Category: church (Page 3 of 3)

if I only had a penis

While in seminary I once encountered a group of men who told me in no uncertain terms, that women should be silent during church. (Subsequently, when they wanted me to report to the class our assignment, I used their hermeneutic and declined such participation). Later, I was told by a (male) professor that I should be taking part in a few programs offered by the school precisely because of – and in spite of – that very group of men. 
I remember sitting in one of my required UM classes and having a panel discussion about Women in Ministry. I was asked to speak / participate, but I declined. I didn’t feel I had anything to offer. I was a woman and I was in ministry, but I had no thoughts beyond the obvious. The women who led the discussion had more experience fighting battles with the Establishment over their worth and value in a church leadership role. I remember discussing with a friend later that it’s because they’ve fought those battles that I have not needed to; but because I’ve not fought, I’m not passionate. I’ve always been pretty non-involved in these heated theological debates. 
Last night I was told that we had to “check to see” if I was still permitted to lead in ministry in the ways which I have for nearly 10 years. My talents, experience and knowledge came secondary to my sex organs. Which is surely what Jesus looks at first. 
I can’t describe the hurt. The frustration. The sadness. Typically I’m the type who will simply walk away and find a place to fit (and this will likely be coming). But last night I hadn’t moved into “what next.” I apologized profusely to my husband for being difficult, a gesture quite unnecessary in his eyes. But the truth of the matter is: if he’d married one of those quiet, compliant types he’d be involved in a church home by now. (And he probably wouldn’t have spent last night doing his own ironing while his wife went for a run.)
I went to bed with tears. I questioned why God would make me with such a mold. I’ve thought before, and last night with much more certainty, that it would’ve been easier if he’d made me a man. Or if he would’ve shaped my mind differently. If I was born without a large mouth that insists on sharing  everything. Or the insatiable curiosity that has me reading about anything. Born sans these, I think my life would more easily navigable. 
Perhaps if born a man, I’d be okay with the tug I feel toward higher aspirations. I wouldn’t be ashamed to climb any sort of ladder. I wouldn’t feebly raise my index finger when asked “who wants to take this on?” 
I could go on to list the scripture I use to defend my place of service. Or how we can’t bear to think about raising our girls in a place where they’ll infer that they may only participate in church life a fraction of the way their brother will. My mind has ventured in so many directions over the course of hours. 
But the long and short of it: the church made me cry. It made me ashamed of who I am. It made me think that I needed fixed, not because of the sin I in which I find myself entangled, but the body in which I was born. 
And that’s not right. 
So this morning I say a prayer of thankfulness for my roots. For the places and people who grew me. For the encouragement and love of those who believe gifts and passions come from the heart and not the genitals. I’m thankful I know of a place where I will be welcomed as I am. A place that if I’m told to be quiet, it’s because I’m wrong and using bad theology, not because I wear a bra. I’m thankful that this church doesn’t tell the whole story of the Church and a new chapter awaits. 

the church, the steeple, the people

As of late, this is largely how I’ve begun to feel within the churchy world.  So Rachel Held Evans’ post this week about Why I left the church struck a chord; though I’m not contemplating going anywhere, I resonated with her frustrations. 

Instead of withdrawing, I’ve made the decision engage further; I know the situation isn’t perfect, but I’m not waiting on perfection. As KLR likes to say, I want to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. We’ve found a group of people who seem genuine, kind and welcoming. There’s an organic feel to the church. When you meet in the banquet room of a shanty hotel, you’re really dependent on welcoming others with your people, not your facilities or programs. I like that. 
But, much like Evans has found, sticking around can be exhausting. I sometimes feel like I’m stuffing my emotions under, or even living a double life. I’ve started to participate in the youth ministry and enjoy it to the hilt – it’s like my ministry blood has started flowing again, energizing my limbs that I never knew were sleeping. Talking to the girls, even playing silly games, fits like my Reef sandals on the first day of Spring. 
But returning to something offers a viewpoint of how much has changed, namely: Me. I flinched when the leader used the word “saved” in a talk. Why? I have no idea. We talked about how to have a quiet time, a discipline I love and depend on, a morning ritual that has become my main outlet of peace in tumultuous life. So while I love passing on the knowledge and skills of spending time with God, I’m saddened when it comes across to students as yet another thing to do, another way that proves they’re not enough when they don’t follow through on their goals to become more diligent. Hearing the girls’ frustrations and fears made me want to cuddle them up and say, “But God loves you and this doesn’t define your life with God.” But I was afraid they wouldn’t let me come back next week. 
My view of God and the Church evolved a lot over the past 5 years or so. I feel like it’s roomier, and I’ve allowed some boundaries of belief to become a bit more of a semi-permeable membrane as opposed to a stone fence. I’m okay with it; my relationship with God has flourished, as opposed to floundered, because of it. 
But in becoming more internally spacious, I feel a bit crammed into the larger context of Christian subculture. Like I’m trying to wedge myself in, shoulder first. I want to be a part. But sometimes I feel like there’s just not room at the table. 
I’m not asking that people agree. I’m not looking for people just like me; I’m looking for people who accept and respect me if I disagree. I’m looking for a faith family that loves us all because of – not in spite of – differences. 

a diamond for each?

