A blog about Ellie

Ellie has just been reading my blog and wants me to write something about her.  So what can I tell you about Ellie.  She’s fourteen years old and turning into a woman before my eyes.  Sometimes the way she does it is absolutely glorious; sometimes it’s more complicated but she’s getting there.  She’s very clever, she’s good at languages and science, she’s creative and has a great sense of fun.  Her bedroom is full of things she’s made or altered; at the moment she’s into decorating things with nail varnish and the results are reminiscent of aboriginal art in their flowing beauty.

Ellie's art

I think she’s inherited my sense of justice, so she often gets angry about things that she thinks aren’t fair and I’m pleased about that.  She is developing a finely tuned sense of what’s right and wrong, and has a deep desire to do good, rather than evil.  She’s working out what that means for her, and how she can win her inner battles and she’s often very courageous in how she does that. 

My hope for her is that she will be able to grow into a woman who is confident about her personhood and womanhood.  I want her to know deep in her soul that she is ultimately and inherently valuable and precious; that she is precious because she is a woman and a human being.  I wish the world would be easier for her as a woman, but I fear that it isn’t.  I see the pressure on teenage girls to focus on their looks, to be attractive in the eyes of men, and to ignore the beauty of their inner selves and I want to help Ellie to be strong enough to know that her inside is what matters.

I want her to be someone who is known as just, kind, and gentle in heart.  I pray that she will know Jesus as her first love, but in the end that’s between her and him.  I don’t care what she does for a living, but I want her to stand on her own two feet and know the worth of hard work, done well.  Most of all I want her to be loved; she is now, me and her Dad love her to bits, but I want her to love herself as well.

Sunday Night Cinema

Tree of Life

It’s not often I don’t have an opinion on something, but I haven’t got one yet on Tree of Life (Dir. Terrence Malick)  It’s very deep and is trying to say some profound things about the meaning of life.  The trouble is I’m not sure if it does, and if it does I’m not sure what it is saying.  It’s about life, the universe and everything (quite literally) and I’ve seen it described as impressionistic.  I think the thing that makes it difficult is that it appears to have a narrative structure, but that isn’t the thing that’s important; what’s important are the questions it raises in the viewer about their own life.  I think I’ll watch it again, but I’ll need to be in the right mood.

It fails the Bechdel test and I noticed.  I was also troubled by a casual portrayal of domestic violence, but maybe I was meant to be troubled.

The Way

In contrast to Tree of Life I totally got The Way, and loved it.  It’s a more straightforward narrative, with a basically simple story line, but the simplicity of the story-telling brings out the beauty and profundity of the human relationships portrayed.  It’s a film about a father dealing with the death of his son, starring Martin Sheen, directed by his son Emilio Estevez (who makes cameo appearances as the son) and there’s something quite touching about a father and son working through some stuff like this; in that sense it’s a bit like “On Golden Pond” where Henry and Jane Fonda worked together shortly before Henry’s death. 

This also fails the Bechdel test but I didn’t notice so much; but it’s a shame that such a quality film didn’t manage some better women.  Why is it that “women” films are seen as a niche market, whereas a film like this which is a film about men’s relationships is seen as a film about human relationships?

It's all a bit quiet...

Add your own whistling wind sound effects

...but I'm still here.

I'm back at Regent's Park writing like a loon to finish part 1 of my MTh.  Good news is that I've finished my third essay (How do theological reflections on Covenant and Grace inform a discipline policy at a Youth Club?), edited the second (Talking to Twi-hards and Potterheads: How can a dialogical approach to mission shape an approach to fantasy film youth sub-cultures?)  and agreed a question for the last one ("He put a child in the midst of them" How does the presence of young people challenge Baptist theologies of the Church Meeting?).

I'm doing the reading for the last essay, hence the quietness, trying not to start thinking about whether Christians are being persecuted (because if I do I might need to write a blog) and thinking about what to write for my piece for this blog:   40 Baptist Voices

Oh...and my day job!!!

