What’s up deacons! The next episode of the Unfolded podcast will be dropping this Sunday, April 14, but until then we wanted to give you a taste of what is headed your way–check it out!
This episode is fairytale entitled, Do you want to be free?
Equipping grassroots theologians for creative thinking, engaging, and living.
What’s up deacons! The next episode of the Unfolded podcast will be dropping this Sunday, April 14, but until then we wanted to give you a taste of what is headed your way–check it out!
This episode is fairytale entitled, Do you want to be free?
Jordan took his family to Disneyland this week, so Christian recruited his wife, Rev. Amy Piatt to co-host. They act pretty much like what you’d expect a married couple hosting a radio show together to act like, so that’s kind of entertaining in itself.
Then, after interviewing Shannon Moore, a Christian minister in Texas who has been denied ordination for a decade for being out about his sexual orientation, Christian promptly deleted the interview by accident (sorry Shannon!). WE’ll have Shannon back on soon, but for this week, we’re sharing an interview Christian did with Welton Gaddy on State of Belief Radio about a Washington Post piece Christian wrote called “Don’t Call Us the Nones: In Praise of Religious Independence.” Christian explains why the phrase “The Nones,” referring to religiously unaffiliated people, smacks of the dying remnants of Christendom in our culture: a cultural dynamic we’d do better without, thanks.
Then Amy and Christian tackle Olympian-turned-killer Oscar Pistorius in the Echo chamber, along with Tim Tebow’s recent refusal to speak at a prominent Dallas Baptist Church. From there, the conversation moves into family values and gender roles, taking a look at Phyllis Tickle and some blowback she’s gotten for claims that changing gender roles have negatively affected communities of faith and family as a whole.
Finally, Christian asks Amy why so many women like The League, a TV show about men in a fantasy football league. Basically her conclusion is that women find pleasure in watching men be idiots and tear each other down.
So we’ve got that going for us.
“Is the internet for women and gays?” may seem like at odd question at first – but there is a story behind it. I am coming at the question as a researcher. I am doing research design at UCLA right now in preparation for my dissertation next year. One of the research questions is in relation to technology, the community of users interacts with the technology, and possible issues related to who conceived of and designed the technology. 
An interesting case study is found in the Grindr social network community. Grindr is a widely popular mobile, GPS-enabled hook-up app for gays. The folks at Grindr had the idea to launch a ‘straight’ version called Blendr, and it has been massive failure. [You can read about why it failed here and here and here ]
One of the theories is that Grindr was conceived of and designed by gays. A hypothesis we were testing is that embedded in the ‘DNA’ of the technology was something inherently ‘gay’ that resonated with its users but was lost in translation when the conversion to Blendr was attempted.
During this research I have also become aware of a growing problem of cyber-bullying, particularly of women and LBGT persons. It shows up on Facebook, Xbox chat rooms during multi-player games, and blogs.
One article about women bloggers contained two different women’s experience.
“The death threat was pretty scary,” says HollaBack! cofounder Emily May. “And there have been several rape threats. But it’s mostly ‘I want to rape you’ or ‘Somebody should rape you.’ Most are not physical threats–they’re more about how ugly I am, how nobody would bother raping me because I’m so fat and hideous. Once, after reading all these posts, I just sat in my living room and bawled like a 12-year-old.”
Jennifer Pozner agrees. “Very rarely have I gotten negative feedback that doesn’t include either a rape threat or calling me ugly and fat. Or sometimes they tell me I’m hot, but they hate what I’m saying– they’d rather watch me on TV with the mute on.” Pozner’s threats have not been limited to online: One man left a letter at her door saying he’d “find you and your mom and rape you both.”
Ponzer says “It’s about the policing of women … using threats to keep us silent.”
It is clear that many of the same oppressive behaviors, patriarchal attitudes and hurtful rhetoric that plague us in the ‘real world’ show up in cyberspace. Is a matter for concern? Is this a surprising reality? Does this need to be addressed?
