Professor Rapp stopped
by the cafeteria on his way to the faculty meeting. He wanted a cup of coffee and, since he had
some extra time, thought he might treat himself to a walnut cranberry muffin as
well. It seemed just the thing for a
cold, snowy, day in New England. Shortly
after sitting down, several of the seminary students asked if they could join
him. They, too, were early for their
course on the exegesis of Paul’s letter to the Colossians.
James Adoyo, a
student from Kenya, introduced a subject for discussion. “We are studying Colossians 3 today,
Professor. I wonder if you have any
thoughts on Paul’s statement in verse 11 about there being no Greek or Jew,
circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, or free.”
Professor Rapp: “Ah,
that is an excellent verse. As a matter
of fact, at the faculty meeting I will be attending shortly, we will be interviewing
a candidate to join our faculty who is an Inuit woman from northern Canada. We have decided to diversity our faculty,
which has far too many white males teaching here.”
Adoyo: “So, you
believe that this verse is encouraging diversity in the Colossian church?”
Rapp: “Well,
yes. It seems rather clear. The author of this letter mentions all these
different groups, doesn’t he? He
mentions ethnic diversity when he says, ‘Greek or Jew,’ religious diversity
when he says, ‘circumcised or uncircumcised,’ and economic diversity when he
says, ‘slave or free person’. And ‘barbarian’
probably captures several ideas for an audience in the Roman Empire that have
to do with the inclusion of outsiders, the poorly educated, and even
enemies. Certainly, the author’s mention
of Scythian brings this out as they were regarded as a fierce, warlike people
that was uncivilized, to say the least.
Also, inside the Empire, they were slaves. So, yes, Paul is showing off the diversity of
the Christian Church, and that is what we also want for our faculty.”
Helen Mitilini, a
visiting student from one of the Greek Aegean islands, said, “The author fails
to mention women in his list.”
Rapp: “Ah, but Paul
does elsewhere. For example, in Galatians
3.28 he says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free,
there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Mitilini: “I’m not
sure I like that. Sure, he mentions
gender here, but it does not seem to be a verse supporting gender diversity. Shouldn’t Paul have said, ‘There are both
males and females’ instead of ‘There is no male and female’? I don’t think I can use this verse to promote
feminism.”
Adoyo: “Even in
the Colossians passage, Paul—I think Paul was the author—says, “Here there is not
Greek and Jew,” and so on. In fact,
isn’t the point of both of these passages that in Christ the distinctions we
make in society are put aside? That is,
he is not at all promoting diversity but making it irrelevant to the new life
that we have in Christ.”
Rapp was a little
rattled by this. He had been hoping that
these diverse students would appreciate his affirmation of diversity. Self-assured, he still wanted the students’
approval. Someone passed him a Greek Bible
open to the verse in Colossians. He
noticed the conclusion of the verse and read it aloud, “But Christ is all and
in all.” Turning to the students, he
said, “Don’t you see, this is an inclusive statement. Christ includes all our diversity.”
Eldin Ricardo, the
third student, looked at the verse again.
“I think,” he said, “Paul is saying that our diversity exists in normal,
human society but not in Christ. Those
diversities that we celebrate in whatever group we are in do not exist in
Christ.”
Verticia McCrory
spoke up, “Isn’t there another one of these verses somewhere in 1 Corinthians?” She had her computer on and her Bible program
open. She searched “male and female” and
found nothing else. Then she searched, “Jews
or Greeks,” and 1 Corinthians 12.13-14 came up.
“Here it is,” she said, “I’ll read it.
“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks,
slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member
but of many.” I guess the passage doesn’t
mention males and females, but it has the same idea as the others.”
Rapp: “Very good,
Verticia. And that chapter in 1
Corinthians is all about diversity, isn’t it?
We have different gifts and need our different gifts.”
Adoyo: “I’m still
uncomfortable with this interpretation, Professor. Paul does not say that the different gifts are—or
have anything to do with—our ethnic or economic or social differences. The diversity that is valued is the diversity
in gifts that is provided, despite those differences, by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives us different spiritual
gifts. And, as with the other two
passages, he gives us those gifts not to celebrate our diversity but for the
purpose of unity. We seem to have the
wrong value if we read these texts to affirm diversity instead of unity as the
goal. The Holy Spirit is not the Church’s
Director of Human Resources making us sign Title IX affirmations of diversity;
He is the author of Church unity through divine gifting despite our human
diversity.”
