The wonder of Twitter is that a seemingly innocuous tweet can turn into a riot because of the lenses that folks use to twist tweets into predetermined categories.
I just got back from Exploration 2013, a discernment event for young adults considering ordained ministry in the United Methodist Church. It was a terrific weekend full of energy, excitement, cautious consideration, and deep discernment in twos and threes and small groups of young adults. I loved being on the Design Team and getting to know the next generation of spiritual leaders. My role for the weekend was to lead a workshop and to be on the social media team.
And it is in that context that two responses to two of my tweets about the event just didn’t match the event at all. And since I have a blog, you get to know about them too.
=====
Tweet #1: The first tweet I will highlight is that I sent out a lot of tweets that had pictures. On the last day, the artwork that the young adults had created in the “Sacred Space” reflection area was up for display and pickup by the participants. I sent out one photo (posted above) of the artwork and gave context in this way:
UMJeremy: “God is Love and (s)he loves everyone” reflective artwork from the Sacred Space area. #explo13
To this tweet, one of the pastors of a Top 100 United Methodist Church Rev. Talbot Davis posted in response. I’ll include our full exchange:
TalbotDavis: This is why it would be awfully hard for a conservative to attend explo13.
UMJeremy: funny. I had conversations with about 20 of them. Can we celebrate that we give people freedom to reflect? #judgenot
TalbotDavis: Do you have pics of any art reflecting a more traditional understanding of God language and marriage? explo13
UMJeremy: those were a dime a dozen (Lord, He, His) so I took pics of the outliers. Welcome to twitter, Rev. Davis. 😉
TalbotDavis: Wish you’d taken pics of all those celibacy in singleness & faithfulness in heterosexual marriage posters.
UMJeremy: hahaha. Naah. Just celebrating calls to ministry by young people. No need for those fixations when it is about them.
From the exchange, the lens of “inclusive language and marriage equality are bad” frames a conversation about young adults going into ministry. The conversation was fixated on those culture wars instead of on how those culture wars were impacting those students considering ordained ministry. It tinted the good pastor’s perception of the event like a lens that fuzzed out the context of the artwork.
I’ll be charitable and say that the perception was that this artwork was from the top-down and it was what people had to believe. That’s not the case: it was artwork by a participant in a reflective space, so it was bottom-up. If that wasn’t understood, I get it. But I suspect there was a lot of tinted lenses being used in the response as well.
=====
Tweet #2: The other tweet I will highlight is that I asked the Bishops to tweet the Council of Bishop’s advice to young adults considering ordination. Here’s my tweet and here’s two responses:
UMJeremy: What from #cob2013would inspire Explo13 YAs to go into ministry?
– Bishop Ken Carter: 1 mission statement, 1 adaptive challenge, 4 areas of missional fruitfulness: new leaders, poor, global health! new communities
– Bishop Elaine Stanovsky: Stay bc God works in the world thru the church & we are God’s partners. My ?: What should inspire bishops to stay UM?
Relevant and brief, but helpful! Thanks Bishops!
To this tweet, however, a staffer at the Institute on Religion and Democracy (a caucus group started by non-Methodists who seek to distract the UMC from being involved in social activism by focusing on wedge issues like LGBT equality) posted this:
– John Lomperis: Only seek ordination if you’re on board w/ #umc core doctrine. No need for more clergy w/ whole ministry based on a lie.
Wow. That would be super-inspirational to the attendees, wouldn’t it?
The error here is that the tweet doesn’t fit the context of the event. The aggressive language (using terms like “lie” and “only”) seeks to dissuade young adults who have doubts or haven’t figured everything out yet–in short, a majority of people aged 18-25, which was the age range of the event. There was plenty of tough love at Exploration: plenty of comments about the difficulty of ministry and of considering our motivations to seek it. What there wasn’t any of was just rigid toughness–without love.
The tweet falls far short of offering inspiration or guidance to the participants at Exploration because it fixates on the agenda items instead of caring–or even offering tough love–to tomorrow’s future leaders. Like a zombie fixated on “braaaaaaaaains” the staffer focused on their culture war plans rather than being helpful to the question at hand.
Lest you think I’m just being partisan and badgering the snakes, here’s a tweet also sent in response to my question by Rev. Drew McIntyre. We “converse” a lot on Twitter and disagree publicly; however, here’s what he wrote in response:
– Drew McIntyre: Learning to love imperfect communities is an excellent introduction to the #umc and ministry in general…anywhere.