The question “Is the internet for women and gays?” seems to have 3 initial answers that each expose some significant underlying assumptions.
Why am I concerned about this?
This issues concerns me in two ways:
1) I am deeply troubled to read of women bloggers being threatened and intimidated – even virtually. I am concerned about stories I hear from the girls in my youth group about their Facebook experiences. My wife has worked in both Domestic Violence and Rape Crisis Counseling while I have been in youth ministry. Issues related intimidation, violence and oppression-suppression are serious and deeply impact the quality of someone’s life, their mental and emotional health and their capacity to participate in family, church and society.
2) Technology seems to be a good test case for a much larger concern that I have regarding leadership and community development in the next generation. This particular issue gives me great hesitation about getting too excited regarding this potential new era of open-mindedness, equality, acceptance and freedom. The issue is simply this:
We who have been trained, groomed, shaped, and socialized into the old forms – bring with us into the new forms, our patterns, values, ideas, permissions and prejudices.
It’s like whenever someone complains about a perceived shortcoming in the Emerging Church, I find myself saying
“yes … but part of that has to do with that which we are emerging from. These are inherited patterns because we are all embedded in systems that contain inherent values. It will take a while to entirely emerge out of that.”
To take this back to our initial question about technology. Technology isn’t the solution to the problems that haunt us. They may be helpful for bringing about the solution – but simply have an open room – Facebook, Xbox chat or blog – is not a fix in itself. The prejudices and issues of power that are ‘outside’ the room are brought in with the people who come in to use the space.
This seems to me to be an import issue to vocalize. My hope is that in simply naming it to raise awareness that technology is not inherently neutral, safe, or equal. There is more going on in our use of Facebook, Xbox chats and blogs than just our use of those technologies. They are not absent of the values, patterns, prejudices and social power dynamics of the world and culture that made them.
We need to be vigilant to address hurtful and harmful material in our technologies. Technology is not neutral – it is embedded with meaning and value.
In this bonus trac I ask my mentor Randy Woodley why it seems like over the last 30 years it seems like we are going backwards in some important areas of equality and liberation. 
I have been saving this for Martin Luther King day because just before this question Randy and I were talking about my reading King’s Letter from a Birmingham jail for the first time in Randy’s seminary class.
Randy’s book Shalom and the Community of Creation is available on Amazon and Kindle and you can hear our entire conversation on the podcast.
Randy Woodley is the Associate Professor of Faith and Culture and the Director of Intercultural and Indigenous Studies at George Fox Seminary in Portland Oregon.
He is also the author of Living In Color: Embracing God’s Passion for Ethnic Diversity.
Edith and Randy run Eagle’s Wings Ministries. Randy is also a part of the North American Institute for Indigenous Theological Studies (NAIITS).
Randy is also a member of Evangelicals for Justice along with Lisa Sharon-Harper (who was recently on the podcast for an Inauguration Special).
There is no other way to say this – Jesus wasn’t a pastor and it is ridiculous to hold any contemporary pastor to that standard. 
I should probably back up. I was minding my own business last night reading Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization by Arjun Appadurai and I decided to take a break and check in on Twitter.
That is where I saw a tweet from the folks at Two Friars & a Fool (who I love love love) and smashed into an expectation that just seems objectionable to me. [I have gathered their and my tweets in chunks for smoother reading]
Worrying that truth or justice will cause anxiety in your congregants isn’t “pastoral”.
More likely you are projecting your fear over job security, to excuse not speaking/living more boldly.
It is not a pastor’s job to protect their congregants from difficult truths, big ideas, or stark injustices.
I cannot think of one instance where Jesus withheld hard truths or talked around a subject out of “pastoral concern”.
My point is that if Jesus withheld them, you wouldn’t know about it. That’s an argument from silence. What we know about Jesus is what his disciples remember and re-presented to us. We don’t know what didn’t happen so we can’t cold contemporary pastors to a non-existent standard.