Musings on M&S Food adverts

Those of you who know me know that I love to cook and I love to eat nice food.  I like to offer hospitality and see feeding people well as a way of sharing in the goodness of creation, celebrating friendship, making them feel at home and cared for.  Some are beginning to re-examine and re-claim hospitality as a Christian virtue.

Obviously that can, and sometimes does, tip over into weirdness such as feeding people as the only way you can show you care, or insisting that people clean their plates even when they are full.  The whole food thing has become such an issue with questions about eating disorders, obesity, hunger and famines. 

Here’s an interesting quote. 

“If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once. But, of course, when people say, 'Sex is nothing to be ashamed of,' they may mean 'the state into which the sexual instinct has now got is nothing to be ashamed of'. If they mean that, I think they are wrong. I think it is everything to be ashamed of. There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips.” ― C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

It comes from that seminal Christian work by C S Lewis, Mere Christianity, and it was published in 1952.  Lewis is actually discussing sexual ethics, and talking about the nature of human appetites.  He’s trying to say that sex in itself isn’t bad, but what we do with it can be, and distorting sexuality into an obsession fed by pornography isn’t a good thing.  To illustrate this he asks if we could imagine pictures dedicated to displaying food that entice people to the point of addiction.  Such things scarcely existed in the post-war years and the idea that they might in the future seemed so ridiculous to Lewis, he used it as a kind of reductio ad absurdam, an argument pushed beyond any common sense.

I wonder what Lewis would have thought about the magazines and TV programmes dedicated to the production and consumption of food that have blossomed in the last 20 or so years?  And what would he have made of the M&S food ads on the telly (voiced so temptingly at the moment by Matthew Mcfadyen – lovely Matthew)?

We have a strange relationship with our appetites don’t we?  From a Christian perspective we celebrate God’s good creation, we appreciate the natural beauty of animals and people (lovely Matthew again), we give thanks for the food that sustains our bodies, and we appreciate that it tastes good.  We give and share it to initiate and develop friendships and caring for others.  We love the beauty and creativity of the things we make: the lovely Ferrari, the ingenious iPhone, the Mona Lisa, Gloucester Cathedral, Venice.  When we talk about sex we say it is a good gift of God, and we celebrate the intimacy it brings.

It’s a tough one, these things are not by their nature bad, but something happens in us that makes them into something that is less than what their creator planned.  Is it because we want to own these things in a way that stops us from remembering that, although we are made in God’s image, we are not God and we do not ultimate create and sustain anything?  Is it because we think we can control them somehow, although in a large sense we don’t?  I wouldn’t want to become so detached from earthly pleasures that I went around in a hair shirt eating gruel, but it’s a challenge to keep those pleasures, and myself, in perspective. 

An interesting new publication!

In light of all the hoo-ha about the masculine feel of Christianity etc.  What are we to make of the publication of this book?

The Resignation of Eve: What if Adam's Rib is no longer willing to be the Church's backbone?

I haven't read it, but the blurb says:

Why millions of today’s most committed church members may be ready to bolt—and what to do about it 

In talking with women around the country, Jim Henderson has come to believe that an epidemic of quiet, even sad resignation is developing among dedicated Christian women who feel overworked and undervalued in the church. As a result, many women are discouraged. Some, particularly young women, respond by leaving the organized church . . . or walking away from the faith altogether.
The Resignation of Eve is a field report on what women have to say about how they’ve been affected—both positively and negatively—by their experiences within the church. Listening to their stories is crucially important because, across the board, the research shows that women are driving changes in the church. What will happen if many of them resign?
It’s time to pay attention before it’s too late—time to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, who went out of his way to honor, elevate, and work through women wherever he went.
Containing personal interviews with women and surprising research from George Barna, The Resignation of Eve is a game-changing, conversation-starting book for women who have been engaged in the Christian church, as well as for their pastors and ministry leaders."

Has anyone read it yet?

Shame - what I don't want in my work

I’m reading this book (Shame: Theory, Therapy, Theology by Stephen Pattison) in connection with an essay I’m writing theologically reflecting on discipline in youth club contexts.  The general idea is that the leaders of a youth club have to manage behaviour so that young people are safe physically and emotionally.  This means that the leaders, who are usually adults, need to be able to do something in relation to young people that addresses behaviour where that safety is compromised.

