A too Feminine Church, a too Masculine church... a gender bent church? Kazaky "what you gonna do" and the epistemology of the church.

Deep in our souls are we still able to encounter something like unto childlike innocence or are we just beasts? This is the question, presented lyrically, musically, and visually in Kazaky’s most recent music video.  It is a pressing and important question in any age. In ages past it was a purview of religion. While those religious of us still ask this question, at least upon occasion it may be too visceral for some circles, that it is being asked so emphatically, so far from the church, and by means so foreign to us says a lot about where it is we need to go if we are still going to be actively engaged in the world’s longing for spiritual understanding. Kazaky does not provide any answers, they just seek to engage themselves and others in the question. Here I am not seeking to engage the question at all but note something about its medium, specifically the gender bending inherent to their medium.

Over the past few months there has been a resurgence of muscular Christianity. Posts specifically about how the feminization of the church is bringing about a lack of vocations from young men, notably these are generally in churches where no women are allowed to be clergy. There have been several good responses, and rebuttals, of this resurgence. Direct feminist and profeminist responses to any resurgence of patriarchy are not only inherently good but also inherently necessary. These responses, however, engage only one level of interaction.

The church has been ubermasculized, it is in pressing need of a feminization. Patriarchy has left both men and women adrift and the church must respond to that first by ensuring the allowance of feminine spirituality and then striving to discover a masculine spirituality not enmeshed in patriarchy. To fully engage in these questions we cannot limit ourselves to patriarchy by itself but the kyriarchy of which it is simply one manifestation. Kyriarchy is any social system set that is based upon submission, domination, and oppression. This means that we must learn to ask ourselves not only how to ask questions from a feminine perspective or a masculine perspective but also perspectives that call into question the domination of those concepts themselves.

Which is what brings us to three men with viciously cut musculature in fierce high heels pressingly asking us about the inherent nature of our deepest spiritual selves. I am not sure if any church I have encountered is readily capable of engaging a conversation from this epistemological perspective.  Such epistemological perspectives do exist in our theological libraries but most seminarians pale at the thought of opening them. I do not know how far we are from being capable of actually asking questions from this perspective not as an awkward polemic but from a place of authenticity.

The problem is that sections of society are asking these questions from this very perspective. This is where this conversation is actually happening on multiple and confusing levels. So I wonder how is it that we can create a church that is able to not only continue to rebut the spurious request for a Masculine Christianity that rejects femininity while also beginning to engage those who are asking pressing spiritual questions from a perspective that undermines that very duality.

 
Lyrics of Kazaky “what you gonna do”

I know what

You want all your wish

I know you

Are you child or a beast?

I'll show you how deep in your soul

Just let me go down, go down to your...

What gonna do?

You have to know

I want to know

We want to know

Is it my choice?

You ask me once

You ask me twice

I said three times.

The Hat Problem: The Episcopal Church, Young Adults, and the Crimson Assurance Agency...

So after a conversation with another Episcopal Young Adult where a certain metaphor about our lives and the church came up I wanted to share it with the wider world. So this is an incomplete metaphor, it does not resonate with all experiences I have had in the church but it resonates with many. I call it the problem of "hats".

So often when Young Adults have to engage, and by that generally the expectation is observe, Old Adults talking about ANYTHING when it comes to the Episcopal Church we basically feel we are caught up in the midst of the meeting playing out in the video to our right.

The number of meetings and conversations that seem, in the end, to dissolve into conversations about what should truly be a foot note, for instance the need for more people to wear hats, and then seem to resolve by everyone assenting to that foot note, or dissenting to that footnote, and derailing everything. I actually mark the point where someone brings up the "hat" and this is when I often shrug and no the chance of the meeting having any meaning outside itself has come and gone.

The reality is that a lot of us feel that the Episcopal Church is literally stuck in this form of meeting. Our most recent bout with TREC, where the "hat" was weather or not the Lazarus reading was a good or bad metaphor, is just another example of this cycle. There is no ability to differentiate from some "hat" and ask what is actually being said. Which is what is leading a lot of Young Adult Episcopalians to have regular feelings along the line of the individuals in this video.

Now I do not think any of the Young Adults really want to enter into the type of hostile takeover engaged in here. Most of us are willing to simply wait it out. I do not think any of us, however, want to. We do not want to see the resource drain waiting entails. We do not want to loose the chances for out of the box evangelism we see around us. We do not want to perpetuate systems that might be comfortable for many but we know, often from personal experience, cause harm and damage when it comes to the retention of youth, the inclusion of our peers, and making overall worthwhile endeavors. We want to, we try to, but in the end we are pretty sure that any such conversation will, in the end, turn to revolve around "hats".

Seeking a Middle Way not Middle Mediocrity... of Via Media and Aurea Mediocritas

If one spends long enough in Anglican Circles one comes across the phrase via media, latin for middle way. If one spent long enough in Anglican Prepschool one would also eventually encounter the term aurea mediocritas, latin for golden mean. Th
e first phrase refers to an Anglican trend to strive to live together in the midst adverse diversity. The second comes from the works of the poet Horace, specifically the tenth ode of his second book.

