Archived Posts For Emerging Questions
not all differences are differences in value
Posted on October 23, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions | 11 Comments
“The two most popular philosophies of sexuality today seem totally opposed to each other; yet at a most basic level they are in agreement and are equally mistaken. The two philosophies are the old chauvinism and the new egalitarianism; and they seem totally opposed. For chauvinism (a) sees one sex as superior to the other, “second”, sex. This is usually the male, but there are increasingly many strident female chauvinist voices in the current cacophony. This presupposes (b) that the sexes are intrinsically different, different by nature not social convention. Egalitarianism tries to disagree with (a) totally; it thinks that to do so it has to disagree with (b) as well. But this means that it agrees with chauvinism on (c), the unstated but assumed premise that all dfferences must be dfferences in value, or, correlatively, that the only way for two things to be equal in value is for them to be equal in nature. Both philosophies see sameness or superiority as the only options. It is from this assumption (that differences are differences in value) that the chauvinist argues that the sexes are different in nature, therefore they are different in value. And it is from the same assumption that the egalitarian argues that the sexes are not different in value, therefore they are not different in nature.”
- Peter Kreeft: “Is There Sex In Heaven“
When you have a spare moment, take a read of Kreeft’s essay - it covers a much wider area than the slither I’ve quoted. This will be my last word on the whole feminism thing for the time being (although if you wanted to submit something yourself, you’re very welcome), but I did want to pass on the above quote to highlight an area which I think has been a stumbling block for people to be willing to take on the feminist cause in churches. Because the assumption has been that taking on the cause of gender “equality” has to mean that men and women are the same.
So once we accept that there are differences between men and women - not differences of value but differences nevertheless; there is a temptation to use those differences to justify relegating women back into the same roles and positions as they’ve always been in. We’ve probably all heard it: people mis-appropriating the church as body to justify why we keep women away from leadership and teaching roles. So, the big question is: what do you do about it?
why I’m a feminist
Posted on October 18, 2007 by Laura Beimers
Filed Under Emerging Questions, Why I... | 6 Comments
(Laura initially wrote this as a comment on “What Does Christian Feminism Look Like“, but I thought it deserved being highlighted as its own post - Geoff)
At the start of last year some of the units I took in my Midwifery degree required us to keep a reflective journal on various womens issues: feminism, sexuality, body image, sexual/physical abuse, the double shift, pornography, aging, female genital mutilation, the list goes on.
We were asked to answer the question, “Would you describe yourself as a feminist?”
My answer turned out to be yes, but it took a lot of digging to come to that answer. Feminism is made up of so many different branches and streams many of which disagree with each other (sounds like the church hey!). ‘Feminist’ is not an easy label to pick up and give ones self on a whim. Baggage comes with it, baggage to be dealt with.
So I sat down and out lined all the streams of feminism I could find so I could identify what I agreed with in each and what I didn’t. I came to the conclusion there was no way I could not call myself a feminist.
Being a feminist to me means that I’m concerned about gender inequalities and discrimination against women, and oppression of women. I think that women are oppressed by a society built on patriarchy, but that the solution does not present itself in the form of matriarchy. We are people, it’s a human problem, a sin problem not solely a gender problem.
Patriarchal influence and dominance affects women’s psyche, and life experiences. I’m very concerned about this in the health sector (being a midwife I’m highly passionate about this stuff). I’m also very concerned about heavy patriarchal influences on the Christian faith. How we see God, defines our experience of God.
A year ago I realized I thought of God as being a certain gender: God was a ‘He’. Actually God is beyond gender. Yet gendered language gives us clues about the character of God and the role God has in our lives. We are created in the image of God, male and female. As a feminist I’m concerned about the language we use to describe God. I am happy to call God, ‘Father’, but in the same breath I also happily call God, ‘Mother’.
In seeking out the feminine part of God (which I believe is only perfect because God is also perfectly masculine) I think our relationship with God changes drastically. Earlier I felt a male God could only ever understand my life experience as a woman by playing a distant role that had some how created women. When I see God in a female capacity I realize my experiences as a woman, physical and otherwise, are actually a small reflection pointing to the larger more amazing nature of God.
Complex is really the only way to put it… reading back over these last few paragraphs, I know some feminists would take issue with my use of the word gender. Which just goes to show you feminists don’t even agree amongst themselves.
what does christian feminism look like?
Posted on October 16, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions | 17 Comments
The title already implies a point that I’m not really trying to make. It sounds from the implication of the title that I’m having trouble reconciling Christianity with feminism. The truth, I’m afraid is that I’m far more ignorant than that. I just don’t have a solid grasp on a) what feminism really means in the here and now, and b) how that interplays with people’s faith.