There are some limits, and rightly so, on what adults can do in this situation.  We can’t use any kind of corporal punishment, and it isn’t good practice to use manipulations such as ridicule or threats, again rightly so.  Stephen Pattison makes a very strong case that shame is more pervasive and destructive than we might initially think, and that Christian faith, and church communities, are particularly vulnerable to problematic shame. 

He discusses the impact that being shamed by others can have in later life and describes some of the ways shaming happens.  This has led me to reflect on the way I work with young people.  I wonder if there are things I do unconsciously which have a shaming effect?  When you work with young people there’s a certain amount of banter that goes on both between young people, and between young people and adults working with them.  The risk is that this can cross a line and become something that is damaging or shaming to young people. 

Another situation that might induce shame is where someone’s failure is pointed out to them, especially if others witness it.  It occurred to me that one of the things we use as a sanction in our youth club might be doing this.  If a young person is behaving in a way that impacts safety and refuses to stop when asked, then we might call their family and ask them to take their son or daughter home.   This will have the effect of shaming that young person to the people that matter the most to her or him.

I’m still pondering Pattison’s writing but I know I would never want to add to the burden of shame so many people carry.  There are some examples of Jesus interacting with wrong-doers and he seems to avoid adding to their shame.   In the story of Zacchaeus, everyone knows Zacchaeus has done wrong but Jesus’ action in inviting himself round for a meal seems almost the opposite of shaming.  Similarly, when he speaks to the Samaritan woman in John 4 and the woman caught in adultery in John 8, he manages to address their wrong actions but also to avoid shaming them any further than they already have been.  

So my question is: How does that translate into dealing with behaviour in the youth club?  To ask the obvious question: If Jim kept waving the pool cue around like that at Youthspace Capernaum, What Would Jesus Do?

Who is the Ring Bearer in Lord of the Rings?

This might be construed as similar to the question “Who was the naturalist on the HMS Beagle”  to which everyone says “Charles Darwin”.  Of course he wasn’t the naturalist, someone else was;  he was sailing as companion to the captain. 

I started to think about this question because I was reading the blogs written in response to this blog: 

Rachel Held Evans on Masculinity in the church

One blogger discussed the meaning of the word “helper” in the phrase from Genesis “I will make a helper suitable for him” which turns out to be the woman.  The blogger said that the helper is not the subordinate sidekick the word suggests but rather someone who rides to the rescue.  Others have argued that it is the same term that is used for the Holy Spirit and therefore does not imply any sense of inferiority.

I can’t explain why but the image that came to me was Samwise Gamgee in Lord of the Rings.  A very flat reading of the story would suggest that Frodo is the hero, the ring bearer, the main character, and Sam is the rather lumbering, loyal, servant and sidekick who follows on, doing as he’s told, cooking meals when necessary.  A bit like a wife, maybe?

However, my view has always been that Sam’s role is the pivotal one; in fact I would argue that he is the ring bearer.  Towards the end of the film Frodo is struggling to climb Mount Doom and Sam urges him to let him finish the mission and take the ring.  Frodo refuses, believing that he alone can bear the burden.  Sam’s response is to tell Frodo that he will carry him then, which Sam proceeds to do.  Finally the mission is successful and Sam carries Frodo away from the mountain.

My reading of this is that Frodo believes that only he is strong enough and capable of carrying the ring.  He also believes that he alone has been called to carry it.  He accepts Sam’s support but doesn’t really view him as part of the mission, in fact at one point he tries to leave Sam behind.  The story shows however, that not only is Frodo not the only one called to the task, he is not capable of carrying it out alone.  He is too flawed, too weak and too self-absorbed to succeed.  In the end it is Sam’s determination to carry out his calling to destroy the ring that enables it to happen; a calling that Frodo doesn’t recognise.

I would take this metaphor further and note that although it was Sam and Frodo who finally threw the ring into the fire, they wouldn’t have got that far without the rest of the Fellowship.  Each played a key role in the success of the mission, even though they were all flawed, weak and failing.  Each brought something unique to the mission, be it the warrior Boromir – lovely Sean, the king, Aragorn – lovely Viggo, axeman Gimli, the cheeky boys Merry and Pippin or whoever*. 

