Gender and Creation

Dr. Allender had our Marriage and Family class recently write a two page paper (small!) on the issue of gender and Genesis chapter 1-3. After looking at the text again, and recalling what Dr. Rikk Watts, that wacky Australian theologian up at Regent College had to say about the Creation story, I spit something out.
And then I look back at it and said to myself, "Wait. I'm not sure. Did I say that right?"
We shared these papers among our reading group and I had some kind of reaction from Brett's paper. This was a surprise, since Brett is one of my closest friends in Seattle and we share a lot of the same views and tastes. (We spent a lot of Christmas break sitting on the couch, pondering the mysteries of God, self, and the universe whilst listening to music.)
Friends, I believe I'm frustrated. The Creation story has been used as a prescription for Christian living. The role of "helper" has been demeaned by our English language. Allender said that "helper" means a kind of warrior, one who saves.
On another level, the "curse" is probably a description, not a prescription... at least, that is what my old boss Greg Smith states. I prefer this explanation, so I hope he is right.
Allender said that this story shows the men are more likely to be proactive, "go out there" and make order out of chaos. Women are more likely to be relational, receive, and make beauty out of the world.
It was this that set me off. I just feel that I don't necessarily fit in completely to that definition. Also, I know many men who are amazing beauty makers. Does this make it wrong for one gender to cross over into the other territory? What about those who don't fit? Should we try to fit? Wouldn't reflecting God not be so dichotomous?
I also have problems with the word "beauty", but thats my problem...I'm working on it.
Fortunately, a wise man recently told me: You are a woman. Therefore, what you do is what a woman would do. You don't have to try to fit into something else because you are a woman.
After finishing the paper, I was speaking with another M.Div. student and we both were slightly weirded out that we had only two pages for something that takes a lot of work. It doesn't sit right with theologians (in training) to spend 2 pages on something huge, profound, and requires a lot of work. Perhaps I will be able to spend more time in my time at Mars Hill addressing the gender issues put forth in the Bible.
Below is the paper. Like I said, I now wish I could rephrase it and change it.

Who can know the mind of God? If one were to say that one knows God’s detailed, exhaustive blueprint for marriage, one would seem rather pompous and ridiculous. Does God have a detailed, exhaustive blueprint? It is possible. Yet if that were all there was to this institution, it would be missing the side of the mystery, the intangible wonder. Yet if the institution lacks order, it would be non-existent, a phantom. A woman and a man reflect the paradox, the depth of the glory of God.

When encountering the creation of humans in the Genesis account, the reader has quite the task before her. How can the reader interpret this in respect of history and the ancient Middle Eastern culture that it came out of? Does it prescribe God’s intention for the institution of marriage? How do we in the 21^st century west apply the concept of marriage when currently the institution centers around romantic ideals? Marriage in their society was to set an alliance between families. There are great difficulties in applying the story of Adam and Eve literally to modern marriage structure, but what the story shows does have great implications of gender relations.

Dr. Rikk Watts, an Australian theologian currently teaching at Regent College, emphasizes the importance of the genesis creation story (at least on one level) as symbolic. As the peoples of the ancient near east tried to appease their gods out of fear, most creation accounts showed that humans were created to be slaves to the bloodthirsty gods. Kings and idols represented the gods. In the Genesis account, God made the temple (the good Earth) and made God’s “idols”, or as the greek would say “ikon” and placed them in his temple as the finishing touch of creation. God made humans as the pinnacle of his creation.

When God created Adam, God remarked that it was very good. Yet God, in all of God’s perfection and Holiness, admitted to something: “It is not good for man to be alone”. It took strength in the vulnerability of the Almighty God, creator of Heaven and Earth, to admit in humility: it’s not good. Perhaps God is saying: “ah, we could’ve done better”. What could God do better at? Something (or someone) was lacking. God chose to create another kind of human, a companion, so that both genders can reflect the depth, the complexity of the glory of God to all of his creation.

