tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-338099262024-03-12T23:22:58.204-05:00FLASH POINTbringing faith and reason to life.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.comBlogger470125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-85904308064267505772011-04-08T22:23:00.002-05:002011-04-08T22:23:44.962-05:00An Indefensible Faith: Another Review of 'Love Wins'<div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">There is no shortage of reviews on Rob Bell’s recent book Love Wins, so I am almost apologetic for writing another. But it is because of my work in apologetics I find myself compelled to participate in the conversation. My concerns go beyond his conclusions on matters of heaven, hell, and salvation because it seems that many of his probing questions depend upon a view of human logic that does not properly account for the noetic effects of sin.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">Love Wins is a difficult read—not to imply it was written for an academic audience, certainly it was not. The portrait of God in scripture is a bit more complex than the picture that Bell has painted. Scripture communicates different senses of God’s will (perceptive & decretive), different senses of God’s love (general love for creation, special love for the elect), different types of God’s self-disclosure (general & special revelation), and the aspects of God’s personality that show him to be both just and merciful without moral compromise. Bell’s rendition of God appears to be flat, and that is what makes the book so difficult to read. What I mean is that Bell is very often unable to comprehend how it is that God is perfectly able to transcend human limitations of rationality and being. This is because his starting point appears to be that God is simplistic (not to be confused with the doctrine of divine simplicity) therefore there aren’t different senses of God’s love or God’s will. For example, since Scripture teaches that God desires for all men to be saved, Bell argues (through his use of question) that according to traditional views of heaven, hell and salvation, what God desires cannot be achieved.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;"><em>There are those…who put it quite clearly: “We get one life to choose heaven or hell, and once we die, that’s it. One or the other, forever.” God in the end doesn’t get what God wants, it’s declared, because some will turn, repent, and believe, and others won’t. (p. 103)</em></div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">He does not say who it is specifically that is declaring God doesn’t get what he wants, but clearly he is attributing this declaration to those who hold to an exclusivist viewpoint and that God “in the end doesn’t get what God wants” is a logical outcome of their view of salvation. If this is an overstated speculation, it is because Bell provides little in terms of footnotes or even in-text references, but I believe the whole book provides ample evidence to back up my claim. Bell’s statement serves as an excellent example of how many attempt to understand a passage of scripture, attempting to save God’s reputation by going beyond the biblical text to resolve perceived problems by subjecting them to the rationalized conclusions.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;"><em>Is God our friend, our provider, our protector, our father—or is God the kind of judge who may in the end declare that we deserve to spend forever separated from our Father? (102)</em></div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">That God must be this way or that way is a false dilemma and, if permitted to stand, makes vulnerable a host of other doctrines. If God cannot be friend, provider, protector and judge, certainly God would also struggle to be Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Again, this flattened view of God’s nature prevents him from embracing the God who revealed himself in scripture. He is challenged to let scripture speak for itself.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">For any Christian who has ever engaged a skeptic, much of what Bell has written appears to be a validation of the questions they often pose, but seeing them asked by one who professes faith in Christ is a bit disorienting. With many of these questions, you can almost hear the whisper of ridicule: Christianity rooted in a literal interpretation of the Bible is foolishness. In example after example, Bell tries to force a resolution or rejection of the content with little, if any, theological engagement. He does address interpretive issues in terms heaven and hell, but many of the questions he poses do not hinge on the accuracy or inaccuracy of his understanding of those terms but whether the human mind can actually reconcile views of God and ultimate reality that, on the surface, seem to contradict.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">So I have my own question: How is it that Bell can stand on the boundaries of Christianity and evaluate it through the eyes of young or unbelief? While it might seem noble to adopt this vantage point, helping young or unbelievers by trying to look at Scripture the way they do, I fear his methodology has backfired. Because his overall theology does not consistently take into account the mystery and majesty of God, Christianity can’t help but to look ridiculous. In this respect, he has conceded to the natural man that their perceptions of Christianity are correct –it is foolishness. What follows are examples that make this point:</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;"><em>Really? Gandhi’s in hell? He is? We have confirmation of this? Somebody knows this? Without a doubt? And that somebody decided to take on the responsibility of letting the rest of us know? Of all the billions of people who have ever lived, will only a select number “make it to a better place” and every single other person suffer in torment and punishment forever? Is this acceptable to God? Has God created millions of people over tens of thousands of years who are going to spend eternity in anguish? Can God do this, or even allow this, and still claim to be a loving God? Does God punish people for thousands of years with infinite, eternal torment for things they did in their few finite years of life? This doesn’t just raise disturbing questions about God; it raises questions about the beliefs themselves. Why them? (p. 88)</em></div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">Lurking behind his effort to reframe the conversation on heaven and hell, Bell accomplishes a great deal more. Questions similar to these are often raised by unbelievers intending to impugn the internal consistency of Christianity by suggesting that our view of God is inherently flawed because it makes no sense that God would create humans only to destroy them. During the first reading of the book, I found myself waiting for Bell to say something like “its man’s sin that ultimately separates him from God.” That’s how many of us would respond to anyone else asking these same questions. Sadly, Bell never went there.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;"><em>And whenever people claim that one group is in, saved, accepted by God, forgiven, enlightened, redeemed—and everybody else isn’t—why is it that those who make this claim are almost always part of the group that’s “in”? Have you ever heard people make claims about a select few being the chosen and then claim that they’re not part of that group? Several years ago I heard a woman tell about the funeral of her daughter’s friend, a high-school student who was killed in a car accident. Her daughter was asked by a Christian if the young man who had died was a Christian. She said that he told people he was an atheist. This person then said to her, “So there’s no hope then.” No hope? Is that the Christian message? “No hope”? Is that what Jesus offers the world? Is this the sacred calling of Christians—to announce that there’s no hope? (p. 3)</em></div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">While I’m quite sure the scenario described here isn’t the best Christianity has to offer, it is hardly helpful to conflate this tasteless interaction with the exclusive claims of Christianity. This is a tactic of distraction used frequently by those set out invalidate Christianity, but Bell has validated the tactic and empowered those who use it by offering it up for his own use.