ANZATS – Stream: Kinship and cross cultural issues of family
Rev Dr Amelia Koh-Butler
Executive Director, Mission Resourcing and
Faculty, Uniting College for Theology and Leadership, ACD
Abstract
Space for Grace: respectful discernment for developing a contextual theology of marriage.
Since 2011, a cohort of leaders of culturally and linguistically diverse communities in the Uniting Church in Australia, and some of its ecumenical partners, have been exploring how to articulate a theology of marriage. This has been done in the light of community pressures to adopt secular definitions of marriage.
Many of the cohort left homes and lands, sacrificing place and position to join Jesus on the margins of Australian society and the Australian Church. Their greatest welcome, in almost every case, has come from the First Peoples. Indigenous leaders have been consistently hospitable and generous in their words and deeds. Their respect for different familial and kinship models and responsibilities have opened up new lines of enquiry and discernment.
A greater struggle has involved trying to be heard by ‘dominant culture’. Some are aware of their ‘position’ and others are less aware of how privilege has inadvertently worked to keep some voices silent, unable to articulate positions of dislocation or dispossession. As we have shared in discussions with our First People family, silence does not always mean approbation, nor does it imply disapproval. Sometimes, there are simply no words that can be spoken or heard within the relationships required for respectful speaking and listening. Respectful dialogue may only be possible for some when there is a secure home for conversation, or at the very least, a place of temporary hospitality. For many, the calling of God to hold to the unity (expressed in the Trinity), requires us to be crucified, rather than utter words preventing restoration and reconciliation.
‘Space for Grace’ is not a position. It is an aspiration. It is not easily achievable, but is found in the promise of Heaven. People of many cultures can teach us ways of sacred Shalom that can only come by the grace of God.
Space for Grace:
respectful discernment for developing a contextual theology of marriage.
Amelia Koh-Butler
Introduction – “What do you mean, you don’t eat no meat?”
My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a 2002 Canadian-American romantic comedy film written by and starring Nia Vardalos and directed by Joel Zwick. The film is centered on Fatoula "Toula" Portokalos, a Greek American woman who falls in love with a non-Greek upper middle class "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" Ian Miller.
There is a great scene, when Toula explains to her aunt that Ian is vegetarian.
Her response illustrates her worldview…
[upon learning Ian is a vegetarian] What do you mean, you don't eat no meat? [The entire room stops, in shock. We hear plates break and there are gasps.] ...That's okay, that's okay. I make lamb.
This is not as silly as it sounds. A few years ago, my husband, Terry, and I were in Spain to visit where his family had come from and, at the time, Terry was trying to be vegetarian. He would ask for a vegetarian salad and would be served with a tuna salad. For the Spanish, vegetarian meant no red meat, but they simply could not conceive of someone only eating vegetables… it was not part of their world-view.
In Adelaide, one of the best cafes is owned by an Aussie-Indian, who recently married. While the couple were legally married, they travelled to India, to get married in the eyes of the bride’s family. Until this ceremony and the blessings of family had occurred, her family could not feel they were really married.
This is a common issue among many Asian families, particularly Indonesian (but also some Korean), where wedding ceremonies and legal contracts are merely precursors to the real aspect of marrying which involves the blessings and union of families. In still other cultures, such as some traditional Chinese, the marriage is not considered to be enacted until a child has been born. While this may seem strange to us now, it is not so very different from an era where marriages could be annulled if there was no progeny.
Blended marriages have been around for a long time. In recent decades, the Church in Australia has had to reconsider how to encourage families whose building blocks have been inter-denominational, interfaith or intercultural. Such marriages have often been criticised or denigrated in Australian society, with politicians sometimes referring to the mixed children of these couples as mongrels or half-caste. I write as one of these children.
To enter into ‘Space for Grace’ it may be helpful for us to reflect first on who we are and call this to awareness. By knowing our own stories, we become less threatened as we seek to offer hospitality to others. We can listen and become comfortable with stories sitting alongside each other, rather than needing to dominate dialogue.