This account shows a loving, creative God that bestows honor and responsibility on humans. Humans are a creature unlike any other that reflect the image, the ikon, the idol of God. The fact that there are two human creatures made, different yet the same, show the complexity of God. It shows God’s emphasis on relation. Women show a side of God more often (and perhaps better) then men, and vice versa. Therefore there is a need to be in relation with each other to play out this acting out of God here on earth. The depth of humanity is a reflection of the depth of God who transcends, yet has characteristics of, gender.

The dark side of gender relation is communicated in the curse of the fall, which I believe is a description of “what’s to come” for men and women, not a prescription. Because sin and depravity was given permission to enter, men are doomed to the frustration of working with the futility of the land. Women have become disempowered, forever in agony of childbirth, both physically and symbolically. Children are birthed and reared in a world full of pain. Yet we women also bleed from the violence that we have received.

I have yet to work out a stronger understanding of this text specifically in relation to gender differences. I believe that men and women are still image bearers of God and still have the task of taking care of the earth. However, the teamwork now has the added complexity of death and depravity entering the picture. Suffering occurs with the land, with the offspring, and with each other. This still reflects God in that God suffers too. Perhaps the Mother side of God is in agony of labor to continue creating people that have potential for great betrayal and atrocity. God took a great risk in creating these creatures with our capacities and responsibilities. God’s love and choice to let humanity continue is a mystery.

Church Quest: Potential Methodist?

The quest for a church home is daunting when a Master of Divinity student. I've seen Elliot, Sam, and other seminarians sweat out what to join. While it is quite early on in my M.Div. education, it plays out in the back of my mind.

I have a somewhat broad (though not incredibly broad) church background: grew up in quite the conservative (some would label "fundamentalist") church; my father's side of the family is mainly Free Methodist, my Mama is quite Salvation Army (which I am technically a member of); I worked with an Assembly of God ministry; emergent-house church; Calvary Chapel; a dash of Pentecostal; and my beloved International Church of Budapest which has everything represented in Protestant-ville.

Through my experience of living overseas and working with 3 different interdenominational ministries, I have come to see the Church Universal (catholic) as God sees it as one. There are many different representations that reflect God's own diversity, and complete seperation and bitter, stupid debates are counter-productive to the Church who "...will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ." (Eph. 4:15 NIV).

I have been occasionally going to a rad church near Green Lake, Bethany Community Church, that is quite involved in the community, including artistic and environmental projects. The pastor has amazing insights. He's brilliant. Check out his blog: See what I mean? Really, the only thing that I didn't like was that it had too many people for my taste (what a problem, eh?) and it was slightly out of the area. Many of you know that I like to be strategically located.

Well, a grad school friend and I went to Seattle First United Methodist this past Sunday. Please note that in my previous listing of church body interactions, it mainly consists of low churches. My knowledge of high church is limited, new, and slightly confusing. Well, my friends pointed out that this church wasn't high; I must just be from a very low church background. We entered an old church building with stained glass and a huge ol' pipe organ. most of the congregation were old people. Yet I was amazingly welcomed. "Welcome to Seattle First Methodist: A congregation on the move! There is a place for you here" said Rev. Seegel as we began. Really? For me? I thought to myself. The music wasn't "praise and worship", it was organ and choir. There was a liturgy. Yet it was what I needed. Rev. Dave Gillespie, the head pastor, preached stuff that confirmed what I listened to earlier from the Relevant magazine podcast and my professor. They are deliberately moving to the epicenter of the "none" zone to be among the people who ask "Why church?" (The none zone refers to the concept of how people in the Pacific Northwest are the most likely to select "none" as their religion on applications, esp. in Seattle".

My friend and I discussed afterwards how great of an experience it was. I feel that this may be a potential church body that I can contribute to and that they have things to teach me. I do have a desire to return to my Welseyan Holiness roots. Social Justice is a big deal in that church, and women's voices are heard. It has a touch of liturgy which I have been thirsty for, and it is downtown. (though it moves to the Seattle Center for the next 2 years while the new building is built somewhat near my Grad school in Belltown).

Will this be my new church home? It's early yet, but seems promising. The "denomination" question is too early to ask yet, but also promising.

