and symbols that society arbitrarily associates with one or the other of the sexes. It is important, Green noted, to make at least a mental distinction between the things imbued by nature and thsoe that are culturally imposed. If we don't, we "run the risk of baptizing arbitrary rules and roles as if they were God's design." We must beware of theological laziness that gives a narrow concept of biology the task of steering our callings and relationships. Perhaps, Green argued, "while typically claiming a self-evident model rooted in nature, we have actually accepted something that is at least as rooted in our times as those we are critical of."
Today, Green continued, there is a conservative obsession with the "imminent demise of America because of the feminization of the church." This concern has definite historical roots. In the early 20th century, evangelicals proclaimed that a weak, highly sentimental so-called feminine version of the faith had poisoned the church. They called for a strong, virile Christianity. Especially disconcerting to these men were depictions of Jesus as the sweet Savior, gentle and soft, "just a woman in a beard." They reacted by describing Jesus as young, muscular, and fiery, with "shoulders as broad as chest was deep," a man's man. Many modern evangelicals continue to support the rough and tumble model of Christian manhood, teaching that the church is endangered because of its "womanly character." Men must come alive because, as John Eldridge says, they have "a battle to fight, a beauty to rescue, and an adventure to live."
This view, Green cautioned, presumes there is little overlap in how men and women live their Christian lives. We must be honest and discerning when we speak of how much cultural baggage we bring us when we discuss issues of gender. Whatever our stance, we should agree that it should be rooted in the Scripture itself. Green concluded that Christian theology, then, is an "unnatural act." It is not uncovering "how things are" but a project of crafting a Christian identity.
Dr. Vos then submitted the notion that our socially structured world is full of tensions that we, as Christians, must recognize and wrestle with.
Tension #1: Reading and Interpreting
Egalitarians and traditionalists throw verses at each other whenever the opportuntiy arises. This belies our modernist tendency: a penchant for factoids. Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen points out that since the Bible was written by a variety of authors over a long period of time. She suggests that we understand the Bible as a developing narrative and that we can only grasp when we understand it in terms of its unfolding character. A factoid approach is inadequate. Vos wondered if, perhaps, the point is to pick up the narrative, not rotely repeat what has been done before. Of course, if we are going to do things differently, the qeustion is "how can we do them faithfully? How are faithful in a very different society?
Tension #2: Women and the Family
Where does the traditional family comes from? According to Vos, this is a debatable notion. In his view, it can actually be traced to macroeconomic changes in the workplace, sparked by the 19th century Industrial Revolution. Prior to the 19th century, the workplace and the home were essentially the same. The Industrial Revolution split the male/female and public/private domains. If we accept this, argued Vos, then it seems plausible that the family would continue to change as the work place continues to change. There is an increased ambivalence about where women should fit. But, "when we realize our roles reflect the structures of the world we inhabit, how are we supposed to follow the model in Scripture that is grounded in a completely different social structure?"
Tension #3: Women in the Church
Vos suggested that if we do accept essentialist arguments, it seems that women seem to exhibit those counter cultural traits that seem characteristic of a life led by the Spirit. For example, "gentleness" and "kindness," as listed in the fruit of the Spirit, are generally seen to be more typcially female characteristics. Womens seem to be gifted in things spiritual -- "yet we aren't quite sure what to with their gifts or willingness to serve because it doesn't fit with our idea of tradtiional church leadership."
Tentative Conclusion
The hinge is a matter of faith. Vos pointed to several contemporary thinkers who make some helpful suggestions.
Peter Berger cautions that a quest for certainty can eclipse faith. The chief secularizing argument in all spheres is rationality; as we rely more and more on rationality, we eclipse the spirit of God because we can solve our own problems. In such a world we have very little need for faith because we have edited out all mystery and ambivalence. But, Scripture shows us faith that is exercised in the face of mystery. We must live a life transcending the difficulties by faith.
