"I'm Not a Feminist!NOT!"
I’ve been very clear about that with many people. I’m NOT a feminist. I’m absolutely not one of those women who goes around breaking barriers and challenging authorities for the right to do anything that women have never done before.
And yet, I am reminded that I am indeed a feminist. By the fact of my birth, my gender places me in the ranks of 50+% of the world’s population. I worked in banking saw the glass ceiling of the management and lending officer training programs in the 70's keep good women from advancing. I've worked in political campaigns of women candidates for congress and saw their battles end in disappointment as they challenged conservative male incumbents with the worst congressional records of attendance. I’m a woman who grew up listening to music which included a repertoire of “I am woman hear me roar.”
But I also chose to be a stay at home mother, rather than immediately enter graduate school, because I saw it as my first responsibility raise up young men with values to pursue peace and justice in their christian lives. As a mother raising my two boys in the 80’s I would tease them with the “wonder woman” twist not just to see them roll their eyes, but more importantly to reaffirm my own power as a woman of ability and accomplishment. It was sort of a mind trick I played with myself for a while when I would begin to feel like my own career had been put on hold, and I was at a loss for my own identity; something other than "Robert's and James' mom." So Yes, I am a feminist. I'm just not a cutting edge "in your face" feminist. I think of myself as more of a heritage feminist. I've accepted as given my opportunities, even as I've worked in small ways to continue the tradition.
The way I read any text, scripture or otherwise is read through the lens which I take so entirely for granted. Coming to that realization is not so completely new, just something that I need to remember. It came home to me recently in this way:
As a Pastor in the United Methodist Church I take our Wesleyan tradition seriously and with pride. I am a student of John Wesley’s sermons. Preparing sermons for my congregation will often include background reading of at least one John Wesley sermon. I was doing just that, reading Sermon 98, “Visiting the Sick” as I prepared to preach on the text Matthew 25:31-46.
In his sermon he calls the people to take seriously the call of Jesus to visit the sick as an act of compassion. He urges the wealthy especially to break out of their protective zone to reach out to the sick and lonely. Then, as he goes point by point in his argument he says, to paraphrase "this is worthy work for women also." (Italics added). At that I snapped my head to attention. All the time I had read the text I was carrying in my head the present day church, the one that I have become so familiar with in America. It sunk in to me all at once that the primary audience seemed very certainly to be Men. At that point I was really ready to give a big AMEN, because what Wesley preached in the eighteenth Century seems just as relevant, probably more relevant, now than in his day.
I am referring to the call of discipleship which is equally valid regardless of gender. John Wesley was a Feminist. And so am I!
I’m especially proud to serve a congregation in a community that has a long history of being served by women pastors. That history reaches back even before 1956 when women were granted full rights as elders by the General Conference. My male colleagues in the United Methodist Church are of kindred spirit with John Wesley (being Feminists) and for that I am also deeply grateful. We may disagree about some specific policies of and social issues adopted by our Denomination through the General Conference, but my experience is that we are also capable of cordial dialogue and civility in disagreement. That is evidence to me that the Holy Spirit is at work in each of us.
Grace and peace,
Barbara
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
Very deep water, a firey topic
Christians around the world stopped to think about Baptism this past Sunday as our Lectionary readings are dedicated to remember also the Baptism of our Lord.
Two months ago headlines across the nation ran articles regarding a Later Day Saints practice called Posthumous Baptism. That article prompted a discussion in our house. The headline read “LDS still baptizing Jews.” (POST REGISTER- NOV 11, 2008) My initial response years ago would have been “who cares?”
Now, as a pastor, and being called upon to respond to questions about other people’s practices, I had to stop to think through the issue. In doing so, I find that it puts me in a much different place.
This practice which is so important to my LDS neighbors, and probably to one or two of my own family members just seems downright strange to the average mainline Christian. To others it is entirely offensive.
This is my attempt to explain why the Later Day Saint Church practice of Posthumous Baptism is offensive to families whose members died practicing another faith. This is just one person’s personal reflection. I offer it to help create understanding, not to attack.
As I see it there is a significant difference in Orthodox Christianity’s (by which I mean virtually any Christian Church: spectrum running from Roman Catholic to Presbyterian. Anabaptist, Evangelical) understanding of salvation and Later Day Saints teaching. Rather than attempt to explain how the LDS Church teaches salvation I will limit my remarks to what I understand- what I believe about baptisms and its significance in the work of salvation. I will look at scripture, tradition, and apply reason to the issue.
For me the most important scripture describing the work of baptism is found in Paul’s letter to the Colossians.
Luke tells of an encounter of Paul in Ephesus which also tells us more about baptism and what occurs. He writes
Lastly, looking at the Gospel of Matthew we find more about what should happen surrounding baptism.
So looking strictly at texts from Scripture, there simply is no value, in my mind, for any proxy posthumous baptism.