That’s how you offer tough love and point out the realities without being aggressive or fitting a context into an agenda. I shared these exact words to a small group and they appreciated it. Thanks Drew.
=====
Abraham Lincoln said “If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.” Yes, I am likely guilty of that too. But I highlight the two tweets above to point at the perils of discussing online when we bring tinted lenses to the table and view everything in a genre with those lenses. While the comments would have been perfectly appropriate elsewhere, the context didn’t merit their response.
As a practitioner in these areas of church and social media, I feel it’s important that we point out when we don’t use social media appropriately and fall short of offering a graceful presence online where young people might see it.
Let us pray for our young adults seeking to be in ordained ministry. May they overcome our shortcomings and our culture warriors who wield a sword when a chair and a coffee cup is more helpful.
Thoughts?
Thanks for this. I followed all of the convos above with with great attention … I just think God is much bigger than various rants can make God out to be on Twitter. The above responses to genuine questions are amazing lessons in missing the point. As somebody in process and serving as an LLP, I’m grateful of your example, Jeremy. But it also blows my mind to see the theologies present in our top 100 churches at times.
But as a wise one once said, “Haters gonna hate.”
Well said. (i’m tempted to write some stock spam response “this blog really made me think about all matters at hand”)
Those tinted lenses affect far more than Twitter exchanges, of course, but they may be magnified by the forced brevity that Twitter imposes. The limits mean no room for nuance or explanation and seem ideally suited for those who want to hit hard and low and then move on to the next play. Since this is not a Twitter response, and I have room, I say this: Those 18 – 25 year olds who are willing to explore their calls to ministry have my deep admiration and support. And yes, they will change the theological core of the UMC, as they should. Lord willing, we will become the place that shows the wideness of God’s mercy which I have long believed is the heartbeat of Wesleyan theology. Keep up the good work.
Apparently based on the previous post, God loves everyone except Roman Catholics, who in the eyes of the UMC leadership are damnable heretics who hate gays and the mentally retarded.
Uh I don’t know you James so I can’t tell if you are jesting. I’ll just say that you should probably add that the UMC also hates categorical fallacies! 😉
Huh?
Given the current goings-on in the UMC, commenting on a post that specifically highlights a view with overt political-social ramifications (the marriage equality sign is pretty unambiguous) seems pretty understandable. If Talbot Davis’ lenses are tinted I suspect it’s because the vocal minority proudly disobeying the Book of Discipline and loudly calling others to do likewise are the ones applying that tint.
While the macro context is exactly as you say, JM, the relevant context was a discernment event for young adults in the United Methodist Church. That was reiterated several times in the conversation that the artwork was from a participant (not a leader or staff) and represented their thoughts, not the staff’s. Thus, claiming that the artwork was indicative of “conservatives aren’t welcome at Explo” is both (a) false because there clearly were and (b) assumes a top-down agenda when none was present.
If I posted artwork with a bandaid on an arm, clearly Explo is not welcoming of Republicans because the leadership clearly promotes universal health care.
I most definitely was not joking, Reverend; I mean no offense but just yesterday you repeated the view of one of this conference’s speakers that the Catholics effectively hate gays and disabled people, and the Methodists don’t. My wife is Catholic and her sister is developmentally disabled, and never once have I felt even the slightest animosity towards her from the local Catholic community. As a Methodist I just don’t want to be associated with your hateful and discriminatory brand of Christianity, I mean, come on, this isn’t the bloody Reformation for (literally) God’s sake. At this rate, your next post will probably call for the Dissolution of the Monasteries.
James, I would encourage you to go back and read the comments (I know that’s not usually the best answer on the Internet). To accuse me of promoting hate, animosity, or discrimination is to be willfully ignorant or intentionally inflammatory for some unknown reason. The next time you come here with an axe to grind, make sure there’s actually a reason for it.
