More on why I stay at All Saints
It's early on a Tuesday morning, I'm almost done with a batch of grading, and looking forward to today's lectures: birth control history at 8:50, Roman origins (and a summary of the Aeneid narrative) at 10:25, and "the Terror" and the Thermidorean Reaction at 1:00PM. Reasonably familiar topics all, for a superficial generalist like myself, but it's always helpful to brush up a bit.
I'm going to try and follow-up on yesterday's post a bit. In the comments, Swan asked:
...my question to Hugo is: Why do you stay with this "church" instead of going to a church with true Christian teaching AND where great things are done?
Do you think God will bring change to All Saints back to true Christianity through you?
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a woman who is very active in ministry at Pasadena's conservative evangelical mega-church, Lake Avenue. Lake is not affirming of women in the pastorate, but they don't bar women from taking all sorts of other vital leadership roles. She told me that on occasion, both at Lake and at other evangelical institutions, she was often the only woman in the room during leadership meetings who was not either a secretary or married to one of the pastors. I asked her about this, and she immediately said "Better one token woman in leadership than no woman at all." From what I gathered, she does believe men and women should hold equal roles in ministry, and yet she chooses to stay in a non-affirming church because she believes her witness to be vital. She also knows that even if she is denied the pulpit, she can have considerable influence in other areas. I honor her decision, and it is similar to my thinking about All Saints Pasadena.
As long-time readers of this blog know, I was once on the Vestry at All Saints. I resigned in October 2002 and transferred my membership to Pasadena Mennonite Church. I felt spiritually alienated from my fellow Vestry members (all of whom were lovely, delightful people, by the way). I was tired of feeling like I was part of "the liberal Democratic party at prayer" rather than a counter-cultural, radical church. The fact that our Vestry meetings were often catered wine and cheese affairs bothered me, especially when our plates and glasses were cleared by the church's entirely Latino custodial staff. (Combine my theology with my white guilt, and you see the problem.) Above all, I was troubled by All Saints' reluctance to proclaim Jesus as Lord, as Savior, as something more than just a wise leader of a first-century peace and justice movement.
Mennonite theology was a perfect fit. Well, sort of. My experience with the Mennonites was illuminating and humbling. I was enchanted with notions of pacifism, simplicity, and radical servanthood. Then I realized just how demanding those things are in practice. While I loved the often spirit-filled worship at PMC, and the emphasis on both Jesus and justice, I found myself (not surprisingly) troubled by the lack of diversity, particularly on sexual issues. Without getting into details, I found that the gulf between my own experience and the life experience of most of those in leadership in PMC was vast. (Hardly anyone at PMC had ever divorced, much less three times.) At first, I found the congregational reluctance to discuss issues of sexuality to be refreshing (sometimes, it seems that's all that ever gets talked about at All Saints!) But as time changed, I found the universal and uncritical assumption about married heterosexuality to be overwhelming. I found that my own values and those of the congregation were at odds.
I've spent too much of my life as a "grass is greener on the other side" kind of guy. I've hopped from marriage to marriage, from church to church, from political view to political view, from fashion to fashion. I've gained a superficial acquaintance with a great many things, which allows me to converse reasonably knowledgeably with Pentecostals about getting "slain in the Spirit", with Catholic conservatives about my brief membership in Communion and Liberation, and with folks in the fetish community about unusual kinds of body piercings. But I've never put down roots anywhere, with anyone, except -- by default -- here at PCC, where I've taught for over a decade.
In 2004, I came back to All Saints and got engaged to my fiancee. I've done a lot of work, work too personal to be blogged, on changing myself to become the kind of man who will be a devoted, patient, stable husband (and Lord willing, a father.) My fiancee and I have a relationship of trust and devotion, proved over time and through trial, that has been unlike anything I've ever known. As I learn what it means to be someone's partner, someone's soulmate, for the first time, I'm also learning what it means to stay in community. I came back to All Saints not because I thought it was perfect but because it was home. I realized that my search for the "just right" church would mean an endless, tiresome wandering. It would mean leaving when things got boring or tough. I've been there, done that, and moved on. That kind of endless searching, so typical for folks today (especially here in SoCal), gets old.
I'm staying at All Saints even when it infuriates me. I stay because I love the church and its people. I love them as a family that nurtures me and challenges me, even when I disagree with them. I'm staying because of the youth group, filled as it is with all sorts of interesting boys and girls whom I adore and who help me to practice radical love and acceptance. I'm staying because, to paraphrase my Lake Avenue friend, "Better one evangelical at All Saints than no evangelical at all." I don't think I'm going to lead some kind of great revival at All Saints. But as long as I am allowed to serve the youth, as long as I am allowed at the eucharistic table, I'm going to stay and worship and pray and fellowship in this flagship church of progressive Anglicanism. I'm not going to be silent in my criticisms, but I'm not going to stalk off because the teaching from the pulpit doesn't fit my own worldview. I'm going to stay, and let my roots sink into the soil a bit. I need a place to call home, however imperfect it may be. And no place has ever welcomed me, a very great sinner, like All Saints has.