What a perfect image for the church; many different gifts, many flawed imperfect people, all called by God  and valued by him.  You could say I’ve made a perfect complementarian case, but actually I suggest that Frodo failed because he did the thing that the complementarians do; he dismissed the call on other people’s lives because he was too focussed on himself and his own call, rather than thinking about the best way to do the mission they were all called to.  So to answer my starting question: The ring bearers were Frodo, Sam, Merry, Pippin, Gimli, Legolas, Aragorn, Gandalf and Boromir.

*long blonde hair – lovely Orlando!

**It’s interesting to reflect that the women in LOTR tend to be in decorative and supporting roles.  I suggest this says more about Tolkien’s male dominated Oxford milieu than anything else.

Feeling accomplished

Yesterday I wrote nearly 1,000 words for my MTh Essay!!! and a 750 word blog.  That's some pretty good productivity for me.

Also, I figured out how to attach a favicon to my blog - that's a little image that shows up in your tabs, or favourites next to my Blog...it's a tiny little bee.  Did you spot it?

I think on balance I'm most pleased about the bee; every time I see it on my bookmarks bar it makes me smile.

Although the 1,000 words means I'm half way through the essay....

What I am looking at at the moment

There’s been a load of new TV series with potential, and a couple of books I’ve quite liked:

New Girl – the one everyone’s buzzing about with Zooey Deschanel.  My Dad always used to say that John Wayne wasn’t an actor; he only ever played himself, but it was so good you wanted to watch it over and over, so he made a decent living out of it.  I suspect that Zooey might be the same, but I’m not sure how long we’ll want to go on watching cute and kooky.  Plus, when she’s 73 it might not work so well…although Estelle Getty and Jessica Tandy seemed to manage OK on that one.  Anyhoo, that said, New Girl is quite fun, with an occasional nice twist.  This week Jess was being over-bearing about being emotional open and sharing about something she’d seen, much to her male flatmate’s horror.  This all seemed very predictable until the moment Nick stopped her in her tracks by calling her on not being able to use the proper words for what my daughter referred to as a “privacy area” when she was little.

Verdict:  I’ll stick with it and see how it goes.

Suits – This is a bit of a hidden gem lurking away on Tuesday nights on Dave.  It’s about lawyers and offices and business stuff, but in a rather interesting way.  The two main characters are interesting and nicely balanced, with good supporting characters, including the fact that the head of the prestigious law firm in New York is a black woman.  Yay for a good, strong female boss who kicks butt.  It fits into the slot in my TV life filled recently by CSI and House.

Verdict:  I’m recording it for weekly watching so I’m impressed so far

The Big Bang Theory – saved the best TV till last.  It’s just genius; really Sheldon Cooper ought not to have any friends because he’s a nightmare, but he does and they are very rich characters, although the humour often derives from them veering into caricature.  It’s a bit like Friends, in that as you get to know the characters you know how they’ll react so you start giggling when you know what’s coming, but then there is an occasional curveball.  So Rajesh is painfully shy and can’t speak in front of women, unless he is drunk.  One night he gets drunk and he and Penny end up in bed.  The next morning you think “Surely now he’ll be able to speak to her” but no, he is still struck dumb!

Verdict:  I’m hooked

Rivers of London and Moon over Soho by Ben Aaronovitch – I do love me some crime thriller, and I do love me some supernatural stuff, so put the two together and I’m double happy.  These two books feel like the start of a series that could run and run, and I really hope it does.  The characters are so well written, and the plots so tight and clever that I’m feeling slightly bereft that I’m going to have to wait until June for number 3.  If Harry Potter is Mallory Towers and Billy Bunter meet magic, RofL is Poirot and Miss Marple meet  magic, without the horrendous plot holes Agatha Christie let slip.  Also, they would make fantastic telly, much better that the utterly ridiculous Eternal Law (ITV) about which the less said the better.