Now on this subject, I myself have to say in the case of TalbotDavis, JM Smith, and James Appleworth, I would point out to them that there is a great danger of reacting to the heresy that is infecting the Methodist hierarchy in a manner that is overly polemic and perhaps vitriolic. Now, I am as revolted as you are by a hand drawn poster full of homosexual symbols depicting a trans-sexual God (via the indicator (s)he), but I in no way hate the Methodists who have fallen under the influence of this confusion, nor for that matter do I hate transsexuals (actually one of my favorite SF shows in recent years is Torchwood; I merely feel that homosexuals can find, to quote the particularly offensive speaker referenced yesterday, more theological meaning, in the Unitarian church, or in another religion that does not contain Christianity’s particularly severe sexual requirements). In the case of UM Jeremy, however, or the liberal speakers at that conference, i see loving Christians, in sincere and genuine pursuit of Jesus Christ, and in UMJeremy’s case even with a sacramental theology that is essentially Orthodox, laboring under what the Russians would refer to as prelest, inflicted upon them unknowingly and subtly by the darkest and most deceptive forces known to the church.
This is why its very important to adopt an Eastern approach to sin rather than the degenerate approach of Anselm or Aquinas or Calvin. I do not view sin as a legal infraction that is to be penalized, but rather as a disease, resulting from the degenerate condition of reality itself following what in Western Christianity is referred to as the ‘fall’; essentially, I believe in the doctrine of original sin, but not imputed guilt in the manner of Augustine; my view on this is shaped by John Cassian. As such, i can recline in relative comfort and simply pray for the salvation of liberal methodists who appear, at the surface, to be at risk of some form of apostasy, without having to fear their certain damnation.
Now you yourself, speaking of damnation, used the phrase ‘damnable heresy’ and this reminds me of an important and relevant point. The Byzantine Triodion, in the week before Lent, features this rather tragicomic rubric:
“During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week.”
The Armenians for their part historically took a similarly polemic view of the Byzantines. Their glasses, like those UMJeremy alludes to, were tinted, but tinted with hate. Both churches anathematized each other, and viewed each other with such polemic rage, that in the case of Cheesefare Sunday, the Byzantines were essentially embracing a liturgical and ascetic practice for the entirely contrarian purposes, limited to refuting the praxis of the Armenians. These differences have now been overcome, and Armenian and Eastern Orthodox clergy cooperate, studying together the essential theology courses at St. Vladimir’s seminary, before moving on to upper division courses specific to their own respective liturgical and cultural heritage.
This has several interesting ramifications for this debate. It is entirely possible that some accommodation may be reached for liberal Methodists provided that liberal Methodists are willing to provide the same accommodation to their conservative brethren. I would be appalled to see a schism, but I would rejoice if a condition arose whereby a separate liberal hierarchy existed in full communion with the conservative hierarchy, albeit limited in scope to the liberal parishes such as that of Portland; in this manner the liberal clergy would not feel compelled to attempt to enforce their non-traditional theology upon those Methodists who like myself prefer a more, shall we say, traditional approach.
In the same vein however it is important either way, regarding the still lingering issue of what has generally been perceived by a multitude of readers as an anti-Roman smear on the part of one of the conference speakers, that neither liberal nor conservative Methodists ought to make remarks that interfere with the ecumenical process. The comments UMjeremy refers James Appleworth to fail entirely to provide any theological explanation as to why specifically that speaker felt the way she did about the Roman Catholic church. I cannot help but feel personally that to attack another Christian community without providing any theological reasoning behind it is flamebait.
So while the polemics engaged in by UMJeremy on this blog against conservative Christianity, and those engaged in by myself in opposition to his polemics, are entirely legitimate, ordinarily, in this case, the sentiments echoed are not legitimate, because they are not reinforced with any theological reasoning.
In like manner, I do feel that the image that uses (s)he in reference to God is also flamebait; such a sign is by its very nature not dialectical. Christian theology has been largely defined through dialogue; Orthodoxy was only clearly defined after several centuries of opposition to heresy. Valentinus and Marcion made a huge contribution to the early church, in enabling the polemics of Irenaeus, which eventually led to the development of the confessional tradition that gave us the Creeds. However, when one resorts to signs and sloganeering, one short-circuits the dialectic process of theology. Thus I would urge liberal and conservative methodists alike to not insult each other with political signage; my favorite image from the Jon Stewart rally a few years ago in Washington DC was of someone holding up a sign which proclaimed “Signs are not effective political discourse.” While I did not agree with the political sentiments behind the rally, I did very much agree with the message of that one sign.
Beyond that, I feel inclined to invoke one of my favorite theologians of our era, Kallistos Ware, who is probably to the left of me on several theological points, but who I greatly adore. He always emphasizes an irenic approach and the importance of dialogue. In addressing a conference of Roman Catholic bishops on the subject of ecumenical reconciliation, he said “I need you in order to be me.” Surely conservative Christians in our era need liberal Christians, in the same manner that the Orthodox church required Valentinus and Marcion to allow us to define our theology. In like manner the Methodists need the Romans, and vice versa. Can we not somehow work out a way to form ourselves into an icon of the Holy Trinity in the form of our mutual love for each other?