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;"><em>So is it true that the kind of person you are doesn’t ultimately matter, as long as you’ve said or prayed or believed the right things? If you truly believed that, and you were surrounded by Christians who believed that, then you wouldn’t have much motivation to do anything about the present suffering of the world, because you would believe you were going to leave someday and go somewhere else to be with Jesus. If this understanding of the good news of Jesus prevailed among Christians, the belief that Jesus’s message is about how to get somewhere else, you could possibly end up with a world in which millions of people were starving, thirsty, and poor; the earth was being exploited and polluted; disease and despair were everywhere; and Christians weren’t known for doing much about it. If it got bad enough, you might even have people rejecting Jesus because of how his followers lived. (p. 6)</em></div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">Bell’s point here is a little lost. His suggestion is that if we really believe what he says we believe, we would be less focused on the needs of others. It’s a bit confusing what Bell is doing here, but his assertion is that people who are so other-wordly, awaiting their “evacuation” from this planet, have little motivation to help those in need. And while the world does have millions of people who are “starving, thirsty, and poor,” I am apt to recoil in defense, but I know Christians can always do better—I just don’t think that the failures of the Church have anything to do with belief in the realm of heaven. Without saying it, Bell seems to be suggesting that one cannot hold a traditional view of heaven and also hold that it matters how we live on earth—another false dilemma.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;"><em>“How can they hear without someone preaching to them?” And I wholeheartedly agree, but that raises another question. If our salvation, our future, our destiny is dependent on others bringing the message to us, teaching us, showing us—what happens if they don’t do their part? What if the missionary gets a flat tire? This raises another, far more disturbing question: Is your future in someone else’s hands? Which raises another question: Is someone else’s eternity resting in your hands? So is it not only that a person has to respond, pray, accept, believe, trust, confess, and do—but also that someone else has to act, teach, travel, organize, fund-raise, and build so that the person can know what to respond, pray, accept, believe, trust, confess, and do? (p. 179)</em></div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">Here is a critical example of Bell agreeing with the natural man that Christianity is foolishness. The problem is, natural man can’t rightly critique spiritual matters, which is why he will miss (or dismiss) the theological category of providence. This raises for us very serious questions: is Bell’s conception of God so flat that his theology doesn’t allow for an all powerful God that can work out his plans his way? Is Bell’s God actually limited by the weaknesses of fallen creation, or at least their hindrances to travel?</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;"><em>Many people find Jesus compelling, but don’t follow him, because of the parts about “hell and torment and all that.” Somewhere along the way they were taught that the only option when it comes to Christian faith is to clearly declare that a few, committed Christians will “go to heaven” when they die and everyone else will not, the matter is settled at death, and that’s it. One place or the other, no looking back, no chance for a change of heart, make your bed now and lie in it … forever. Not all Christians have believed this, and you don’t have to believe it to be a Christian. The Christian faith is big enough, wide enough, and generous enough to handle that vast a range of perspectives. (p. 110)</em></div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">This quote is the crux of his argument, not so much that we believe Bell’s way on heaven and hell (even though he wants us to), but that it ultimately does not matter what you believe because Christianity is “big enough” for all of our beliefs. The next question one might ask is, what about the deity of Christ? Bell would say he makes no compromise on this, and I believe him. But the deity of Christ has no relevance in the here and now if he need not be worshiped by the “good people” represented by various worldviews.</div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;"><em>Then there is inclusivity. The kind that is open to all religions, the kind that trusts that good people will get in, that there is only one mountain, but it has many paths. This inclusivity assumes that as long as your heart is fine or your actions measure up, you’ll be okay. And then there is an exclusivity on the other side of inclusivity. This kind insists that Jesus is the way, but holds tightly to the assumption that the all-embracing, saving love of this particular Jesus the Christ will of course include all sorts of unexpected people from across the cultural spectrum. As soon as the door is opened to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that then Jesus doesn’t matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what you believe, and so forth. Not true. Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterably not true. What Jesus does is declare that he, and he alone, is saving everybody. And then he leaves the door way, way open. Creating all sorts of possibilities. He is as narrow as himself and as wide as the universe. (p. 154)</em></div><div style="border-collapse: collapse; color: #292929; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5em; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0.5em; text-align: justify;">With few words but packed with lots of meaning, <em>Love Wins</em> is not an easy read. This should not be recommended reading for young or unbelievers, not just because of what it says, but how it models a method of theological thinking that suspends the authority of scripture and replaces it with a rationalistic approach to biblical interpretation. Don’t underestimate the ability of this book to actually shape not just what people think, but how people think about God and man’s relationship to him.</div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-18533255933882560622011-01-21T01:23:00.000-06:002011-01-21T01:23:11.737-06:00There is Nothing Pro-Woman about being Pro-"Choice"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/blog-for-prolife-day.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/blog-for-prolife-day.jpg" width="140" /></a>During this observance of the <i>Sanctity of Life</i> in many churches during the end of January, we need to ask some questions and pursue intellectual honesty. When we say we're prolife, are we consistenly prolife? Compromises that put at risk our smallest, most vulnerable people as a solution for infertility need to be seriously reconsidered. Life is not to be created to be destroyed, no matter what the reason. Another question that deserves some intellectual honesty is, what do pro-aborts mean when they say "choice?" The answer to that question is clear as organizations like NOW, the Feminist Majority and Planned Parenthood fight voraciously for abortion demand for women and girls of any age. Logically, the only possible choice they could be referring to is abortion because for the pregnancy already exists. These women aren't being persuaded to choose what already is, they're being coerced to choose what the brutal, the selfish, and ironically...the unnatural. There is nothing pro-woman about being pro-"choice."</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">We must commit to protecting the life of the unborn and offer a consistent voice in the practice of our prolife ethic, providing intelligent answers to the pro-aborts who use trickery and deceit in their pro-"choice" language. As evangelicals, we need to rise above the politics within our own circles and proclaim the dignity of all humans at any age and stage. As a prophetic voice in our culture, we need not shy away from our Christian reasons for defending life, and we ought not hesitate to tear down the arguments of pro-aborts who thrive on the continual exploitation of vulnerable women, sacrificing their womb and their children, all for the ridiculous purpose of empowering secular feminism.