They countered with: The Gospels could have had a story where Jesus was gentle with an interlocutor, then turned & told his disciples the truth.
Or we could have revelations in epistles etc… of “hard teachings” Jesus spared us from.
Or even instances where Jesus slowly led his disciples into a hard teaching with progressively less gentle versions.
I can also frame this argument positively: Jesus confronted people w/ hard truths often & is our model of what is “pastoral”.
I stated that comparing what we have of Jesus in the Gospels to contemporary pastors in like comparing apples to oranges. You just are not looking at the same things. It’s nearly impossible to compare.
Their response: Is comparing pastors to Jesus apples to oranges? Is imitation not implied in baptism?
I guess I would say that my job is fidelity. Do my best to see/speak/live the truth. Let the Spirit work out who can hear it.
And I’m more curious about what you think of the point that it isn’t “pastoral” to coddle congregants intellectually?
I often think pastors give their congregants too little credit & too much power.
Most can handle more than we allow, & it’s far from the end of the world if we piss a couple off.
Here is my condensed point
If Jesus withheld teaching, you wouldn’t know about it. That’s argument from silence
You can’t be hard on contemporary pastors because of something Jesus DIDN’T say. It’s apples to oranges.
contemporary pastors are apples to Jesus’ Galilean orange
Context, language, and expectations are different
Pentecost & Christendom alone would be enough. Add to it modern media, Copernicus, Darwin, Freud, WWII, 911 it’s just so different.
Pastors ARE beholden to what their congregants can hear. We know Jesus through disciples’ reports.
We know what the Disciples HEARD. We don’t know what they DIDN’T hear. Can’t be hard on contemporary pastors for that.
I just don’t want to tee-up modern pastors because of what their congregants can’t hear
You may say tough things from the pulpit – but you are situated in a location & context! What preceded you that allows you to say it?
I just can’t abide raking modern pastors w/ 401k & dental plans & seminary student debt or kids going to college for not saying things people won’t pay to hear! It is the system that we are in.
I guess what I’m saying is that Jesus wan’t even a real Rabbi in his day … let alone a post-christendom pastor with student debt, house payments, medical insurance, kids school payments … not to mention an ordination board, district superintendents, or a congregation with building – let alone tithing congregants with kids serving in the military.
It is contemporary apples and Galilean oranges at some point.
How do I approach this?
I have mashed together what I have learned from Cornell West, Slavo Zizek and Marc Ellis to say that all churches in North America fall into 3 primary categories: Prophetic, Therapeutic or Messianic.
So, each of us in embedded in a unique modern social imaginary – a construct of meaning within a context, location, denomination and tradition that asks certain things of us and provides certain opportunities.
Our job is to be as faithful as possible within those parameters to the both the example and message of Jesus that we have.
We are not Jesus. No one is Jesus. Jesus didn’t do what we do for a living. We do the best we can within the frameworks that we have been given. Some are inherited, some need to be renovated, some are up for debate, some need to be challenged and maybe even discarded.
Without recognizing that located and situated reality we can not just take what we don’t see in Jesus and put it over a contemporary situation. It is just apples to oranges – an unfair comparison.
Thoughts?
If you love Rock & Roll, being nerdy, & sweet story telling then you shall enjoy this episode. Our guest Barry Taylor is not only a professor of Culture & Religion at Fuller Seminary, author of Entertainment Theology and an Episcopal Priest but more importantly this evening he was the sound engineer for Rock Legends AC/DC. You could say he has the inside track on the sacred and the profane.

Many thanks to Henry for hosting us in his brewery!
You can enjoy these musical bits from the Monkish Brewery Bash. Just right head here to the download page.
* SUPPORT the podcast by just getting anything on AMAZON through THIS LINK or you can get some Homespun Craftianity. We really appreciate your assistance in covering all the hosting fees which went up 30 bucks a month due to the growing Deaconate!
