Sarah Sentilles writes this in her book A Church of Her Own:
Many ministers worry so much about the people they will upset if they change the language of the liturgy to inclusive language that they forget about the people who are upset because they don't use inclusive language. So harassed are they by the people who call to complain that the Holy Spirit was called a "She" or the Lord's Prayer called God "Creator" instead of "Father" that they don't have time or energy to think about the people who visit their churches and decide never to come back because they heard God called a man again and again and again. Refusing to use inclusive language, refusing to be creative about the metaphors we use to talk about God, sells our congregations short. And it sells God short. (p. 137)She makes a very interesting point here. Isn't it possible that clergy members who are so afraid of introducing progressive ideas to their worship services lest they offend certain members of the congregation are not taking into account the people they might attract to their church through those same actions--those whom Spong labels "the church alumni society"?
The above quote, of course, is referring specifically to the use of inclusive language, which is separate from the issue of clergy introducing modern biblical scholarship into their sermons (which was discussed previously in this blog.) Yet both the use of inclusive language and the use of modern scholarship represent essentially twin threats to the established orthodoxy, and are resisted vehemently by religious conservatives. There are, I am sure, pressures on clergy from all directions, not just from the congregational members who might be offended.
Lest anyone think that clergy never get intimidated by conservative pressures, Sarah Stiles documents the case of a female assistant pastor in the UCC (a supposedly liberal denomination) who had to deal with various problems on the job, including sexism directed at her. At one point, twelve members of the congregation circulated a petition demanding a meeting with her, in which a litany of complaints were presented. One of the complaints
had to do with a sermon Eve preached a year and a half earlier in which she had questioned the historicity of the birth narrative of Jesus, something that has been questioned for decades by historians and biblical scholars who have argued that both Mary's virginity and the notion that her pregnancy resulted from divine intervention (the Holy Spirit) are literary devices, not historical facts. A mortal woman becoming pregnant by supernatural forces signaled that the child who resulted from that pregnancy would possess special powers, such as the ability to perform miracles. Rather than a literal fact, the virginity of Mary is a rhetorical device intended to demonstrate the significance of Jesus. "I was basically taking away their happy second-grade Christian theology," Eve said. (p. 112-113)So it seems clear that clergy run up against serious pressures from congregations if they dare to threaten anyone's second-grade Christian theology. Yet, when balancing that against the number of people they may turn away from church by not offering something a little more advanced, who usually wins out?
9 comments:
I find church - with it's focus on conversion as it's central theme - usually leaves people further up in growth in the faith 'out'. We outgrow the churches that are supposed to nurture us - in all honesty.
For me, the contention over Mary being a virgin and all that is such small potatoes - and not worth fighting over in community. The point of the passage is what needs to be highlighted more or less - the rest of the historicity can wait for personal questions (in my opinion).
To me, the problem with church is it intentionally stays at a 2nd grade level for the sake of new parishioners - forgetting the more seasoned people there and their need for growth. Churches empty for this very reason in my opinion...and is the main reason I do not attend church (I am not really challenged when I am there - I have to invent challenges for myself). That sucks you know.
I think there is a depth also to reading into miracles and what have you - I can agree there - but they are more talking points about historicity and myth...and although good points can come from both sides - this is not the role of the church to decide for the reader (the reader needs to grow to ask those questions).
Society V, should the primary reason for us to be in community with other Christians more for what we think we will get out of it, or in how we can give of ourselves to others in the body of Christ, and also to work together for the advance of the kingdom?
It seems to me that there is no perfect church out there where everyone is bound to agree about every issue.
I can't see the point in just sitting home though, and refusing to participate at all, judging everything, and everyone else from afar. How does that help?
I do agree with you though, about the problem of fighting with people over some of these doctrinal issues. To my mind, only God's spirit can ultimately reveal anything to folks relating to truth, and the nature of God.
I think it best to be willing to share honestly and to discuss issues, but to back away from endless argument, and contention, name-calling, etc.
Mystical, I'll be honest. If this UCC minister was coming across to people in the congregation in this condescending way, as if everyone who interprets the virgin birth literally has this second grade kind of mentality, it's little wonder the woman is having trouble.
It's one thing for her to share her opinion. It's another to belittle the faith of those in the church she is called to serve.
I don't feel this all shows the love of Christ, and is basically bound to stir antagonism.
