Yesterday, October 25, 2015, churches in many locations celebrated Reformation Sunday.

The Latin phrase, Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda! is familiar to many people, especially people who have been part of the reformed tradition for a number of years. I learned it as “The Church reformed, and always in need of reforming!” Over the years I have learned that many people are happy to be part of “The Church reformed” – but often much less willing to be part of the Church “always in need of reforming.”

In my experience – More people like being right better than needing to change.

It seems easy to agree with the idea that is represented by the first part of this slogan, but much harder to find agreement with varying interpretations of the words following “and” – a small but important word defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as, Coordinating. Introducing a word, phrase, clause, or sentence, which is to be taken side by side with, along with, or in addition to, that which precedes it (Oxford English Dictionary).

My question for today is – what do we mean when we say Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda! or in English “The Church reformed, and always in need of reforming!” How should our actions respond to our understanding of the words?

It is my hope that a number of you will respond to this post to begin a community discussion – remembering that it is important that comments always be friendly and respectful.

On Wednesday I will write about the origins of this phrase as well as more of what I understand it to mean.

Please make others aware of this site, and join us in a continuing discussion. A community discussion requires more than a single writer.

Grace and peace

This blog started in March, 2011, and since that date I have made 247 posts to this website. The name of the site – humanbeingsanon.com – refers to a book that I was writing at the time – Human Beings Anonymous – a 12 steps volume intended for people who think that they have no problem with addictions. The book is still not finished but it is closer to reality now than it was back in 2011. I am hoping that restarting this blog will push me on toward the finish line.

Along the way two other books entered in to the writing project list. One – a sort of autobiography with lessons I have learned during my life has the intended title of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Pulpit. That project has also had a beginning or two, and is still waiting patiently for my return to the project. The third project as yet has no title but a lot of the content has already been written. It is to be a set of reflections on the current state(s) of music ministry in the church. The original inspiration for this book was an earlier volume that has always been one of my five favorite books. Published in 1981 by Westminster Press, it carries the title Faithsong: A New Look at the Ministry of Music and was written by Thomas L. Are, a person who had an immense influence on my work in music ministry from the early 1980s to the present. While everything in that volume is still valid, the church of today is not the same as the church in the concluding years of the twentieth century.

I have some friends who will read this post and ask, “So what is the problem?” or “So why did you stop writing” or “Why can’t you settle on a single project?” The only honest answer I have is “I don’t know.”

But I do have some thoughts on the matter.

My original design for this blog was to write a post every other day, to invite readers to join in a community discussion, and for us all to engage in a group learning process. My rule has always been the same – I am happy for people to disagree with what I write but I do insist that we engage in civil and polite conversation. Many of the most important things I have learned in life have been from people with whom, initially, I completely disagreed. I could see no possibility for us ever to agree, but with further discussion and time, sometimes I completely changed my mind so that I agreed with their conclusions. However, sometimes neither of us could find a way to change our opinions, but we always managed to move forward with great respect for the other person and their conclusions.

I know that people have read what I have written – a few have commented – a few responded that they like the blog the next time I saw them, but there has been very little community discussion of topics. Generally, I write about things which still perplex me – leave me uncertain – topics that I have already had one or more complete changes of what I believe. It has never been my intent to write as if I even had any of the answers.

So here we go yet another time. All of the blogs are still available to read if you would like, or if you would like to suggest a topic I will make an attempt to start a discussion on that topic. But – I do not want to be the only person writing my conclusions on the subject. I hope that some of you will assist me in this endeavor. A quick perusal of the previous posts will open some doors to ideas and issues that I think could benefit from community discussion and learning. So – you have my invitation. On Monday I will post something about something and then we will see where this journey takes us together.

Grace and peace

With pleasure we announce that this blog site humanbeingsanon.com will resume active status this coming Saturday – October 24, 2015.

We are grateful for the people who have followed the postings on this site in the past and we hope you will resume with us. Also, please inform your friends that this blog exists – all are encouraged to join in the discussions by commenting on the material found here.

Apache Stronghold Stops in New York City Before Making Its Way to DC

 

NEW YORK—The Apache Stronghold is taking its message to the steps of the U.S. Capitol today and tomorrow. The message is strong one. They are angry that about the land exchange that was tucked into last December’s $585 billion National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 that was passed by Congress.