The group was a
bit uneasy and remained awkwardly silent for a while. Professor Rapp played with his muffin and
took a slow sip of his coffee. Mitilini
finally broke the silence.
Mitilini: “I’m in
a course called The Multicultural Church.
We just read a book by a pastor of an inner-city church, and he builds
his argument for multicultural churches as the best expression of Christian
community from a passage in Revelation 7.
He’s all about multiculturalism and diversity.”
Verticia found the verses. “I think you might mean verses 9 and 10,” she
said. “After this I looked, and behold, a
great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes
and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed
in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud
voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”’
Mitilini: “Yes, that is
the passage. He argues that this means
that we should have multicultural churches that celebrate Christian diversity.”
Adoyo: “You said he lives
in a city?”
Mitilini: “Yes, I think
it was Baltimore, or maybe Chicago.”
Adoyo: “So, his argument is
that a multicultural church is a better church than a mono-cultural church?”
Mitilini: “Yes. He says that we need diversity, and we need
to demonstrate inclusiveness. You can’t
be inclusive if you are not diverse.”
Adoyo: “Well, there is a
certain logic to that. But it does mean
that the city churches would be considered better than country churches if the
city has diverse populations and the country area only has one tribal
group. Where I come from in northwest
Kenya, we are all from the same tribe. I
don’t think our church is any worse than a church in Nairobi that might have different
tribes worshiping together. Maybe the
point should be put in the negative: the church that is not open to diverse
groups but shuts them out fails to represent the unity we have in Christ. That does not make diversity a virtue, it
makes unity the Christian virtue.”
McCrory: “I don’t see
that passage in Revelation to be affirming diversity at all. Like those other passages in Paul, it is
affirming unity. I agree with James. In fact, Revelation 7 is about undoing the
story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11.
In Genesis, God’s curse on humanity is cultural diversity. It is not a virtue! In Revelation 7, the diversity that divides
us is overcome by God and the Lamb. The
problem with a focus on human diversity is that it takes our focus off God. God is our unity, not inclusiveness, not our
celebration of diversity.”
Ricardo: “I never thought
about that before. That is pretty deep,
Verticia! So, none of these passages are
promoting diversity. Diversity is just
the condition of fallen humanity. Diversity
is a condition, not a value and not a virtue.
What they promote is unity, and not because of our inclusiveness
but because of the salvation of God and because of the Lamb, as Revelation
says.”
This brought the group to
another moment of silence, and the students looked at Professor Rapp. But Mitilini spoke first, “What about Acts 6?”
Adoyo: “You mean when the
Hellenist Christians complained that the Hebrew Christians were not being fair
to them in the Jerusalem Church?”
Mitilini: “Yes. They said that the Hebrew Christians were
neglecting them in the daily food distribution.”
Professor Rapp: “I see
your point, Helen. Just as we are
seeking to appoint a person representing diversity on our faculty, so the
Jerusalem Church did this as an example for us today.”
Ricardo: “So, your
argument is that, because the church appointed some Hellenist deacons, the church
needs diversity?”
Rapp and Mitilini both
answered, “Yes.”
Ricardo: “I take the
point. However, I have to point out that
the church did not do this because they wanted to promote diversity but because
they needed representation for fairness.
For example, they did not say that the Twelve Disciples were all Jewish
men and they needed some Greeks or women to add to that group. They appointed representatives at the
deacon-level because the different groups needed advocates and representatives
in the community that they had. I don’t
see any basis here for either of two things.
First, there is no basis for going out and finding someone from a
different group—an Ethiopian or Indian, for example—in order to have diversity
in the Jerusalem Church. They needed
representatives for people already in the church. Second, there is no basis from Acts 6 to
argue that diversity is needed among the teachers—the disciples that daily
taught the congregation, as we read in Acts 2.42. The Hellenists were chosen as deacons to make
sure all were served. The church did not
need a Hellenist teacher; their teachers were chosen because they were the best
teachers. Frankly, although I’m Hispanic,
I don’t want someone to teach me at the seminary because he or she is Hispanic or
anything else but because he or she is a top scholar in the field.”