Consider:
- What is my sense of identity?
- How much of this has been shaped by my family situation?
- What other factors shape my world-view?
- Do I own or identify with particular values, beliefs or theological positions?
- How do those closest to me perceive me?
E.g. My story
Some would consider me to be a feminist and an advocate for the marginalised. I grew up in time of pluralism and hold to a hyphenated identity.
Impact on the theological task
Coming from a hyphenated identity of blended cultural influences, I resonate with diverse people centering on Christ, rather than fitting narrow exclusive criteria. This is an argument for discarding the homogenous unit principle, where church growth was linked with members being from similar social, ethnic or cultural background. Donald McGavran’s work was shaped by reflecting on mission in village settings where missionaries had to cross cultures to proclaim the gospel. He found people preferred to become Christians without leaving their bounded sets or crossing cultural boundaries.
However, in a contemporary pluralistic urban setting, where gospel proclamation is situated in-between and among multiple cultures, it is more helpful to recollect the early church, where Jews and Gentiles heard the gospel together (Acts 2:5-11, 11:19-21, 13:16, 26). The church grew across culturally-bounded sets and overcame cultural barriers between people groups. People needed to learn to cross cultures at home.
Identity, confidence and space for grace
The household table is often perceived to be hosted by a dominant culture group. Often, the people who are most unaware of a dominant culture are the ones who feel completely at home with it. Where hospitality becomes a caricature is where a dominant group assumes the role of Host at Christ’s table. Who can be Host, determining normative behaviour, by their own cultural standards, when the feast of Heaven is for all?
Knowing and articulating each story allows us to place them humbly beside the other stories with respect. Our experiences are vastly different, but we can only embrace the depth and wonder of divine community when we embrace the complexity of our difference. When we fail to provide space for gracious appreciation of difference, we fail to be the vibrant community God calls us to be.
Case Study: the experience of the UCA National Multi and Cross-cultural Ministry Reference Group (MCXC)
From as early as 2009, some members of the Uniting Church in Australia were talking about cultural understandings of marriage. Conversations about same-gender relationships and gender-identity had been part of ‘tricky issues’ conversations for some years. By 2011-2012, the Church had become aware of increasing conversation in the Australian community and in religious circles, as people began to pose questions about how the Church would respond to changing definitions of marriage and legal recognition of same-gender relationships.
Intentional conversations about marriage began in 2012. We did not, however, start by considering Same-Gender-Marriage. Instead, we considered how different Christian journeys and cultural experiences understood marriage and relationships of household or kinship. By listening to our different stories, we expected to find points of common understandings. We discovered the need to learn new common language and meaning with one another.
In 2009, the Uniting Church in Australia has adopted the following understanding:
the Spirit was already in the land revealing God to the people through law, custom and ceremony.
(Revised Preamble, UCA Constitution, 2009).
We reasoned that the Spirit may also have been revealing God in the laws, customs, ceremony and experiences in other communities. We determined to listen carefully to the various non-dominant-culture groups who had come into union. We sought to identify, and begin to map, the breadth of experience, hoping to identify themes and questions.
Initially, we learnt about very different practices within at least 14 different cultural experiences. Some themes were common, others completely different. Our previous assumptions about the world and marriage were completely overhauled in four hours. The complexity of the world had changed.
While this may seem like an anthropological approach, it should be remembered that in the conversation were theologians, liturgical scholars, missiologists, social developers and scientists. The majority were first generation Australian migrants. The conversation was rich, with different disciplines edging into the storying and clarifying questions. We learnt to care for one another as people invited into the hospitality of each other’s stories, learning to be guests in each other’s spaces. We had to tread carefully and respectfully, in ways that showed our preparedness to adjust ourselves to being in familial prayerful relationship with others of many different stories.