</div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-73053562556374872542011-01-05T20:32:00.000-06:002011-01-05T20:32:54.334-06:00Tradition Without Truth<a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/vintage.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-782" height="120" src="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/vintage-150x150.jpg" style="border-style: initial; margin-bottom: 2px; margin-left: 2px; margin-right: 2px; margin-top: 2px;" title="vintage" width="120" /></a><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">It isn’t something that suddenly happened in 2010, people have been compromising truth since the early days in the Garden. But never has it seemed so clear that people actually lack knowledge of right and wrong. Of course, most people know that murder is wrong, but few could provide a substantive reason why they know this other than appealing to some self-oriented ethical theory. When it comes to sexual ethics, plenty of books have been written on the topic. But in practice, sexuality and ethics have been deemed mutually exclusive categories. This is because the sexual revolution has accomplished what it set out to do—remove stigma from all sexual situations. Today there is almost no instance in which sexuality is subject to ethical inquiry except perhaps the <em>if it feels good, do it</em> hedonistic point of view.</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In an effort to preserve Christian values in culture, there is often an appeal to Judeo-Christian traditions that have long been the source of societal values. But before our very eyes, these traditional values are disintegrating and are being replaced by a new vision of how we should live. The reality is, a new set of values has been established by a culture whose worldview is no longer dominated by a Judeo-Christian ethic. New traditions are replacing old ones. An interesting evidence of this turn is the meaninglessness of symbols. While these may seem like innocuous examples of the culture wars, they are quite pertinent to understanding the cultural influence of Christian tradition and values. A local newspaper recently reported that the first baby born in 2011 was delivered to couple with different last names. I continued to read without pause, but then stopped to assess my own reaction—even I had experienced a degree of desensitization to this issue. After regaining my sensibilities, I recalled that in our culture there is no longer a stigma associated with having children outside of marriage. Though possibly the mother of this newborn is simply making regular use of her maiden name for professional reasons (another recent shift), it is more likely this unmarried couple is completely unaware of the idea they have helped to cement: a child is no longer symbolic of the marital union of man and woman.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another symbol that has gone by the wayside is the white wedding gown. While many still practice the bridal traditions of “something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue,” the white wedding gown that in the past symbolized purity as the young bride is presented to her groom is now stained with the sexual mores of a new era. Brides are still be wearing white, but outside of those relationships truly functioning within the framework of a biblically informed worldview, this tradition is not even remotely emblematic of her virginity. Saying yes to the dress is restricted to its external appearance and to personal sentimentalities, not to what it had originally symbolized. The bottom line is this: when tradition is the basis for values, tradition is at risk of being replaced and values that have no substantive foundation are rendered irrelevant. So it is that the changing traditions in our culture today correspond to the irrelevance of Christian values—not due to an inability to make Christianity popular, but to make it meaningful.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">When the values of a culture begin to shift, people will often yearn for the good ole’ days, an era when <em>stigma</em> was able to contain behavior. For instance, there was a time when pregnancy outside of marriage would be corrected by a “shotgun” wedding, a common practice utilized to conceal untimely sexual relations from family, church, or the local coffee clutch—as if retroactively marriage makes an “honest woman” out of an unmarried mom-to-be. Similarly, social stigma—not necessarily what was best for a child—was a primary reason many unwed mothers placed children up for adoption. While shame and remorse can be an appropriate motivating factor to correct ways of thinking and living, in the wrong hands it is often misused. Stigma unaccompanied by truth is merely an apparatus of a culture not oriented toward Christ, no matter how much they may resemble the Church.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Dorothy Sayers once stated that “if we really want a Christian society we must teach Christianity and that it is absolutely impossible to teach Christianity without teaching Christian dogma.” She goes on to say that the “validity of Christian principles depends on Christ’s authority.” That said, it isn’t any wonder that we see barely a remnant of Christian values present in today’s culture. Practices rooted merely in tradition have little or no validity and, therefore, no lasting power. Worldviews have been equalized by the view that morality and spiritual truth are subjective. This does beg the question as to how well the Church—as an institution and as individual believers—is teaching Christianity. Without a source for truth outside of ourselves, we are left to our own devices. Stigma had for a time been a useful common ground approach to moral issues, but the jig is up. People know the difference between tradition and truth, and because they reject the latter the former is meaningless.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Have we been a Church committed to decision-making based on Christ’s authority or because “that’s the way we’ve always done it?” Do we take positions on matters of morality based on the politics of the moment, or have we done the work in Scripture to know what God wants us to know and live out on a given matter? If the average church-goer struggles to see the importance of doctrine, doesn’t quite understand the human condition in relation to Christ, and has not yet learned what it means to think about everyday life through the lens of Scripture—truth revealed—how can she have a gospel-centered presence in her sphere of influence? Why, in her eyes, should it even matter? If, perhaps, we focused a bit more on training men and women to think theologically <strong><em>and</em></strong> teach them how to communicate truth in their sphere of influence, there might be a degree of real and sustainable impact on culture. Invoking one set of values over another based on polls and popularity is just a quick, temporary fix for something with more serious, eternal implications.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-79023405332446555852010-11-12T11:23:00.000-06:002010-11-12T11:23:27.608-06:00Women's Christian Worldview Conference<a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Kathy-Barnette.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" class="size-thumbnail wp-image-725 alignleft" height="62" src="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Kathy-Barnette-150x150.jpg" style="margin: 2px;" title="Kathy Barnette" width="62" /></a><a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Jennifer-Lahl.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" class="alignright size-thumbnail wp-image-724" height="61" src="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Jennifer-Lahl-148x150.jpg" style="margin: 2px;" title="Jennifer Lahl" width="61" /></a><a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Halee-Gray-Scott.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" class="size-thumbnail wp-image-722 alignleft" height="61" src="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Halee-Gray-Scott-150x150.jpg" style="margin: 2px;" title="Halee Gray Scott" width="61" /></a><em>The Center for Women of Faith in Culture</em> is hosting the first annual <a href="http://www.godfaithculture.com/" target="_blank">God, Faith & Culture Evangelical Women’s Conference</a> on April 30th, 2011 in Arlington Heights, Illinois. But this is not just another women’s conference where women come together to base new and developing friendships on shared emotional experiences. In fact, we expect that the intellectual rigor of this event will prepare you to need a nice quiet evening to process the content presented by all the speakers. Our focus is a deliberate emphasis on the life of the mind in your relationship with God–but of course, we expect you will fully enjoy your time as you hear Christian women leaders speak on different aspects of the Christian worldview.<br />
