The LCMS is threatening a law suit against Pastor Todd Wilken & Producer Jeff Schwarz for using the name "Issues, Etc." on their internet radio show, despite the fact that they have indicated no future desire to use it and in fact, the Synod let the trademark expire TEN years ago, years before they cancelled the show.
The current administration is continuing to try to exercise restraint over the topics discussed on the show, just as they restrained them from covering topics that would call into question the direction this adminstration has taken when they were still on KFUO.
If you have read Pastor Matt Harrison's statement "It's Time" (linked in the sidebar above), you will know what a complete financial mess the LCMS is in, and the lack of direction we have in theology and practice. The fact that they would devote synodical funds to this while missionaries are being pulled from the field because of lack of funds and ministries are being denied their designated funds is shameful. Please sign the petition and let the boys in the Purple Palace know what us Plebians in the Pews think.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/trademark/
Showing posts with label Issues Etc.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Issues Etc.. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
"Feminization" of the Church
ISSUES ETC. BLOG OF THE WEEK :)
I'm way behind on my Issues, Etc. listening. I tend to listen based on the order in my playlist, which is generally quasi-alphabetical, so I am not getting things chronologically. Most of the time I thoroughly enjoy listening and have learned so much. I can't believe that I missed this for how many years?
However, a couple of weeks ago I listened to the podcast which was a round table of pastors discussing the feminization of the church. There was an error made at the very beginning. They did not define their terms before they jumped right in to the discussion. It was not established exactly what "feminizing" means.
Here's the definition from Dictionary.com
tr.v. fem·i·nized, fem·i·niz·ing, fem·i·niz·es
To give a feminine appearance or character to.
To cause (a male) to assume feminine characteristics.
Still, this doesn't tell us much. We still have to define "feminine."
The American Heritage Dictionary listing defines it thusly:
Of or relating to women or girls. See Synonyms at female.
Characterized by or possessing qualities generally attributed to a woman.
Effeminate; womanish.
Grammar Designating or belonging to the gender of words or grammatical forms that refer chiefly to females or to things classified as female.
I thought the entry for the Websters Revised Dictionary makes an interesting point as well:
Note: Effeminate and womanish are generally used in a reproachful sense; feminine and womanly, applied to women, are epithets of propriety or commendation.
Still, these don't really list what qualities are considered feminine. And I think that is the problem, because that is what I heard when the pastors started in on their round table the instant that they were asked about "the feminization of the church."
From the starting gate, "subjective theology," "being ruled by emotion," "personal experience valued above doctrine," and contemporary Christian music and its emotional base, its inherent sexuality (from the beat, the swaying, and the "worship babes" were discussed as well as the groupies that the guys attracted-- sorry, this didn't ring true to my experience of contemporary worship. The guys that led it were tall, skinny, and didn't have a shred of animal magnetism to them....it was the pastor that was cute).
I fail to see how these attributes are uniquely feminine. These characteristics are much more representative of a post-modern culture that is filled with people who have never been trained in critical thinking or objective morality. Women have often been the safeguards of morality in our culture (possibly before The Pill made this guardianship of virtue unnecessary), and in different decades, subjective and seeker-sensitive could've just as easily been replaced with stern, inflexible, or pietistic. This alone tells me that attributing emotion and flexibility with gender is inaccurate.
Now, I do realize that the feminist movement has done a lot to destroy the culture of The Church. But these have been power issues and tearing down of doctrine in those areas. They have been related mostly to the office of the Holy Ministry as well as taking over areas where men have historically served as laymen as well. Also, with the increase in divorce, the feminist focus on career and degradation of the roles of wife and mother, and their insistence on "reproductive rights" have definitely torn apart all aspects of life, and The Church is definitely not immune to that.
But I am thinking that another word than "feminize" needs to apply to that phenomenon in particular. Maybe "feministication" would be better, because really, there is nothing feminine about what the Feminist Movement has done to our society. It has torn down all that has been valued in women throughout history and masculinized women, and left men completely confused as to their place in society -- without definition as to what it means to be a man).
To a large extent, The Church should be feminized. She is feminine. She is the Bride of Christ. She nurtures, strengthens, teaches, and protects her children. She is loyal and devoted to Her Bridegroom. And like any good mother, she understands there is right and wrong (Law), absolutes (doctrine and dogma), and forgiveness and need for rest and love (Gospel). These traits have always been recognized as feminine. They have always been desirable qualities in a wife and mother...and feminine is a word that is supposed to describe what is good in a woman, not what is bad. Too often anymore, woman is used to describe what is bad and I find that disturbing.