Glad for your encouragement to pursue the “Eastern approach to sin,” for that is exactly what a “faithfully Methodist” approach is. Too few United Methodists (especially in our pulpits) understand that we do not hold to the juridical notions of God’s salvific grace as taught in Western Christianity, but have adopted Eastern understandings of God’s grace working in a fallen humanity. While Wesley declared himself a “hair’s breadth” from Calvin with respect to humanity’s depravity as an Adamic inheritance, he diverged from the Western church’s soteriology in rejecting salvation as merely positional justification. The fullness of salvation is via therapeia psuches, or the healing of the soul; as Wesleyans we seek God’s continued grace subsequent to rebirth enabling our entire sanctification (Christian perfection, perfection in love), wherein the fallen creature is being lovingly restored to the image of God. I believe that it is precisely because too many in the UMC perpetuate thoroughly Western juridical salvation and not Wesleyan therapeia psuches that we encourage so much disagreement over who is deemed “acceptable” in the sight of God.
To be fair, Jeremy, the selection of your art conveys your “rose colored glasses” as much as you claim that Talbot Davis was wearing them on the other side. Comments such as “those were a dime a dozen” and choosing the “outlier” art, shows that your bias is on the other side of the agenda. I appreciate your heart for young people to explore their call to ministry and for them to wrestle with what that looks like in our 21st century American context. However claiming that your choice of pictures didn’t reflect that you hold bias or wear rose colored glasses is a rather non self-aware statement. And, as a leader at the event – your choice of posting this specific image does (whether you intend it or not) make it a “top-down” statement implicitly if not directly. Celebrating people’s calls to ministry or even their wrestling with cultural realities in light of Biblical teaching is different than celebrating unfaithfulness to God’s design. Whether your original tweet intended it that way or not, your ensuing conversation showed your hand. So please, don’t hold to the pretense that you’re the one in that conversation who didn’t have an agenda. At least be honest about it – even if you disagree with the “other side.” Nothing is ever said in a vacuum and you can’t divorce the “macro” context from the “relevant” context with any public (be it internet or not) speaking.
I disagree that you cannot divorce a macro context from the relevant context. I’ve led a dozen social media seminars and trainings for churches and laity/clergy sessions. Would it be appropriate to say that a conference has a HomoLiberalAgenda because I’m one of the presenters? On a topic wholly divorced from other macro topics? Of course not.
An awareness of what social media coordination means is necessary for the rest of your comments. Offering posts and pictures and commentary on my personal account is different than posting them or retweeting them from the official account. If you click through, you’ll see that my post was NOT retweeted or commented on by the official account. That’s because those are my views alone and were not shared by the leadership. The same tenet holds true whenever we host a DreamUMC chat: the official account holder offers questions and comments, but doesn’t offer their own personal opinions while “hosting” that week. So tweets from the DreamUMC account or Exploration account would be held accountable for top-down messaging…comments from others are understood to be their own.
While I’m fully aware of and own my own bias (I’m a blogger after all), I was lifting up people who were seemingly unable to do what I do well in many contexts: separate personal agendas from the expressed purpose of an event. Let this be an object lesson to help others in their future twitter encounters.
You are correct: I wouldn’t say that a social media seminar and training for churches and laity/clergy would have a HomoLiberalAgenda because you’re a presenter. However, you’re comparing two separate situations. Your presentation would only carry that agenda IF you brought it into the discussion, OR if your stance were well known enough that people would inherently associate you with that agenda and therefore find your being the presenter an intrinsic acceptance by the church of your agenda (whether that’s true or not).
The art of speaking/teaching/blogging is (or rather should be) understood as dealing with multiple contexts at once – both the authors AND the listeners/readers (even if you don’t like or agree with the context your readers bring with them). Any public communication must deal with the reality of the macro context because it is brought with the hearers/readers.
My point then is the moment you posted that particular picture, you brought in a macro context that is looming within the Methodist body. Given the macro context which the picture assumes – you’ve made the decision to speak into it (directly or indirectly). This is why I find it disingenuous to publicly call somebody else out for not separating their personal agenda from the express purpose of the event; especially when you confirm that you’re advocating your own personal agenda in that very post by saying you wouldn’t re-tweet it on the official account because they’re your views alone.