<br />
Speakers for this conference include Dr. Halee Gray Scott, PhD, <em>Azusa Pacific University</em>, Jennifer Lahl, <em>The Center for Bioethics & Culture</em>, Pam Gillaspie, <em>Deep & Wide</em>, Kathy Barnette, <em>Judson University</em>, Caryn Rivadeneira,<em> Christianity Today</em>, and many others. Be sure to register online at <a href="http://www.godfaithculture.com/" target="_blank"><strong>www.godfaithculture.com</strong></a> and find us on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=163505760337059" target="_blank"><strong>Facebook</strong></a>.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-45362482058613242112010-11-03T22:40:00.002-05:002010-11-03T22:40:45.099-05:00Swaddling Cloths ProjectI don't write too frequently on specific ministry activities, but I wanted to share this idea for a community ministry opportunity in time for the Christmas season. Over the weekend, our church women's ministry team met to fine tune plans for our Christmas brunch. As a result of our meeting, we opted to do away with the formalities of a Christmas brunch and, instead, have a Christmas continental breakfast. Here's why:<br />
<br />
A story recently ran in the local newspaper about a crisis pregnancy center in my very small town, a center I didn't know even existed. So given the isolation of things in our rural community, I felt compelled to assist. We discussed it at our meeting and decided to use the Christmas brunch -- which evolved into the Christmas continental breakfast -- as an opportunity for the women at church to serve the needs in the community by gathering the necessities associated with bringing a new life into the world. Essentially its a diaper drive, but we hope for a variety of supplies for infant care. It's will be informal, lacking the panache often associated with women's holiday events. We call it <i>The Swaddling Cloths Project</i> (Luke 2:12).<br />
<br />
The narrative of Jesus birth has been imprinted in our minds with the Wisemen following the star and culminating in the joy of finding of Jesus lying in a manger. And I'm quite sure it was a joyous sight! But reading the text again in Luke, I was struck by the circumstances of the manger scene. There was no room at the Inn, that's <i>the reason</i> for the manger scene. Hardly ideal circumstances for caring for a young child, though I'm sure they were thankful for shelter. But I wonder, does this passage still remind us of Jesus' very humble condescension or has it simply become a reason for holiday festivities? This must have also been a very humbling experience for Mary and Joseph. Ok, I concede that Mary gave birth to the Son of God and they had a pretty awesome birth announcement with the Star the Wisemen followed. And we can't forget about the angels who spoke to them. It is fair to say that both the natural circumstances and the supernatural encounters comprised a very humbling experience.<br />
<blockquote>For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” (Luke 2:11-12 ESV)</blockquote><i>The Swaddling Cloths Project</i> is an opportunity to reflect on our Saviors humility and to share his love by giving towards the practical needs of others. While Mary and Joseph were hardly in a crisis pregnancy situation, from their human perspective they probably waivered between trust and doubt throughout the pregnancy and after the birth of Jesus. This Christmas, consider reaching out to the crisis pregnancy centers and honor the choice of life by fulfilling some of the practical needs of a young mother or family. If you are able, share with these young people that God is looking out for them and has sent his church to care for those in need.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-2074491736255991392010-10-15T13:08:00.002-05:002010-10-15T13:21:05.162-05:00"Extremist" is a Theological CategoryAmerican culture seems to be most interested in who God isn’t. Many hold that claims made about God put him in a box and because we really can’t know anything about him (so they say) we should avoid claiming any knowledge of or about him. Of course, that argument works for less than 10 seconds because to say we can’t know anything about God requires some knowledge of God—and that is where such claims reduce to silliness.<br />
<br />
On <i>The View </i>yesterday, America’s love affair with religious pluralism took the conversation in a direction that deserves further reflection. During the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25uyFwWPOZg" target="_blank">show</a>, Joy Behar and Whoopie Goldberg took issue with Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, stomping off the stage in protest after he explained that 70% of Americans are against the building of the Mosque near Ground Zero because it was Muslims who attacked America on 9/11/2001. In all the clamor, O’Reilly defended his statement with a follow-up rhetorical question, “were they not Muslim?” On his own show last evening, however, he capitulated and said that he assumed the ladies on <i>The View</i> would get that he was referring to the Muslim terrorists who are also extremists, but Muslim nonetheless.<br />
<br />
If you ever watch <i>The O’Reilly Factor</i> and have a basic knowledge of Christianity, you probably know that Bill O’Reilly is not a theologian. He proved this recently as he defended Christians in an interview with Bill Maher. O’Reilly explained to Maher that Christians don’t really believe that the story of Noah and the flood is to be taken literally but that Christians still deserve to be heard. This is just one of many uncomfortable moments in the interview that reduced it to the status of train wreck. Certainly the world of politics can not avoid the world of religious ideas, but I would highly recommend that O’Reilly remove himself from theological dialogue at this point…or get a tutor.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>But that leads me to this important point. O’Reilly is only one of many engaging in theological dialogue, pretty much unbeknownst to them. Here is what’s going on: the term “extremist” as is being applied Muslims is a <i>theologica</i>l category. Obviously it is being utilized for political purposes, but it is being used with overtly theological intentions. To say that an individual or a group has gone beyond the doctrines of a particular religion in belief or action—the definition of religious <i>extremism</i>—is to also claim to know something about the content of that religion. In other words, one would have to have detailed knowledge of a religion in order to know what to exclude from its teachings. But this certainly is not the situation of many who make use of the term, for they often do not understand the religion of which they are speaking. But apparently the exclusion of the term “extremist” is tantamount to <a href="http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b205822_joy_behar_bill_oreilly_cant_stop.html" target="_blank">hate speech</a>.<br />
<br />