In only a few days, we went from being situated in our own lands and stories to being in globally-formed relationships with multiple world-views. This was made possible because of a shared reading of carefully holding all things in common (Acts 2) and seeing what God would nourish us with. We banqueted in each other’s offerings and understood different languages. We reeled from the experience. It was an experience of Pentecost. We would never be the same again. Stories were not used to set the boundaries of convention or rules of social gaming. Rather, they allowed us to better understand the etiquette and field of play. They gave us a guided tour of what was possible, rather than what was directed.
Undertaking to trial a new method…
At a second gathering, few months later, we had enough trust built up to start sharing about gender roles and gender-identity issues. Over the next three years we would gather at least six times in full plenary discussing marriage. We also undertook small group work, coming together in two states, with people contributing out of wider reading and research. We understood the diversity of the MCXC was its key strength. We wanted to explore how we could seek God and hold unity with our diversity.
We undertook theological reflection, featuring diverse stories and styles, in order to bring as many voices into the process as possible. Nuanced doctrines developed over centuries or decades, from different parts of the world, were used to stretch our thinking, rather than as tools for silencing engagement. This made a refreshing change, as each participant was able to recount occasions when their migrant voice had been silenced by dominant voices in the Australian context. Indeed, we reflected, the people who were most likely to hear our voices and listen deeply, were the other silenced voices, belonging to First People.
RESPECT Guidelines
Our meetings were shaped by values of RESPECT (and mutual invitation):
R – Responsibility. Take responsibility for what you say and feel. Use “I” statements.
E – Empathetic listening. Use empathetic listening.
S – Sensitive. Be sensitive to differences. Some people talk stories.
P – Ponder. Ponder what you hear and feel before you speak.
E – Examine. Examine you own assumptions and perceptions.
C – Confidentiality. Confidentiality rather than secrets.
T – Trust. Trust ambiguity we are not here to debate who is right or wrong.
(Eric Law, from the Kaleidoscope Institute http://www.ecfvp.org/files/uploads/Resources_from_Eric_Law.docx (last accessed November 2015)
Sensitivity to differences of style proved particularly helpful. Although many of us had been formed in Western-style (or Eurocentric) theological seminaries, we all had cross-cultural experience and an interest in broader theological method. In a group of (at times) sixteen or more people, most had teaching and research experience in a range of different seminary and university settings, employing quite different approaches to research. Additionally, being a group of mostly migrants (Asian, African, Pacific, European and Arabic-background), the group were well-travelled. There was no dominant culture view determining what could be considered normative. Normality was something to be negotiated, rather than assumed.
Adapting – rethinking the Wesleyan Quadrilateral
Sometimes, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is explained using a box, divided into four distinct parts. In this understanding, the components are sorted or categorised and organised into meaning (See Figure 1). At other times, the same ingredients can be used by a community to work towards community discernment.
Classic Western approaches to theologising, take the components of Scripture, Tradition and (in a reformed setting) Experience, and then use Reason to articulate understanding. In Figure 2, we see a somewhat different approach, where Scripture undergirds a conversation between Reason, Tradition and Experience. In Figure 3 (left), this goes further to suggest the inclusion of different ways of Reasoning, different cultural and religious Traditions and the lived Experiences of the interacting theologians. The first tries to treat the exercise as objective (as etic or objective outsider), while the last assumes a subjective (emic or subjective insider). The first approach talks of ‘the story’ and privileges a particular reading. The second approach suggest shared experience helps to shape theological questioning and thinking. The third approach talks of ‘our multiple stories’ and celebrates diversity. This final approach assumes that a community cannot participate in developing a deep grounded theology without hearing from a range of cultural encounters in which God may be revealed. It assumes God is revealed in diversity, not in privileging a particular dominant voice.
