Extra, Extra, Read All About It
The Fargo newspaper, the Fargo Forum, featured The Project F-M‘s ministry Theology Pub in today’s paper. The headline reads, “Holy happy hour: Project F-M reaches out to young adults to discuss spiritual issues” and boy is it a joy to see well-written local religion coverage. John Lamb’s reporting was thorough, thoughtful, inquisitive, and fair. Also, he made the initial contact for the article which I appreciated rather than us trying to sell ourselves.
I’ll respect the Forum’s advertisers and send you there for the whole article, but here’s the start.
MOORHEAD – The next generation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America could be taking shape in an unlikely spot – the dark basement of a Moorhead bar.
The wood walls may make the Hunt Club – the lower level of Usher’s House – dim, but the conversation at Theology Pub is bright.
Twice a month, participants gather there to discuss issues of spirituality and faith over a drink and some snacks.
The meetings – the next of which is 7 p.m. Monday – are part of Project F-M, a new sort of ministry funded by the Eastern North Dakota and Northwestern Minnesota synods of the ELCA.
The goal of Project F-M is not to convert people to Christianity as much as it is to engage those who don’t go to church but have a sense of faith or are curious about spirituality in a discussion.
In PC(USA), “Minister” no more. Now: “Teaching Elder.”
A Gathering Voices post
I’ve struggled with living into a pastoral identity ever since I started seminary. I blog on it from time to time (e.g. here, here, and here). When I served as a parish pastor, some people called me “Pastor Adam,” and that was fine but I never really became comfortable with it.
I recommend Eugene Peterson’s new memoir, The Pastor for addressing some of these issues. Though Peterson once did not anticipate ever becoming a pastor, he later embraced a pastoral calling full-on, with major reflection and many helpful publications for other pastors as well. In his memoir he writes,
While being a pastor certainly has some of these components, the pervasive element in our two-thousand-year pastoral tradition is not someone who “gets things done” but rather a person placed in the community to pay attention and call attention to “what is going on right now” between men and women, with one another and with God — this kingdom of God that is primarily local, relentlessly personal, and prayerful “without ceasing.
While I like this pastoral definition and approach of Peterson’s, his distinction between pastoral identity and non-pastoral identity grates me somewhat in his memoir (not to mention his talk of the call of the pastor’s wife!). But that’s for another post.
I write this all with a huge change in the Presbyterian Church (USA) in mind. As of Sunday, our constitution has changed so that “Minister of the Word and Sacrament” is no longer the preferred way to speak of a pastor’s office. “Minister” is replaced with “Teaching Elder.” So now rather than a denomination led by those called “Ministers of the Word and Sacrament” and “Elders,” we are a denomination led by two types of elders: Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders. So while you might call your pastor “Pastor _______” you can now refer to her as “Elder _______” and be just as accurate.
The old “Minister of the Word and Sacrament” language still is included in the new constitution, but it’s in parentheses and doesn’t show up much. Overwhelmingly the language now isn’t “Minister” but “Teaching Elder.”
As I understand it, Teaching Elders can be called to serve a church as pastor. We still have pastors — plenty of them — but those we serve as pastors do so because their ordained Teaching Elders rather than Ministers.
The new language states that “Teaching elders shall in all things be committed to teaching the faith and equipping the saints for the work of ministry (Eph. 4:12). They live out this role in different ways of service.
So, for example, “When [Teaching Elders] serve as preachers and teacher of the Word, they shall preach and teach the faith of the church, so that the people are shaped by the pattern of the gospel and strengthened for witness and service.” The constitution also speaks of Teaching Elders’ service at font and table, as pastors, and as presbyters.
Please note: as opposed to what some folks are saying, the new language does not replace “Pastor” with “Teaching Elder,” rather it uses “Teaching Elder” as the broader office that is lived out in particular ways — as pastor, as teacher, as preacher, as steward of the mysteries of grace.
There’s a lot helpful with this change, I think. For one, it emphases the parity of Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders. Ruling Elders are ordained to spiritual leadership roles. They serve the local church on the Session, and also serve on other councils of the church. As the constitution says, “Ruling elders are so named not because they “lord it over” the congregation (Matt. 20:25), but because they are chosen by the congregation to discern and measure its fidelity to the Word of God, and to strengthen and nurture its faith and life.”
Teaching Elders, just like Ruling Elders are ordained to service because the church recognizes they have particular gifts for ministry. But being a Teaching Elder is no fancier in the Spirit than serving as a Ruling Elder. Different gifts. Same Spirit. One Lord.
But I’m also a bit uncomfortable about the new language for a few reasons. First, Teaching Elder, at first hearing, doesn’t seem to encompass as much — in my mind at least — as Minister. So I wonder if people will hear “Teaching Elder” and not consider the whole realm of service possible. Second, might the Teaching Elder title lead pastors to emphasize teaching too much and forget about pastoral care? Obviously pastors aren’t going to stop caring, but language does have great power. I’m all for teaching — no worries about that — but I’m not sure the great need of the PC(USA) at the moment is more lectures, classes, even Bible studies. Finally, I wonder about ecumenical confusion. The language of “minister” is common among many denominations. Will Presbyterians be forced, in any ecumenical setting, to constantly explain what their office is?