 

Verdict:  I’m pining for number 3

The Ghost – a political thriller by Roman Polanski.  The reviews on IMDB were very complimentary and I cannot for the life of me fathom out why.  It was meant to be a dark sophisticated thriller with plot twists and sinister overtones about global conspiracies but really it was just silly.  It was blatantly obvious who was the baddy from very early on, Ewan McGregor’s character was so thick and trusting it was unbelievable and the film didn’t so much finish as stop because there was no way out of the plot’s weird combination of simplistic and over-complex.  It is not possible for even the CIA to organise a hit and run accident in the time it takes for someone to walk out of a building and cross the street!!!  As punishment, Mr Polanski should be made to watch Tinker Tailor (any version, Alec Guiness or Gary Oldman) until he understands what a complex political thriller really looks like.

Verdict:  That’s two hours of my life I can’t get back.  The only redeeming feature was the Malteasers my husband gave while we were watching.

This is not the political thriller you were looking for

That reminds me of a McFly song

This is it!

I was straightening my hair this morning and admiring the colour; the most outrageous my hairdresser and I have ever gone with it, when I totted up the various products on it.  I used shampoo and conditioner.  So far, so normal.  Then a leave-in rescue treatment while it was wet.  OK.  Then I blow dried it, then added some sprays (or spritzes as they say in the fashion mags) of Thermal Styling Protectant and then straightened it.  This makes a grand total of four products!!  All of this is on top of the six different colours the talented Helen* put in it last week!!!

And why is this interesting I hear you ask?  Well, let me tell you about my skin care routine:  nothing.  That’s it.  I rinse my face with water in the shower and dry it on a towel.  If it’s very cold and wet I might feel the need for a little moisturiser, in which case it’s cheapish supermarket stuff, but mostly I don’t bother.

You’re still wondering whether you are going to get interested anytime soon aren’t you?  My reflection on this was that I do the hair thing for two reasons:  the first is that it makes a difference, if I do what I did my hair looks nice and shiny and styled and quite eye-catching; the second that it’s because playing with my hair, particularly colouring it, feels like fun and creativity.  It’s for me and my own pleasure. 

The skin care thing doesn’t seem to make any difference: I’m fifty this year and my face shows it.  I’ve got a slight extra chin thing going on, laugh lines that suggest I’ve watched Sarah Millican** non-stop for the last 25 years, and bags under my eyes that tell you I probably drink a bit too much coffee and read a bit too late at night!  But on the whole it’s an OK face for who I am and slathering cleansers and other gook on it doesn’t feel life-enhancing in the way that messing with the hair does.

So I’ll stick with the hair being 6 different shades of pink and orange, and I might stick a bit of mascara on if I can be faffed, but that’s your lot – I’ve got other things to do.

*I’d tell you about Real Hairdressing in WB, but I want to be able to get an appointment.

** Genius British comedian – I can recommend her Chatterbox DVD

Becoming Becca Dean

 I know I’m supposed to be becoming more Christ-like but somehow when it comes to coffee shops and blogging, Mizz Dean* inspires me, so here’s a coffee shop review:

A cosy corner for chatting

I had my third lunch in seven days in the rather nice Copper on Central Avenue in West Bridgford.  This pleasant spot does function as a kind of annex to most of the churches of the area, as I rarely go in without seeing someone or other I know.  This makes it all feel rather cosy.  That and the fact that it is rather cosy, does very nice lunches, and the cakes are utterly amazing.  They are the best bit really – tantalisingly displayed in glass domes on the counter, they usually included some glittery or shiny embellishments, and taste utterly amazing!  Staff are cheerily pleasant and helpful and service is swift without being rushed. 

Look at that utter deliciousness!

Coffee is good and teas, cream teas, cakes and other delicacies are all to be recommended.  If you’re there at breakfast time I can recommend the muffins with rarebit topping, and the lunchtime sandwiches are always tasty and a bit unusual.