I am not saying these men hate women. I am saying that to a certain extent, they were guilty of "feminizing" if I were to use their term..since to them it meant hasty, emotional, nondescript, nebulous, subjective. There is nothing about contemporary worship that is uniquely feminine...in fact, for a long time, it was a movement that was created and pushed more by men than women. Music is an expression of what is important to us. While I question the use of the medium in worship or the theology that most of these songs convey, it is not feminine. There is nothing particularly or uniquely feminine about the rejection of doctrine and replacing it with subjective experience and emotional guidance. This is not gender-based, unless you are falling into cruel stereotypes.
I notice that concern for paraments and vestments was not listed in the definition of feminine. In any other realm, how a table is dressed, the symbolism behind the knot of a sincture, the condition of the embroidery, the quality of linen, and the presence of lace is relegated to women, yet this is something that deeply concerns many liturgical pastors. In any other aspect of life save the military, such attention to dress or to decor would be labeled as effeminate or metrosexual. Yet the fact that this is characteristic of The Church and developed solely under the guidance of men shows that it indeed is not...and at one time, in real life would not have been the case in regular life. After all, John Hancock and George Washington definitely cared about the powdering of their hair, the quality of their lace, and how favorably their knickers showed their calves...yet they were brave and very manly. And in The Church, it is perfectly natural and masculine to want to adorn the Bride with things that emphasize her beauty.
We need to be careful what traits we attribute to men or women. I grew up thinking men were cold and unfeeling, yet that is not the case and such a perspective is insulting to men as a whole. They are often nurturing and gentle, yet hopefully strong and courageous. I would attribute the same traits to women as well.
I take it as a good sign that in over a month of broadcasts, this is the only one that I have really had an issue with. The rest, gentlemen, if you are reading, have been impeccable, enjoyable, and enlightening.
Well, I feel better now. This has been on my chest for a few weeks, but I was too PMS'd and emotional to even think about blogging about it before now I needed time to consider and gather my thoughts. ;)
I'm way behind on my Issues, Etc. listening. I tend to listen based on the order in my playlist, which is generally quasi-alphabetical, so I am not getting things chronologically. Most of the time I thoroughly enjoy listening and have learned so much. I can't believe that I missed this for how many years?
However, a couple of weeks ago I listened to the podcast which was a round table of pastors discussing the feminization of the church. There was an error made at the very beginning. They did not define their terms before they jumped right in to the discussion. It was not established exactly what "feminizing" means.
Here's the definition from Dictionary.com
tr.v. fem·i·nized, fem·i·niz·ing, fem·i·niz·es
To give a feminine appearance or character to.
To cause (a male) to assume feminine characteristics.
Still, this doesn't tell us much. We still have to define "feminine."
The American Heritage Dictionary listing defines it thusly:
Of or relating to women or girls. See Synonyms at female.
Characterized by or possessing qualities generally attributed to a woman.
Effeminate; womanish.
Grammar Designating or belonging to the gender of words or grammatical forms that refer chiefly to females or to things classified as female.
I thought the entry for the Websters Revised Dictionary makes an interesting point as well:
Note: Effeminate and womanish are generally used in a reproachful sense; feminine and womanly, applied to women, are epithets of propriety or commendation.
Still, these don't really list what qualities are considered feminine. And I think that is the problem, because that is what I heard when the pastors started in on their round table the instant that they were asked about "the feminization of the church."
From the starting gate, "subjective theology," "being ruled by emotion," "personal experience valued above doctrine," and contemporary Christian music and its emotional base, its inherent sexuality (from the beat, the swaying, and the "worship babes" were discussed as well as the groupies that the guys attracted-- sorry, this didn't ring true to my experience of contemporary worship. The guys that led it were tall, skinny, and didn't have a shred of animal magnetism to them....it was the pastor that was cute).
I fail to see how these attributes are uniquely feminine. These characteristics are much more representative of a post-modern culture that is filled with people who have never been trained in critical thinking or objective morality. Women have often been the safeguards of morality in our culture (possibly before The Pill made this guardianship of virtue unnecessary), and in different decades, subjective and seeker-sensitive could've just as easily been replaced with stern, inflexible, or pietistic. This alone tells me that attributing emotion and flexibility with gender is inaccurate.
Now, I do realize that the feminist movement has done a lot to destroy the culture of The Church. But these have been power issues and tearing down of doctrine in those areas. They have been related mostly to the office of the Holy Ministry as well as taking over areas where men have historically served as laymen as well. Also, with the increase in divorce, the feminist focus on career and degradation of the roles of wife and mother, and their insistence on "reproductive rights" have definitely torn apart all aspects of life, and The Church is definitely not immune to that.
But I am thinking that another word than "feminize" needs to apply to that phenomenon in particular. Maybe "feministication" would be better, because really, there is nothing feminine about what the Feminist Movement has done to our society. It has torn down all that has been valued in women throughout history and masculinized women, and left men completely confused as to their place in society -- without definition as to what it means to be a man).
