How Can I Keep from Singing?
This post is meant to introduce myself as a new blogger on BLT: to express where I’m coming from, where my roots and foundations are, and where my passion lies. If you wanted to put labels on me (labels can be useful but also limiting, so I wear them only loosely), you could say I’m an idealist and a synthesist. I look at life not so much in terms of the way things are, but in terms of the way things ought to be: the ideal. At the same time, I have a fundamental urge to bring disparate or conflicting things/people together, to find ways they can relate, things they have in common. Sometimes the two work together: in an ideal world, opposition would not mean conflict, but mutual appreciation and harmony. Sometimes, though, my idealism and my synthesism are actually in opposition to one another. I can’t bring something that I feel deeply is fundamentally wrong, into harmony with the good which it opposes. I can only hope that someday the wrong will be made right.
The old song lyrics above represent my basic attitude towards life: a vision of the ideal carries me through opposition to ultimate harmony. My vision strives to be the vision of Jesus: the new creation, the kingdom of heaven, which has come, is coming, and will someday come in completion. The new creation is inaugurated through the New Covenant that Christ ratified with his sacrifice. In the new creation, we “no longer view anyone according to the flesh.” 2 Cor. 5:16-17. The new creation destroys the dividing lines of race, gender, class and economic status. The new creation is where idealism and synthesism meet and join hands forever.
This, then, is the light in which I try to live. This is the way I read the Bible: in terms of the grand sweep of God’s redemption through human history. God created humankind in God’s image– but humankind, given a choice whether or not to trust God, chose not. God established first an Old Covenant kingdom based on being led by law, into which to bring the Christ. Christ’s coming brought a New Covenant based on being led by the Spirit. Gal. 5:18. The New Covenant began to bring in the new creation, the kingdom of God– and I look at all of the Bible in terms of where each book and passage fits within that grand sweep. Galatians 3:28-4:7 are about far more than our equality in salvation. That passage is one of the central descriptions of what the new creation is all about. We are all “sons of God,” because we have all received the “adoption as sons.” That phrase “adoption as sons” (Gal 4:5) was understood by the original, ancient Greek audience to mean something special and specific– and what God inspired is the message that the original author wrote, as the original audience would have understood it. We can’t understand what it means to us, until we see what it meant to them. And what they understood was that to be “adopted as a son” meant the granting to an adoptee of full status as a male free-born citizen, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. Paul did not say we were adopted as “sons and daughters,” because daughters had far less status, rights and privileges in that society– and Paul intended to convey that everyone in the groups he mentioned had the same status, the same rights and privileges. And what they all had — Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female– was “adoption as sons.” That’s what the original audience would have understood, and that’s what we should understand now.
For too long some Christians have said to others, “We are the ones with the powers and privileges, the spiritual gifts and callings to leadership. You have salvation in Christ, and we are all equal in that– but if you desire the leadership gifts that belong to us, you’re out of your proper place; you’re overstepping your bounds. Be content with your salvation and don’t sin by thinking you can do what we do in the kingdom.” But this is not what the new creation, the kingdom of God, is about. Any interpretation of Scripture that contradicts the essence of the new creation, cannot be correct.
Much of the church is in conflict over this issue as it relates to women’s place in the church and home. My synthesistic heart grieves and wants us all brought together. But my idealistic heart will not rest until the kingdom comes as it was meant to be. “Through all the tumult and the strife” — and believe me, I have been attacked and opposed– I still hear the music ringing. The sweet, far-off hymn hails the new creation, and someday it will end the strife. But for now, we who desire the new-creation kingdom must stand (in love and a spirit of gentleness, but confidently) against all views that are according to the flesh– according to race, economic status or gender. And we will succeed.
How can I keep from singing?
~ Kristen Rosser
BLT 
Kristen,
Thank you for making such a personal-public statement, idealistic and synthesistic.I find myself sometimes at a loss as to how, or whether, to respond. This is, after all, your story and your song. (Some of the things you speak of, and sing about, and the very words used, do bump up against some of my own story and what I have been forced, as a child, to sing, even in my own bits of personal-public statements.) I very much appreciate your strength, your conviction, your vulnerability, and your clarity. We other co-bloggers here at BLT, not any one of us the same as the other, value your voice. Thanks for singing here.
Kurk,
Thanks for your reply; I’ve spent some interesting moments following the link you provided, and then the links provided there. I had read some of it before, of course– but I appreciate your vulnerability, clarity and conviction as well. Interestingly, speaking of singing, one of the defining songs of my life was “Away in a Manger,” which my mother sang to me (whether it was Christmas time or not) as a lullaby when I was small. I think the simplicity of that song went with me through all the complications that people later added to religion in my life, and it was that simplicity that I eventually returned to: “I love thee, Lord Jesus, look down from the sky, and stay by my cradle till morning is nigh.”
Perhaps this is the source both of my idealism and my synthesism. I believe that you and I, and the other contributors to this blog, are seeking that simplicity still, in all our various ways.
Welcome, Kristen! What a lovely and inspiring introduction… and it came with its own soundtrack, too, as I can’t see those lyrics without hearing the song. It’s one of my favorites, too, not only for its Hope, but also as a frequent choir member and someone for whom song is very much twice-prayer.
Very interesting point about “sons”, too, that I’ve been thinking on since I first saw your post. The (relatively) recent Catholic missal translation frequently uses “heirs”: although I don’t know offhand what Latin word it’s translating, this is not a word that I recall hearing very often in the 1970 ICEL translation, so it’s been interesting to have that theme brought forward.
Thanks, Victoria! I think it makes sense to use “heirs,” because the passage really does mean both male and female heirs of God– but I also think it’s important to note how the idiomatic phrase “adoption as sons” would have been understood in Greek by the original audience.
Hi Kristen,
Welcome!! I am so happy that you have joined us. I have experienced one of those unexpectedly busy weeks, so I am late in welcoming you.
When you say synthesist, I think also of reconciliation, reconciling what we know to be true on the one hand, with what we know to be true on the other hand. Yes, seeking simplicity in a blend of what is real in our life, not pushing away the good because it was part of the bad that happened.
I am so happy this week to find out I will be a grandmother soon!! A surprise but a very happy one! Do I distance myself in the tiniest bit from being a woman because I have rejected the boundaries imposed by certain parts of the church? Not a chance. Out come the tiny knitted sweaters with bonnet and booties, the crocheted blankets – well you get the picture. Who can suggest that equality of function, not being restricted to the domestic, means that a woman cannot fully participate in all that is feminine?