Scripture as orientation
The former lends itself to dichotomy and dualistic thinking. The latter lives with complexity and ambiguity. This seems to suit people who have to live with the ambiguity of hyphenated identity. The role of Scripture, as a place of orientation and reorientation, allows the diversity of people to engage in a common story, but recognise differences in how we experience it. Within the Scriptures are enough differences to allow people points of entry into conversation. However, this presumes that broad readings and approaches to Scripture will be welcomed in a gracious way. Tools, such as Godly Play, allow people to wonder together about texts without assuming a dominant interpretation, potentially tyrannising alternative readings. “Wondering” allows people to use theological imagination and gives people permission to attend to fresh imaginings. While we cannot fully picture what it means for a Palestinian to read of the heritage of violence in Canaan, we are not absolved of the responsibility of trying.
Tradition/s as cultural expression
In identifying the contributions from Tradition, the use of authorized or exemplar marriage services prompted the gathering to consider the myriad marriage services used by ecumenical partners. Language-specific and culturally-blended services have been used extensively across the UCA. Many of the adapted services have incorporated prayers, blessings, signs and symbols from the ecclesial traditions of those who have entered into union. Some of these have found their way into union through the prayerbooks and liturgical practices of Partner or Sister Churches. Others have been incorporated as migrants have shared the meanings of past rites and rituals that are passed on to descendants, enriching their spiritual practices through integrated heritage. Rather than taking a dismissive assimilation approach to such offerings, the group sought to discover what wisdom might be found in treating acts of understanding as respectfully as commentary about understanding. There was a desire to name the elements of Tradition that have been silenced, either through lack of opportunity or because they are difficult to footnote.
The underpinning relationship between Law and Tradition is a characteristic of a number of the migrant communities. In this, they have learnt from listening to indigenous theologians, both in Australia and other parts of the world. In some cultures, Law may be held by chiefly or shamanistic identities, in others Law may be held communally or in particular types or groups of relationships. In both cases, particularly fruitful concepts of Law can be explored in conversations about the Godhead, revelation and covenant.
In communities where Law is communicated orally and via incarnate ritual, written Tradition seems to step away from visceral meaning. The justification for exploring the role of embodied expressions of Tradition seems to come from sacramental theology, where we recognise Baptism and Holy Communion as being Jesus’ own exemplar signs and seals of a relationship that is often described as mysterious.
Sharing Experiences
Theological reflection, then, must apply not only to what we say, but also what we do. For many cultures communication is more deeply nuanced in non-verbal expressions than in written or spoken text. Not looking into someone’s eyes or face may be a protective act to ensure communication can be offered and received without risking seeing one another’s shame (and, therefore, sin). Such protections are not always possible with written text, where using someone else’s words against them has become normalised as acceptable, even in communities of faith. In many cultures, sharing someone else’s story (with or without attribution) is regarded as deeply shameful. Someone not being invited to share their own story, on their own terms, is not only an act of shame only for the non-invited, but also casts shame on the community that has breached the Laws of Hospitality by not offering the due respect of an appropriate invitation in the first place.
(e.g. story)
Story-sharing can be fraught with unintended dangers and consequences. What child of a migrant has not been spanked for sharing a story that could lead to judgment upon our entire ethnic community? Many a time we have heard the words, “Remember, everything you say and do reflects upon us… so don’t get us into trouble”. The most recent and troubling examples of this has been when young fa’afafine (Samoan) or fakaleiti (Tongan) or third gender Pacific Islanders have shared stories about their lives and experiences. Leaders from their own cultural communities have ‘shut them down’ by indicating they should be silent. Has this been a way of saving face or preventing communal shame from being experienced, due to the public naming of that which has been kept hidden?
It is understandable that people would not want those who know nothing (or too little) about third gender responsibilities and roles, to engage in debate about the very existence of such people. We should ask, however, what makes it so unsafe to have conversations about what it means to be human? In cultures where third gender has existed from beyond recorded time, there is no question about third gender people being whole people. There is, however, much that could be discussed about how they are understood, valued, treated and included within those cultures. We should not be so naïve as to assume the stories will be all good or all bad. Nevertheless, there is much we might learn from how different cultures (including those with deep Christian heritage) deal with some of the questions arising from the presence of third gender people.