As to a difference between official/personal accounts, I would interject that your separation of private and official fails to take in the reality that you always represent any body you are a part of (especially the body of Christ) whether you are on the official account or your personal account. This is true even in blogging/tweeting – perhaps especially so since it is so readily viewable. The moment you make your view public online you have brought your personal agenda in with the event (whether you intend to or not). Just own it and don’t be surprised by somebody responding to it – or act as though it’s somebody else’s failure to divorce a personal agenda. (Caveat: I’m not arguing that we should in all things “put it on the official account.” I’m attempting, however, to point to the reality that our personal life is far less removed from our official life as we would like to assume. Caution on how we represent ourselves should ALWAYS be heeded. We don’t simply represent ourselves because we’ve removed our interaction from an official account to a personal one. More than any of this, we always represent our King. It’s His name and His truth we either elevate or drag through the mud.)
My apologies for the lack of clarity in the final line, I was avoiding writing a paragraph on it – but alas, I should have.
I think Chris the real trick here is that we need to see more actual love. There seems to be a lot of hateful flamebait occurring; now usually I come to expect this from the extreme right-wing of Protestantism, the Southern Baptists and 9Marks people, such as Mark Dever, but in this case its disturbing to see this kind of spiteful polemic approach emerge from the other side, in the form of images that appear designed to offend, like the poster, and also passive-aggressive remarks about other denominations. That said, it is extremely important that we retain a sense of perspective and not allow ourselves to overreact.
Another example from the early church that might be helpful to consider here is the dreadful outcome of the Nestorian schism. Nestorius took offense to the degree of Marian devotion he encountered upon becoming Patriarch of Constantinople. To rectify the problem, he taught a theology based on that of the Antiochian school which stressed the separation of Christ’s human and divine natures and stressed that Mary was only the “Christotokos”, the birth-giver to the human person of Christ as opposed to the divine Logos, with which it was in hypostatic union.
Now this naturally appeared to be Adoptionist heresy to the others, including the Alexandrian party. Nestorius was excommunicated and the Assyrian church was separated from the rest of Christianity by a schism which has still not been repaired (although progress is being made). Now Nestorius later agreed with the Chalcedonian council at the end of his life, and it appears that the Assyrians, for the most part, never believed the extreme form of Nestorianism that was initially implied, and rightly condemed at Ephesus. However, the damage was done.
The problem did not end there, however, because this in turn caused another schism. In Alexandria an over-reaction occurred to Nestorianism that is known as Monophysitism or Eutychianism. This was correctly condemned at Chalcedon, albeit using a formula that the Syriacs, Copts, Armenians and Ethiopians deemed to be itself Nestorian. This resulted in another schism, which has only now been mercifully healed to some extent, at least in Egypt and Syria, although within the Ethiopian, Greek and Russian communities there are many traditionalist hardliners who still harbor deep resentment towards the other side.
In the same way, through an excess of hatred here, we risk another schism, and a very severe schism. The theological problem of Nestorianism is trivial and barely a heresy; the actual theology of the Assyrians is at worst heterodox. Yet here with the efforts to change the nature of the Christian faith in a fundamental way, we face what would appear to be a more dramatic heresy than anything encountered since the second or third centuries; a heresy more pronounced than that of Arianism, one that bases its theology on a combination of a corrupt reading of the canonical NT coupled with an optimistic and biased interpretation of almost all of the non-canonical gospels (of the Gnostics, Marcion, the Ebionites, and others).
The Reverend Peter Owen-Jones, one of my favorite left-wing Anglican priests, host of the fantastic documentary series Around The World In 80 Fatihs and Extreme Pilgrim, disappointed me rather bitterly in his documentary on the Lost Gospels. He failed once to point out in unequivocal language that the Gospel of Marcion was in fact anti-semitic. In the same way, I feel that we are also at risk of glossing over many of the negative and deeply offensive aspects of the new, modernist theology that is being promoted.
What is required is some form of consensus that allows liberal post-Christians and modernist Christians to exist and avail themselves of the freedom of religion, and remain in a loving relationship with orthodox traditions such as confessional Methodism and Anglo-Catholicism. The Ecumenical bonds that have been established in recent years should not be destroyed by the influence of sociopolitical preference on contemporary theology. At the same time, we must also avoid the resulting schism from causing damage or persecution on the scale of the Nestorian schism or the Chalcedonian accident.
