Thursday, April 28, 2005

Had THE class again

You know, that one that meets 3x per quarter and we had to take it all 3 quarters and it lasts 3 hours. Wow, how trinitarian.

Anyway, the first 2 hours sucked as usual, but the end was great. We'll get to that in a moment. First I have to complain a little about the first 2 wasted hours of my time.

It was this rather befuddled old professor talking about Post-Modernity, and how to Deal with Postmodernism. YAAAA! Help! It's Post-Modernism! How will we ever survive??

It is getting a little ridiculous, all this fear of something that is basically over (except in humanities departments where they can't let go) (I'm going to get angry comments for that, aren't I?) but, as usual, the Christians are several years behind the times and are catching up and realizing the world is Post-Modern and What Are We Going To Do???

I think the church liked modernity so much because it was structured and had rules and had solid end goals and (ironically) depended on man pulling himself up by the bootstraps. Men especially like this, and like to be in power, so modernity suited them just fine.

Now we're in this Post-Modern era and it's all about relating - relating to people, to ideas, to truth. This is women's work. This is Gospel work. And yet the Church is afraid. Believe me - I am in seminary - I sit through class after class about this. I am so bored with it. It's not that big a deal people! It's not a threat!!

I mean geez, if your God is so small that he can't handle someone messing with Truth, then God help you. I think God's been working with the foibles of people for a little while now.

Besides, J tells me that P-M is over, at least in philosophy, which is where it started in the first place. So everybody can relax. I personally think we're acting more like the "me" decade than the slacker/Gen X 90's. The 80's were much more in tune with human nature.

But moving on, we got to spend our last hour listening to three fantastic representatives from fantastic organizations. These are Christians who are morally outraged by something besides R-rated movies and explicit lyrics. I can't really tell what they do better than they do, so I will simply direct you to their websites and tell you that if one (or more) strikes a chord, please get involved.

http://www.cluela.org/ (David vs. Goliath=workers vs. corporations - this group has nationwide ties; they are starting a seminarian's group)
http://www.childshare.org/ (why has the church forgotten its command to care for the orphans?)
http://www.ascendinglights.org/ (hey, here's an idea - let's educate people out of the cycle of poverty!)

'nuff said.

10 comments:

lytlwng said...

Hey! This is awsome. I have to know your opoinion on the defeminisation of religion in general. I know I am not going to sound as good as all your friends and yourself and it is probably chessy that I am reading The Divinci Code but... some of the stuff the book says about noticing how little we are thought of and how wrong the KJ version is... What do you think and am I just way off in my interpretation? It does seem to be a man's world. I can't read all i want of the blog because I only have a computer at work but I really love it so far. I wrote a poem in college called 'There's no music in heaven'. (Re: an earlier post) I got the notion from my uncle who is a diagnosed paranoid schizaphrenic. I didn't even believe in God till I talked with him. He claims to be on a 'higher' level than anyone, ever. He creeps me out now. There is so much in his head it is unreal. Like a spirital war in 1993 that killer every human but himself and then in a wink of an eye everything was back to normal. What's up with that? Anyway I just would love to get you opinion on the validity of the 'true story of Jesus' as the Divinci Code claims and that stuff re my uncle/ just ignore. But the Lord definatly worked ina mysterious way to get me to believe! Thanks

The Feminarian said...

I'm going to comment more to you later, but I just wanted to quickly say that the thing that is on my mind is a fantastic book I'm reading that you would probably really enjoy. It's "New Wine: The Story of Women Transforming Leadership and Power in the Episcopal Church" by Pamela Darling. Check it out!

lytlwng said...

Cool, I will con't to check for your further comments and note the suggested book. Kinda funny that women have had to "transform" leadership and power anyways. My point exactly that we are still considered to be lesser beings. (socially speaking)

Anonymous said...

FYI - The professor you are critiquing has been involved in the study of post-modernity for about three decades. He's not just jumping on the bandwagon. You also made a comment on his age. I think maybe you missed the point that any movement which supercedes modernity is not limiting to a certain age group. This is one of the changes that threatens traditional modernists, who prefer to transfer power neatly from one group of elders to the next. Also, this professor promotes engagement of culture on culture's terms, and I have never heard him express a fear of transitioning out of modernism. You may want to read one of his books or check out Lesslie Newbigin.

The Feminarian said...

Dear Anonymous,

I never said this professor was jumping on a bandwagon.

I said he was "old". Is that what you mean by "a comment on his age"? I didn't say anything about whether his age had anything to do with what he was talking about - you inferred that, but it's not what I was thinking.