Respectful Reasonings
Traditional narrative theory invites us to view stories as having a beginning, a middle and an end. More recent approaches take a more nuanced approach, referring to these as an anticipation, a climax and a resolution. The nuances may involve flexibility around the treatment of time and chronology. Such flexibility sits well for Christians as a way of approaching the narrative associated with Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper. In the liturgy, we find a story that remembers past, present and future anticipation in a climax where resolution is promised and hoped for. While there is a sense of progression in the story, there is also a sense of eternity that expresses the sacred within and beyond time. Words can point us to the story, yet they are not enough to contain it. There is mystery beyond the words. We are not restricted to chronological time (Greek: Chronos) when we are able to contemplate the God beyond time and sacred moments that are beyond human description or containment (Greek: Kairos).
Eight-ways of learning
In cross-cultural story-engagement (in our case, in relation to the marriage conversation), recognising cultural protocols for learning among some indigenous communities has helped shape community theological discourse. Educators with long experience learning alongside indigenous students contributed ideas, based on concepts published by Nola Purdie, Gina Milgate and Hannah Bell with the Australian Council for Educational Research. They outlined eight ways of learning, depicted below in a pictograph diagram.
Figure 4 – Eight Ways of Learning
The pictographs in Figure 4 show eight keys for learning. The connecting lines show how they can relate to each other. One of the ways of thinking about these is to see story-sharing, learning maps, non-verbal, and symbols and images as being on one side of a bi-focal set of methods. On the other side is land-links, non-linear, deconstruct-reconstruct and community links methods.
The two sides of learning methods could be described as reflecting the concept of complementary moieties. Given the highly structured ways in which moiety is understood and the controlled ways moieties can relate with one another, this would explain why some of these methods cannot be used with one another without referencing (or going through the transition of) another method. For example, learning maps cannot be deconstructed or reconstructed without using two other methods for full meaning to be conveyed. According to the diagram there are four possible routes to do this.
These could be described as follows:
These could be described as follows:
- Learning Maps > Story-sharing > Non-linear > Deconstruct/Reconstruct
- Learning Maps > Non-verbal > Community Links > Deconstruct/Reconstruct
- Learning Maps > Non-verbal > Symbols and Images > Deconstruct/Reconstruct
- Learning Maps > Land-links > Non-linear > Deconstruct/Reconstruct
Engaging in Cross-cultural Integrated Theologizing about Marriage
Methods (types and protocols) can be discussed by participants as they negotiate how to work together within community relationships. Often, the order of introducing elements into the conversation is important for maintaining respectful relationships.
In many communities, marital status is a key aspect of human identity. Questioning understandings of marriage may seem to some a questioning about what it means to be human, so sharing a tory that affirms human identity is required to precede any questions about marriage. In such instances, discussions about marital status are not merely involving questions of fairness, equity or even political leaning. Rather, renegotiating language about marital status may involve redefining what it means to be human.
Conditions of kinship self-identification are constantly changing. People who have experienced elective migration discuss differently from people who have experienced forced displacement. People who chose to come to a place think differently about that place than people who had no choice. People who have been kept separated in refugee camps will talk about their spousal relationships quite differently to those whose migration experience involved traveling with and having responsibilities for numerous in-laws. Kinship (through marriage) can be equated with issues of survival for some. For others, any sense of kinship was lost in the migration or dispossession experience.
Learnings from the exercise
- Discovering the Grace Margin - Encouraged by our conviction that God’s grace is real, we expected to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit in open, trusting, honest, gentle, respectful speaking and listening. Commitment and faithfulness to this journey has led us to experience a quite remarkable increase in the ‘grace margin,’ that space between the safety of place, structures, processes, culture, and language, and the immobilising and disempowering fear of difference, change, uncertainty, culture and language. This enlarged space, this grace margin, enables the committee to listen to, and be challenged by the stories of culture, community and faith, especially about matters that often cannot be spoken of in public or ‘mixed’ company.