The Act gives land at Apache Leap and Oak Flat in southeastern Arizona to Rio Tinto, foreign mining company, to mine copper without any environmental impact studies or without consultation with San Carlos Apache Tribe.

The San Carlos Apache Tribe maintains the mining by Rio Tinto will be on sacred ancestral lands where tribal members have historically performed ceremonies and buried their ancestors.

“Since the time of immemorial people have gone there. That’s part of our ancestral homeland, we’ve had dancers in that area forever-sunrise dancers-and coming of age ceremonies for our young girls that become women. They’ll seal that off. They’ll seal us off the acorn grounds, and the medicinal plants in the area, and our prayer areas,” Chairman Terry Rambler told the Huffington Post last December.

The group left their reservation in early July and made its way to Washington.

This past weekend, the group was in New York City to bring awareness to the travesty committed by Congress.

This is directly related to my last post!

Mitakuye Oyasin

The foundational metaphor of spatiality in Indian culture also begins to clarify the extent to which Indian notions of creation and Indian existence are deeply rooted in our attachment to the land and to specific territories in particular. Each nation has some understanding that they were placed into a relationship with a particular territory by spiritual forces outside of themselves and thus have an enduring responsibility for that territory just as the earth, especially the earth in that particular place, has a filial responsibility toward the people who live there. Likewise, the Two-Legged people in that place also have a spatially related responsibility toward all people who share that place with them, including animals, birds, plants, rocks, rivers, mountains and the like. With knowledge of such extensive kinship ties, including a kinship tie to the land itself, it should be less surprising that Indian peoples have always resisted colonial pressure to relocate them to different territories, to sell their territories to the invaders, or to allow the destruction of their lands for the sake of accessing natural resources. Conquest and removal from our lands, historically, and contemporary ecological destruction of our lands have been and continue to be culturally and genocidally destructive to Indian peoples as peoples (Kidwell, 45*).

Yesterday, July 16, 2015 a post appeared on my Facebook page credited to Occupy Democrats. Linked to the post is the complete text of an Op-Ed piece from the New York Times, dated May 29, 2015, written by Lydia Miller. The following link takes you to the complete text version of that article:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/29/opinion/selling-off-apache-holy-land.html?_r=0&referrer=

Following is the text from that post that accompanies pictures of Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake:

At the very last minute, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake just snuck a provision into a must-pass military funding bill that gave away holy Apache land to an Australian-British mining company that plans to turn it into a 1,000 foot deep crater. It is the first time in American history that Congress has handed over a public, sacred Native American site to a foreign owned multinational corporation.

Is the motivation for this last minute provision to honor the best interest of all the people, or to honor the money that helps keep these two Senators in their elected positions? In my opinion that answer is fairly clear – and – it is not the first of those two options.

I am in the process of contacting both Senator McCain and Senator Flake as well as Congressman Raul Grijalva, Democrat representing Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District concerning this matter. I hope that other people will raise their voices in opposition to this and similar callous actions.

The following words are from the Op-Ed written by Lydia Miller, published in the New York Times:

The land grab was sneakily anti-democratic even by congressional standards. For more than a decade, the parcel containing Oak Flat has been coveted by Rio Tinto, Resolution’s parent company — which already mines on its own private land in the surrounding area — for the high-value ores beneath it.

The swap — which will trade 5,300 acres of private parcels owned by the company to the Forest Service and give 2,400 acres including Oak Flat to Resolution so that it can mine the land without oversight — had been attempted multiple times by Arizona members of Congress on behalf of the company. (Among those involved was Rick Renzi, a former Republican representative who was sent to federal prison in February for three years for corruption related to earlier versions of the land-transfer deal.) It always failed in Congress because of lack of support. But this time was different. This time, the giveaway language was slipped onto the defense bill by Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona at the 11th hour. The tactic was successful only because, like most last-minute riders, it bypassed public scrutiny.

At this point in time, all I am able to say is mitakuye oyasin – please see my post from July 15, 2015.

* Kidwell, Clara Sue, Homer Noley, and George E. “Tink” Tinker. A Native American Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001.