I want to spend some time looking at the second so that we can, I hope, see some dangers in the first. The poem, which I translate here with a bit of license, goes something like this…

                                    You will live with more virtue,
                                    If when setting out to sea,

                                    You neither fear the raging storm,

                                    Nor hit the rocky shoals.

                                   
                                    Embrace the Golden Mean,

                                    And never lie in squalor,

                                    Nor know the softest bed,

                                    Avoid both scorn and envy.

                                    It is the tallest trees,

                                    That shake in the wind,

                                    And make the loudest fall,

                                    When struck by lightning.

                                    A well shielded heart,

                                    Hopes in adversity,

                                    Scorns prosperity,

                                    Knowing the rain

                                    Will fall on rich

                                    And poor alike.

                                    That the stuck

                                    Will get unstuck.

                                    Move amidst

                                    Darkest night

                                    But always stop

                                    Before you risk a fall.

Now on one level Horace is being pretty straightforward. Supposedly he is putting forward a simple moral axiom of good living. It is best to take the safe path, never risk too much and one will never fall that far, that one may never rise too far either is simply prudence. The deal, however, is that if you read enough of Horace’s work one quickly realizes that the more clearly and sweetly he puts forward a moral axiom… the more he thinks it is a load of crock. His embellishments are not to advanced his initial cause but to undermine it. What becomes apparent is that while many might cite the joy of the Golden Mean one quickly realizes that it creates individuals, and a society, that are only capable of a fool’s gold mediocrity.

Exploration and Adventure not Mediocrity and Compromise

So now let us turn to via media. To be clear I am a huge fan of via media. The call for finding balance, wedding the heart and the mind, the need to find the path that all can walk down and name their own, is an amazing ideal for us to strive for. My worry, however, is that we have devolved it from a call to find that difficult path that all must walk with some trepidation in the midst of much hope, and turned it into a call not for a middle way but for a middle mediocrity.

The original via media proposed by Queen Elizabeth was not a nice happy compromise where everyone got a bit of what they wanted and went about their happy contented spiritual lives. It was a political risk where no one got what they wanted but were expected to seek a path where everyone could enter into something greater.

The last thing the Anglican Church needs at this point is a middle mediocrity, is the inability to take risks. When Queen Elizabeth asked the Church of England to remain independent, neither aligned with Catholicism nor Protestantism, she was not avoiding the rocky shoals on one side and the storm on the other. She was taking a ship of fools on a fools journey into uncharted waters. She was risking a near political cataclysm for the dreams of a nation beyond any of their foolish dreams. It was this risk, for a middle way beyond the known mediocrity before them, that is the true heart of via media.

Too often when an amazing idea is put forward it is immediately rejected on account of how it may unsettle a certain party. Too often the request is that the amazing idea gets watered down so that it will not rub any one the wrong way. The request is can be near automatic that we stop a tree from growing before it gets to tall, before we risk getting struck by lightening and in the midst of a horrendous crash. What is cited to prompt this is via media, is the call for compromise and a shoring away of risk. What occurs then is not a middle way but a middle mediocrity.

When this happens it is not via media. The call of via media is a call to wed diverse parties so that both can advance and grow to their fullest by relationship with each other, not to stem the growth of both so that neither can properly grow. It is not a request to allow everyone to be happy with where they are now, it is a call for everyone to engage each other for the sake of growth and understanding, even when understanding simply means being able to disagree better not agreement or compromise. So move forward into via media, call forth via media, but never make via media into aurea mediocritas.

The failure of modesty for the sake of others...

“God will see you get the rape you deserve!” this is a phrase heard regularly on the campus of the school where I serve as chaplain. One of the male students feels he is compelled by God to inform female students when their dress is immodest to a point that they deserve the consequences of the lust they are eliciting from the men around them.  This is the consequence of a certain theory of why we should be modest.

The theory is that the reason a person should be modest in dress is so that they do not evoke the lust of those around them. That it is my duty to wear a certain type of clothing so that those around me will not have cause to think of me as a sexual being, thus will not be lead to impure thoughts or

impure actions about me. Basically that by sacrificing any outward acknowledgement that I am a sexual being from the world and completely internalizing it, I am serving those around me to keep their sexualities equally internalized and not active. There is then a very specific place, nominally the marriage bed, where all of the boxed in never expressed sexuality is allowed to burst free.

What this theory does is blame individuals for the lust they elicit, and the consequences of that lust. Now the way it is normally phrased is as an act of good will, of sacrificing a bit of personal expression to keep those around us from falling off the path of righteousness. Such capacity does not, however, work only one way. If I am responsible for helping maintain an atmosphere around me that is lustless then I am also responsible for when my dress creates an atmosphere that is lustful. If I am to be championed for aiding in other’s not entering into lust then I am to be rejected for when I aid in causing another, outside of very restricted situations, to lust. If I am allowed to take responsibility for aiding others in abstaining from lust then I must also take responsibility for aiding others in obtaining lust, and the consequences of those lust… even if that lust results in my harassment, rape, or murder.