Bah Humbug and the Immanence of God

Winter break wasn’t eventful. I was one of the few MHGS students who stayed behind. Hey, I’m actually from this area….where would I go? I worked a lot at Seattle’s Best at Pike Place. I was not in the Christmas spirit. Working in a store in downtown Seattle in December involves witnessing a lot of materialism. Santa Claus is their pagan god of materialism. There is no Christ in this Christmas. There is also an emphasis on calling it “holiday” time and not Christmas. Part of me enjoys that…leave Christ out of this debauchery. However, most of this “holiday” décor and junk pushed by the retail pimps have flavorings of that European winter holiday tradition…what is it called…hmmm…

So, Bah humbug, it’s over, thankfully. I spent a lot of time doing introspective work, taking baths, and listening to music. At least after all of that work I became “Barista of the Month” at my store.

On New Year ’s Day I went to St. James Cathedral, which is the area’s catholic cathedral. I originally intended to journal in the building. Upon my arrival, I saw a sign that there would be a mass held in about 45 minutes, so I stayed. I was reminded of the immanence and beauty of God. The cathedral is an edifice that reflects the glory of God in the midst of rugged individualistic Seattle. Check it out here. The baptismal font and Oculus Dei ("eye of God"; a much nicer name than skylight) particularly reached me. I was a mess during the mass. I hope the priest didn’t mind a protestant taking the Eucharist.

My classes started yesterday and I’m glad it’s back. I get to take more theology courses. These classes are much smaller. It’s interesting to finally see who is actually M.Div. I was pleasantly surprised.

Denoument

My first trimester in seminary has ended. There has been so much work and upheaval... now what do I do with myself?
I have a running list of theologians that I want to read that I've only read blips of this term. Is it crazy that I'm reading theology on my break? Well, I must love my field of study...which is a good sign.
I picked up Miroslav Volf today. We read a section from his "Exclusion and Embrace" book that was quite formative to my interpersonal perspective. Below is my annotated bibliography/WDP writing thing from October when we read it. Perhaps it will be a glimpse into my processing.

Volf, M. (1996) Chapter 2. Exclusion and Embrace. (pp 68-98). Nashville: Abingdon Press.

Volf notes that the ideal of inclusion that is predominant in western modern conversation is something that is easier said than done. People who speak about inclusion may not realize the depth and the consequences of what inclusion means. Yet Volf chooses to explore the idea of exclusion. “Exclusion is barbarity within civilization, evil among the good, crime against the other right within the walls of self” (p. 60). Volf uses the creation narrative to show the idea of “separating and binding”. Instead of insidiously excluding, this shows the boundary of a person by affirming that people are separate beings, yet we are bound together in various forms of community. Exclusion seeks to destroy the “separate and binding” idea. It cuts connections yet seeks assimilation. If people don’t assimilate, history has shown it can result in ignoring their existence, or driving out of the land, or genocide. Volf brings Jesus into the picture by using Galatians 2:20. Jesus gives freedom by a process of de-centering and re-centering with Christ at the center. “Exclusion names what permeates a good many of sins we commit against our neighbors, not what lies at the bottom of all sins” (p. 72). Jesus brings the proper definition of sin by renaming behavior and then remaking a person. Sin has a pursuit of false purity (cleaning out the “impure”). It can result in elimination, assimilation, domination, abandonment. People often shift blame, especially in the ugly cycle of victim and perpetrator. Every persond has this sick desire for evil. It goes to the core of us. Volf ends the chapter by giving a look at the Cain and Abel story. God sided with Abel, the underdog, and Cain acts out of his view of what is unfair. Even though Cain gives a snide remark to God after the fact, God protects him in an attempt to end the cycle of perpetrator-victim.

I love this piece. I studied intercultural and immigration stories as an undergrad, and this brings me deeper into the nature of sin with those stories and the healing that Christ has for us. It’s important that Americans, who tend to disassociate ourselves from the “other”, listen to Volf who came out of the oppression of the Soviet Regime, where history is kept very close at hand.

Warzone

"I know that you're the one to pull me through..."-- David Crowder Band

I feel my wrist grabbed amidst the sound of popcorn gunfire
Dragged, my arm is stretched so far it's about to come out of its socket
The terrain and broken glass scrape me as He pulls me along
Helpless and painful, pitiful
At least I'm going somewhere