Mystical, I'll be honest. If this UCC minister was coming across to people in the congregation in this condescending way, as if everyone who interprets the virgin birth literally has this second grade kind of mentality, it's little wonder the woman is having trouble.
We're back to the same problem that I've already highlighted. She presented information that she was acquired from her training. As I've stated before, there isn't much point in having educated clergy if they are going to hide what they've learned from their congregations. She had the temerity to actually teach people what she had learned, and members of the congregation attacked her for it. It was a humiliating experience for her, and she was treated badly by her congregation. She had every right to be angry about this.
You claimed earlier that clergy are never being cowed by their congregations into suppressing what they have learned about the Bible from modern scholarship. And yet I have provided you with an example of exactly just that thing, where a pastor was subjected to an open attack for teaching what she had learned. If nothing else, hopefully this example can put to rest any state of denial about what is going on here.
Mystical,
I'm hearing you, but I willing to bet that the issue in this church is alot deeper, and more complex than a dispute over the manner of Christ's birth.
Our spirit toward people when there's a disagreement counts for alot.
I personally don't feel that scholars are able to prove, or disprove the virgin birth. They don't agree among themselves.
But, for me, as a Christian, my faith is centered in the incarnation. I think that is how God shows the depth of His love, for us, and who He really is.
My trust is in Christ, and is not just tied up in the manner of His birth. I think the church can really, really get side-tracked in dispute with some of these issues.
I've actually known folks ready to leave a church at the drop of a head over even things like disputes around the interpretation of "day," in Genesis, or differing views of the ancient Midianites, for Heaven's sake. It's all craziness.
The book that I quoted from is primarily about sexism against female clergy. If you read the larger book, you'll see that the objection to her introduction of the findings of scholarship was in the context of massive institutional sexism that this woman faced. The fact that they latched onto this issue among others was interesting to me be because it related so closely to the earlier discussion about clergy being forced to keep silent about what they learned in school.
“should the primary reason for us to be in community with other Christians more for what we think we will get out of it, or in how we can give of ourselves to others in the body of Christ, and also to work together for the advance of the kingdom?” (Grace)
That’s a good question – but the answers will inevitably ‘what we can do while we are there and is it helping us grow’? Staying in a church because it is the required thing to do is about as good as serving God because ‘I don’t want to go to hell’ – in essence – we need to go deeper than that.
I think church has to serve some purpose and develop each believer – and not leave it a level fit for only beginners. I am not a beginner and when I attend church – as much as I love the people – I am fending for myself when it comes to ‘real meat of the word’. Community exists in a vacuum also – and I am not game for a divided line in the sand approach.
“I can't see the point in just sitting home though, and refusing to participate at all, judging everything, and everyone else from afar. How does that help?” (Grace)
We need to judge everything – whether in church or not in church we do this – so I am not doing something new here – I am calling for change. Unbelievably it does help to be away from the church – since it did nothing for me anyways (at a certain point in my growth) and I need to go back and find out why this is. I could blame myself – but how can I be so sure it is just me that’s the problem? Thus the reason to pull back from church and examine all of this carefully.
“I think it best to be willing to share honestly and to discuss issues, but to back away from endless argument, and contention, name-calling, etc.” (Grace)
I would agree name calling and the sort are just ‘wrong’ (since it is hurtful). But sharing is not all about agreement – it’s about community – and sometimes we will disagree – there should be room for that (since learning happens this way also). I know many people in the church that love debates – and why not – it allows them to push their thinking to new levels. I just don’t see problems with debate and argumentation – as long as it is done with care.
I guess that's why I love my congregation. There is everything in doctrinal beliefs from soup to nuts there but no one gets stressed out over points of doctrine.
Doctrine was developed over time by men.
I do not believe in the virgin birth and many other Christian beliefs that people hold dear. Virgin birth is scientifically impossible.
I believe our faith should be trust in God and not what some men have developed over several hundred years.
I belong to two Ministerial Alliances and most ministers there have attended seminary and have learned many things about the scriptures and the development of the Christian movement down through the ages that they are not free to preach. If they did, they would surely lose their churches.
Margie,
It sounds like you are in a pretty cool congregation.
Your experience with ministers who don't feel free to preach what they know confirms my suspicions, I'm sorry to say.
There's not a whole lot those ministers can do about it unless they want to start their own church and teach what they have learned there.
Post a Comment