Robert Wuthnow states, "Christianity does not so much supply the learned person with answers as it does with questions." Our faith leaves people with a set of unescapable questions. Most of Jesus' parables end with a question; it is the question that goes on to stimulate discussion and application. If Christianity sacrilizes the daily life, then living the question becomes possible because they have life breathed into them
Vos concluded with the caution that replacing mysteries with answers ends the struggle and replaces complexity with simplicity. This question of gender and the church requires a response of faith; it not a question we can simply solve and move past. "We can solve, avoid, or live the question. The last requires a life of faith....Faith must contain an element of uncertainty, otherwise it is not faith."
In the end, he offered an invitation to us to not resolve the question of gender and the church.
Posted by elissa at 02:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 10, 2006
Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church: Chapel Address
The Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church is going on this weekend at Covenant College, with Frank and Carolyn James as the featured speakers. I have notes.
-----
"Masculinity"
Chapel Address by Frank James, President, RTS Orlando
Covenant College
Friday, February 10, 2006
Speaking from the perspective of an elder in a reformed church, Frank James explored the idea of Christian masculinity. (He also mentioned that he considered himself capable of speaking on the topic of masculinity since he is, in fact, a Texan.) Numerous lives, he said, have been ruined by a false understanding of what it means to be a Christian man.
In his early years as an elder, six couples in his relatively small church came in for counseling and, eventually, got divorced. The most painful and telling experience involved a former elder who claimed that his wife was "not submissive" while she argued that he was "a tyrant." Eventually, through the tearful testimony of the couple's daughter, the elder board realized that they all, James included, had been functioning on the assumption that the husband was right. They realized, James said, that as elders they had some unrealized gender issues.
In his years of counseling, James has seen a pattern: it was always the wife who initiated the counseling or divorce proceedings, always the husband that opposed or saw "no reason" to do so, and always the wife that pushed forward. Gender, James says, is very often at the center of how men and women relate in marriage. "Gender is not a theoretical question. It touches us where we live everyday." In many cases, it is rooted in a misconception of masculinity. Men seem to think that, as men, they need not take their wives' feelings or ideas seriously. In many counseling sessions, the common refrain from the husbands is, "I don't know what the fuss is about."
James explained that after reading many books on Christianity and gender and pouring over the Scripture passages generally associated with gender, he found an unexpected passage that jumped out at him: Galatians 5:22, 23. The Fruit of the Spirit. This, he says, is what the Christian man should be like. He should show love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control. The Fruit of the Spirit must inform our Christian understanding of masculinity and femininity. The call of Christ precedes the call as a male (or female). Thus, "who you are as a Christian must inform how you act as a male or female." The Fruit of the Spirit are not "feminine" qualities. When men read this passage, they often skim past traits such as "kindness" and "gentleness," but, James challenged, "you are not less of a man if you are kind and gentle."
James then focused on a view of Christian masculinity with which he disagrees but sees as gaining steam in the reformed community. An "unnamed" pastor wrote an "unnamed" book that purports: "the evangelical church has been feminized." The corrective to this "feminization" is a recovery of "the hardness of masculinity." Men are called to assert their authority and never before and enforce their will on their wives. James argued, however, that such a view is incompatible with Paul's list in Galatians 5. "I do not think 'hardness' is a Christian virtue."
He ended with charges to the young men and young women. He encouraged the men -- who are, at this time in their lives fixing their self-identity --
to embrace the virtues of Galatians 5:22, 23. He reminded the women that their own conceptions of masculinity has "huge implications on the kind of men you will marry" and challenged them to shape their expectations according to Galatians 5:22, 23. He concluded: "marriage may be where gender matters most."
Posted by elissa at 03:02 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 09, 2006
Serrano's Challenge: What Christians Can Learn From "Piss Christ"
While I think that John Piper makes a helpful theological observation in his February 8th article, I wonder if his application is a bit too simplistic. Piper says:
The work of Muhammad is based on being honored and the work of Christ is based on being insulted. This produces two very different reactions to mockery.