Some Christians have made use of the category “extremist” because it creates some separation between themselves and those who profess Christianity but do really stupid things. Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind. Are these people Christian extremists? I believe my understanding of Christian theology allows me to make use of the term (as most of you who reading this post) but at the same time, we would have to agree that there’s nothing Christian about certain behaviors and to apply the term “extremist” is to do a disservice to the term “Christian.” As theologians, I believe we need to eliminate the use of the term “extremist” so we can see things for what they really are. But politicians and pundits will continue to engage the use of this word for their own political gain, but a theological category it certainly is.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-80582766851288409072010-10-01T15:15:00.002-05:002010-10-01T15:19:33.908-05:00Choosing Christianity“That's just how you were raised!”—a common argument used to dismiss Christianity’s claim to absolute truth. A variation of this argument goes something like this: "If you had been born in another country, you could just as easily have become a Muslim or a Hindu. What you believe is determined by how you were raised—your environment—not by any over-arching truths." And who can argue with such sophisticated argumentation? After all, that is exactly how many of us were raised. We regularly attended Sunday services, the Wednesday evening Bible study, and summer vacations were always scheduled around Vacation Bible School. We were taught that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he died at Calvary as a sacrifice for our sins. Heavens to Betsy, we also view the account of Noah and the Ark as a literal, historical event.<br />
<br />
Sadly, however, many Christians have surrendered to this argument, concluding that it is only by chance—as opposed to the work of the Holy Spirit—that they are followers of Christ. Their views of truth and ethics have been reduced to personal preference, leaving them paralyzed to say anything objective about the world in which they live. When confronted with the absolute truth claims of Christianity, they are willing to embrace them, but only for themselves.<br />
<a name='more'></a>Often I encounter different manifestations of this argument from those who seek to overcome the epistemological void of ethical relativism by trying to reduce the weightier claims of Christian epistemology and ethics to the relativistic "that's just how you were raised" perspective. By doing so, they think they have avoided dealing with the consequences of relativism by pointing the finger elsewhere. A significant hole in their argument is the quick dismissal of what is learned in the context of church and family. Apart from universal laws of logic and such, what we know is learned from other people in some manner. It is a <i>non sequitur</i> to suggest that being raised in the Church necessitates that a person's faith is blind, guided merely by tradition and sentimentalism. It is one thing to recognize the diversity of belief in our world, but the only thing pluralism is an evidence of is pluralism.<br />
<br />
This issue came to mind this week with respect to President Obama's <a href="http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/09/28/obama-christian-choice">statement</a> on the nature of his faith. When asked "Why are you a Christian?" Obama responded by saying that he "became a Christian by choice" and that his belief was not due to being "raised in the church." This statement makes one wonder if he is suggesting that those who were raised in the church had no real choice. In some ways, his response could be helpful toward disarming those who argue against Christianity on the basis of cultural influence because it appears that the church played virtually no formative role in his early life. Certainly we know that not all who claim to be Christians were raised in the church, many do come to faith later in life, but those outside the church contending for the religion of unbelief don’t think that through to its logical conclusion.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, was the President’s statement helpful at all? Or did his response actually promote the argument that Christians don’t have a firm theory of knowledge, just a history of tradition and sentimentalism? He spoke of sin and salvation and how the “precepts” of Jesus fit his own conception of reality, so it appears that at least one part of the Bible was agreeable to his view of the world. Therein lies the problem, however, in that he subjected the tenets of faith to his own prescription for how we should live when he said,<br />
<blockquote>“the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead -- being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me."</blockquote>On this matter, he clearly did not treat scripture as a revelational source of knowledge, but a philosophical document that agreed with his own perspective. And his cherry-picking is made obvious in his inability to flip-flop on previous statements he has made on collective salvation.<br />
<br />
I am left to wonder if his statement about his faith was intended to communicate some level of superiority above those who are more culturally Christian. If Barak Obama is a Christian, his "choice" for Christianity does not make his faith experience qualitatively better or epistemologically superior to those who were raised in the Christian subculture. Are those who were <i>not</i> raised in the church less predisposed to clinging irrationally to their religion as has been suggested of some Christians while on the campaign trail? And why is it acceptable for his brand of Christianity be integrated into his civil service when conservative Christians in office are generally disparaged for punching a hole through the dry-wall of separation? Note this part of his statement during this same town hall, “I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.” Between Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s love of the “Word,” I don’t think I have ever seen so much religious-speak come out the White House.<br />
<br />
<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thefoundaforw-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1433669277&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>No doubt there are issues with some who were “born” into the Church. As I have been working on this piece, I stumbled onto Nancy Pearcey’s comments on a closely related matter in her new (HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) book, <span id="goog_2060642414"></span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1433669277?ie=UTF8&tag=thefoundaforw-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1433669277">Saving Leonardo<span id="goog_2060642415"></span></a>. She writes,<br />
<blockquote><i>In past generations, many people simply ‘inherited’ their religion, following the tradition of their family and ethnic group…But in today’s large urban centers, it is no longer possible to remain Christian out of tradition. People face too much opposition and have too many alternatives….They are more likely to treat worldview commitments as something they seek out, investigate, weight, compare, and adopt as a matter of intentional commitment and practice. As a result, says sociologist Christian Smith, those commitments are actually stronger. (Saving Leonardo, p. 21)</i></blockquote>Her point is well taken, that there are those whose worldview commitments are challenged, choosing for themselves what to believe instead of blindly towing the line of their cultural or familial faith traditions. These are people who come to understand what they believe and why they believe it, and as a result can stand firm in the faith even in the face of opposition; if more members of Christ’s body could only be so challenged. But this is not to dispute my point, that being raised in the Church does not automatically invalidate the beliefs of the individual as the relativist demands. Nor does her point shore up what I believe are the implications of Obama’s statement, that his Christianity is superior because he chose it, it did not choose him.