John Cobb is back in action with this special bonus track. It’s a follow up to his recent call to secularize Christianity. Lisa Domke and Scott Jones serve as our brilliant ministerial conversation partners. Scott was on the podcast a long time ago…episode 7 & episode 16.
In the conversation they discuss Progressive Christians Uniting, liberals failure to do
theology, Wes Jackson at the Land Institute , faith and activism, economism, the ecological crisis, agriculture, food, and higher education.
John Cobb has been on the podcast a number of times; Prayer and Process, and the special 101st episode, earth day, and Incarnation-cast. Cobb will answer your questions.
Want more Process theology? Check out my video bibliography here!
* SUPPORT the podcast by just getting anything on AMAZON through THIS LINK or you can get some Homespun Craftianity. We really appreciate your assistance in covering all the hosting fees which went up 30 bucks a month due to the growing Deaconate!
Rachel Held Evans had a post last month that she has graciously allowed us to utilize here. In this week’s TNT podcast, Tripp and I are going to talking about Jesus & His (S)words - which should be fun as Tripp lays the smack down on a pacifist metaphysic – but, as a pastor type, I also wanted to pair it with something ecclesiastic.
Rachel’s post [link] and it’s follow up “15 Reasons I Returned to the Church” are wonderful. Here is her initial post and then I was hoping to hear from the Homebrewed crowd. Why did you leave the church? If you haven’t left, Why have you stayed? What would be the reason you leave?
___
Eight million twenty-somethings have left the church, and it seems like everyone is trying to figure out why.
Last week, Christian Piatt offered seven reasons here, and four more reasons here. David Kinnaman recently authored a book entitled, You Lost Me, which details the findings of Barna researchers who interviewed hundreds of 18-29 year-olds about why they left the church.
I left the church when I was twenty-seven. I am now thirty, and after trying unsuccessfully to start a house church, my husband and I are struggling to find a faith community in which we feel we belong. I’ve been reluctant to write about this search in the past, but it seems like such a common experience, I think it’s time to open up, especially now that I’ve had some time to process. But let’s begin with fifteen reasons why I left:
1. I left the church because I’m better at planning Bible studies than baby showers…but they only wanted me to plan baby showers.
2. I left the church because when we talked about sin, we mostly talked about sex.
3. I left the church because my questions were seen as liabilities.
4. I left the church because sometimes it felt like a cult, or a country club, and I wasn’t sure which was worse.
5. I left the church because I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that humans share a common ancestor with apes, which I was told was incompatible with my faith.
6. I left the church because sometimes I doubt, and church can be the worst place to doubt.
7. I left the church because I didn’t want to be anyone’s “project.”
8. I left the church because it was often assumed that everyone in the congregation voted for Republicans.
9. I left the church because I felt like I was the only one troubled by stories of violence and misogyny and genocide found in the Bible, and I was tired of people telling me not to worry about it because “God’s ways are higher than our ways.”
10. I left the church because of my own selfishness and pride.
11. I left the church because I knew I would never see a woman behind the pulpit, at least not in the congregation in which I grew up.
12. I left the church because I wanted to help people in my community without feeling pressure to convert them to Christianity.
13. I left the church because I had learned more from Oprah about addressing poverty and injustice than I had learned from 25 years of Sunday school.
14. I left the church because there are days when I’m not sure I believe in God, and no one told me that “dark nights of the soul” can be part of the faith experience.
15. I left the church because one day, they put signs out in the church lawn that said “Marriage = 1 Man + 1 Woman: Vote Yes on Prop 1,” and I knew the moment I saw them that I never wanted to come back.
“I am convinced that what drives most people away from Christianity is not the cost of discipleship but rather the cost of false fundamentals.” – Evolving in Monkey Town, p. 207
“We aren’t looking for a faith that provides all the answers; we’re looking for one in which we are free to ask the questions.” – Evolving in Monkey Town, p. 204
In the weeks to come, I’ll be sharing more about why I stayed with the Church–with a capital-C-- and about our search for a local faith community.
