Saturday, March 20, 2010

Women Bishops

Today is the first day of my spring break.  I'm planning to go camping with the bf on the Central Coast of Cali later next week, but today I found myself thinking about the lack of women bishops in the ELCA.  This conversation came up with some classmates a couple weeks ago, I think b/c of the honoring our foremothers event at PTLS last week.

As a church that ordains women and invites women as part of leadership, when will our beliefs about equality reach the level of bishop?  From my own count (which could be wrong), there are only 6 women bishops out of the 65 synodical bishops of the ELCA.  Why might this be?  Are we as a people still ingrained to think that it is men who should hold the 'higher-up' positions?  Are women simply told implicitly that being bishop is a job that a man should do?  Are women simply not interested in holding the office of bishop?  Why might that be?  Are we as women ingrained to think that holding the office of bishop is something we can't do, and so we don't consider it?  Are there not enough men encouraging women to run for the office of bishop?  Are there not enough men even considering women who might be good for the job?  (B/c let's be real...though we women want to fight for our rights of equality, we need help from the men to make it happen.  We cannot do it alone.)  I think there could be many reasons for this disparity.  I realize that holding the office of bishop is a challenge, but I do not think it is one reserved for only men.  I think women bishops could bring a different perspective to the position, and one that could reflect the majority of our active church members.  (If we take a look at the percentage of women vs. men active in our congregations, it's likely that we see a higher percentage of women.  This is obviously not reflected at the level of bishop.  I think it's important for us to be aware of these differences.)

Thank you to these women for braving the way:

Bishop Jessica R. Crist, Montana Synod
Bishop Elizabeth Eaten, Northeastern Ohio Synod
Bishop Margaret Payne, New England Synod
Bishop Marie Jerge, Upstate NY Synod
Bishop Claire Burkat, Southeastern Penn. Synod
Bishop Wilma Kucharek, Slovak Zion Synod

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Avatar and Mexico

The Oscars will be awarded on Sunday night and Avatar is up for a number of them, including cinematography and best picture.  There have been a number of reviews on this film, mostly critiquing the story line and the white messiah complex....  I went to see Avatar at the beginning of January, before I left for Mexico City on my [required] Cross-Cultural Experience for seminary.  I have to say that this film changed my experience in Mexico.  I saw the film in everything we talked about...indigenous peoples, liberation theology, the cycle of ver, pensar, actuar (to see, think, act)...  I wrote a paper for my Systematic Theology class when I got back and I want to share it with you.  It's just a start...I think there are other things that can be evaluated, like the Na'vi deity Eywa.  I might get to that someday...  I loved the film and think it can speak truth to us and how we see ourselves and those we forget daily and how we might all be part of the same world.

[Note: this entry includes spoilers if you haven't seen the film and still want to...I highly suggest it!]


Avatar and Mexico

I recently returned from a trip to Mexico City to fulfill my seminary’s cross-cultural requirement.  I chose to go to Mexico City over other places, like Chicago or L.A., because I knew that it would be a deep experience for me in the Latino culture.  I am not unfamiliar with Latino culture, but I wouldn’t say I am familiar either.  In the time leading up to my departure for Mexico City, I happened to see the movie Avatar in the theatre.  I must say I was blown away and impressed by what I saw.  Little did I know, Avatar would have an incredible impact on my immersion in Mexico.  During the whole 2.5 weeks of my trip I saw Avatar in everything!  That is what this paper will present...

A little background on Avatar...  It’s a movie about an indigenous people group called the Na’vi.  The five Na’vi tribes live on Pandora, which is actually a moon of the planet Polyphemus, some 4.3 light years from Earth.  Earthlings travel to Pandora in search of Unobtanium, a precious resource that can save Earth from its present energy crisis.  I don’t know that they come out and say it, but it seems that the Earthlings are from the U.S., as they have marines and army on mission, and a high level of technology [read: expensive] only available in first-world countries.  The Na’vi and Earthlings come into conflict when it is discovered that the Omaticaya tribe Hometree stands on the most Unobtanium-rich land in all of existence.  The Earthlings are in pursuit of something to save Earth from their energy crisis, and the Na’vi are merely in the way, or so it seems.