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-33932801454148352462010-09-23T22:18:00.000-05:002010-09-23T22:18:07.319-05:00Neighbor Love and the Doctrine of God<div class="MsoNormal">It's confusing yet strangely gratifying all at the same time. We live in a culture that is moving further and further from the exclusive claims of Christianity yet almost equally—and inconsistently—holds select passages in the Bible in high regard. They hold forth as though they cling tighter to the red letter words of Jesus than those who claim to be Christians. Of course, it’s true that many who call themselves believers fail to live in a way that reflects how we are suppose to live, but these failures are not indicative of a bankrupt theology but rather our need for a perfect Savior. Perhaps this is why Scripture, in various ways, implores us to guard our testimony as unbelievers struggle to separate the message from the messenger. In contrast, while the work of many social justice advocates may encompass a zealous neighbor-love approach, it often neglects a gospel-centered focus lacks any risk.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal">In the book of Matthew, we read the account of Jesus being asked by a lawyer which of the commandments was the greatest. Jesus’ response included not one, but two. The first, he said, was to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind and the second was like the first, that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:37-40).</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><a name='more'></a>Why did he respond to the request for one commandment with two? And why did he say that the second was like the first? I think a key to understanding the answer to these questions is by considering what is required to fulfill both commands. What we should first acknowledge is that we cannot, on our own power or with complete consistency, keep any command; hence our need for a Savior. Secondly, as we seek to obey God’s commands, only in a spirit of humility and Christ-like love can this be achieved. A love grounded in idolatry and human reason will always fall short of what he has commanded.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">We also need to understand the second command in relation to the first. Jesus did say that loving God was “the great and first commandment.” Is it possible to fulfill the second commandment without fulfilling the first? Some happen to think so. I beg to differ. Loving God with all of our heart, all of our soul, and all of our mind speaks to the depth of our devotion, that with our whole self we are to love God. But “the Lord your God” speaks volumes about the object of our affection. No false god will suffice, we must be attentive to the one true God of the Bible. Knowing God, therefore, means knowing the story of sin and redemption, and as a result we are called to love our neighbor as a necessary and logical outworking of our love for God. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Without a commitment to the one true God, neighbor-love is little more than a trendy slogan, yet it works out well for those seeking to co-op aspects of Christianity for their pluralistic agenda. But <i>how</i> love works out in the real word without a foundation in Christ is apparent—to those who know Christ. I am a mom to three boys, two of which are old enough to date. Many times we have discussed what it means to love someone else and for them to love in return. My bottom line with them is this: if you can’t love God more than your girlfriend, or if she can’t love God more than you, then you can’t love each other the way you need to be loved. Without knowing God and loving God, our foundation for love is based on a relativistic worldview. There is no confidence because there is no objective source from which love it derives its meaning. Love certainly is more than a trendy slogan, young attraction or grown-up philanthropy. It needs to be known in its ultimate sense.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I recently received one of my regular Sojourners e-newsletters, this one called “My Muslim ‘Father.’” Not surprisingly, it strongly promoted the theme of neighbor-love, this time through a story shared by one of Jim Wallis’ staff writers, Leslie Abell. She wrote of time she spent in Cairo, Egypt where she developed and nurtured relationships with Muslims, including a familial relationship with a man named Hassan, the owner of a small shop. While she spoke of how they shared an attitude of hospitality, no mention is made of whether she shared the gospel with this friend. In a spirit of generosity, I do not claim to know what Sojourners means when they refer to Muslims as our “sisters and brother” as is seen stated repeatedly in their materials, but if Sojourners official position is that the good news is an unnecessary component of neighbor-love, then that would help to explain what its been so easily detached from the first and great commandment of God-love. But I don’t need to single out Sojourners on this matter, plenty of evangelicals who have leaped onto the neighbor-love social justice bandwagon do so in view of only the second half of this passage. Of course, Scripture does teach that unbelievers will know we are Christians by our love, but in the name of love have we made Christ obscure?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As the holidays begin to encroach on us, suffocating us with marketing ploys and overly-subtle greetings of ‘happy holidays’ from store cashiers, we can take joy in knowing that meaning of neighbor-love finds its significance in the Incarnation. Jesus came in the flesh in obedience to the will of the Father, an act which embodies not only neighbor love, but first the love for his Father, a significant relational aspect within the Trinity. </div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal">who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, (Philippians 2:6-9 ESV)</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"> We can look to the Godhead for understanding of neighbor-love if we can keep in mind that it is not something we do on our own, but the work God prepared for us before the foundations of the earth and for the sake of the Kingdom, not for our own godless goals of earthy love and peace.</div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-63810672457616405622010-09-19T23:44:00.000-05:002010-09-19T23:44:29.142-05:00Who Defines Feminism?<div class="MsoNormal">I think the bigger question is—should we really care? Frankly, I am perplexed by the recent trend of conservative and evangelical-oriented women who are adding their voice to America’s political landscape, and even those who are standing on the sidelines in admiration. I’m not taking issue with their involvement or the content of their positions—I’m so pleased to see basic conservative values take center stage at this time in history. But it does strike me as odd the need of this fresh new culture of prolife conservative women to invoke the category of feminism, as if doing so provides credibility to their mission. It appears to be an attempt to appeal to common ground.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibXur0R4In-OqhOMI_YP22-2iFAu0vnr0Qn9T-reX1x5-xOGgvsovRz8ciGkl6SsGtRqpeDjWQ1xcwin4OJ-yk-2yj737eS61zEy0ltuzDFSwGcDJCTJLxdDwN65QbSA8hHubi/s1600/victoria-jackson1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEibXur0R4In-OqhOMI_YP22-2iFAu0vnr0Qn9T-reX1x5-xOGgvsovRz8ciGkl6SsGtRqpeDjWQ1xcwin4OJ-yk-2yj737eS61zEy0ltuzDFSwGcDJCTJLxdDwN65QbSA8hHubi/s200/victoria-jackson1.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal">Former Saturday Night Life star Victoria Jackson <a href="http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/vjackson/2010/09/15/the-perfect-feminist/">recently wrote</a> how the feminist value of <i>career first</i> ultimately had a negative impact on her life. She bought into the false dichotomy of career and family instead of pursuing both to whatever degree possible. She suggests that Sarah Palin is the ‘perfect feminist’ and tries unpacks what she means by this.</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><i>That is Feminism. A feminine woman achieving goals with the blessing of her man, while she simultaneously supports his career endeavors and celebrates his masculinity.