What does tradition have to say about Posthumous baptism?
Some scholars suggest that baptism for the dead was practiced by some early Christian groups, continuing until at least the late fourth century. John A Tyedtnes, a Hebrew and early Christian scholar at Brigham Young University, Utah writes:
“That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of two late fourth century councils. The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo, held in 393, declares, "The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them." The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage.
History shows that any early tradition of baptism of the dead was rejected.
Now, let me share a related line of thought which comes from my experience.
While completing work on my Master of Divinity Degree, our Christian History class was required to do genealogical research. The purpose of which was to trace the religious heritage of our ancestors. In this project many students discovered interesting and little known facts about their family history. While many were presently confessing membership through mainline protestant denominations large numbers of us could look back just one or two generations to find the Family Faith situated in the Roman Catholic Church. My maternal lineage includes four Irish Catholic lines. My husband’s family lines also have several Irish Catholic lines. All these lines carried forward the Christian faith through infant baptism, and we continued the practice for our children.
In the class we discovered that much of the changes in households of faith were due to mixed marriages in the present generation. More often than not the practice of faith remained very constant for centuries. The exceptions seemed more notable. Persecution at the time of the rise of Nationalism brought on many conversions of faith, a coincident event with the Protestant Reformation. Before that the Inquisition was a huge motivator to conversion for Jews to Christianity. More than one student discovered at least one family line of former Jews, originally from Spain but then migrating to the Philippines. While difficult to identify the actual cause, the presumed most plausible cause for conversion was persecution. Historical evidence led many to believe the families converted publicly but privately remained devout Jews who practiced the traditions and festivals of their faith in secret. The primary documents used to prove our connections and movements among the households of faith were diaries, bibles, certificates of baptism, letters and photos. So many surprises and great joys of discovery as well as sorrows and laments for those who considered the violence perpetuated on previous generations were experienced in the process of this class assignment. In the process I was surprised and delighted to learn of my great-great-great grandfather, Rev. Thomas Wright, who was an Episcopal priest in our family history. Would any dare to perform proxy posthumous baptism for this man, I would be insulted. I hold the thought that this saint has joined me in the consecration of Holy Communion throughout my appointment.
That seems to be the essence of the rub. Those of us who take our practice of religion seriously are most offended by the thought that practitioners of another form of religion which now desires acceptance as Christian like all others would regard our ancestors faith as insufficient and incomplete, which is more directly an insult to our understanding of significance of the work of God either in Jesus Christ or the work of God independent of Jesus for our Jewish neighbors.
As a minister in the United Methodist Church I accept as effective any baptism previously performed by any minister of the Christ’s Church. Roman Catholic or Baptist, Lutheran or Episcopal, Independent Christian or any of the Congregationalists, all are accepted if claimed by a prospective member. Fundamentally, it would be an insult to the work of the Holy Spirit to insist upon performing a second baptism if someone where to desire to unite with my congregation. I view proxy posthumous baptisms as an equivalent insult, not just to the practitioners a faith tradition, but more importantly to the Holy Spirit which both the Old and New Testament give witness to.
Sadly, the practice of Posthumous Proxy Baptism sets the Church of Jesus Christ Later Day Saints miles apart from the Church which sees itself as the Body of Jesus Christ at work in the world. So, I am left with one question for our friends in the Church of Jesus Christ Later Day Saints, which Paul asked the disciples at Ephesus; “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
Father in Heaven, at the baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan you proclaimed him your beloved son and anointed him with the Holy Spirit. Grant that all who are baptized into his name may keep the covenant they have made, and boldly confess him as Lord and savior, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns One God, in glory everlasting. AMEN.
Two months ago headlines across the nation ran articles regarding a Later Day Saints practice called Posthumous Baptism. That article prompted a discussion in our house. The headline read “LDS still baptizing Jews.” (POST REGISTER- NOV 11, 2008) My initial response years ago would have been “who cares?”
Now, as a pastor, and being called upon to respond to questions about other people’s practices, I had to stop to think through the issue. In doing so, I find that it puts me in a much different place.
This practice which is so important to my LDS neighbors, and probably to one or two of my own family members just seems downright strange to the average mainline Christian. To others it is entirely offensive.
This is my attempt to explain why the Later Day Saint Church practice of Posthumous Baptism is offensive to families whose members died practicing another faith. This is just one person’s personal reflection. I offer it to help create understanding, not to attack.
As I see it there is a significant difference in Orthodox Christianity’s (by which I mean virtually any Christian Church: spectrum running from Roman Catholic to Presbyterian. Anabaptist, Evangelical) understanding of salvation and Later Day Saints teaching. Rather than attempt to explain how the LDS Church teaches salvation I will limit my remarks to what I understand- what I believe about baptisms and its significance in the work of salvation. I will look at scripture, tradition, and apply reason to the issue.