After summarizing the divergent Muslim and Christian views of Christ and emphasizing the theological necessity of a humiliated Savior, Piper gives several modern examples of how the (expected) mockery of Christ continues to this day. I haven't watched or read enough to comment on two of his examples, but his mention of Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" is a misapplied criticism.
In 1989, the exhibition of "Piss Christ," a nuanced and richly hued photograph described succinctly by conservatives as "a crucifix submerged in the artist's urine," caused an uproar. Piper fails to mention the evangelical response -- in America and abroad -- to "Piss Christ," a reaction that was far from humble, loving, or winsome. Senator Jesse Helms's diatribe on the Senate floor is well known. The Senator declared that Serrano was "not an artist, he [was] a jerk," and railed, "Do not dishonor our Lord. I resent it and I think the vast majority of the American people do too." Large, not always peaceful, protests were staged, museums that exhibited the piece received numerous bomb threats, and the artist himself received violent warnings. The picture was called a disgrace, irreverent, and profane. But, especially now, we Christians prefer not to think about all that.
We also tend to ignore Serrano's own explanation of his artwork. In an open letter to the NEA, Serrano wrote:
The photograph, and the title itself, are ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my art. My Catholic upbringing informs this work which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with God. My use of such bodily fluids as blood and urine in this context is parallel to Catholicism's obsession with "the body and blood of Christ." It is precisely in the exploration and juxtaposition of the symbols from which Christianity draws it strength.
Perhaps in our hurry to be "afflicted" and "insulted," we Christians thoughtlessly assumed that "piss" and "Christ" could not be juxtaposed in a meaningful or reverential fashion. Do we really believe that God became man and participated in all the disgusting, filthy, and thoroughly human stuff that makes up our daily existence? If so, if we do believe in a humiliated Christ, then Serrano's work can actually become convicting... even devotional. God Incarnate means God wallowing in our waste. What if this image was not an attack on our faith, but a challenge to those who claim it? What if we failed? What if we, too, have a history of refusing an insulted Savior?
So, yes, Christians have good theological reasons to react differently than Muslims in the face of humiliation. The reality, though, is that our doctrine often does not inform our actions. We, too, have wrongly tried to preserve a shell of honor, even when true grace springs from ignominy.
Posted by elissa at 07:06 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 08, 2006
When Images Offend
The psychological forces that lead people to be offended by an image are invisible and unpredictable. But when people set out to offend an image, to censure, denounce, or punish it, their behavior is out in the open where we can look at it. A kind of theatrical excess in the rituals of smearing, burning, mutilating, whitewashing, egg- and excrement-throwing turns the punishment of images into a spectacular image in its own right (the destruction of the World Trade Center being the most horrific example in our time).
A picture is less like a statement or speech act, then, than like a speaker capable of an infinite number of utterances. An image is not a text to be read, but a ventriloqiust's dummy into which we project our own voice. When we are offended by what an image "says," we are like the ventriloquist insulted by his own dummy.
-- W.J.T. Mitchell, "Offending Images," from What Do Pictures Want
An uncomfortably penetrating book to read in the middle of the Danish cartoon fiasco.
Posted by elissa at 04:11 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 07, 2006
An Adventure in Real Fruit!
While I was sick a couple of weeks ago, Noel picked up some lemon sorbet for me as a treat. It was not a brand either of us recognized, but the bright blue box declared "Lemon Sorbet" in bold yellow letters so little else mattered. Last night, defying the frigid outdoor temperature, we ripped open the carton.
Hmm. Instead of a smooth expanse of creamy, pale yellow sorbet, we found:
Yeah. That's a real lemon, filled with sorbet and sealed into a plastic pouch.
Apparently, this is some nifty gourmet sorbet, inspired by the Italians but manufactured in Spain and, well, Franklin, Illinois. For some reason, the unexpected opulence of our dessert was somewhat off-putting. All we had asked for was some icy, lemony concoction, and instead we suddenly had a sorbet's mini circle of life in our hands: crystallized fruit shells, lavishly filled with premium, all natural gelato, made from that lemon's own pulp and juice. Besides, you can't really take a lemon with a hat seriously.