As you can see from the frequency of my visits it is my fave coffee spot

*Becca’s blog can be found here:

Becca is Learning

This gives me hope

I did an assembly in a primary school about friendship so I used some material by Lucy Moore from here:

Barnabas in Schools

I invited two children who have been friends all their lives up to help me, and talked about the things they do together.  I asked them if they shared things, and when they said yes gave them a packet of sweets to share, which they carefully did.   I then produced the toilet brush,* explained about the boys toilets needing cleaning and asked the first boy if he would share that with his friend.  He staunchly said “No, I wouldn't!” to which his friend said “But I would go and help him anyway.”

Aaawwww!

These two little boys were aged about eight or nine, and one appeared to be white and the other Asian and the depth of their commitment to each other was truly moving.  There may be places in Britain where people fight because of age or race or some other divider but this episode showed me that the future might just be in safe hands. 




*It was a new unused one in case you were feeling a bit funny

Name Change

My previous name was a bit lame...it was the only thing I could think of when I started this blog.  Now I'm blogging regularly it seemed that I needed something a bit more to the point and since I'm often rambling about the thing that's buzzing around my head at the time, the new title seemed better.  I hope you like.

EDIT: Do you like the pic of the lady in the bonnet - she'll get a lot of bees in that

The Feminisation of the Church

I’ve read a few things recently, and heard a few people argue that the church over the last decade/century etc has become feminised, and that this means we are losing men who don’t want to be part of something that makes them feel “girly”.  We must therefore stop this trend, they suggest, and start to make the church a bit more masculine so that young men in particular will be attracted back.

There’s something circular in this argument, and it occurs not just in discussions about church life but in society more widely and it’s to do with men’s response to the strengthening voice of women.  It seems to me that men often feel emasculated when stereotypically feminine virtues are strengthened, but that this emasculation is predicated on the idea that we are playing a zero sum game, i.e. that if women are strengthened then men are somehow weakened.  People like Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed) would argue that oppression dehumanises both oppressed and oppressor and that when the oppressed liberate themselves they also liberate their oppressors.

Attributes such as gentleness and humility, patience, kindness and self-control might be regarded as feminine but they are also biblical, for all of us, not just women.  One strand of Christianity that would seem relevant here is the Vineyard movement with its emphasis on intimacy with God through worship and spirituality, particularly with songs caricatured as “Jesus is my girlfriend” songs.  My local Vineyard church is packed full of “manly-looking” men; are they seeking a kind of faith that means they can drop the macho act and admit to feelings traditionally regarded as female?

It’s a live issue in some areas of the Christian blogosphere because Mark Driscoll is a strong advocate of the idea that the feminised church emasculates real men, but he’s not the only one.  This blog was prompted by “alastairjroberts” comments to Stephen Holmes’ article here:

http://shoredfragments.wordpress.com/2012/01/20/old-style-evangelical-gender-politics/

in which “alastair” argues that nineteenth century evangelical gender politics “…led to a stigmatization of many stereotypically male traits, along with a celebration of many stereotypically female traits.”  He goes on to say that this led to a kind of “sticky” sentimentalism in church life.  

My critique of his comment lies not with whether “female traits” are better or worse, but with their stereotypical nature.  The traits that were stigmatised were to do with violence, aggression, and oppressive patriarchy and the traits that were celebrated were the biblical ones I mentioned above.  These traits have become labelled as masculine or feminine because of our cultural constructs, but they are stereotypes and it seems to me that the “up-side down” nature of the Kingdom of God demands that we reject them in favour of men and women seeking to become more Christ-like.  This might be very costly for some men but only in the short term; it was Jesus who said “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”

p.s. I could get started on the way the church does have more women in the pews but that still most of the power lies in the hands of men but I won’t.

What I won't watch.

There are a few films I won’t watch, and a couple of genres I have no desire to watch. 

The genres are action thrillers and horror: unless there’s something a bit cerebral going on I’m not interested.  This means I’ll watch Tinker Tailor and Rocky Horror, but nothing from the Mission Impossible or I Know What You Did franchises.  The main reason for this is that I’m not very keen on watching violence with no point to it.