For me the most important scripture describing the work of baptism is found in Paul’s letter to the Colossians.
“when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” ( Colossians 2:12 NRS)Baptism initiates, that is, it begins an act of change within the one who is baptized. So we baptize our children to begin the process, to incorporate them into the Church, which is the body of Christ in the world. It is initiation into a mystical living body. Baptism starts a process of sanctification, which we Methodists delightfully describe as “going on toward perfection.” In any orthodox understanding sanctification simply cannot occur posthumously. Baptism therefore, has no value once the vessel, the human body has ceased operations.
Luke tells of an encounter of Paul in Ephesus which also tells us more about baptism and what occurs. He writes
“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples and asked them, “did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”This clearly indicates something of value occurs ONLY for the living.
They answered, “no we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”
So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John’s baptism,” they replied.
Paul said “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve men in all.” (Acts 19:1-7 NIV)
Lastly, looking at the Gospel of Matthew we find more about what should happen surrounding baptism.
“Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28: 18-20)Here we see several key points. 1) People of all nations are included in the invitation to learn (“become disciples”), 2) baptism occurs in the threefold name once the initiative to become a student (disciple being a Greek word for student) is taken, 3) Continued learning is a follow-up condition of being disciples of Jesus Christ, 4) Jesus promises to be present to all disciples at all times.
So looking strictly at texts from Scripture, there simply is no value, in my mind, for any proxy posthumous baptism.
What does tradition have to say about Posthumous baptism?
Some scholars suggest that baptism for the dead was practiced by some early Christian groups, continuing until at least the late fourth century. John A Tyedtnes, a Hebrew and early Christian scholar at Brigham Young University, Utah writes:
“That baptism for the dead was indeed practiced in some orthodox Christian circles is indicated by the decisions of two late fourth century councils. The fourth canon of the Synod of Hippo, held in 393, declares, "The Eucharist shall not be given to dead bodies, nor baptism conferred upon them." The ruling was confirmed four years later in the sixth canon of the Third Council of Carthage.
History shows that any early tradition of baptism of the dead was rejected.
Now, let me share a related line of thought which comes from my experience.
While completing work on my Master of Divinity Degree, our Christian History class was required to do genealogical research. The purpose of which was to trace the religious heritage of our ancestors. In this project many students discovered interesting and little known facts about their family history. While many were presently confessing membership through mainline protestant denominations large numbers of us could look back just one or two generations to find the Family Faith situated in the Roman Catholic Church. My maternal lineage includes four Irish Catholic lines. My husband’s family lines also have several Irish Catholic lines. All these lines carried forward the Christian faith through infant baptism, and we continued the practice for our children.
In the class we discovered that much of the changes in households of faith were due to mixed marriages in the present generation. More often than not the practice of faith remained very constant for centuries. The exceptions seemed more notable. Persecution at the time of the rise of Nationalism brought on many conversions of faith, a coincident event with the Protestant Reformation. Before that the Inquisition was a huge motivator to conversion for Jews to Christianity. More than one student discovered at least one family line of former Jews, originally from Spain but then migrating to the Philippines. While difficult to identify the actual cause, the presumed most plausible cause for conversion was persecution. Historical evidence led many to believe the families converted publicly but privately remained devout Jews who practiced the traditions and festivals of their faith in secret. The primary documents used to prove our connections and movements among the households of faith were diaries, bibles, certificates of baptism, letters and photos. So many surprises and great joys of discovery as well as sorrows and laments for those who considered the violence perpetuated on previous generations were experienced in the process of this class assignment. In the process I was surprised and delighted to learn of my great-great-great grandfather, Rev. Thomas Wright, who was an Episcopal priest in our family history. Would any dare to perform proxy posthumous baptism for this man, I would be insulted. I hold the thought that this saint has joined me in the consecration of Holy Communion throughout my appointment.
That seems to be the essence of the rub. Those of us who take our practice of religion seriously are most offended by the thought that practitioners of another form of religion which now desires acceptance as Christian like all others would regard our ancestors faith as insufficient and incomplete, which is more directly an insult to our understanding of significance of the work of God either in Jesus Christ or the work of God independent of Jesus for our Jewish neighbors.
As a minister in the United Methodist Church I accept as effective any baptism previously performed by any minister of the Christ’s Church. Roman Catholic or Baptist, Lutheran or Episcopal, Independent Christian or any of the Congregationalists, all are accepted if claimed by a prospective member. Fundamentally, it would be an insult to the work of the Holy Spirit to insist upon performing a second baptism if someone where to desire to unite with my congregation. I view proxy posthumous baptisms as an equivalent insult, not just to the practitioners a faith tradition, but more importantly to the Holy Spirit which both the Old and New Testament give witness to.