We stood there, just gazing at it for a while, wondering if some tanned waiter in white linen would soon appear and offer us an umbrella for our exotic dessert. No one came. We ate it, of course, but a forced luxury is rarely appreciated as much as it should be.
And what was this doing at Bi-Lo anyway?
Posted by elissa at 04:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 06, 2006
Faith Gladdened or, Tinkerbell's Very Good Day
When I was growing up, there was a group of cool, twenty-to-thirty-something ladies in my church.
One of those ladies, for reasons far too complicated and rife with inside jokes and explanations of sundry unique personalities, was called "Tinkerbell." In this post-Paris Hilton age, I know that sounds silly and possibly uncomfortable, but just trust me, okay? It was cool. For all common purposes "Tinkerbell" might as well have been her given, Christian name. Once, she was even entered into the church directory under "T."
In practically every Christian book on romance or seeking God's will or "biblical womanhood and manhood" there is a chapter on people who are "called to singleness." Usually, this chapter includes an inspiring description of a single woman who is in her late thirties, unmarried, but has thrown her energies into the church, a choice example for singles everywhere. Those authors probably should have just written about Tink. She has had a perpetual ministry with the girls in our church for about a dozen years. She has mentored a whole troop of us through junior high, high school, and college, and she still has a gaggle of younger ones under her loving, encouraging watch. She had us over for sleepovers, led us on water balloon raids on the boys, took us out for milkshakes at one o'clock in the morning, gently challenged us if we showed up in a skirt a little too short, asked us pointed questions about boys, and always exemplified a tireless servanthood to anyone in the church.
What I appreciated about her most, though, was her bracing honesty about being single. She never hid the fact that she wanted to be married, someday. In the context of her delighted service to us girls, her longing to be a wife was a simply stated fact, not a complaint. As her twenties passed into her thirties and as forty stared her in the face, she modeled a delicate balance of being content with her season without ignoring her natural desire to be someone's wife; she believed both that Christ was sufficient... and that it is not good for man (or woman) to be alone.
I was her first girl to get married. "I always knew you'd beat me," she exclaimed upon hearing news of my engagement. She promptly spent $300 to change a plane ticket so she could be back in Hawaii for my wedding. Once again, she loved well, and without jealousy.
And so my heart danced an ecstatic jig when I received a certain phone call last night: Tinkerbell is engaged. Yes, the Lord is kind.
Posted by elissa at 05:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 03, 2006
Football with a Female: an Appeal to Pathos
Dear Men,
Hi. You may not realize this, but right around this time every year, the lady in your life is likely bombarded by a slew of advice articles that focus on one very important issue: what a girl should do on Superbowl Sunday. Without your knowledge, she may, at this very moment, be planning a wine and cheese Superbowl party from which you and your buddies will be expected to partake. Worse still, she might have decided to "brighten the day with a little feminine energy" and is expecting you and the boys to play along with her "Toilet Penalties and Seat Fouls" game.
The mind staggers.
What recourse remains? Is your day of male ritual to be swatted aside by the perfumed pages of a ladies' magazine? Must you flee your own home? No. Turn back, young man, and take heart. All that is needed may be a simple readjustment of perspective. That's right. Turn the Superbowl into a human interest story.
Think about it: while you're reading the sports section of the newspaper, your female counterpart is likely perusing an inspiring article in the "lifestyle" section on the positive effects of mandatory ballroom dancing lessons at elementary schools in the Bronx. If you can introduce a similar "human" element into what may otherwise seem to be little more than a excruciatingly prolonged, color-coordinated, testosterone-driven tussle... your gal may find an entry point for an emotional investment.
Read her a story about Tatupu and Polamalu and play up how both, despite their small-ish size, have taken over their respective defenses. Or, just point out Polamalu's hair. Even better, read to her about Pittsburgh linebacker Larry Foote's unexpected embrace of fatherhood and how it has turned him from "footloose to focused." Show her an article about Jerome Bettis's childhood in a poverty-stricken Detroit neighborhood. She will likely be enthralled, moved, inspired. Suddenly, having the right team (the Steelers, by the way) win is practically a moral imperative. Her cheers may not make much sense, but they will be fervent.