Why did you leave the church?
Why do you stay?
I’ve been happy to reflect, as of late, on the notion of communion, its proper place and its meaning. The institution is an interesting one. A sacrament and material means for the communication of God’s grace and God’s covenant to be a God who loves us unconditionally, communion has come to be historically expressed through the ceremony of Eucharist, the norm of which is supposedly handed down by Christ to us directly. In my own church, the Episcopal Church, we have a special celebration and ceremony for the Eucharist immediately after our Rite, a fact that we at least share in common with Roman Catholic Christians, if not a number of other faith-expressions. Here, the priest breaks the bread as a symbol of Christ’s broken body, eats and drinks for him or herself, and then shares the body with the rest of the congregation. It is a fine ceremony and one that I have enjoyed immensely during my time as an Episcopalian. However, for all its pomp, I am not convinced that this is either the time or place where, so to say, the sacrament is actually obtained.
I say this because, after our services, we have a Fellowship Hour, one in which a member or several members of the congregation more or less provide lunch. All are welcome to eat with us. There is a donation plate, too, but no money is required. We share food with one another freely and without contempt. After dishing up, we sit together, talk, laugh, and enjoy one another’s company, sometimes listening to a speaker but mostly (thankfully) just chatting. We then help clean up and go on our merry way hopefully carrying with us the renewed love obtained.
I will not pretend to be an expert in early church doctrine or ritual practice, and I am not one to say that we need to go back to the way things were at the beginning. That’s never possible, in my humble opinion. Perhaps, however, there is something to be said for the love feasts that were more or less at least part of the early Church’s interpretation of communion. It was not Eucharist as we now celebrate it, but it was the institution emerged from Christ’s command to eat his body and drink his blood. It was, in fact, the institution that the early Christian apologists defend against their Roman accusers (who often thought of it as on par with certain sexually explicit and cannibalistic cult rituals). These are the same feasts, that is, about which Paul excoriates the Corinthians for drawing class distinctions, saving the good portions of food for the wealthy and serving the lesser to the poor.
In this same regard, I believe that the Fellowship Hours that we celebrate at my church are the more important when compared with the Eucharistic. Not only do they emulate the shared celebration of the Good News of Christ, but they do so directly by giving us the chance to act in love with and toward one another. Moreover, all are equal in this celebration; while someone will generally be first in line, this positioning is based solely on an individual’s athleticism and his or her capacity to avoid conversation on the way out of the sanctuary to the buffet line; it is not based on some silly idea of the ontological priority of the priest, just the pangs of teenage hunger! In other words, like the early church, it is in this Fellowship where the truth of all the symbolic sacraments (and I fully understand that not everyone considers them such) actually begin to emerge: that we have been reformed for the capacity to love in a way that we were unable to do before—as equals to one another before the God who saves in Christ—and that our love for one another is practice for the love we are to express to a fallen world.
This need not mean, of course, that we rid ourselves of the Eucharistic ceremony. By no means! To the degree that Eucharist is an explicit reminder of the covenant found in Christ, who may or may not be mentioned in the Fellowship Hours, it points us in the proper direction for our Fellowship Hours: to whose life we should look at and emulate in reenacting the last supper and whose death gives us the power to do so. It’s just that I am becoming more and more convinced that, if the celebration of communion truly transfers the Grace of God to us, the transference takes place not in Eucharist but in Fellowship, for which Eucharist is only a pointer.
In other words, it is only in love and our conformity to it within church walls and beyond, that we are receiving the sacrament; for the gift (the sacrament) must match the nature of the giver, and the giver is the ground of all lesser and anterior expressions of love. After all, I am not wrong to say that the God found in Christ is love.
This love, so it seems, is best expressed in Fellowship rather than Eucharist.
Copyright © 2013 ·Delicious Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in