</i> </div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal">Victoria goes on in her piece by identifying other problems associated with secular feminism including the willing hyper-sexualization of women in our culture that even Christian women are not immune to. And she approaches the topic of single-parenting, a likely reference to Jennifer Anniston, that women who think they can have children without a man in their life just simply look “stupid and desperate.” She concludes her piece with a thought-provoking statement about how she understands the expectations of secular feminists. </div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><i>Feminism. Such a strange word. When I hear it I first think of the most masculine and angry women, women with not a shred of femininity. Funny how words are. Then, I think of the meaning they want it to hold. And that word is Sarah Palin.</i> </div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal">For Victoria Jackson, the demands of secular feminism have been fulfilled by the person and work of Sarah Palin. I want to suggest that while there is irony in this fact, our fancy with feminism really should end there. We need to think about this a bit more deeply. Do we really want to assert that the conservative values, many of which are distinctively Christian, are better off framed in the context of feminism? This is a dangerous compromise as it obscures the source of these values and blurs the lines between God’s authority and the self-ascribed authority tied not just to feminism, but to fallen human nature in general. It only helps to perpetuate the self-centeredness of our society instead of the God-centeredness we as evangelical women (and men) ought to be promoting and encouraging in the lives of other believers.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=thefoundaforw-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=159473285X&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>In this strange new culture of evangelical feminism, even traditionally left-leaning religious feminists have discovered how they can profit from the movement. <i>New Feminist Christianity: Many Voices, Many Views</i> is a new book of old ideas based in the foundational elements of feminism including a more pluralistic outlook on religion and ethics. And it goes even further as Jeanette Stokes, a Presbyterian ministry and one writer in this anthology <a href="http://medusacoils.blogspot.com/2010/09/review-new-feminist-christianity.html">states</a>,</div><blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><i>…I choose to be a heretic, to remain within the bounds of the Christian faith, to create new forms, and explore new practices…Some of my feminist colleagues have turned in their ordinations. I have no instinct to do that. I still love the religion of my childhood; it is just that when I step into it these days I tend to freeze. I do not want to say some of the words anymore.</i> </div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://medusacoils.blogspot.com/2010/09/review-new-feminist-christianity.html">One reviewer</a> of this book indicates that some of the Christian practices Stokes is “<i>no longer comfortable with include baptism, communion, forbidding of certain types of art and forms of love-making, and ‘the focus on Jesus’ suffering and dying</i>.’”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Needless to say, by the title alone the new wave of conservative “Christian feminists” will be attracted to it. I only hope they will not be motivated by the appeal to power in its many pages. Other writers in the book include well-known feminists Rosemary Ruether and Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Who defines feminism does not really matter because the evangelical Christian woman should be more concerned with her definition of Christianity. It matters that culture is listening, but how we get their attention is an ethical dilemma for those who call themselves Christian conservatives. Do the ends (conservative values) justify the means of compromise? By stealing the term feminism for our own pragmatic purposes empowers secular feminism. What ultimately matters is whether we are pleasing God in how we speak and act. While invoking feminism might provide a small amount of credibility to the message of conservatism as delivered by women in our society today, it is a proposal that will ultimately have short-lived results.</div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-81225097354973424232010-09-07T23:57:00.000-05:002010-09-07T23:57:22.938-05:00The Problem of Moral RevivalAs a Christian and a conservative, I believe we have reached a crossroads where we need to seriously reconsider our approach to cultural engagement. The swift undercurrent of moral decay continues to take most Christians by surprise while our pragmatic approach to morality rooted in tradition and dependent on consensus forces us down the slippery slope of relativism. As much as we want to protect our freedom of speech, have we really had all that much to say? As much as we want to protect the right to life, have we been focused more on the right than the life created in the image of God? And in all of our efforts to defend traditional marriage, have we capitulated to non-biblical perspectives in our appeal to the safety of tradition instead of a risky appeal to Scripture? An explicitly Christian worldview has not been welcome in the marketplace of ideas for some time. As a result, believers have caved to society’s demands for a secularized message under the guise of “public language,” an attempt to give the appearance that morality can be dislodged from its worldview foundations. This enterprise has been anything but successful. Yet Christian conservatives continue to clamor for moral revival in pluralistic setting that might, for only a short time, reflect certain values consistent with Scripture. The problem with this conception of moral revival is that it is about as effective as yo-yo dieting.<br />
<a name='more'></a>The recent conversation over Glenn Beck’s appeal to the generic god of conservative values has shown that the problem is not so much with Glenn Beck as it is with a church un-phased by the dismantling of her worldview. She is a church afraid to make claims on the nature and foundations of morality. What’s worse is that she is a church that has actually been duped by her own strategy because the public language once used to bandage the moral hemorrhage of society is now core to the belief system of these well-meaning Christians. The doctrine of God no longer is foundational to the message but is viewed more as an impediment to results.<br />
<br />
Moral revival must not be separated from spiritual revival. Questions of morality must always point back to a rational justification and worldview. To begin the process of morality at the point of values guarantees a clash of worldviews where Christianity is merely on par with her competition. But where the moral life of the follower of Christ begins is in commitment to her God, not to the comforts of a culture that thrives in the impact of Christian values without commitment to the triune God of Scripture.<br />
<br />
This is not an argument for a repeat retreat from culture, but an appeal to recognize that we can’t trust consensus for an establishment of moral values that cohere to a Christian worldview. The shaping of culture and values is inextricably tied to the gospel where as hearts are changed, new and renewed disciples learn to commit their lives to the ethics of heaven for the purpose of pleasing God first and for the advancement of God’s kingdom on earth.<br />
<br />
In 1979, Koop and Schaeffer wrote:<br />
<br />
…the humanist worldview has also brought us to the present devaluation of human life…it is naïve and irresponsible to imagine that this worldview will reverse the direction in the future. A well-meaning commitment to ‘do what is right’ will not be sufficient…It was the materialistic worldview that brought in the inhumanity; it must be a different worldview that drives it out. An emotional uneasiness about abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and the abuse of genetic knowledge is not enough. To stand against the present devaluation of human life, a significant percentage of people within our society must adopt and live by a worldview which not only hopes or intends to give a basis for human dignity but which really does. (Whatever Happened to the Human Race, p. 81)<br />
<br />