American Indians and other indigenous peoples have a long-standing confidence that they have much to teach Europeans and North Americans about the world and human relationships in the world.  They are confident in the spiritual foundations of their insights, confident that those foundations can become a source of healing and reconciliation for all Creation (48).

These words and the ones that follow are taken, with deep gratitude and respect, from A Native American Theology by Clara Sue Kidwell, Homer Noley, and George E. “Tink” Tinker (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001).

The circle is a key symbol for self-understanding in these tribes, representing the whole of the universe and our part in it. We see ourselves as co-equal participants in the circle standing neither above nor below anything else in God’s Creation. There is no hierarchy in our cultural context, even of species, because the circle has no beginning nor ending. Hence all the createds participate together, each in their own way, to preserve the wholeness of the circle.

When a group of Indians forms a circle to pray, all know that the prayers have already begun with the representation of a circle. No words have yet been spoken and in some ceremonies no words need be spoken, but the intentional physicality of our formation has already expressed our prayer and deep concern for the wholeness of all of God’s creation. There is no need to hold hands because we know it is enough to stand in the circle already joined together, inextricably bound, through the earth which lies firm beneath our feet, the earth who is, after all, the true mother of each of us and of all Creation.

The Lakota and Dakota peoples have a phrase used in all their prayers that aptly illustrates the Native American sense of the centrality of creation. The phrase, mitakuye oyasin, functions somewhat like the word “amen” in European and American Christianity. As such, it is used to end every prayer, and often it is in itself a whole prayer, being the only phrase spoken. The usual translation offered is: “For all my relations.” Yet like most native symbols, mitakuye oyasin is polyvalent in its meaning. Certainly one is praying for one’s immediate family: aunts, cousins, children, grandparents, etc. “Relations” must also be understood as fellow tribal members or even all Indian people. At the same time, the phrase includes all the nations of Two-Leggeds in the world and, in the ever-expanding circle, all the nations other than Two-Leggeds – the Four Leggeds, the Wingeds and all the Living-Moving Things of the Earth.

A translation of mitakuye oyasin would better read: “For all the above me and below me and around me things.” That is, for all my relations. (50-51).

From this point forward, at least in coming days, each post will conclude with these words: mitakuye oyasin.

It is with mixed emotions that I write to let everyone know that this will be the final post on humanbeingsanon.com. The time has come to quit writing (at least this blog), to quit talking (at least about issues that are appropriate for this blog) and to start doing the work to which I have been called.

Within a few months of my retirement at the end of December, 2012 I knew that I had received a new call for the future. That call was to provide a means for people in progressive communities of faith to have a networking source that would also serve as a place to find quality resources – music, liturgical materials, visual art, church school curriculum for adults, youth, and children, and other materials that would be valuable for planning and preparation for life and ministry in the church of today and the future.

It has been my privilege to know and work with talented creative people for many years – people who have fed my soul, challenged my imagination, helped me grow and develop – and now it is time for me to begin the process of giving back.

The new organization will be ReformArts. We are currently in the process of getting started with the myriad tasks of organizational start-up – discerning a diverse group of people who might be willing to serve as members of an initial Board of Directors – securing financial support – recruiting a group of charter members – following a path from the present to unknown points beyond.

I dream of a national organization that will meet every other year for a national gathering and every other year for a series of regional events and opportunities. I have this dream because of my participation in other superb organizations that have shaped me and prepared me for this point in my life.

Sometime soon an initial official announcement will be made to let people know how we plan to move toward the future together – united in love for all of creation. That announcement will be made via several forms of media – including FaceBook, letters, phone calls, emails, and any other way that might help spread the word of what we plan to offer. If you would like to make sure that you are included in that network as soon as possible please send me a private message via FaceBook.

It is my plan to narrow my focus for the future by devoting my efforts to ReformArts, my ministry with the arts at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church here in Austin, family, and health.

My experience using WordPress for this blog has been nothing but the best and I am deeply grateful that I found them as a primary source to begin to speak the words of my heart at a time when that was very much needed.

So – until next time – as the song says: “So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye.”

Grace, peace, and love

Tom Mitchell

Language is a very important part of our daily lives – it provides a means for most of our communication with other people.