To a large extent, The Church should be feminized. She is feminine. She is the Bride of Christ. She nurtures, strengthens, teaches, and protects her children. She is loyal and devoted to Her Bridegroom. And like any good mother, she understands there is right and wrong (Law), absolutes (doctrine and dogma), and forgiveness and need for rest and love (Gospel). These traits have always been recognized as feminine. They have always been desirable qualities in a wife and mother...and feminine is a word that is supposed to describe what is good in a woman, not what is bad. Too often anymore, woman is used to describe what is bad and I find that disturbing.
I am not saying these men hate women. I am saying that to a certain extent, they were guilty of "feminizing" if I were to use their term..since to them it meant hasty, emotional, nondescript, nebulous, subjective. There is nothing about contemporary worship that is uniquely feminine...in fact, for a long time, it was a movement that was created and pushed more by men than women. Music is an expression of what is important to us. While I question the use of the medium in worship or the theology that most of these songs convey, it is not feminine. There is nothing particularly or uniquely feminine about the rejection of doctrine and replacing it with subjective experience and emotional guidance. This is not gender-based, unless you are falling into cruel stereotypes.
I notice that concern for paraments and vestments was not listed in the definition of feminine. In any other realm, how a table is dressed, the symbolism behind the knot of a sincture, the condition of the embroidery, the quality of linen, and the presence of lace is relegated to women, yet this is something that deeply concerns many liturgical pastors. In any other aspect of life save the military, such attention to dress or to decor would be labeled as effeminate or metrosexual. Yet the fact that this is characteristic of The Church and developed solely under the guidance of men shows that it indeed is not...and at one time, in real life would not have been the case in regular life. After all, John Hancock and George Washington definitely cared about the powdering of their hair, the quality of their lace, and how favorably their knickers showed their calves...yet they were brave and very manly. And in The Church, it is perfectly natural and masculine to want to adorn the Bride with things that emphasize her beauty.
We need to be careful what traits we attribute to men or women. I grew up thinking men were cold and unfeeling, yet that is not the case and such a perspective is insulting to men as a whole. They are often nurturing and gentle, yet hopefully strong and courageous. I would attribute the same traits to women as well.
I take it as a good sign that in over a month of broadcasts, this is the only one that I have really had an issue with. The rest, gentlemen, if you are reading, have been impeccable, enjoyable, and enlightening.
Well, I feel better now. This has been on my chest for a few weeks,
Monday, August 04, 2008
Issues, Etc. and LCMS Finances
Issues, Etc. released a podcast only webcast EXTRA on August 1st that covered in depth the history of the last few years as to how they came to be cancelled, from what they knew. I highly recommend listening to it.
Some things covered:
1. The biggest myth: That KFUO FM's purpose is to fund KFUO AM, and without it, KFUO AM probably would not exist.
truth: KFUO as a whole annually requires a half a million dollar subsidy from Synod to stay on the air. KFUO FM's expenses are far higher than KFUO AM. KFUO FM is not self-supporting, and therefore not able to support KFUO AM
2. Both stations use the same call letters so that funds can be directed from the AM station TO the commercial FM station. No wonder they got an "F" grade from a major charity watchdog association.
3. Budget, staffing, and promotion priority is "Classic 99," the FM station, NOT the station that proclaims the Gospel, despite the fact that KFUO FM is still, as pointed out earlier...is NOT serving the function to support KFUO AM.
4. KFUO administration is very concerned (Todd and Jeff used the word 'paranoid') about the idea of KFUO FM being sold off by the Synod for revenue or consolidation. This led to increasing conflict between the cause of KFUO -- which was to maintain a clean image, and Issues, Etc. which was to proclaim the Gospel and to instruct its listenership on how to view current events from a confessional Lutheran perspective.
5. Issues, Etc. was not given credit in its ledger for the income it generated independently through its' syndication, advertising, and its own fundraising efforts. In fact, as stated before, donors to the Reformation Club who lived within one hundred miles of St. Louis, did not their monthly donations applied specifically to Issues, Etc. at all. Instead, they went into the General Fund. From the information that was provided in this podcast, one has to assume that also means that it went to benefit KFUO FM, which plays contemporary classical music.
6. Even though Issues, Etc. offered to cover all of its expenses and give KFUO its broadcast for free, so as to break the programming association between KFUO and Issues, Etc., Todd and Jeff were told that after the last convention, that no connection could occur between the two, and that their show probably would not last into September (it lasted another six months).
Having the show independent is a great thing. However, I do think that the powers that be at LCMS, Inc. have benefited from its being off of KFUO. When I have the radio on, there are times that I listen to shows that I don't necessarily agree with but that make me aware of things. Now, in order to listen to Issues, Etc., I have to WANT to listen to it. Listeners in the various markets that they were aired in had people that stumbled across them and learn from them and be made aware of places that confessional Lutheranism differed from other trends in Christianity. Now, that is not the case, at least not until they come to the point where they can again seek national syndication.