And the films I won’t watch?  It’s a smallish list and it starts with Schindler’s List.  The reason for this is that I think I would be too upset to watch it.  I read the book way back when it was called Schindler’s Ark so I know what the story is and I think I would be overcome with the sadness of it on film.  Others I’m avoiding are The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and Hotel Rwanda.  I also won’t watch Sophie’s Choice again.  I’ve seen Remember Me twice, but I’m thinking about whether I can watch that again, and I don’t want to see United 93.  Don’t misunderstand – they are all good films, and it isn’t a moral question, my issues with them are more to do with their effect on me.

There’s something about film that is immersive; it’s a multisensory experience, even on DVD at home.  That means that a film has more of an emotional impact on me than a book.  I read a lot and get very absorbed in the world of books, but the depth of my absorption is to a large extent under my control.  The vividness of the pictures I create from an author’s words can be moderated by how much I can stand, but when I watch a film it’s in the hands of the director and there are some images and emotions I would prefer not to have in my head.

Now I’ve started to think about it there are a few more coming to mind:  my husband has just asked me to set the recorder for 127 Hours and my blood has run cold at the thought of that film…and that reminds me, I don’t want to see Touching the Void either.

I've made up a new -ism

Theologian Steve Holmes has written a very persuasive blog which argues that our Baptist Ecclesiology means that we cannot be complementarians, because theologically the two are mutually exclusive.

http://shoredfragments.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/why-baptists-cant-currently-be-complementarians/

 

It cannot have escaped your attention that I am a feminist so when I read an article like this from someone like Steve it makes me cheer. I would also like to make a claim to be a Youthist.  If you don’t recognise this term, it’s OK, I just made it up, so let me explain myself.  A Youthist is not is guilty of ageism; this is where someone is discriminated against because they are a certain age, usually old.  A Youthist is to ageism as a feminist is to sexism.  It’s about identifying a group that is discriminated against and speaking out with and for that group.

 I would like to re-read Steve’s article with a youthist lens, and make the same arguments for inclusion of young people in church life.  If we take seriously our Baptist ecclesiology then we have to be open to receive from young people.  We need to really listen to young people, to be ready to have our faith shaped by them, and also to give them this responsibility for us and the church that Steve speaks of.

Steve argues that our Baptist polity means we have a responsibility to watch over one another, to sometime take authority over one another, and to submit to one another.  He argues that we have a very flat structure, with Jesus as the head and the rest of us as equals.

There are those who might want to argue against this.  They might argue that it isn’t right that young people should have authority over their elders; there is biblical teaching about the role of parents and children.  Yes there is, but complementarians use similar arguments about the role of women.  They might argue that young people can’t understand well enough yet, or don’t know enough; again complementarians have argued that women don’t have the mental capability to lead.  In addition, since when has mental capability or otherwise been the measure of how someone can be involved in church; there has never been an IQ test as part of baptismal preparation.   

Others might take a more positive attitude, but temper it by saying that it would be alright, as long as the young person is a baptised member.  My question would be: “Do we make this distinction between men in the church, or between women?”  Even complementarians don’t argue this.

Steve claims that if our Baptist ecclesiology is right, then we can’t be complementarian about the role of women in church life, and I would want to make the case that we therefore can’t be complementarian about the roles children and young people are allowed to take, are encouraged to take.  

On the other hand...

A few days ago I wrote this:

http://sarahfegredo.blogspot.com/2012/01/martin-luther-king-and-mark-driscoll.html

And I still think that.  Then today I read this:

http://rachelheldevans.com/reflections-evangelical-celebrity?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+RachelHeldEvans+%28Rachel+Held+Evans+-+Blog%29

And I think its about both/and not either/or...but trying to hold on the the ends of two tightly stretched bungee cords.  Not an easy trick, but better than trying to do neither?

In case you were wondering…

…Why the flurry of unaccustomed blogging activity?  It’s a vague new year’s resolution type thingy.  One of the things I’ve learned over the years is that writing something down helps me to process it.  It’s second best to talking about it:  as a Myers Briggs Extravert I tend to think with my mouth.  There’s nothing I like better than a no-holds barred discussion about some meaty subject – it helps me to sharpen my thinking, shows up when I’m not thinking very well, and helps me to see a bigger picture.  However, a ready supply of Argument Elves is not something that is easily obtainable, and Mike’s ears sometimes reach their limit, despite nearly twenty two years of intensive training!  I therefore decided that it would be good for me to blog more and actually publish the stuff…well actually write it in the first place.  In the past I’ve edited my blog out of existence before I’ve even put fingers to keyboard, with the result that I haven’t had an opportunity to work out what I really think, or to get things off my chest.  But this is the year of trying something different.  It does mean that sometimes I might talk rubbish – feel free to tell me so (kindly!) or that my line of thinking needs pushing around a bit – feel free to join in. 