Basically, I’ve run into a few people (both in the blogging world and the real world) who self-identify as feminists, and I’m not really sure what that means for them. And to tell you the truth, I’m partially interested because I’m not sure that I wouldn’t identify as a feminist myself - if only I knew what that really meant.
So the question is out there: what does it mean to be a feminist in 2007? How about a Christian feminist? How does your faith interplay with your thinking around these issues? And finally, as someone who is at least interested in exploring feminist ideas: are there any books/blogs/whatever that people could recommend.
the cult of buying stuff
Posted on October 15, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Emerging Questions | 5 Comments
This post centres around an idea I heard Mark Sayers put forward, and Jason Clark is apparently investigating for his PhD (which means that if this triggers any interest in you, you would be well advised to check out his blog regularly). The central idea is that the strongest threat to Christianity in the western world comes not from any New Age mysticism, or other organised religions, but from the beast that is consumerism.
Jason’s “dinner-party test” was enough for me to have a very-non-thorough thought around the ways that “consumerism functions as a religion.”
So here are some hallmarks of “consumerism as religion”, as I see them.
1. Promise of Fulfillment
It doesn’t take a lot of sociological analysis of consumer-level marketing (aka - watching TV ads), to recognise that we aren’t sold stuff because it will “do the job” - we’re being sold stuff because of how it will make us feel, or who we will become. We’re being sold the line that we are what we own, and while it would be discounted out of hand if it were put that bluntly, our decision making indicates the truth of that statement amongst our culture.
2. Religious Festivals
OK - so if my first one was self-evident, this is perhaps a bit more of a stretch. But bear with me: hopefully it’s worth it. I’m starting to believe that consumerism has its own religious festivals. Whether it’s the gadget geeks who will camp outside a store to be the first person to own an iPhone, or the stampedes of rabid shoppers in post-christmas sales, or even the vast majority of Christmas itself - are ultimately shrines to the religion of buying. They are ceremonies out of which people find meaning.
It Is In Direct Opposition To The Message Of The Gospel
This is an ugly, hard one to hear. But God doesn’t want me to buy more stuff. In fact, the gospel of “buying things will make me feel better” is incompatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ. It seems to me that it is as simple, and yet as difficult as that. The consumer culture is an idolatrous ideology. I know that the comments are coming now: “what about your iPod Geoff? Your Wii?” The answer is frighteningly difficult to swallow. Yes. You’re right. I’m in this. I’m living for two masters, and it’s not always the good guy that’s winning.
I’ve got lots more I’d like to say, but I want to hear what you think. Is this an over-statement? Or do you see other ways in which consumerism has taken a religious form? Anyone got a solution? I’m certainly interested.
Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.
discipleship dilemma
Posted on October 12, 2007 by Geoff Matheson
Filed Under Discipleship, Emerging Questions | 25 Comments
There seems to be a bit of a push in the blogs at the moment around re-thinking our model of what discipleship out to mean. From Jonathan Brink:
“But imagine for a second, after calling his disciples to follow him, he proceeded to invite them to come to the local synagogue on Sunday morning for a couple of hours and Wednesday night for another couple of hours. Forget following him around and watching Him do things. And when they got to there, he sat them down and led them through a couple of songs. Everyone sat in the same direction facing Jesus as they listened to him speak from behind a small upright box. The message was on average an hour long, tightly scripted with an introductory joke to arouse the crowd and was primarily about how to “not sin”. It usually included three points, a story from His personal life, and a summary to wrap it all up. He always finished with a challenge to his disciples to do better and closed with another song. At some point in the process he passed a large basket around expecting them to put a little something in to pay the rent and help build a larger meeting place. The reality was that those in setup were tired of unpacking and packing up each time they met in this rented building. A new, obviously larger building just made sense. As long as those in the crowd showed up, the disciples were good. Invite their friend and they were better. Serve on a committee and they were golden. Under this scenario you have to imagine the original call to “Come follow me” seems to lose its impact, doesn’t it?”
“We are all familiar with the gospel stories where Jesus selects a band of disciples, lives his life with them, ministers with them, and mentors them. This approach to the formation of followers was common in the Israel of Jesus’ day. Most rabbis would initiate and develop their schools of thought through similar means. It was this life-on-life phenomenon that facilitated the transfer of information and ideas into concrete historical situations.”
So here’s the thing. My thinking is that it is a little too simplistic to think that we could import Jesus’ 1st century Rabbi style into 21st century western culture; but I’m also of the opinion that an attempt to bring in that model without contextualization would at least be a big step forward from the status quo model that Jonathon describes in the first quote.
There’s your question: what does Jesus model of discipleship best look like in contemporary culture? I’ll give you a hint - don’t start with existing church structure as your framework.