So we have those who sexually harass and abuse those around them, like the preacher on my campus, feel they are free to do so because by the way a woman decides to dress they assume they are given some form of consent. We have students on campus encountering sexual violence because a certain form of immodest dress is construed to be an open invitation for lust, and acting upon that lust. So we have trials where what an individual was wearing at the time they were raped is gone over in minute detail, as if that was the key to understanding consent.
So we have victims of harassment and rape feeling that they are to blame for their perpetrators actions, not coming forward, and not receiving the vital help we need.

There are other reasons why this theory for modesty is bogus. Instead of seeking for people to responsibly and maturely understand their sexuality and desires and bring them into a healthy and fulfilling fruition it asks them to repress and stunt their sexuality and desires to a place of attrition; a pressing point for further consideration. Instead of responding to actual research on the nature of attraction and sexual desire it presupposes conditions that do not have a natural basis; an inherent flaw for any theory that wishes to stand as reasonable.  The point of this post, however, is simply to express the horrors that result when individuals are held responsible, on account of their dress, for controlling the amount of lust held by those around them.  

There are reasons to dress in what can be considered modest dress. There ways to properly structure our lives so that we are both aware of sexuality and desires but not abusing them. The theory that modesty is important so that we control the lust of those around them, and are responsible for their consequences, simply is not one of them.

Chaplain in a Tea Shop… one semester and many tea cups later…

The question of how to gain access to the community and neighborhood around one’s point of call, be it a parish or other, is a pressing question for many clergy. This is a report out on one possible methodology, ensconcing oneself in a café in the area in which you serve. 

Location, Location, Location…

The Scented Tea Leaf is a block from my office at the Christian
Campus Center. They have iced tea on tap, a wide variety of
hot teas, pastry, soups, and chicken pot pie.

Choosing the right location is paramount. It needs to be a place that you naturally want to hang out in, and can afford so to do. It needs to be a place that has regulars, people that spend a few hours in that location near daily (you will become one of those regulars). It needs to engage the demographic, and hopefully a few known individuals, that take part in your ministry.

Passive, Passive, Passive…

This is a ministry to which your structured goals must be few. If you go in with active intentions about how this will bring people into your ministry or have x number of meaningful pastoral conversations then you will fail. Your goal is simply to become a regular, part of the woodwork, but with intentionality and active observation of the community around you.

Collar, no Collar, Collar…

So this might be a big hurdle for some of us… but this is a ministry where blurring the lines between personal life and clerical life is essential. The regulars need to know you are a cleric of the church but also be able to relate to you as a regular member of the community. This means sitting in the space with a collar on and in street clothes. I strongly suggest getting stickers to cover the back of your laptop… an “Episcopal Church Welcomes You” and a “Pride Flag” sticker will go a long way.

Patience, Patience, Patience…

This is a looong process. It will only really start to show fruit after it has become such a habit that one almost forgets one started going to the café with any intentions towards it being a ministry. If you are not ready to put in a six-month commitment of ten to twenty hours a week spent in the café… then don’t start.

The Fruit, the Fruit, the Fruit…

So what have I found one receives from doing this after six months…

The majority of my administrative work, liturgical planning, and sermon prep happens at the café. The ten to twenty hours I spend here every week are not extra hours but my general work hours. This is pretty much what every other regular is doing in the space as well.

Walking around the neighborhood I constantly see people I know, and know something about them. When you spend this much time with a group of people having the brief one on one interactions and group conversations that occur in a café, everyone becomes known entities. When I walk around my neighborhood with members of my ministry and am able to say hello to people we meet it has a meaningful positive impact to the ministry participant.

I have had some amazing practical, theological, and pastoral conversations, and they occurred in that order. Conversations will start with the day to day. Then at some point conversations will move into the philosophical and theological. If you can show you have both a knowledge of theology/religion (its important to understand everything the “spiritual but not religious” are thinking and reading especially new paganism and eastern religions) and also a non-judging curiosity of the faith lives of others then one will start having pastoral conversations with the regulars.

From there one will get to the point where mutually interesting events might start coming together. Probably not Sunday Worship, but maybe a book discussion group or a interfaith forum… more probably a community event. It is all about building up the network of mutual interest and associations.

This network is the true fruit of being in the café. Basically one is growing the potential energy one has to make a kinetic impact. One is expanding the area in which meaningful events, which will allow your ministry to have an impact on the community, can happen.

So that is it, a six-month report out on basically moving my office to a local café and seeing what happens. So far there are no regrets and a lot of good coming out of it. A lot of it is little stuff, but it’s all the type of little stuff that builds up to great stuff.