People who know that I am part of the community of faith that is St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas often ask me questions about the language policy of our congregation. So in today’s blog I thought it might be helpful to publish our language policy – a document that was approved in 1999 following significant study by the congregation. It is also one that I approve of without exception or hesitation – it has made a real difference in the way I perceive the world in which I am privileged to live.

However, before posting that document I want to pass along a recent blog post written by Jim Rigby, our pastor. These words clearly open the door to the intent of our congregation’s language policy.

Patriarchy’s greatest power lies in remaining a trance through which we perceive the world, but which we do not perceive in ourselves. If we would be serious about ending violence against women and the oppression of sexual minorities we must wage an unceasing war against sexist language, especially in our own words and thoughts. How can we purge patriarchy from our world if we will not even cede its power over our own hearts? Every time we allow ourselves a sexist word or thought, we have delayed the day of justice for women.

The remainder of this post is the language policy for St. Andrew’s as posted on the congregation’s website – staopen.org.

Inclusive Language

Questions and Answers

At St. Andrew’s we are proud of our continuing efforts to be more inclusive. It was back in 1999, after much exploration and discussion, that the Session of St. Andrew’s decided that we will use inclusive language in all events and services that take place here. Additionally, it was decided that we will not make use of “feudal” language when referring to God, Jesus or humanity in general. Here are some answers to common questions about this language decision.

What do you mean by “inclusive language”?

Inclusive language, when used to refer to God, is non-gendered. Therefore, God is not referred to as “He” or “Father”, nor as “She” or “Mother.”

When talking about people, we say things like “humanity” instead of “mankind”, and when nonspecific references are made, we use gender-neutral pronouns. For example, we would not say, “First Church is looking for a new minister; I hope he is a good fit.” Rather, we might say something like, “First Church is looking for a new minister; I hope they find one that is a good fit.” Given that we strive for equality in roles and jobs, we will not assume that a particular unknown person is a specific gender simply because of their position.

What is meant by “‘feudal’ language”?

Some of our language comes from European roots in the Middle Ages, when “kings” and “lords” were common, and power was almost exclusively in the hands of men. When referring to God, we do not use the words “King” and “Lord”, because that would make God male. When referring to Jesus, we do not use “king” and “lord”, because it hints at a hierarchy that we believe Jesus repudiated. Our English word “Lord” is not in the original scriptures because they were not written in English. “Lord” is a translation of the Hebrew word “Adonai” and the Greek word “Kurios.” Both root words are more flexible than our English word, that is, they could change to adapt to gender. What is a “Lord?” To discover the masculine nature of the English word, one need only turn to the dictionary. Whereas the root of the word “lord” deals with bread, it developed to speak of the male who controls the bread. According to the American Heritage dictionary, “lord” is “the general masculine title of nobility.” In the Oxford Dictionary, a lord is “a male peer of the realm, or a man with the title of Lord.” In Riverside’s Webster Dictionary a “lord” is “a man in dominion and power over others.”

Why is this an important issue? Why pay so much attention to making language inclusive?

We believe God is beyond gender. The constitution of the Presbyterian Church makes this clear when it says, “When people respond to God and communicate to each other their experiences of God, they must use symbolic means, for God transcends creation and cannot be reduced to anything within it.” (Book of Worship, W-1.2002)

Later, the Book of Worship states: “The church is committed to using language in such a way that all members of the community of faith may recognize themselves to be included, addressed, and equally cherished before God.” (W-1.2006b) This last selection makes the point: using a male reference to God makes males look more like God than females.

I understand that some people have been abused by their fathers, but for other people “father” is a positive image. Must we discard it?

Abuse is sometimes mentioned to get people thinking about how their language might affect others, but the problem we are addressing is much more wide spread than parental abuse alone. A little girl who constantly hears male imagery for God may conclude that her brother looks more like God than she does. With our theological speech we are trying to envision a new world where all God’s children can come to fullness. This will be more difficult if the language we use in worship pictures God as looking like some of us, but not like others. Our view of life has an effect on the kind of world we produce in our lives. As researchers have tried to discover why some cultures produce rape and battering they have found a few constants. Cultures that link masculinity with control over women will produce more rape. If we wanted to design a rape culture, sexist theology would be a good blueprint. To say that our divine source is male is perhaps the most sexist comment a person can make. To equate the Almighty with masculinity might or might not hurt a particular victim of abuse, but it will definitely teach a view of life where our little girls will be more likely to be abused in the future.