A big part of our education in Mexico City was learning about globalization and NAFTA/free trade. This is one of the first places I saw Avatar.  The scene that comes to mind is where character Parker is trying to explain to character Dr. Grace why it is so important that the Na’vi people be removed from their land.  He mentions Unobtanium as the only goal for coming to Pandora, and the Na’vi as merely a road block.  This relates to the relations of Mexico and its third world to the U.S. and other first-world countries.  I couldn’t help but see the ties between the way we from the U.S. feel like we have the right to waltz into other people’s land and take what they have just because we can.  This is what the military (U.S. or not) in Avatar think they can do to the Na’vi.  The military assumes that because Unobtanium is needed on Earth, all others should bend to allow the removal of it, taking no consideration for the families, people, and customs that will be uprooted in the process.  Between Mexico and the U.S., we (the U.S.) decided it was okay to take what we want and institute free trade (for goods, not people), having no thought of who our actions might be affecting.

The connection of the Na’vi to the indigenous of Mexico are so clear to me.  There are a number of indigenous practices that show up in the Na’vi.  One of those is the burial position.  The indigenous believe that we belong to the Earth and so should depart it the way we came in - in the fetal position.  The same is true of the Na’vi.  There is one shot in the movie of a Na’vi burial where the dead is laid in the ground in the fetal position.

Another indigenous connection with the Na’vi is about misplaced sin.  Because of what the “colonized” group (Earthlings, big business, etc.) want, we could say that the “sin” of the indigenous and the Na’vi is that they were born and live on land that is rich with resources.  That doesn’t seem like a sin to me - to be born on a place rich with resources.  The situation that happened in Avatar to the Na’vi also happened to the indigenous of Mexico, first when it was settled by the Spaniards, and now by the U.S. especially.  When the Spaniards came to Mexico, they killed in the name of the church.  I infer that it was then a sin that the indigenous people living there simply existed there, and their practices (religious and otherwise) didn’t look the same as the Spanish.  Evidence for the church’s role in this is the way Catholicism is so “prevalent” in Mexico.  I use quotations around prevalent because in my experience this time in Mexico City and other times to Mexico, it seems like there is a spirituality that runs deeper than the church.  Catholicism seems to be a veneer of religion; the spiritual depth comes from a core that has existed much longer than the church and shows up in the symbolism found in Our Lady of Guadalupe.

One critique of Avatar that has been wide spread is that of the white messiah complex.  In this film people see Jake Sully, the main character, who is white and even an ex-marine, end up saving the day and saving the Na’vi from destruction.  I can see this argument for this film, but I don’t think it takes into account everything the movie has to offer.  For one, Jake isn’t your average white guy; he is a cripple.  He was hurt in battle somehow and has been in a wheelchair ever since.  When he arrives on Pandora he is referred to as “Meals on Wheels.”  We don’t often see the handicapped as having salvific power.

When it comes to beating the bad guys, Jake Sully is no longer Jake Sully.  He is JakeSully, transformed into a man of the Omaticaya (one of five Na’vi tribes), and no longer who he was.  He is not changed in merely physical appearance or status.  Even the “real” Jake Sully, the non-Avatar Jake, has changed.  The “real” world is no longer the place Jake wants to reside.  He longs more and more to be with the Omaticaya as JakeSully.  He becomes part of the Omaticaya in a way no human has ever done before.  He is a recognized warrior of the clan and even takes a “woman”, Neytiri, as is the Omaticaya custom when he is born again as a man into the tribe.

Being a cripple and needing to give up his former life are two things that prove to me Jake Sully is not your average white messiah complex case.  Another is that as an Omaticaya, Jake is not brought in once and for all.  He is brought in and reborn as an Omaticaya man, but when the Omaticaya find out what he has been up to - that it was his job to infiltrate and learn about them so the military could attack them at their weakest spot - he is kicked out and branded a traitor.  It is not an easy messiah road for Jake.  He becomes the traitor of his human people, and his Avatar people.  There are biblical characters who know this role of traitor - Moses, for one.  Moses, though born a Hebrew, was raised by Pharaoh and so becomes a traitor when he leaves to follow his calling as a Hebrew to liberate them from Pharaoh’s oppression.  Jake Sully is raised as a human, and as a marine, as someone who follows orders and doesn’t question authority.  He begins to question, which leads him down the path of departure from his native people to follow his calling to liberate the Na’vi from the humans.