Jeremy, I’ll STFU if you can clearly explain why you and Beth said what you did. Which you still haven’t done either here or in the other convo.
The burden of proof is on you because I’ve already explained myself. Your turn: Explain how this sentence from the other thread is not clear:
UMJeremy, perhaps I might try to intervene here in the manner of Erasmus. Setting aside the issue of the ordination of women, which does not appear to have been the original bone of contention, can you articulate precisely how the Methodist church can provide theological meaning to the disabled, that the Romans do not? If this can be theologically explained, in detail, I believe we can provide some comfort to the Roman Catholics who have taken such extreme offense. I myself am not irate about this, but I would say the remark was not entirely helpful, and it did lead to this apparent and unfortunate Ecumenical mini-flamewar, which is certainly not doing anything to help Roman-Methodist relations.
By the way, you might also note my post on the other thread regarding the uplifting experience I’ve had with the Syriacs regarding pastoral care of the disabled. Surely the same kind of theological beauty will occur both in our church and among the Roman Catholics.
The answer, Paul, is just that Jeremy is a mean-spirited hateful jerk, cut from the same cloth as those who gave us Prohibition. I spent a good chunk of my forty five years on this Earth trying to overcome my generation’s prejudice against Catholics. Jeremy still hasn’t answered my question, as to how my wife’s church discriminates against the disabled.
That’s a very ugly thing to say James. I personally find UMJeremy to be a beautiful human being; I don’t see any malicious anti-Roman Catholic prejudice in him, and this entire affair is simply the kind of unpleasantness that can result from accidents of language, and I’m sure that in response to this, UMJeremy will explain the precise theological nuances of the contentious remark. I personally disagree with UMJeremy on a number of theological points, yet his theology has helped me to define my views with greater clarity, and the results for me personally at least have been fantastic. I also find the idea of a blog targeting those in my profession to be uplifting in and of itself. So let us just communicate here with love and patience, and not succumb to the temptation towards vitriol.
Thanks for the question, Paul Anthony. I do indeed think that more clarity is always helpful.
What I can reconstruct from my memory is that, as a child, Beth was reading scripture and ran across “whoever speaks the name of the Lord will be saved” from Romans 10. She was concerned as her sister was physically and mentally unable to speak the name of the Lord. While she later in life would know from Roman Catholic theology that YES, such persons ARE offered salvation by God, the Catholic nun simply said “What happened to your sister was a blessing.” The child Beth did not accept that form of theology (I forget if she expressly talked about Natural Law or about Determinism) and rejected the notion that God had caused her sister’s affliction as a blessing to her. Remembering that sense of either betrayal or profound disagreement contributed to her later leaving of the Catholic Church over women’s ordination.
Whether you agree or disagree with the content of the context above, whether it is compatible with Catholic doctrine or not, it is 100% compatible with what I originally wrote and 100% not calling the Roman Catholic Church discriminatory. I don’t expect you to ever return, James (as you’ve never commented here before), but there’s the accounting that you have lambasted me for.
(I fully accept any errors in the above recounting as a failure of my own memory–ironically, I was involved in the worship service, and thus was not actively tweeting or writing her sermon as doing such things while leading worship would not be appropriate)
Now that to me makes some degree of sense; I’ve encountered many other stories of catechtical errors within the Roman Catholic church, often committed by nuns, causing unpleasantness. For example, I read of a nun who advised, sincerely, yet in a misguided effect, some children who were preparing to receive “first communion” that if they chewed on the consecrated wafer, it would turn to blood in their mouth. This of course prompted them all to chew it in an attempt to see if it would happen, which of course it did not.
Now both of these incidents, that occurring to Beth and that occurring to the person who recounted that other story (who was a female of Beth’s generation), were in the past, and its very possible that the deficit of spiritual formation in the community of nuns that triggered these errors has been corrected. Of course (I would say, as an enthusiast of monasticism, who has delighted when the first Methodist monastery opened a few years ago, sadly), there are fewer nuns now as well.
What we see here also is the unfortunate and paradoxical effect of the propagation of error and confusion. Poor spiritual formation led to a nun saying something misleading and deeply troubling to Beth, which caused her to lead the church, and later, years later, in another conference, make a remark that, when echoed on a blog, inadvertently triggered a minor controversy leading to, shall we say, intemperate remarks. This is like a miniature version of the Nestorian controversy and the Chalcedonian schism that it indirectly caused.