I can tell you are a fan of this professor and took these comments personally. But if you read the entry again you'll see that in no way was I commenting on him at all (except I did say he was "befuddled" but that was only because several times he got lost in his notes and there were long periods of silence - I didn't mean he didn't know what he was talking about - that word is "ignorant", not "befuddled"). I simply used the topic he brought to the class as an opening for my tirade against Christians who irresponsibly and ignorantly deal with post-modernism.

Never did I say that he is a person doing this. You should read my posts more carefully before commenting on them. Nothing you said had anything to do with what I wrote.

Anonymous said...

The Feminarian writes:

Anonymous said...

You wrote:
Now we're in this Post-Modern era and it's all about relating - relating to people, to ideas, to truth. This is women's work. This is Gospel work.
**********************************************************************
Sorry, to pull age on you Feminarian but unless you are more than 36 years old, I have been a feminist longer than you have been alive.

My background is somewhat unusual. I was in college during an upsurge in feminist political activity 1969-74. After earning my economics degree in 1974, I went on to earn a law degree in 1979 and a degree in electrical engineering in 2003. So, I think I have a pretty good fix on the skills necessary to succeed in business, law and science.

My beef, as it were, is that you APPEAR to accept the idea that women have a special talent for relating to others AND as a consequence they bring something different to leadership positions than men can. If I am wrong correct me.

If this is the case, if you do think that women have particularly well developed skills in relating to people as compared to men, do you attribute that to nature or nurture?

If you attribute a greater skill in relating to people as a innately feminine characteristic, then how are you different from the traditional patriarchists?

Seems to me that the current women's movement, inside and outside of Christianity suffers from a crippling contradiction. Feminists, of course, would be appalled at anyone who suggested that women were not mentally equiped to study science. Women's brains are just as logical as men's. But at the same time, women have this extra special talent of relating to people that men lack. So basically, today's feminists want two contradictory things. They want to assert that talents are evenly distributed across the sexes, BUT, that women have a little something extra which the world just needs in leadership positions.

Well, I have worked for government, for private law firms and for private for-profit businesses and I have seen both men and women perform a wide variety of tasks under pressure.
The leadership that men are typically called upon to provide in business and law requires a very high level of relationship skills. I have seen excellent female leaders and excellent male leaders, I have seen poor male leaders and poor female leaders.

Again, I don't want to play the age and maturity card too harshly here but I don't think that you have much experience with leadership by males or females outside of academia.

Good leaders use the same techniques which rely on a very astute understanding of human nature and human motivators. It is the mastery of human nature that counts not the gender. None of the great male leaders of the past could have succeeded with a great ability to relate to others.


A response to this comment would be appreciated

Anonymous said...

Feminarian:

You describe yourself as a Taurus. Did the blog assign that to you automatically or did you consciously choose it?

Doesn't Isaiah rather explicitly condemn those who "divide the heavens" as practitioners of the occult? Do you give credence to astrology?

Are you aware of the many objective studies which has thoroughly discredited astrology on a purely secular, scientific basis? If not, I can supply references for your research.

Tsk, tsk, astrological nonsense from an educated person.

The Feminarian said...

Hi, Tsker.
Yes, blogger automatically puts your "sign" on your page.
They asked for my birthday, which I put on there - I did not know they'd put my "sign", I thought they might put my bday so I could get happy presents. Instead I got your really over-the-top accusations.
You are absolutely correct - I am not the sort of person to place any stock in such nonesense.
You did give me a chuckle, though -taking it soooooooo seriously! :)

The Feminarian said...

To the anonymous person who would appreciate a comment (since you're anonymous I can't contact you directly, sorry):
I think that women are made more nurturing by nurturing. We are taught that it is okay to show emotions, to have empathy, etc. Thus we become better listeners and better relationally. I don't think it's necessarily a natural thing, as men who are raised in the prior-mentioned environment are probably more empathetic. And certainly the situtation would differ depending on each person's individual situation.
And although the patriarchal society isn't a good thing, this might be one thing that women have gained from it. God can redeem any evil if we let him. So perhaps men have forced us into nurturing roles...but God is redeeming it by showing us how to use our nurturing roles for His glory.
Of course with your age and education and experience, I'm sure you understand and agree.
Oh, and I have spent about a decade WAY outside academia, in one of the world's most patriarchal (and ego-heavy) fields - the entertainment industry. But you wouldn't know that - and it's easier to make assumptions, isn't it?
You might want to chill out just a little bit.