Let’s see how it goes….

Martin Luther King and Mark Driscoll

One of the questions I’ve been asking myself over the past few days is “Why am I getting my knickers in such a twist about the Mark Driscoll thing?”  I asked myself why I bothered to blog about it, why read more about what he said, follow up things on his website, feel upset etc. etc.  There are plenty of other people better equipped than me to comment, other people more nearly affected by it than me.  The chances of my life being seriously impacted by anything Driscoll says are vanishingly small aren’t they?  Aren’t they?

This is a bit of a perennial question for me: I do get churned up about things that I perceive to be unjust.  I get irritated by individual acts of injustice in those around me: someone who speaks sharply to a young person in a way they never would to an adult; someone who tells a slightly sexist or racist joke without thinking about it; someone who behaves badly so that others feel diminished.  When I’ve talked about this with trusted friends, they say “Just let it go.  Just because so-and-so has behaved badly doesn’t mean you should get all stressed and anxious about it”  or “It isn’t your battle, if Sue feels bad about what Edith said, it’s up to her to say so”.  It’s a very real question as well, because my response causes me a lot of stress, which some might argue is unnecessary – you could even make a scriptural case for “tomorrow having enough worries”. 

I think there’s some wisdom in what people are saying that I need to listen to carefully, but I also want to make a case for speaking up.  And explain myself a bit.  The quote below comes from a letter Martin Luther King wrote to the church leaders in Birmingham, Alabama.  They had criticised him for getting involved with non-violent direct action in a city they regarded as not his patch.  His detailed and measured response contains the following:

“All I'm saying is simply this, that all life is interrelated, that somehow we're caught in an inescapable network of mutuality tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason, I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality.”

This is referring to something the Old Testament calls “Shalom”, which is usually translated as Peace, but which actually has a much wider and deeper meaning.  An important part of this meaning is that peace, health, wholeness cannot happen to the individual alone, but needs to be happening for all of us.

For me, this means that while one American Christian sister feels unable to use gifts that God has given her because she is oppressed by those around her, I cannot be all I can be, and neither can any of us.  I know I can’t fix everything, and I know I have a lot to learn about graciousness and love when speaking up, but keeping silent isn’t always the same as keeping the peace.  Jeremiah 6 addresses the oppressive practices of Jerusalem and declares God’s wrath against it.  Verse 14 says this: “They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious.  'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace.”  Interestingly, the King James Version refers not to “the wounds of my people” but to “the hurt of the daughter of my people”. 

It wasn’t comfortable being an Old Testament prophet, and Jesus made himself extremely unpopular when he spoke up, but if God has put some Holy Discontent within me, keeping silent isn’t an option.

I don't really like doing this....

...because I hesitate to give attention to someone I disagree so profoundly with but I'm glad it's provoking some debate on some issues close to my heart.

Krish Kandiah has made a response to the Driscoll furore here:

http://krishk.com/2012/01/driscoll-pearls-swine/

But this comment from Jenny Baker to Krish really makes me shout Yay!

I wonder if the reason this has touched a nerve for you, Krish, is because it’s so close to home. After all you are a gifted bible teacher from the UK, who speaks in many different contexts. So in dismissing all British Bible teachers, Driscoll is dismissing your gifts, calling and to some extent your identity. I wonder then if this experience can help you understand better why women like me respond in a similar way to complementarians who say that we should not be leading and speaking and thus dismiss our gifts, calling and identity. I’m interested that you’re prepared to make a stand and call out someone like Driscoll for his comments about British bible teachers, and you’re not prepared to do the same for his and others’ comments on women in leadership.

Go Jenny