- Silence – not speaking into a conversation or discussion should not be assumed to mean either assent or dissent. This can also be the silence of the margins! A sign that can point to many possibilities: embarrassment, uncertainty, this is not a place or subject for public discussion and so on. If people do not feel they are valued, heard, understood, then they will never belong in the most inclusive of ways. Their true faithfulness and insights will never find voice.
Several other theological and political themes are also being explored in an ongoing task group of the MCM- NRC. These have prompted the following contributions:
- Covenant/Community: The premise of a Creation-Fall-Redemption model was assumed by the MCM-NRC to be a Eurocentric reading of the concept of marriage, uncommon, mostly unknown and ultimately unhelpful for most CALD communities where the theological journey is more often Creation-Covenant-Re-creation (including within it a variety of models of Redemption and its place in this cosmic view).
A prime theological basis for marriage, named by many of the culturally and linguistically diverse communities, involved a discussion about Covenant relationships. These Covenant relationships are deeply connected to that between God and humanity (communal) and Christ and the church (also communal). When communal covenant is central through the Scriptures – it should be explored as the foundation for God-like/Christ-like relationships - including those between persons (irrespective of gender).
Among communities of First peoples and the diversity of Second peoples, communal life, networks, relationships, belonging and so on are the foundation of all of life, and all of creation. Western trained minds often hear these conversations as a loss of individual identity, an inability to make choices or decisions without the approval of others: spiritual or personal immaturity (as one applicant for ministry was recently told)! In an as yet unpublished book, Revd Brian Polkinghorne illustrates this fundamental difference between cultures thus:
“... in Africa, the equivalent of ‘I think, therefore I am’ is ‘I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am.’ Alternatively the basic African mindset can be expressed as ‘Because you (plural) are, I am’. Outside of a relationship with ‘you all’, my life has no meaning. People find their individual sense of worth from being in relationships with others”.
- Kinship, family or community in the Covenant of Marriage. In many cultures, it is common for the religious rite of marriage to include sacred covenantal vows, entered into by extended families and clans, if not whole villages and communities (even when this is not the case in the secular society). Note: It has also occurred, in some communities, for eloping couples to not have their marriages recognized until the blessing is given formally and publicly by both families/communities. This is of particular concern among next/second generations and among those who marry interracially.
- Religious/spiritual rites for marriage and civil/legal requirements. A number of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, societal traditions have included a separation of religious rites from secular, legal contracting of marriage. This begs the question: to what extent can and should religious celebrants serve the state. (This was particularly called into question when a UCA Minister married a couple in an Immigration Detention Centre. However, this religious marriage was not recognized by the state.)
- The question of same-gender relationships is treated differently in various communities, and those differences frequently relate to responsibilities and relationships within clan/community groups. On this matter, there is no single position from CALD communities, or even within CALD communities. This is also the case across the diversity of the dominant culture within Second peoples. While the particular response may not have changed, there is a growing recognition that the foundational issue has to do with God’s loving acts and commitment to the whole creation as revealed in the various Covenantal relationships into which God in Christ invites us through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit. If human relationships reflect and reveal those covenantal relationships as revealing the foundations of our faith, then the discussion about marriage, sexuality, same- gender relationships and so on must begin from a different place and approach to scripture and theology.
People who have participated in S4G experienced deep spiritual growth as communities of believers. This happened through investing significant time and energy in listening to one another and making space and time to value differences of approach. Stories have been shared of: ministry with and from same-gender couples, those the communities have rejected, trans-gendering due to familial responsibility, gender-bias, discrimination or abuse associated with singleness or marriage and intercultural or hyphenated family stress.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for visiting, I look forward to hearing from you.
When making a comment, please remember this is a site frequented by young people and those who may not be up with your jargon.