It seems to me that the takeaway here is that, regardless of whether you’re liberal or conservative, there is absolutely a need for more spiritual formation, particularly among those ministers who are not actually priests, for example, lay nuns in Roman Catholicism, or within Methodism, sunday school teachers. While I don’t think we can prevent all incidents of sort, this incident itself, viewed iconographically, seems to represent a miniature of the schismatic process, whereby one schism causes several others, ripping through the church like shockwaves.
The Great Schism of 1054 led to the Protestant schism, and the Great Schism itself may have been the after-effect of the Chalcedonian schism (since a major part of the controversy was the use of unleavened vs. leavened bread; the Byzantines had already engaged in heated polemics with the Armenians about the latter’s use of unleavened bread; the Great Schism was partially caused by the Pope compelling ethnically Greek congregations in his geographical jurisdiction to use unleavened bread.
Now one thing is certain; the present tension between the conservative and liberal elements of the UMC, if left unchecked, will lead to schism. Given the manner in which schisms propagate, what concerns me is not that schism itself, but the subsequent schisms that might result from it, which may be almost infinitely worse (consider how much worse the Chalcedonian schism compared to the Nestorian schism). Now as a conservative Methodist, I can assure you that there are many confessional Methodists who would rather die than adopt the theology of figures such as the retired Joseph C. Sprague. On the other hand, I am equally ready to admit that the intense sociopolitical pressure makes the opposing scenario, of all liberal Methodists converting to a conservative view, equally unlikely.
To use a cliche I generally prefer to avoid, the $64,000 question is, can the Methodist church avoid a schism over these questions and continue to agree to disagree? Or has the theological gap between confessional Methodists such as myself, and liberal Methodists such as yourself, grown to the point where reconciliation is impossible? Certainly however, people on both sides appear to be fueling the schismatic fire; if an ecclesiological divorce is inevitable, that will make it a very messy divorce indeed (and probably result in the conservative churches being taken over by the unpleasant 9Marks style authoritarians; there are many unpleasant Methodist clergy who I’ve encountered who fall within that camp).
I fear James your abrasive tone isn’t helping here. That’s plainly the sort of flamebait I’m referring to. There clearly does exist a dialectic deficit both regarding this controversial sign, which has clearly become a bone of immense theological contention, and also the anti-Roman Catholic remark, but in both cases I’m willing to avoid taking huge offense, and to instead exercise a sense of personal oikonomia and classify these as mere errors in judgment, demonstrating a need for improved catechesis and spiritual formation. We must not, however, allow ourselves to be consumed by anger at these errors in judgment to the point that we lose our equanimity or our capacity for irenic dialogue.
By the way, to avoid indulging hypocrisy, I feel I myself must also at this point mention why a sign referring to God as (s)he represents heresy. From both a Protestant standpoint of Sola Scriptura, and from the perspective of Church Tradition the sign was horribly wrong. At no point in the Bible is God referred to with the female gender, rather, God is referred to either in gender-neutral language (in the manner later embraced in Islam) or as the Father, by no less a man than Christ. Christ likewise is identified using masculine language as ‘the Son.’
This is not a smear against women; the most honored human being of natural birth was Mary. Just as priests and bishops must be male, as they must form icons of Christ; women, as icons of the virgin Mary, must be venerated and held above men within society. I myself very much favor the medieval sense of chivalry to the extent that it exalts women and elevates them to a special status; for my part I feel like the medieval poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight represents, or ought to represent, a normative Christian theology of gender.
Female imagery is in the minority (in part as it was written in a patriarchal society) but there is female imagery for God in the Bible. I tend to take a gender neutral approach and think too much “he” lends itself to too much of a literal impression of “big guy in the sky.” The problem, as pointed out by an author I read elsewhere, is that God as a term is inherently a male term. The female form of the word of God is Goddess. That doesn’t mean I think God is inherently male but our language is imperfect.
However, for the sake of reflection:
From:http://www.womensordination.org/content/view/234/
Genesis 1:27 Women and Men created in God’s image
“Humankind was created as God’s reflection: in the divine image God created them; female and male, God made them.”
Hosea 11:3-4 God described as a mother
God: “Yet it was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I who took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with bands of love. I was to them like those who lift infants to their cheeks. I bent down to them and fed them.”