At the end of the day, words are words. But they have power. They have great meaning. So, this former minister who served as pastor, now Teaching Elder serving as Mission Developer, prays this change is for the better.
image by elvis santana
A Quick Gender Analysis of President Obama’s Libya Speech
This post was supposed to be on President’s Obama lack of inclusive language in his Libya speech last week. After many years of President Bush using “man” to mean “human” and “mankind” to supposedly include women, I had become sick and tired of hearing such male-dominated rhetoric from presidents. So, after I heard President Obama using several similar phrases last week, I planned to write a post complaining about Obama’s continuation of Bush’s exclusivity. As I looked into the matter more carefully, however, I found that perhaps I was oversensitive. In fact, President Obama’s Libya speech included fairly consistent inclusive language, only straying on two occasions.
The speech begins by thanking our “men and women in uniform.” Obama used this inclusive phrase three times. Though it could be argued that the “in uniform” descriptor tends to dehumanize the soldiers — emphasizing the uniformity of their clothing rather than their humanity — I’ll take the “and women” part for certain. Thanks, Mr. President.
Next, Obama used “human” instead of “man” several times. For instance, the phrase “our responsibilities to our fellow human beings” could easily have ended with “fellow man.” But it didn’t. Similarly he refrained from including “all men” in the following construction, “challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security.”
But there were a few slip-ups, some more justifiable than others. First, Obama used the historic “airmen” and “Coast Guardsmen” appellations several times. I get it — just like the word “freshman” for college first-years — the habit of using old important phrases that were once accurate is a difficult habit to break. Perhaps I should cut the president some slack on this one. Rome wasn’t built in a day, after all. 20% of the military is made up of women, but they don’t fly combat missions. OK, point taken — but I still think there’s room for improvement next time, Mr. President. Repeat after me: “Guardsmen, Guardswomen….”
The only inclusive language stunner came in the speech’s final moments. Obama said, “We have [protected people] because we know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.”
On a final reading, this is the only egregious non-inclusive phrase I can find (by quickly scanning and searching, at least). In fact, it’s sort of hard to figure why, after so many times using careful inclusive language, he slips into “mankind” instead of “humankind” at the close. Was he just getting tired? Did he intentionally leave it in to keep people like me on their toes? Did he mean to appeal to some old-fashioned voters — or just sound presidential? Who knows.
So it turns out I should not have been so quick to judge. While leaving room for improvement, Obama’s inclusivity should be noted and appreciated (to say nothing of the fine speech as a whole). So I’ll give the guy his due. Thanks, Mr. President, you sure know when to man-up.
image by Edwin Pijpe
I’m no man for a “wife”
Your bride. Your better half. Spouse. Old Lady. Other half. Wifey. Missus. Little woman. Ball and chain. Wife.
I have a confession: I dislike every phrase or word above when it’s used to describe the woman to whom I’m married. Some phrases I strongly dislike; others I approach with more mild distain. For going-on five years I’ve been married to Megan and I still don’t even like the word “wife” to describe her.
Be it an English language problem or just a personal issue, I just can’t stop myself from flinching when I use even the word “wife” or “spouse.” Most often these days, especially when writing, I use the word “partner,” but even that has its issues.
Though I’ve thought about it a lot, I’m not sure exactly why even the traditional and straightforward “wife” annoys me. Perhaps it’s that I don’t see Megan in that traditional role at all. Sure, there’s some wife/husband stereotypes present in our relationship — Megan buys more shoes than me (just barely), I’m the fix-it guy around the house (or, I call the real fix-it guy) — but there’s enough untraditional about our relationship that I still don’t like the phrase “wife” (Megan asked me to marry her, after all, and I do most of the housework). Perhaps, instead, it’s that I’m self-conscious about being seen by others in a conventional wife/husband relationship. Perhaps it’s just that the word “wife” has an ugly sound to it (like “moist,” “magma,” and “panties”).
Then there’s the LGBTQ rights angle. I’m certainly aware, when referring to anything about my marriage, that the same rights Megan and I enjoy are not afforded to people of the same gender. And that pains me deeply. So, a part of me wants to say, “Until all people have the right to marry the person whom they love, I’ll refrain from flaunting my marriage with the term ‘wife’.” I accept that that’s a pretty flimsy step towards justice, but for some at least, it’s a start.
Of my 20/30 something friends who’ve been married for a few years, most have come to use the words “wife” and “husband” without any bother. While it brought them up short early in their marriages, they have become accustomed. For some, they accept “wife” and “husband” as terms that needed a certain rehabilitation for them, but after some time, the job was done. I’m not immediately aware of any couples who totally avoid the words, but I may be forgetting some. In any case, it’s not many.
But here I am, going-on five years of marriage and still not comfortable with how to refer to the person to whom I’m married. A simple “Megan” works in many contexts. I think “partner” works alright sometimes, but using “partner” leads some people to believe we’re not actually married, just dating. An old minister professor of mine who was married to a pastor used to refer to his spouse as “my partner in life and ministry,” but that’s a mouthful and just weird. Alternatively, the phrase “life partner” just lacks the gravitas I’m looking for.