Nice post, a couple of comments:
(1) In my personal experience--getting over my white guilt means getting over my arrogance. I got to know some of those immigrant custodial staff at church; I had Sunday lunch at their house as a guest; I went went south and walked the border and talked to the people waiting at the fence to run across in search of work--I learned about the dignity of work, the gracious hospitality of the poor. It is an honor for me now to rub shoulders with those workers who clear my table and clean the floors.
(2) I stay at a church that is inadequate in many ways. Many of my friends have gone on to green pastures. It is in staying that I experience giving and recieving grace. I know the people. I know their problems. God is there in spite of it.
(3) and now for something really important--I have been waiting for you to blog about the coming Tour de California announce by Anshutz, et al on Friday. The professional cycling event is likely to be in February 2006.
Posted by:Glen | March 29, 2005 at 08:22 AM
You're far ahead of me, my dear. I've been struggling with a serious crisis of faith of late and don't even know if I truly believe in God, much less which spiritual community I want to join. I keep reading and meditating and searching and hoping I'll find at least a few answers.
Posted by:Kat | March 29, 2005 at 08:28 AM
Glen, I read about the Tour de California. Any idea where it will go? The Napa Valley and Solvang areas are naturals, of course...
Posted by:Hugo | March 29, 2005 at 08:29 AM
A very nice post, Hugo.
If you and your fiance are ever in Austin, stop by Austin Mennonite. You'd enjoy the adult Sunday school discussions. :-)
Posted by:Caitriona | March 29, 2005 at 08:30 AM
May this community be a blessing to you, Hugo, and may it be blessed through you.
Many things have changed for you, Hugo. May God's Spirit continue to work in you and empower you. May you continue to be shaped into the image of Christ our Lord. You have shared with me the struggles, my brother in Christ. May you continue to have community that will stand with you and pray with you in your imperfections, and in God's perfecting process.
Blessings, Hugo.
Posted by:Bill Ekhardt | March 29, 2005 at 08:37 AM
Thank you, Bill. I'm humbled by your blessing, my friend!
Posted by:Hugo | March 29, 2005 at 08:42 AM
Thanks Hugo, for answering my question in so much detail!
Like your friend, I am a member of Lake Avenue Church.
In your own humble way, you basically answered my question with yes: You are serving the youth, practice radical love and acceptance, and voice your criticisms. The seed you sow may grow at All Saints if that's in God's plan.
You even add another good reason for staying: it is home. I agree that there is no church that can be perfect or "just right". Instead it makes sense to stay in a community where you feel at home and can make a difference and it is important to develop deep relationships.
I'd like to clarify one thing you mention about Lake Avenue Church. The senior pastor is a man, but women can take all kinds of leadership roles, including pastoral. We have several female pastors, and a woman is leading Warehouse (which is basically a whole congregation in itself) as Director together with the pastor of Warehouse.
I'd love to get to know your Lake Avenue friend (Maybe I already know her? - Feel free to give her my contact information...) It sounds like we may have a lot in common.
Posted by:Swan | March 29, 2005 at 11:31 AM
Swan, I'm glad to hear that about Lake Avenue, I stand corrected. I went to Warehouse regularly, and once had a very nice coffee date with Tim Osborn, who may or may not still be pastoring young adults there. A lovely guy.
Posted by:Hugo | March 29, 2005 at 11:43 AM
Yes, Tim Osborn is still Pastor of Young Adults and Warehouse.
Posted by:Swan | March 29, 2005 at 11:57 AM
It's interesting, Tim and I never followed through on what we met about: planning some joint activities with young adults at All Saints and Lake Ave, with a focus on building bridges and getting to know people across the theological divide.
Posted by:Hugo | March 29, 2005 at 12:01 PM
It's not too late :-)
Posted by:Swan | March 29, 2005 at 12:10 PM
I came back to All Saints not because I thought it was perfect but because it was home.
This resonates for me. I am a happy and proud member of my congregation; I serve on the board of directors, chair the religion committee, and have the profound honor of leading services when the rabbi is away. Is my shul perfect for me? Not by a long shot. But it's close enough to work, and that's what matters.
Yes, I sometimes wish we did a few things differently. But no place of worship is going to be exactly what I'm looking for in every regard; this one comes close enough that I can be happy there, I can worship there and celebrate there, I feel welcomed there, and I can connect with God there. And sometimes I think the congregation's very "imperfections" (e.g. the ways in which it's not exactly perfectly right for me) are teaching tools -- I learn more about being in community when I try to adapt to those slightly rough edges than I would if I had designed exactly the congregation I think I'm looking for...
Posted by:Rachel | March 29, 2005 at 12:18 PM
The Sacramento Business Journal describes one leg for the Tour de California from the Capitol Building in Sacramento to Lake Tahoe--that sounds brutal!