Sadly, the practice of Posthumous Proxy Baptism sets the Church of Jesus Christ Later Day Saints miles apart from the Church which sees itself as the Body of Jesus Christ at work in the world. So, I am left with one question for our friends in the Church of Jesus Christ Later Day Saints, which Paul asked the disciples at Ephesus; “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”
Father in Heaven, at the baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan you proclaimed him your beloved son and anointed him with the Holy Spirit. Grant that all who are baptized into his name may keep the covenant they have made, and boldly confess him as Lord and savior, who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns One God, in glory everlasting. AMEN.
16 things
You already know (assuming you've been reading my blog) that I have questions about how relevant a connection can be formed using Facebook as the venue, "the commons" cyber version if you will. So playing the game here is as sample of what goes on in my facebook circle: I was "tagged" in a "note" by a friend in Facebook. This is what one person started to get a conversation going:
1. I like AOL I’M for keeping in touch with our son in Iraq.
2. I love being a pastor.
3. Leading worship is my #1 priority in each week.
4. Preparing the message sometimes takes a very long time before any words are apparent.
5. I miss being near to my grandchildren.
6. Being with families as their loved one is preparing to enter the eternal is the greatest privilege of being a pastor.
7. America needs to see movies like “Yes Man” and “Me and Marley”
8. The most profound book I ever read challenged my understanding of Christianity and helped me claim my place in the Church.
9. Being blonde leads to being a redhead.
10. Snow is best enjoyed at the top of a double black diamond run in Lake Tahoe.
11. Telling stories is not about telling lies.
12. I love to garden and once only worked to be able to buy new plants for our new yard
13. Being the only female in a house of men and boys leads to independent thinking and sometimes feeling isolated.
14. I first found God at the edge of the ocean.
15. Sunrises are the best time of the day and they come way too late during the Eastern Idaho Winter.
16. The best class I took in seminary was “Preaching the Book of Revelation” taught by Cornish Rogers at Claremont School of Theology.
Rules: Once you’ve been tagged, you are supposed to write a note with 16 random things, facts, habits, or goals about you. At the end, choose 16 people to be tagged. You have to tag the person who tagged you. If I tagged you, it’s because I want to know more about you. If I DIDN'T tag you, it is only because 1) you don't post a lot or 2) I assumed you wouldn't be into this.-And this is my response to 16 things-
1. I like AOL I’M for keeping in touch with our son in Iraq.
2. I love being a pastor.
3. Leading worship is my #1 priority in each week.
4. Preparing the message sometimes takes a very long time before any words are apparent.
5. I miss being near to my grandchildren.
6. Being with families as their loved one is preparing to enter the eternal is the greatest privilege of being a pastor.
7. America needs to see movies like “Yes Man” and “Me and Marley”
8. The most profound book I ever read challenged my understanding of Christianity and helped me claim my place in the Church.
9. Being blonde leads to being a redhead.
10. Snow is best enjoyed at the top of a double black diamond run in Lake Tahoe.
11. Telling stories is not about telling lies.
12. I love to garden and once only worked to be able to buy new plants for our new yard
13. Being the only female in a house of men and boys leads to independent thinking and sometimes feeling isolated.
14. I first found God at the edge of the ocean.
15. Sunrises are the best time of the day and they come way too late during the Eastern Idaho Winter.
16. The best class I took in seminary was “Preaching the Book of Revelation” taught by Cornish Rogers at Claremont School of Theology.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Christmas stories continue
Still being in the Twelve days of Christmas I thought this story is worth thinking about.
I'll give this to Simon: He's creative. As a preacher, I like to take license with the text too. Barbara Lundblad has written a convincing book MARKING TIME subtitled Preaching Biblical Stories in the Present Tense.
The problem with the story is how the nativity has been diminished, shredded of the mystery of the incarnation of God into the life of humanity. Instead, the incarnation of Jesus is overshadowed by an ah ha moment. Rather than really challenging us with the scandal of God's incarnation, Simon only demonstrates a revelation. It's not even an Epiphany, because none see the presence of God in their midst. It's a good revelation. If only all humanity would get it at about the same time.
More on Epiphanies later. Hope you enjoy the story, for what it's worth.
Happy New Year
I'll give this to Simon: He's creative. As a preacher, I like to take license with the text too. Barbara Lundblad has written a convincing book MARKING TIME subtitled Preaching Biblical Stories in the Present Tense.
The problem with the story is how the nativity has been diminished, shredded of the mystery of the incarnation of God into the life of humanity. Instead, the incarnation of Jesus is overshadowed by an ah ha moment. Rather than really challenging us with the scandal of God's incarnation, Simon only demonstrates a revelation. It's not even an Epiphany, because none see the presence of God in their midst. It's a good revelation. If only all humanity would get it at about the same time.
More on Epiphanies later. Hope you enjoy the story, for what it's worth.
Happy New Year
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)