Is St. Andrew’s attempting to be the “thought police”?

Our decision to use inclusive language applies to all our services and events. We are not attempting to control personal religious practice. We would, however, like everyone to be aware of their language habits and always be on the lookout for bias, prejudice and privilege. A constant vigilance is needed to avoid falling into one of our most pervasive cultural traps: sexism. How you address God personally is not at issue here. If thinking of God as male is meaningful to you, then you are welcome to do so. As a member you are free to speak of God in your own way in classes and discussions. It is in our common language of worship and in teaching that we are asking for greater care. While there is a place for airing any opinion or idea at our church, the worship service is not that arena. We insist that worship be a safe place for all people. This requires that we not use language that excludes people for reasons of age, ability, race, gender or any other human condition. Members can speak of God without this burden, but we hold our leaders to a higher standard.

I am a woman raised in the church and this language did not and does not bother me.

It is hard to know when one has become numb. Many churches do not allow women to be leaders. While our denomination does not discriminate to that extent, one can look at how female clergy are treated and realize that the paradigm for leadership is male even in our denomination. Women can certainly rise above the church’s prejudice, but why not insist on being treated fairly instead? Even if you have processed and retranslated the church’s bias against you, you can help us do a better job with our children.

I worry that we will lose the personal aspects of worship. “Parent” isn’t as personal as “Father.” These changes don’t leave me anything personal to hold on to.

This is an important argument. The gendered pronouns were easy ways to convey the personal aspect of God’s love. Luther argued this case when he said that the heart of the New Testament is in its pronouns. At the same time we must never forget that while God is personal, God is not a human person. The Bible sternly warns against our efforts to reduce God to comfortable and reassuring human terms. John’s Gospel reminds us that it is not our love for God, but God’s love for us that is important.Mature spirituality does not try to be a personal friend to God. Mature faith expresses God’s love in real human relationships. What can we hold on to personally? We can hold onto one another. Children do need more concrete imagery to begin their journey. We give them a handle through all the wonderful stories of the Bible, particularly in the life of Jesus who made the love of God very personal.

What if some people are made uncomfortable by inclusive language?

We should always be pastoral to people who are hurting. These changes can feel like a death and some people will need time to grieve the changes. But we must not minister to one group by using languagethat excludes another group.

Shouldn’t we respect Church tradition?

The great formulas of the church give us a common vocabulary of meaning so we can share faith with people all over the world. Unfortunately, a time honored tradition of the church is sexism. Luther said if women die in childbirth it is no big loss since that’s what they were made for. Tertullian said that women are “the gateway to the devil.” The founder of the Presbyterian Church said that to allow women roles of leadership would be an abomination before God. We believe that the discrimination of women should cease. Church unity is not created simply by everyone saying the same creeds. True unity requires the recognition of the worth of each of us. An appeal to tradition could be an argument against any reformation, ever, including Luther’s and Jesus’.

Isn’t this out of step with the vast majority of churches?

Because most churches use sexist terms, we do lose some ability to communicate with them when we remove gendered and feudal language. This is a genuine cost of choosing justice over tradition. Consider the alternative. Does true unity come from reducing ourselves to the lowest common denominator? Should we mistreat gay and lesbian Christians because most of the church does? Would this be true unity? Would it be helpful to strip women of leadership roles altogether since much of the church does not consider them worthy of such responsibility? When the church speaks a language that divides the world, it should be no surprise that it is difficult to bring peace to that broken world. It would be better to speak a language that does not divide us in the first place.

One More Thought:

In theology we are not really describing God, because God is beyond human words and comprehension. In theology, we are building a bridge to the sacred through our human images. In theology we are envisioning an ideal world where God’s will for each of us is fulfilled, so it is important not to limit God to a gender. In theology we are putting a face on the sacred. It is important not to say that some faces look more like God than others. Inclusive language for God and people is an important and tangible way to make us all aware of our sacredness. We encourage a constant conversation that increases our understanding of sexism and privilege and how universal love and justice can be lived out in our daily lives.