In case you’ve been making a list of reasons why you shouldn’t take on a second wife, I’d like to add another. 

Lately I’ve been pondering the advantages and disadvantages of polygamy. Not that I’ll be participating in the near future, because a) my husband wouldn’t be much for that and b) throughout the course of history, rarely – if ever – has a woman been allowed multiple husbands, only vice versa. I think it’s evidence of evolution in that women are smart enough to only take on one spouse’s issues. Besides, who would want to increase the count of in laws? (I LOVE YOU Jim and Carol!)

No, the sister-wives thinking has been provoked by a recent (fiction) book the book club finished, in which the heroine joins a Native American community and becomes wife #3. The statement is made during the last 1/3 of the book that “Silent One took her rightful place as the first wife in our husband’s bed.” I’m still wrapping my head around that. 
Yesterday at church the message was centered around sexuality and marriage. Generally I appreciated the message as it was quite holistic, understanding this element’s role within the larger picture of a person’s life. And overall the point was to create stronger marriages from the outset, as is God’s plan. 
Then somehow I ended up in 2 Samuel this morning (which is a stumper; I could’ve sworn I left off in Esther, but there was my blue bookmarker. I took it as an omen.) and read a passage that included David’s sons born while he lived in Hebron. Five of them, if I recall. All born to different wives. 
I thought, and the Bible is our model for healthy marriages
So I have some research to do. Summaries forthcoming. I understand that God works with His people starting with where they are, and David and the Kings were in a polygamist society. There are differences between what God permits and what God deems as the best possible scenario. I’m so far chalking it up to that, right along with the animal sacrifices, but I think with a bit of digging we might uncover a few nuggets of gold that would be advantageous to our current society. But all of this is future-talk. Let me return to my polygamist thought of the day. 
I do recall a recommendation in a certain book, probably Titus but it could be 1 Timothy, definitely a letter from Paul. Or Peter. (I’m too lazy to look it up at the moment). But the recommendation for a good leader in the church is a man who “is of one wife”. Generally in our settings we skim right on past this one (and go for “doesn’t drink too much wine”), but upon some deeper thinking, I’m wondering if we stopped to shallow when we ask the question. 
In these societies, generally the man with the most wives is the King or Chief or whatever title is given the leader. I believe this is a sign of power (read Esther and really give some thought as to what Xerxes had going on. It’s disturbing.) and of wealth. I mean, the more wives and children, the more mouths to feed. It seems Solomon was doing his shopping at Sams Club with his hundreds. But I think it can be inferred that the multiplicity of marriage was a sign of stature to the culture. 
So. What if. What if?! What if Paul’s recommendation wasn’t simply because he was making a statement about marriage – though, perhaps he was. But in looking at such a recommendation in conjunction to the many other mandates of Paul, I think there’s plenty of room to wonder if the character of a man of one wife was more desirable than that of a man with 2, 3 or 20. Why? Because a man with one wife was lower on the social totem pole. He had less money and probably therefore less power. And this is exactly the kind of guy that Jesus tended to take along as a disciple. 
It made me wonder: what kind of guys – and gals – are on our church boards today? If it were acceptable by our society, would they be the kind of gents who would have multiple lady friends as a way of showing prestige? Are they the ones with the money, power and influence? Or the ones with a deep servants heart? (I’m not saying that it can’t be both, but a wise man once said, “it’s harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God…”)
While looking for a new church home in our new town we ventured to a church and even went to an “exploration class.” We decided it wasn’t a great fit for us for multiple reasons, but one of them was the braggy-braggy attitude of the elder that led the class. It was quite the public display of how important he felt church leadership was, though he was sure to mention that none of them did it for the prestige. It irked us then, and now upon reflection, it irks me again. 
So, add another notch to the list of reasons why adding another woman to the house might not be such a good idea. Right alongside the dough you’re forking out for engagement rings, tuxedos and having to relive the nightmare of a formal wedding with a wedding planner. 
Newer posts »

© 2024 Michele Minehart

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