We have seen in many different venues now, the liberties that LCMS, Inc. is taking with the financial resources of the Synod. LCMS Foundation, which is its fundraising arm -- charges exhorbitant rates for its fundraising work. Pastor Wilken and Mr. Schwarz both state the amount they were told frequently was 40%, as opposed to the industry standard of 10%. The Synod is taking funds that are supposed to go to World Relief and placing them in LCMS investment accounts "temporarily" so they can earn interest. Missionaries are required to raise $120,000 per year, usually more than twice their costs of support in the mission field, in order to remain in the field each year.
All of this is highly irregular.
All of this makes me wonder what is happening with the money that our congregations are sending in for synod support (and increasingly NOT sending in). It makes me wonder if the whole reason why benefits costs increase so dramatically every year is solely because of the increasing cost of benefits. Our insurance program costs have made every insurance agent I have ever talked to exclaim in horror.
Next year, our Synod is going to be asking the congregations to consider a new constitution. Some theorize that the financial relationships of congregations with the Synod might also be restructured. I really think that it is absolutely necessary that we call for an opening of the books for an independent review to make sure that all is in order before anything is changed. The more I hear about synodical financial practice, the more I am deeply concerned.
Some things covered:
1. The biggest myth: That KFUO FM's purpose is to fund KFUO AM, and without it, KFUO AM probably would not exist.
truth: KFUO as a whole annually requires a half a million dollar subsidy from Synod to stay on the air. KFUO FM's expenses are far higher than KFUO AM. KFUO FM is not self-supporting, and therefore not able to support KFUO AM
2. Both stations use the same call letters so that funds can be directed from the AM station TO the commercial FM station. No wonder they got an "F" grade from a major charity watchdog association.
3. Budget, staffing, and promotion priority is "Classic 99," the FM station, NOT the station that proclaims the Gospel, despite the fact that KFUO FM is still, as pointed out earlier...is NOT serving the function to support KFUO AM.
4. KFUO administration is very concerned (Todd and Jeff used the word 'paranoid') about the idea of KFUO FM being sold off by the Synod for revenue or consolidation. This led to increasing conflict between the cause of KFUO -- which was to maintain a clean image, and Issues, Etc. which was to proclaim the Gospel and to instruct its listenership on how to view current events from a confessional Lutheran perspective.
5. Issues, Etc. was not given credit in its ledger for the income it generated independently through its' syndication, advertising, and its own fundraising efforts. In fact, as stated before, donors to the Reformation Club who lived within one hundred miles of St. Louis, did not their monthly donations applied specifically to Issues, Etc. at all. Instead, they went into the General Fund. From the information that was provided in this podcast, one has to assume that also means that it went to benefit KFUO FM, which plays contemporary classical music.
6. Even though Issues, Etc. offered to cover all of its expenses and give KFUO its broadcast for free, so as to break the programming association between KFUO and Issues, Etc., Todd and Jeff were told that after the last convention, that no connection could occur between the two, and that their show probably would not last into September (it lasted another six months).
Having the show independent is a great thing. However, I do think that the powers that be at LCMS, Inc. have benefited from its being off of KFUO. When I have the radio on, there are times that I listen to shows that I don't necessarily agree with but that make me aware of things. Now, in order to listen to Issues, Etc., I have to WANT to listen to it. Listeners in the various markets that they were aired in had people that stumbled across them and learn from them and be made aware of places that confessional Lutheranism differed from other trends in Christianity. Now, that is not the case, at least not until they come to the point where they can again seek national syndication.
We have seen in many different venues now, the liberties that LCMS, Inc. is taking with the financial resources of the Synod. LCMS Foundation, which is its fundraising arm -- charges exhorbitant rates for its fundraising work. Pastor Wilken and Mr. Schwarz both state the amount they were told frequently was 40%, as opposed to the industry standard of 10%. The Synod is taking funds that are supposed to go to World Relief and placing them in LCMS investment accounts "temporarily" so they can earn interest. Missionaries are required to raise $120,000 per year, usually more than twice their costs of support in the mission field, in order to remain in the field each year.
All of this is highly irregular.
All of this makes me wonder what is happening with the money that our congregations are sending in for synod support (and increasingly NOT sending in). It makes me wonder if the whole reason why benefits costs increase so dramatically every year is solely because of the increasing cost of benefits. Our insurance program costs have made every insurance agent I have ever talked to exclaim in horror.
Next year, our Synod is going to be asking the congregations to consider a new constitution. Some theorize that the financial relationships of congregations with the Synod might also be restructured. I really think that it is absolutely necessary that we call for an opening of the books for an independent review to make sure that all is in order before anything is changed. The more I hear about synodical financial practice, the more I am deeply concerned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)