In the end, it turns out Jake is unable to save the day by himself anyway - more evidence against his white messiah role.  Because he has to live in his Avatar to be any kind of liberator, he is struck in his most vulnerable state - when he is in the machine that links him with his Avatar as a human.  This is how Colonel Quaritch is able to handicap Jake’s Avatar - by harming Jake’s human self when he is linked with his Avatar and vulnerable.  Jake’s human body cannot function without oxygen, which makes it impossible as a human to survive on Pandora without O2 supply.  When his O2 supply is compromised, Jake’s human body suffers, and as a result his Avatar cannot function.  He can no longer save the day.  In comes Neytiri, Jake’s Avatar partner (read: woman, wife) and a female warrior.  Neytiri is the one who defeats Colonel Quaritch, and the military as a result.  She is the one who saves the day, and saves Jake.  If Neytiri would not have killed the Col. and not realized that it’s the human Jake that needs saving, Jake would have died.

I believe all these things make Avatar not your average white messiah complex movie.  It is so much more.  That Jake has to become part of the Omaticaya to have any cred and any chance of helping liberate them reminds me of the importance of listening to people and working with them, not for them.  Jake couldn’t just waltz in and save the day.  He couldn’t save the day in the end anyway.  But he did help the Na’vi against the humans because he knew the human’s weakest points.  He know what their tactics would be, and he knew how to hit them where it counts.  Jake went in to become an Omaticaya in order to get them to move from Hometree, to help the humans in their pursuit of Unobtanium, and he came out (time and time again, in and out of his Avatar link) wanting to be part of the Omaticaya because they helped him truly see himself and the truth.

I see the ways I have fallen prey to the white messiah complex in my few experiences in Mexico.  I have been on a handful of mission trips across the border and deeper into rural Mexico, and my experience in Mexico City this time has revolutionized the way I think about these kinds of trips.  Before I thought we were doing the Mexicans (or you could say the poor of any country...even the U.S.) a favor by going to them and providing for their “needs”.  When I think about it, this whole concept is full of white messianic principle...we go to the poor as rich, oftentimes white, kids/young adults/adults, from our place of privilege and power to “save” the poor from their sad state.  We see commercials of kids without shoes asking us to donate money, ‘because isn’t it sad that this kid doesn’t have any shoes?  And how many pairs of shoes do you have?  All kids need shoes!’  Right?  I don’t agree.

On this cross-cultural experience I learned the value of listening and investing in people.  It is so easy for us who have money to just throw it at people who don’t.  It’s a much easier way to help - we don’t have to get our hands dirty, we don’t have to travel, we don’t have to really see or experience the devastation.  But we can feel better about ourselves when we give money.  Now, I am not saying that people need to stop giving money to the poor and the needy in this world.  It is true that we need to share our wealth, and that we can help provide for the basic needs of others, and then some.  But we have forgotten that not everyone is the same.  Not everyone needs what we think they need.  For example, if you give shoes to a kid who has lived her whole life shoeless, and she lives in a culture where she won’t be able to buy new shoes after those ones wear out, by wearing the shoes you give her her feet will become soft and tender, instead of the tough and callous they need to be so she can live without shoes.

We can change this pattern by learning to listen to other people, especially people from other cultures who we are less likely to understand.  We need to listen to what they are saying, listen to what they need, even ask what they need, just as Jesus asked the blind man what he wanted, instead of assuming he wanted to see (Mark 10:51).  We need to get to know people as people and not as dispensable requirements for our system.  We need to care for people and stand up for their dignity and their ability to care for themselves.  We need to open our eyes to see the world around us the way Jake Sully came to see the Na’vi.  It isn’t until we truly see that we can truly live.