And if, horror of horrors, poetic justice is thwarted and the bad guys win... Well, at least you'll have someone to share the kleenex box with.
Posted by elissa at 02:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 02, 2006
Anne of Green Gables and the Feminist of Yore
My senior year at Covenant, I was given what appears to be the inevitable assignment of any literary theory course: write a literary critique of a piece of fiction using one of the approaches we have studied this semester. Being the bow and lace kind of gal that I am, I chose the girliest theory (feminism) and the girliest book series I could think of: Anne of Green Gables. Not too surprisingly, since the book practically douses itself in estrogen, many feminist critics have written about the novels; research material was plentiful and my own ideas meshed well with some of the things I was reading. I remember having fun writing the thing.
And now for an outlandishly brief primer on feminist criticism. Feminist literary theory is notable for many things, but perhaps the biggest three emphases are:
- as readers, critiquing the past misogyny of literature and criticism and redirecting attention to female authors and characters
- as writers, "writing the body," with an emphasis on the distinctly female biological experience
- on a methodological level, feminist critics are often very personal, connecting what they read with their own experiences and judgements of morality
Much feminist criticism has been critical, that is, illuminating past wrongs, rather than constructive (providing a concrete, reproducable model for how balanced, sensitive writing and reading can be achieved). Further, by nature of its intensely limited scope, it seems to be hardly an adequate critical structure when it's running solo. On the other hand, even the conservative Christian -- whose skin prickles at the mere mention of the word "feminism" -- may, if she approaches the text humbly, find a needed corrective.
My thesis in my "Anne of Green Gables" paper was hardly earth shaking. I simply posited that, contrary to the beliefs of my embittered guy friends, the real impact of the books was to be found in how it shaped my expectations of relationships with other females, not my romantic expectations of men. But the exciting -- and surprising -- thing about the whole role-playing/writing endeavor was that I apparently did not role-play/write all the way. Instead, as I reread the paper last night, it seemed authentic, a fairly accurate representation of my own opinions and concerns. There's no extended discussion of phallic symbolism, no sapphic interpretations of female friendships, and no final call for freedom from male tyranny.
But...it's couched in terms of personal experience. It's written in response to the dominant male reading of the text. It fits within a broad definition of feminist criticism. And I like it. It's livelier than much of my other undergraduate writing. It has a sense of personal investment.
I want to avoid a rapturous conclusion here that praises the (truly helpful) concept of "common grace insights" to high heaven, and I am definitely not angling for a debate on whether or not a method of "Christian scholarship" exists. I just wonder this. Many Christians are comfortable, now, with the idea that reading books by non-Christians can be a good (if not downright healthy) pursuit. As C.S. Lewis writes, in An Experiment in Criticism, "'in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself." Can I, should I, then, also write with another's pen and yet remain myself?
(Follow the jump to read the first couple paragraphs of this brilliant scholarly work ;)
Continue reading "Anne of Green Gables and the Feminist of Yore"
Posted by elissa at 04:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 01, 2006
I Am Woman, Hear Me Reminisce
Noel and I will be going to the Kaleo Conference on Gender and the Church next weekend; understandably, "gender" has reemerged in my personal musings as a dominant topic.
I've been thinking about women in the church. I've been thinking about women being deacons. Women being ordained. I've been pondering implications of gender in the arts. In academia. In undergraduate and graduate worlds. I've been wading through the tangles of gender mixed with issues of racial/ethnic identity. Women and beauty. Women and love. Women and sex.
(This is where you might expect some sort of summation of my undoubtedly insightful and controversial thoughts.)
Instead of tossing about still inchoate opinions, however, I've been flipping through my undergraduate papers and journals, hoping to revisit some of the struggles, questions, arguments, and applications I made not too long ago. It's been fun. Stay tuned.
Posted by elissa at 02:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack