Welcome to the many readers visiting from Inside Higher Ed, which kindly linked to this post in defense of tenure.
I’m quoted briefly in an article in the Daily News on the World Cup; the reporter sat next to me at the big-screen party in the Egyptian Theater. He was kind not to mention the expletives I shouted when it initially appeared the referee wasn’t going to red-card Zidane.
My student Mermade asks for my thoughts on this op-ed from yesterday’s LA Times: Liberal Christianity is Paying for its Sins. Written by Charlotte Allen, the Catholicism editor for Beliefnet, the article is a rather snarky condemnation of contemporary progressive movements in the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches. This paragraph left me spluttering over my morning coffee:
It doesn’t help matters that the mainline churches were pioneers in ordaining women to the clergy, to the point that 25% of all Episcopal priests these days are female, as are 29% of all Presbyterian pastors, according to the two churches. A causal connection between a critical mass of female clergy and a mass exodus from the churches, especially among men, would be difficult to establish, but is it entirely a coincidence? Sociologist Rodney Stark ("The Rise of Christianity") and historian Philip Jenkins ("The Next Christendom") contend that the more demands, ethical and doctrinal, that a faith places upon its adherents, the deeper the adherents’ commitment to that faith. Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, which preach biblical morality, have no trouble saying that Jesus is Lord, and they generally eschew women’s ordination.
I understand that Allen is a Catholic, but the whopping ignorance of the last sentence cannot stand. The two largest American Pentecostal denominations are the Assemblies of God and Foursquare. Both are growing and vital, and both ordain women (Aimee Semple MacPherson founded the latter here in Los Angeles.) Indeed, the Azusa Street Revival that led to the explosive emergence of modern Pentecostalism had heavy female leadership. Allen makes a mistake I often see from my Catholic and conservative Reformed friends: she assumes that a willingness to ordain women is inextricably tied to theological liberalism. She couldn’t be more wrong, and the experience of countless women leaders in Foursquare and good ol’ AG proves that a belief in the gifts of the Spirit, Scriptural inerrancy, cultural conservatism, and the ordination of women are entirely compatible.
Last time I checked, the women-ordaining Pentecostals were growing at a much faster rate in the Third World than the Roman Catholic Church.
It’s also worth noting — something Allen either ignores or doesn’t know — that throughout the Christian world, women are more likely to attend church than men. That has nothing to do with the particular theology of the church, but with a wide variety of other factors. A great deal of research suggests that in the developing world, women are much more likely than men to be drawn to small, vibrant Pentecostal churches that offer a close, intense personal relationship with Christ. (One analysis from a Catholic perspective is here, albeit in PDF file). So while it may be true that men aren’t attending church as often as women, there is no evidence that this phenomenon is linked to progressive theology. Allen makes a serious error in suggesting it does.
The other points in her op-ed are equally risible. Is there bickering on the religious left? You bet. But to suggest, as she does, that "disarray and schism" are somehow now unique to Christian progressives is absurd. If there’s a truth in Christian history, it’s this: "schism happens." It happens to absolutely every church sooner or later, for any number of reasons. There’s a reason anyone who knows anything about our faith and ecclesiology laughs at this joke.
I support the ordination of women and the blessing of same-sex unions; neither position is, to my mind, fundamentally contradictory with Scripture. As an evangelical, however, I am troubled by the weak Christology and the penchant for silly names for the Trinity that are in vogue among some of my more progressive friends. But while Allen is surely correct that we in the progressive wing of the Episcopal Church have seen a decline in our numbers in recent decades, she ought also to note that over that same time period, her own Roman Catholic Church has lost millions of adherents in North and South America to small, growing, Pentecostal churches that generally do ordain women. She sees the speck in the liberal eye very clearly, but Charlotte ignores the log in her own.
I am an Episcopalian. I joined the ECUSA about 5 years ago. Regarding Ms. Allen’s column, I shrugged off her tsk-tsking over the oridination of women. So we now have a female bishop. The horror! We’re all going to hell! Yeah. Get real.
I, too, do not object to same-sex unions, and I predict that ECUSA will be one of the first, if not the first, to include this in their ministry. However, whether or not it conflicts with Scripture seems pretty clear. Even so, I guess I personally disregard that in favor of the inclusiveness of Christ’s love.
What DID bother me from Ms. Allen’s column was her statements that Bishop Jefferts-Schori “prayed to a female Jesus at the Columbus convention and invited former Newark, N.J., bishop John Shelby Spong, famous for denying Christ’s divinity, to address her priests.” (emphasis mine)
You know, if Jesus WAS female, the Scriptures would be written as such and I as well as others would be praying and worshiping a female Jesus. But they weren’t. Jesus was a man. Get over it.
And I sure hope she doesn’t endorse Bishop Spong’s view on Christ’s divinity. However, I don’t know this Bishop. It’s possible that Ms. Allen is twisting context or words. Do you have any info on this, Hugo?
It reads like someone who’s writing something she knows doesn’t quite fit but wants to make her point anyway, so she plows ahead with a weasel phrase like “they generally eschew women’s ordination.” “Generally”? What does that mean? Either they do or they don’t.
Fantastic post, Hugo. I think a big challenge for us mainliners is to distinguish - both in the general public’s mind and in our own churches - issues like women’s ordination and the blessing of same-sex unions from fundamental matters of Christology, which are non-negotiable parts of Christian belief. Being “liberal” on those issues is almost inevitable taken to mean that one is “liberal” or revisionist on things like the Incarnation, the Trinity, etc., but there’s no necessary connection between the two.
Hugo and Lee, indeed, and I think this needs to be stated more often: postive thinking on wo and ssb do not mean one is a theological liberal.
I wrote this over at Ambivablog where this is being debated:
Tom said:
I think a distinction needs to be made between reinterpreting the tradition, and turning the tradition into a flakey new-agey love fest.
Exactly. This is the difference between tradition (which is a handing on and embodying that in each new generation and circumstances andd contexts) and traditionalism (which means to hold onto the past without finding ways to incarnate that in the present given changes in circumstances, understanding, etc.). On that score, I’m a traditionalist (hand on, reinterpret, plumb the riches of our past, question, recognize that we approximate Truth in our dogma and the orthodox tradition is more complex and rich and diverse within the Christian faith than some want to face as Karen’s [at Kinesis] post on Jesus as Mother points out).
Amba said:
Here’s the thing: you can be “free” without being “wild.” You have to have inner direction and self-restraint.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
From a Christian perspective freedom and restraint are not incompatible, and as a gay man I am sick of being lumped whole cloth with libertinism. I’m not even sure you could call me liberal. I don’t want or need to make gayness respectable, I want to offer that a gay relationship can be a place of ascesis and discipline in growth in Christ and the virtues. That is quite a different thing. I’m not interested merely in self-expression, but self oriented toward God. The difference is some propose gayness as a part of the false self, I’m saying it’s part of the true. Only time will tell. If gay couples can shine forth the fruits of the Spirit–faith, hope, love, prudence, courage, forebearance, we can begin to think through further.
I don’t think all gay men before AIDS were screwing around, but many were, so were many straight people, it’s just glossed over in a different way. I’m a child of post-aids and I’m serious about my faith, so these likely make me atypical. When I asked a Catholic priest once what to do as I had few role models, he said the Spirit would guide me. On the whole that guidance has been a middling rod, and I see other gay men who have followed that same path. I may not be typical at the moment, but I would suggest more and more there will be gay men typically like me.
I think there is a vast difference between continuing to do what these traditions have always done which is reinterpret, argue, reconsider (all three Abrahamic religions have this potential and tension within them) and syncretism grabbing this and that, which from my perpspective disrespects one’s own and others’ religious traditions and does as reader_iam suggests make it more difficult for those doing the reforming, arguing, reinterpreting from within.
For example, I’m quite orthodox on Creedal matters, its in pastoral theology that I’m asking questions and reinterpreting. I would suggest it is in that reinterpreting that we’re seeing two different phenomena: 1) one wishes to not think deeply enough about Creedal matters in making changes about God–the Rock, Paper, Scissors bit and merely want to be inclusive, the other 2) is thinking deeply about matters of the Trinity, gender with regard to God, and how we respond pastorally in new circumstances-say to gay folk who are offering their lives in thanks and praise to God. The first group scares me because I think we’ll end up with something other than Christianity in the end.
I’m a permeable boundaries kind of traditionalist, recognizing we can find truth beyond the bounds I deepen in, but I would suggest one cannot ultimately deepen if one doesn’t have bounds.
I would say +Spong has crossed the line, and to be honest, I find him terribly irritating. The genius of Anglicanism until recently is that we could tolerate such oddballs without coming down in Inquisition. I think that genius has run its course, but the deeper approach to God will live on.
As for certainty versus I would say an openness to ambiguity and approximation toward truth, for I think here is the middle ground between absolutism and relativism: approximation toward truth with the humility to recognize we cannot in this life fully arrive or grasp in totality, I’ll uphold St. Anselm of Canterbury’s quote in seeking truth:
“I do not endeavour, O Lord,
to penetrate thy sublimity,
for in no wise do I compare
my understanding with that;
but I long to understand
in some degree thy truth,
which my heart believes and loves.
For I do not seek to understand
that I may believe,
but I believe
in order to understand.
For this also I believe,—
that unless I believed,
I should not understand.”
-St Anselm of Canterbury,
Prosologium, Chapter I
Hmmm… so ordaining women in 20-30% of positions is alienating the men, but ordaining men in 100% of positions is not supposed to alienate women?
Hi Scarbo,
At the AmbivaBlog post *Christopher mentions, I link to Jefferts Schori’s text, which is nowhere near as egregiously feminist as Allen insinuates, and to Kinesis, who provides traditional and scriptural precedents for referring to the male Jesus (and God) metaphorically as mother.
Thank you so much for your thoughts on the article, Hugo! That really helped shape my views on what Charlotte wrote. At this point, however, I am still filtering through all the controversy. It’s hard for me to think of a clear-cut response to all of it, though, as I am going renewing some of the things I believe in terms of my faith. I am thinking about it, though, and I’m sure we’ll talk more about these issue in the future!
Thank you! That’s more or less what I was thinking but I was too lazy to think it through and write it up. Admittedly, some of Ms. Allen’s complaints strike me as on target. But by the time she gets to the part about ordaining women, the essay has lost touch with reality. First, there is, as you point out so clearly, nothing inherently disconnected between theolhogical conservatism and ordaining women, though that seems to be a popular idea these days (in fact the last entry on my blog - two whole weeks ago, sadly - was a response to yet another claim by Al Mohler to that affect). Plus, as your argument and others’ (e.g. http://iamachristiantoo.org/?p=288) suggest, it just doesn’t make any sense from an evidentiary standpoint to claim that falling attendance is related to the ordination of women. Maybe it’s connected and maybe it isn’t, but… Well, for one thing for example, I would think that the divinity of Christ might be a much bigger issue than whether a church ordains women or not, but, hey, maybe that’s just me.
John Shelby Spong does openly deny Christ’s divinity. And he did lead the Nevada clergy retreat. Whether Mrs. Jefferts Schori believes as he does, I don’t know. She is certainly and beyond doubt a liberal of the radical variety. That’s enough for me.
I think Charlotte Allen is quite right. If you don’t have a gospel, you only have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof”. The new PB-elect is very eloquent on the subject of the Millennium Development Goals (top priority, usher in reign of God, etc.), but hazy on what happens when you die (”What were you passionate about when you were alive?”), and plays hop-scotch on the uniqueness of Christ. She has a lot to say about good works that the church should be doing, but it appears anything else is only doctrine, and we shouldn’t squabble over it. That plus her out-of-context borrowing from Julian of Norwich means I see no hope for ECUSA in the new PB.
Still, mustn’t be too negative. She is at least clearer than the old Presiding Bishop. You needed a translator to read his sermons-not the case with Schori, thank God. She is very eloquent, very intelligent, and very nice. Also very wrong.
By the way, there is a similarity in the *process* between ordaining women and ordaining gays. There is a theological case for the former, IMHO, and not for the latter, but if you look at the politicised rhetoric and the acts of prophetic disobedience etc., I can see why the opponents of WO draw the link. When revisionist hermeneutics and political considerations trump theology, you are in big, big trouble, and on a very slippery slope. ECUSA didn’t handle WO very well, and has shown scant regard for those who disagree. History repeats. If they had given the Anglo-Catholics the seperate province they wanted in the first place….
good heavens john:
She is certainly and beyond doubt a liberal of the radical variety. That’s enough for me.
if you cared enough to ask how someone came to their beliefs, not just assumed what they believe (by lifting statements from press quotes, snippets and random comments!), maybe you wouldn’t be so sweepingly condemning. at least i hope you wouldn’t be.
please credit those of us who are “liberals of the radical variety” with some faithfulness and integrity.
I’m a Pentecostal, and thank you for recognizing the explosive growth of the Pentecostal branch of Christianity.
I do OBJECT to Same Sex Unions, but I firmly agree with the ordination and setting forth of Women in Ministry.
The two positions are incompatible with culture, I know. Jesus called, honored, and used women in his ministry.
Thanks for a terrific blog, by the way.
In addition to the Pentecostal movement, the American Holiness movement ordained its first woman pastor in the 1850s, and the Church of the Nazarene has ordained women since its inception in 1903. The Wesleyan Church, Church of God (Anderson), and Free Methodist all ordain women as well. One of my favorite stories is Catherine Booth would not marry William until “he saw the light” that women could preach and pastor. The Salvation Army has been ordaining women since its beginning in the 1870s, I believe (I can’t remember exactly when the Booths’ formed the Army), and their daughter, an ordained pastor, was the second General of the Army after her father died. There are quite of few small evangelical denominations that have been ordaining women for 100 years or more. Charlotte Allen really needed to do her homework across the Christian board instead of just honing in the one or two denominations that have only ordained women for the past couple of decades.
Thanks Phil and Shawna; as I’ve often said, what I want is the reflectiveness and inclusiveness of Anglicanism, the ethics of Anabaptism, the appreciation for sacramental mystery of Catholicism, and above all, the absolute sense of the Spirit that comes with Pentecostalism.
I don’t ask for much, really I don’t.
I base my description of Mrs. Jefferts Schori on many things, including her sermons and convention addresses,not just press statements. I have been interested in her thought for a while, and followed her statements. She proudly owns the label of theological liberal, and it is how she has described herself. Give me credit for some research.
john,
my issue isn’t that you called her a theological liberal. i am one too. my issue is that you dismiss her because of that label, without getting to know the faith behind the label.
With due respect to Jack Spong, one cannot hold to his theses and still be a Christian.
http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/jsspong/reform.html
1. Theism, as a way of defining God, is dead. So most theological God-talk is today meaningless. A new way to speak of God must be found.
2. Since God can no longer be conceived in theistic terms, it becomes nonsensical to seek to understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity. So the Christology of the ages is bankrupt.
3. The biblical story of the perfect and finished creation from which human beings fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.
4. The virgin birth, understood as literal biology, makes Christ’s
divinity, as traditionally understood, impossible.
5. The miracle stories of the New Testament can no longer be interpreted in a post-Newtonian world as supernatural events performed by an incarnate deity.
6. The view of the cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.
7. Resurrection is an action of God. Jesus was raised into the meaning of God. It therefore cannot be a physical resuscitation occurring inside human history.
8. The story of the Ascension assumed a three-tiered universe and is therefore not capable of being translated into the concepts of a post-Copernican space age.
9. There is no external, objective, revealed standard writ in scripture or on tablets of stone that will govern our ethical behavior for all time.
10. Prayer cannot be a request made to a theistic deity to act in human history in a particular way.
11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.
12. All human beings bear God’s image and must be respected for what each person is. Therefore, no external description of one’s being, whether based on race, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, can properly be used as the basis for either rejection or discrimination.
Is it possible to be Christian as one is Kantian? Like, recognizing Jesus Christ as a good philosopher instead of divine?
Why does the teaching need to be immortal for it to be right?
Antigone,
I would say no; in common usage, Christian means believer in Christ’s divinity, not just believer in Christ’s ethical teaching. The doctrine that Christ is both divine and human is the key boundary teaching of Christianity–see the Declaration of Chalcedon.
In this respect, Christianity is like Islam, not like Buddhism. You can be a Buddhist and question pretty much anything about the Buddha–but you cannot be Muslim and question whether Mohammed is a prophet of Allah.
Actually the largest pentecostal church in the U.S. by far is the Church of God in Christ, which is twice the size of the Assemblies of God. It’s an African-American denomination, and they do not ordain women. The Foursquare church, if third (I suspect there are some other forgotten African-American Pentecostal denominations in between, but I don’t have a list), is a distant third by comparison.
Worldwide, Russ, AG is much larger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_God
Since you referred to “American Pentecostals,” I assumed you meant in the U.S.A., not worldwide. And, the COGIC in the USA is larger than the Foursquare church worldwide.
And, I forget to add, your claim about “women-ordaining Pentecostals” growing in the Third World isn’t entiurely correct either. The largest AG church outside of America, the Brazilian Assembléias de Deus, does not ordain women.
And, the fastest growing AG church in Africa, the Kenyan Assemblies of God, voted in 2005 to start ordaining women. (Look it up at Christians for Biblical Equality). What’s your point, Russ? We can trade statistics until we’re blue in the face, but the fact remains that there are millions of pentecostals around the world who are theologically conservative and believe in women’s ordination. Charlotte Allen would have us believe only theological liberals ordain women. And that’s simply a bogus claim.
Oh, and Russ, I see you are at the new Providence Christian College out in Ontario — dude, I teach at the one and only PCC in Southern California!
So are you all to the right or the left of the Master’s? John Macarthur gettin’ too liberal for ya?
Seriously, you’re blogrolled. I love my Reformed friends, especially the fun-lovin’ rascals in the OPC. (Oh, I could tell stories about hanging out with OPCers…)
If you’re OPC, we’re doing lunch.
Sorry if I’m nitpicking, and yes she’s wrong on her generalization about Pentecostal churches, but the situation is much more complicated than the idealized growing global Pentecostal church led by women you’re describing.
And since I graduated from Pacific Christian College, you can’t be at the one and only PCC! No idea how to put myself in relation to Master’s, though it’s safe to say I wouldn’t call MacArthur too liberal. I’m PCA since California, CRC prior to that, so I guess lunch is off. How about coffee? or martinis?