What I Learned in Seminary

  Its not uncommon for clergy to talk about what seminary didn't teach them, or how they felt unprepared in many ways to enter into full time ministry. But I want to talk about what seminary did teach me, and why it matters.
   I learned many important things about myself, people, God, and ministry during my three years at Drew working on my Mdiv. But this week I have been reflecting on one lesson in particular, in light on Jurd. conferences and the election of new bishops - power and privilege matter.
   In the age of technology, attendance at such large conferences is not only for those who are physically there, but those who are at home live streaming and tweeting. Two tweets from someone in my own conference following along really got me thinking. One was about how there was too much twitter chatter about the masculine language in hymns and how we need to focus on things that matter. The other was that there was too much focus on diversity in voting for bishops and not enough on spirituality. My immediate reaction to both tweets was that he only thought so because of his own place and status in society.
   If Drew taught me anything it is this: if we do not critically think about who has the power in society and our churches and why they have that power then we will be caught in a circle that cannot be broken. But if we truly believe that God calls us to be a people of shared power and living that is marked by the kin(g)dom of heaven, then we are called to alter who has the power. Its because of this reason that we did sing gender inclusive hymns and why I truly believe that our language for God matters. In a society where white, males are still linked with the image and power of God, we need to be intentional about our language so that people do not limit themselves in their experience of God. When we make God into someone like us, instead of a being who cannot be contained in words or symbols or ideas, we are in trouble. And when we insist on exclusively using male language for God we are telling people what their experience of God should be and automatically marginalize those who have a different experience of God.
   Recently I was explaining to another clergy who doesn't really buy into the idea of inclusive language, that I do not believe that it is my job to change all of the language for God from masculine to feminine, though I do have colleagues who do that. I simply don't use pronouns period, which honestly, my congregation may not even realize that I'm doing, but it leaves space for them to have their experience of God instead of me dictating what it should be.
   Further, as I work on my ordination paperwork, inclusive language is asked for time and time again. If we are demanding it in our academics and in our critical paperwork, then why aren't we living it our in our large assemblies in order to have it be modeled for the local congregations? Because it does matter. To say it doesn't is either to imply that everyone should have the same image of God, which isn't Biblical, or say that what we think of God and what we say about God doesn't matter, which isn't what we believe in our faith.
    Secondly, diversity in elections does matter. In fact its critical. Here is the problem we face with the election of episcopal leadership - we are programed from an early age to vote with what we are familiar with. In this country, that means voting for white, males. While we may not say it out loud, there is an overwhelming belief deep within our society that white males can lead better then any other group. This is why Obama's election as president was so critical in 2008, it created space for a new paradigm for the look of leadership. But that new paradigm is far from a reality. We need to be intentional about thinking about diversity in our leadership, because God calls all sorts of people to be leaders, not just white, males. And we need leadership that reflects our vision or the church.
    Now should this be done at a disregard for spiritual leadership? Absolutely not. But I trust and believe that if someone's name has made it to the floor of Jurd. Conference, it has been because they are seen as a spiritual leader. I'm also not convinced that years as a pastor in a local church really matter either, though I realize this is a matter for debate. These are our spiritual leaders in our conferences and that is why their names come before us as possible episcopal leaders. If we agree that it is a level playing field in this regard, then we absolutely need to consider diversity, or we will be caught in the cycle of some of our sister conferences of only electing white leaders or only electing male leaders. We need to be intentional to break the cycle.