Maybe I just need to get over it. Maybe, after a few more years, I will. But, for now, that’s my confession: I’m no man for a “wife.”
A few good plugs
I’m happy to announce three cool things on A Wee Blether today. Yes. Count them: one, two, three!
- The Presbyterian Outlook, an independent magazine reporting on issues of interest to the PC(USA), is looking for two new part-time employees. And yes, you can even work from the comfort of your own home! I know I’m not alone in my push, in the most amiable way, for the Outlook to refocus efforts on web presence and social media (yes, their site makes me want to pull my hair out). Well, the new Internet Content Manager Job will do just that. They’re also looking for someone to fill this CopyEditor Job Description. I’ve worked with the Outlook folk in the past and can recommend them as a classy organization filling a vital role in the denomination.
- The Thoughtful Christian.com, a great portal for lesson plans and book deals, has recently expanded and launched a new blog: Gathering Voices. I managed to wrangle my way into the first group of regular bloggers, so Wednesdays my posts from Gathering Voices will be cross-posted back here. I’m excited to work with such an awesome group of bloggers — some young, some old, all smart — and I’m also quite happy that it’s less of a time commitment than my stint with the Century Blog. It’s live as of yesterday; my first post goes up tomorrow.
- MinnPost.com, speaking of new ventures, is a newish effort in high-quality nonprofit journalism for “news-intense people who care about Minnesota.” Well, that’d be me! I’ve followed them for a few months, and recently re-worked a post for them. It appears today in their “Community Voices” section under the title, “The Minnesota breakfast crew vs. the Twitterati: Cherishing a sense of perspective.” Check out their site, though, not for my voice but for their new model of quality journalism.
Three good books
Lit by Mary Karr — I hadn’t read any of Karr’s previous memoirs, but after reading Lit her two previous books have jumped to the top of my list (on Springpad and Amazon). Karr is a splendid writer, but it’s her life story that amazes most. The challenges she’s endured are astounded for sheltered me — abuse, alcoholism, wacko parents, destructive relationships (and that’s before college). The jacket calls it “learning to write by learning to live;” an apt description. I totally recommend Karr’s unvarnished (and at times quite funny) third memoir to anyone who’s up for a heart-wrenching story well told.
Freedom by Jonathan Franzen — Yeah, ok, I was a skeptic on this one. I mean, it was just getting so much press a few months ago. Franzen was on every talk show on earth, even before he made up with Oprah. And I’m always uneasy about a book being read by more than three people on the same airplane. But, thanks to my kind Pittsburgh friend Susan Rothenberg (thanks Susan!), I was sent a copy of Freedom so I could free my skeptical conscience from the Freedom media frenzy. And, yes, it’s a damn good book.
Character development: A. Gripping story: B+. Believable characters: A-. Epic cynicism: B+. Holds your attention for 500+ pages: A. Amazingly skilled look at contemporary America’s beautiful and contradictory freedom: A+. You should read it, even if it’s just to be like everyone else.
Feed by M.T. Anderson — My friend Kristin recommended this Young Adult novel and I ate it up for it’s dystopian look at cyberculture (plus, it’s a stellar YA story). Set some time in the future, the book imagines a “feed” that is implanted into wealthy people’s brains that connects them constantly to an Internet-like stream of constant contact and commerce. The feed is both exhilarating in its helpfulness and paralyzing in its ubiquity. I wasn’t drawn in the by the characters, really, but the treatment of technology, choice, freedom, free market, environmental disaster, and teen relationships is pretty amazing. This book is a must read for Internet and social media advocates as it pushes back vehemently on an overly utopian view of technology. If the “feed” is the direction in which the Internet is headed, we should be very scared.
Three good books. Now what should I (and readers of this blog) read next? Comment away…
On not obacerating myself
Whew, my stint at a regular blogger for the CENTURY Blog has come to a (regularly scheduled) end. It was lovely, but by the final days of the two+ month partnership I did feel my blethering had become too churchy and pastor-focused. Come January, I’ll begin a different but related stint with another great organization so stay tuned. Now, though, enjoy a few random thoughts I’ve been collecting.
- An example of why I love NPR: a story on the website Save the Words, reported (quite cleverly) on All Things Considered last week. Check out the Save the Words website (it’s where I took the word “obacerate” from the title of the post) but logophiles beware: it’s addicting.
- Here’s a great story on a recent Fuller Seminary grad, Andrew Richey, whose living out of the command to “love your neighbor as yourself” has developed into some really awesome Christian-Muslim dialogue.
- My latest youth study for The Thoughtful Christian just came out, “That Mission Trip Was Fun! Now What?” You should check out their website this week anyway, as their book deals are amazing (and often beat Amazon!).
- Here’s a really pretty well done article from Arkansas Online in association with the Arkansas Democrat Gazette on the work of the Presbyterian Committee on Congregational Song on which I serve.
- Finally, this is one crazy “random act of culture” by the Opera Company of Philadelphia “Hallelujah!” in Macy’s. Enjoy!
Connect Online