Posted by:Glen | March 29, 2005 at 01:18 PM
Yikes, Glen -- that's a hell of a climb. And if it's hot, forget about it. Awesome.
Posted by:Hugo | March 29, 2005 at 02:07 PM
I'm impressed by Glen's comment, but I'd also add that feeling 'white guilt' ought to encourage a little 'white thinking.' Why are all the custodial staff Latino? Are we paying them an honorable, living wage? Do we treat them with dignity?
IOW, I don't believe the choices are purposeless 'white guilt' vs. a kind of anger and resentment at 'PC' suggestions and an insistence that there is nothing, nothing to see here.
Posted by:mythago | March 29, 2005 at 03:15 PM
Good post, I think community is priority number one and you are on such a different point in the spectrum for me, it is good to hear that you have reservations about continuing to hang in our group too. I certainly have points where I just want to scream at my conservative pew-mates. But then, I am, for sure, someone else's conservative. And BTW, though we are not allowed to know anything about her. . . I am happy you are going to marry soon. it is soon, no?
Posted by:Erica | March 29, 2005 at 04:44 PM
Interesting post, Hugo. I was wondering what the reason was for the church switch. I started visiting your blog about a year ago, after I came across it as I was googling for Mennonite and Anabaptist blogs.
Posted by:jeremyw | March 29, 2005 at 07:11 PM
I'm not Evangelical, more of an Anglo-Catholic socialist type myself, but where we can agree is "Jesus is Lord". For me, orthodox dogma and doctrines with the broad range of acceptable interpretations given them over two centuries can be means of liberation for queer Christians as we appropriate these for ourselves, especially the emphasis on the importance of the body and community, in the ongoing work of tradition.
At seminary, I found myself being labeled conservative because of my broadly catholic theological leanings, at home I was the flaming "liberal" because of my positions on women and queer folk. It's always odd to find oneself seen from such at-odds perspectives.
I have to say, I like Camassia, lean more toward Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Cross, as Atonement is not the primary issue in our creedal formulations as formulate by the Fathers, but divinization or theosis, our communion with G-d. Nonetheless, I respect St. Anselm's substitutionary approach richly contextualized in feudal law or Luther's very incarnational understanding of atonement or even Calvin's. Theirs are all far cries from the caricature of their thought given by some feminist theologians or proclaimed as good news by some evangelicals who indeed do preach a child-abuse atonement model.
Christ is Risen!
Posted by:*Christopher | March 29, 2005 at 07:27 PM
There are all kinds of Anabaptist-leaning Anglicans out there. Are we just high-church Mennonites?
While I don't buy all of Anabaptism (mainly the baptism part), their refusal to baptize infants led to an openness towards the hard sayings of Jesus that makes Anabaptism so attractive.
By blending their pacifism and communal emphasis with the beauty and otherness of liturgy, we Anabaptist-leaning Anglicans the best of both worlds.
Posted by:Thunder Jones | March 30, 2005 at 12:33 PM
Where I'm from, there are also a lot of Anglican-leaning Mennonites. Maybe it's just a local thing, but there's one particular Anglican church here in Winnipeg that my father sometimes jokes is the fastest-growing Mennonite church. I think it's partly out of appreciation for high church liturgy. My understanding is that these are also Mennonites with a more liberal theology, although you could find Mennonite congregations here that are probably equally liberal.
Posted by:jeremyw | March 30, 2005 at 04:10 PM
> My understanding is that these are also Mennonites with a more liberal theology,
> although you could find Mennonite congregations here that are probably equally liberal.
Jeremy,
My husband and I are on the more conservative end of a liberal Mennonite congregation. About half our congregation are "ethnic" Mennonites, many having come from more strictly conservative backgrounds. The rest of us grew up Southern Baptist, Anglican, etc. The majority of our congregation also have at least some college education, and many teach in the local universities, whereas the Mennonite congregations I know of on the other end of the spectrum (in Seminole, TX; Chahuahua, Mexico; etc) attend school through the 8th grade. There are many other differences between congregations, although faith-wise, we are all pretty close.
Posted by:Caitriona | March 31, 2005 at 06:24 AM
Oh, Pasadena Mennonite was very liberal by the standards of MCUSA on most issues, but very divided on the sexual ones. To their credit, the PMC folks chose not to discuss sexual ethics issues (homosexuality, premarital sex) because the congregation was nearly exactly split -- and besides, a focus on pelvic morality would have meant a failure to focus on what most considered more vital social justice issues.
Posted by:Hugo | April 04, 2005 at 08:04 AM
That's very understandable. At AMC, we don't discuss sexual issues very often, but they do come up from time to time. We tend to focus more on relationship issues, whether they be within the circle of family and friends, or within the broader area of community and world.
Catherina
Posted by:Caitriona | April 04, 2005 at 08:56 AM