Adoyo: “I have to say
that I agree. I did not come to America
to study with white, American professors because our professors back in Kenya
are black Africans like me. I did not
come for some kind of ethnic diversity or cross-cultural or multicultural
experience. I came here because I heard
about the great academic reputation of this seminary.”
Mitilini: “Well, I came
here because I didn’t like the options back home. But, since I am here, I want women faculty,
not just men, and I’m glad this seminary has both.”
Adoyo: “But do you think
that women make better Bible scholars, or theologians, or Church historians,
and so forth because they are women?
Does a ‘feminist reading’ of Scripture help us to understand Scripture
better?”
Mitilini: “Well, they are
not necessarily any better than male scholars academically, but they do bring a
different perspective—I think.”
McCrory: “A feminist
perspective on Paul’s theology of justification by faith! Well, maybe in some cases—I’m not at all sure—you
have a point. But I’m with Ricardo and
Adoyo: I want the best professors for the subject matter, not advocates of
certain causes that are not to do with what I am learning. I didn’t come to seminary to explore
intersectionality or become an activist for ethnic, gender, or political causes. If I wanted that, I would have gone to
Columbia University in New York! I rather
want an education.”
Mitilini: “But our
community, not just the persons who teach us, needs diversity. We are enriched by having diversity, don’t
you think?”
McCrory: “You mean that
it is a value, but not the only value, and not the determinative value,
right? After all, if diversity were the
primary value for our community, we would intentionally hire a faculty member
from every different ethnic group and do that no matter whether they were
competent teachers or proven academics.”
Mitilini: “Yes, I suppose. However, I’m not so sure I like the idea of
professors lecturing us out of their academic competencies. I prefer classes where we students break up
into small groups and discuss the material among ourselves.”
Professor Rapp: “That is
how I like to teach. I used to lecture,
and students sat quietly taking notes.
Then I tested them on what they learned from me. There are studies, you know, that show that
people remember very little of what they hear in lectures. I now prefer the process of learning,
and I think that process is better as dialogue than passive listening.”
Adoyo: “But I could have
done that back in Kenya in my village with the elders sitting under a thorn
tree!” The others laughed—he had meant
to be funny. “Seriously, though, I can
have those conversations outside of class, like we are doing right now. In class, I want to hear what someone who has
spent years with the material has to say about it. I want and need some direction from a teacher
who has studied long and hard. A trusted teacher. That is why the disciples of Jesus were the
teachers in the Jerusalem Church: they had been with the Lord all during his
ministry, they had witnessed the cross and could attest to his resurrection,
and they had been taught and had studied the Scriptures.” He hesitated, and then decided to say it
anyway, “One of the worst things I’ve ever experienced in the church is the
home Bible study, where everyone chimes in with their take on what a passage of
Scripture means—all reading from their favorite translation and reflecting on
their life experiences from the past week.
None of them know what the passage is all about. That sort of group needs a teacher, and the
value of hearing from everyone, affirming every bizarre interpretation in the
spirit of love and inclusion, is nothing but a disaster!”
Ricardo: “Our culture
disagrees with you! At least, our
Western culture does. I guess it is
different in Kenya. It is funny, isn’t
it? Our Western, postmodern culture wants
to celebrate you for bringing in a different cultural perspective, but when your
perspective disagrees with our current values of diversity and inclusivity, it
doesn’t want to hear from you!”
McCrory: “Our culture
wants to exclude people in the name of inclusiveness all the time! If we love our homes, our neighborhoods, our
culture, we are called xenophobic. If we
believe God created two genders that correspond with biology, we are called
homophobic. If we enjoy any privileges
in life, we are viewed as the source of all misery and victimhood for the rest
of the world. If we don’t promote groups
who are not white males, we are bigoted.
If we don’t affirm children’s confused ideas about their gender,
whatever they are, we are hateful parents who need the State to intervene to
save our own children from our hateful parenting. And if we lack all kinds of diversity on our
faculty, we are told that we are clinging to power for a privileged group. This is what making diversity and
inclusiveness cardinal virtues or absolute values has done to us. We destroy whatever has been so that we can
worship whatever twenty-minute old idol we set up in its place. Of course, I can agree that, in society, we
often need representation so as not to run roughshod over minority groups—that is
why our founding father, by the way, insisted on an electoral college instead
of a simple democracy. It is strange
that many of the same people who insist on minority representation want to do
away with the electoral college.”