Hosea 13:8 God described as a mother bear
“Like a bear robbed of her cubs, I will attack them and tear them asunder…”
Deuteronomy 32:11-12 God described as a mother eagle
“Like the eagle that stirs up its nest, and hovers over its young, God spreads wings to catch you, and carries you on pinions.”
Deuteronomy 32:18 God who gives birth
“You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; you forgot the God who gave you birth.”
Isaiah 66:13 God as a comforting mother
God: “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”
Isaiah 49:15 God compared to a nursing mother
God: “Can a woman forget her nursing child, or show no compassion for the child of her womb? Even these may forget, yet I will not forget you.”
Isaiah 42:14 God as a woman in labor
God: “For a long time I have held my peace, I have kept myself still and restrained myself; now I will cry out like a woman in labor, I will gasp and pant.”
Jeremiah 44:25 Queen of Heaven
“Thus says…the God of Israel: You and your wives have accomplished in deeds what you declared in words, ‘We are determined to …make offerings to the queen of heaven and to pour out libations to her.’ By all means, keep your vows and make your libations!”
Psalm131:2 God as a Mother
“But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a weaned child with its mother; my soul is like the weaned child that is with me.”
Psalm 123:2-3 God compared to a woman
“As the eyes of a servant looks to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to you, YHWH, until you show us your mercy!”
Matthew 23:37 and Luke 13:34 God as a Mother Hen
Jesus: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!”
Luke 15:8-10 God as woman looking for her lost coin
Jesus: “Or what woman having ten silver coins, is she loses one of them, does not light a lamp, sweep the house, and search carefully until she finds it? When she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ Just so, I tell you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents.”
Compiled by the Women’s Ordination Conference
Just because God uses the analogy of a mother to describe himself, does not override the fact that Jesus instructs us to pray to God the Father, not a Mother Goddess; what is more, your translation of Genesis 1:27 at least is clearly from a modern bible using inclusive language. My Septuagint reads:”So God made man; in the image of God He made him; male and female He made them.” The KJV, which uses the Masoretic text, reads “Mankind”, but the Masoretic text is not entirely trustworthy and is not in my opinion at least very useful within Christianity, since the early Church tended to use the LXX exclusively. The Dead Sea Scrolls, as an interesting aside, suggest the old Hebrew Bible probably was a textual mix between the Septuagint and what became the Masoretic; the Masoretic is perhaps not unlike the Minority Text of the NIV; occasionally the Apostles quite it. However in general, one should really cross check all verses between both.
Now that aside, it must be stressed once more that just because God identifies himself with the male gender, does not depreciate the divine value of the female gender. The virgin Mary, affirmed at the Council of Ephesus as “Theotoks”, literally “Birth giver to God” is exalted in Christianity above all other humans, male or female. Mary is more than the anti-Adam, she is also the anti-Eve, and is a crucial participant in the redemption brought about through the works and in the person of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Thus, while within an Orthodox Christianity such as that practiced by the old Methodist Episcopal Church until 1957, women do not serve as priests or bishops, who vicariously represent Christ in a literal icon of the Last Supper when they consecrate the Eucharistic banquet; rather, women enjoy the equal and perhaps rather more vital role of representing the supremely holy figure of Mary.
I think part of the reason why in Protestantism there has been such pressure for womens ordination is due to the fact that we, despite Luther’s pleas to the contrary, deprecated all forms of Marian devotion. Now I do feel that many Roman Catholic practices in regards to Mary are excessive; the veneration of her sacred heart is a bizarre, borderline Nestorian doctrine, the doctrine of the Assumption is at odds with the historic doctrine of the Dormition, and the Marian apparition at Fatima I suspect may have been spurious, or worse. However, the Eastern Orthodox practices regarding the veneration of Mary appear to be effective in elevating women to their rightful status within the life of the church, while avoiding the confusion that results from female priests and bishops. (Women can however be deaconnesses, or serve in a vast array of other ministerial roles, including roles of responsibility over church finances and pastoral operations; the injunction from a theological perspective relates primarily to the Eucharistic function; I see no reason why in the UMC women could not serve as Lay Preachers, because Lay Preachers (or Servants as we now call them) do not consecrate the Eucharist).
Lastly, the point should be made that it is unfortunate that once again, our UMC hierarchy did fail us by not censoring the offensive image in question. Had this conference occurred even as recently as 1950, the disturbing sign would simply have been discretely removed, in the same manner as the bishops of the early Church, as they discretely removed from their parishes heretical material such as the Gnostic gospels.