Adoyo: “In Kenya, we have
to be careful not to let one tribe take over the government and corruptly steal
all the toys from everyone else for themselves.
We have 57 different language groups in our small country. We need representation more than we need one
person, one vote, and yet the larger tribes tend to get elected to power. It is a real issue. But that situation is like the situation in
Acts 6. But that has to do with politics
and the country as a whole. We do not
need representation of the different tribes on a Bible school faculty in Kakamega:
we need qualified teachers. If you came
to teach in our Bible school,” he said, looking at McCrory, “we would not be
happy that you came to teach us as an American with West African heritage and a
woman; we would be happy if you know your Greek and can teach the students the
Bible.”
Just then, the Inuit
candidate for the faculty walked into the cafeteria, looking for a cup of
coffee. Eldin said he would get her one,
and she sat down with the small group.
Everyone looked a little awkward, until Helen said, “Could you tell us a
little about yourself?”
“Yes,” she answered. My name is Margaret Akeeshoo. “I was born in northern Canada, you can
probably tell by my looks, not so much by my accent. But my education has been mostly in Calgary,
and I also received my doctorate from the University of Toronto. Anyway, I’m not here as a candidate for the
faculty position because of all that. I
am an Anglican, and I have a particular interest in the Medieval Church. I hope the faculty here thinks that I can make
a good contribution to scholarship in that area.”
Mitilini: “We would be
happy to have another female faculty member.”
Dr. Akeeshoo: “Well, I’m glad
to see men and women studying here, and I’m glad the faculty is open to women
candidates and is not all male. My own
view is actually that the priesthood should be a male role, although I am
ordained as a deacon. I feel that I can represent
women in the Church in that role. In
Canada, there is a total meltdown in the Anglican Church as most outside our Inuit
churches have adopted the liberal, Western social agenda, such as affirming
homosexuality. Our Church is declining
fast—nobody sees much purpose in joining a Church when all it does is represent
the culture’s current values. If the
Church has nothing to say to the culture—why join it? In the classroom, though, I think I have an
important role to play—not because I am a woman but because I love my subject
area and have spent years studying it. I
think that students will find value in that.
Of course, as part of the seminary community, I think that I would have
a role to play with the women here—and the men might benefit from a womanly
perspective now and then, too! But the
truth is, I won’t likely attract many Inuit students to this seminary if hired—it
is so far away from our people. In any
case, they are, I hope, more interested in where they will get the best
education for them than that there is an Inuit professor somewhere. Don’t you think it is better to learn about
theological traditions than about cultural traditions? If Inuit Christians are Baptists or, say, Orthodox,
they might do better to study at one of those institutions than to find a
seminary with an Inuit, female professor to teach them about the Medieval
Church! Students come, or should come, to
learn about theology at a seminary, not to have cultural experiences or study
the social sciences.” Looking at
Professor Rapp, she added, “I hope the faculty is not interested in me because
I am an Inuit woman rather than a Church historian! I want to be valued for the excellencies of
my scholarship and teaching, not because of my race and gender. That would be insulting.”
Professor Rapp looked at
his watch. “Oh,” he said, “there is the
time. Shall we head to the faculty interview?” The students said good-bye and wished her
well. They also got up to go to their
class. “I hope you know your Greek,”
Adoyo said. “I heard we will be doing
nothing but translation today, and we have a substitute teacher.” “Really,” said Mitilini, “Who is it?” “I don’t know her name,” replied Adoyo. Ricardo, helping McCrory pack up her
computer, added, “Oh, I heard that her parents were missionaries to Greece and
she grew up there. I don’t know her
name, but she obviously knows her Greek!”
“Great!” Mitilini replied, “so do I!
It will be nice to hear someone speak my native language who doesn’t
sound like an American who never left New England before!” “Ouch!” said Adoyo, “that even hurts a
Kalenjin from Kakamega, Kenya! You
Greeks have an unfair advantage on the rest of us!” “Oh,” said Ricardo to Mitilini, with a slight
smile, “You mean it will be nice to be taught by a professor who is teaching
out of her competence in the field and not because of her contribution to the
diversity of our community? Shame on
you!”
No comments:
Post a Comment