Pretending (it is possible) to be without a worldview…or pretending all worldviews are acceptable to answer the great moral questions of our time, is quite naïve. Moral revival is possible, but not unaccompanied by a gospel-framework; a society searching for meaning is left unaided by a Christian morality that sets Christianity aside as if it is only an ancillary aspect of the moral conversation. We must be as committed to the foundations of morality as we are the moral positions themselves, because without understanding Christianity for its exclusive claims makes it likely that breaches in the moral code will be viewed as merely harmless infractions. As time goes by, we tend to become more desensitized to the sin that grieves our Lord and Savior when our primary arguments against these public matters are more about their impracticality.<br />
<br />
Moral revival begins with spiritual revival, and first the church must awaken from her restless slumber and reinvigorate her commitment to the authority and teachings of Scripture. Culture can also be a part of this moral revival, but in a way that believers are reaching into the lives of unbelievers with a love your neighbor ethic grounded in a love for God. This God cannot remain the generic god of politically correct conservative pluralism, but must be defined and embraced as the almighty God of biblical Christianity. We are faced with a choice between the compromise of consensus or theological substance which can actually ground Christian ethics.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-29793577040623743062010-08-31T06:30:00.000-05:002010-08-31T06:30:14.326-05:00Why the Church Needs More Christian Women Scholars<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;">Studying theology helps us to participate in our <i>relationship with God</i>. It isn’t about gathering a ton of unnecessary knowledge that will never make a difference in your life, but about committing to knowing God in the deepest way possible.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;">But even the <i>process</i> of doing theology has intrinsic value as it trains the mind to welcome ideas that are reasonable and glorify God, and to reject ideas and ways of thinking that hurt us and contradict truth. Doing theology helps us to become critical thinkers in every area of life.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;">As women, it is especially important for us to do theology, not because there is something about us that makes us intellectually deficient or different from men, but because attempts to encourage non-theological thinking have become so widespread in the culture of women’s ministry. We often think and meditate on a single verse or short passage at a time, a practice which can be detrimental not only to understanding the bigger picture, but can equally undermine our ability to practice what we believe in every area of our lives. We do not want to be fragmented in our approach to living, but that is a real risk if we study the Bible in that same way.</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;">Many women’s bible studies and gift books encourage this fragmented way of thinking due to the relatively short meditations they contain, or through spoon feeding which generally does not model an appropriate method of interpretation because the work has already been done (and we hope correctly). When the most probing questions direct the student to look within themselves—“how does this make you feel?”—the time has come to assess our discipleship materials.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;">Analytically similar, yet dependent on biblical theology, is the area of systematic theology. In case this is a new term to you, systematic theology is the process of “draw[ing] together into one coherent whole what the entirety of Scripture says on a given topic.”</span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=33809926#_ftn1" name="12ac7e74db9a81fe__ftnref1" target="_blank" title=""><sup><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 10pt;">[1]</span></sup></sup></a><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;"> From the onset, we are expected to limit ourselves to the biblical text, working hard to avoid conclusions based upon the ideas we bring to the study. A study of various passages that speak to the topic of God’s love, for example, allows us to draw a partial mental picture of that aspect of God based on the given passages.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;">The use of analytical thinking in the study of God’s Word has practical benefits that reach in to all areas of life. Many passages in scripture exhort us to know who God is, to seek his will, to try to discern what pleases God…the list could go on. By the power of the Holy Spirit, we are led to many decisions in our lives. But the role and activity of the Holy Spirit and the life of the mind should never be pitted against each other by the suggestion that we don’t need to become better thinkers. The lack of reasoning skills in church and culture is abundantly apparent and results in decisions that people “in their right mind” would normally refrain. For the Christian woman in the 21<sup>st</sup> century, being equipped to effectively engage scripture will also train her to effectively engage the ideas of culture, and to more consistently consider how to answer many of life’s difficult questions. Having a Christian worldview means being able to navigate between scripture and life, from precept and principle to practice, to have godly wisdom about matters mentioned in scripture, and about things never mentioned at all.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt;">Being a student of scripture and bringing its themes into a logical ordering in our minds is some of what it means to do theology. In personal conversations, it has been said that not every women is at that place in her walk with the Lord that she would want to pursue him rigorously, that she may be perfectly content with materials that don’t challenge her to grow. Obviously, no one can be forced to read her Bible and work at putting all the pieces into logical order. But for the woman who simply doesn’t know this to be a pursuit beneficial to her spiritual growth, for the woman who doesn’t have this modeled for her, it definitely will be difficult for her to arrive there on her own. </span></div><br />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=33809926#_ftnref1" name="12ac7e74db9a81fe__ftn1" target="_blank" title=""><sup><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><sup><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-size: 12pt;">[1]</span></sup></span></sup></a><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> Erickson, Millard. <i>Christian Doctrine</i>. 2<sup>nd</sup> Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001) p. 16.</span>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-49078848964860303072010-08-30T07:14:00.002-05:002010-08-30T09:12:46.655-05:00More on Beth Moore<i style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">This is a cross-posted at <a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/">First Things</a><span id="goog_1529965666"></span><a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/"><span id="goog_1529965667"></span></a></span></i><br />
A few months ago, I began writing a piece on the teachings of Beth Moore. The fine writers at CT were working on a similar project which became a recent<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/august/18.21.html" target="_blank"> cover story</a> and <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/august/19.27.html" target="_blank">companion article</a>. There is much to be said about Beth’s influence in the Church that I believe male and female leaders need to take a second look at. Well, when my article is published, I will provide a link to the full text, in the meantime, take a look at how Beth handles Paul. Keep in mind what she is ultimately saying about the insertion of sinful attitudes as part of the biblical writers’ instructional material.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a> Not only does Beth suggest that insecurity is one of women’s greatest problems, she also argues that insecurity is where she finds camaraderie with the apostle Paul. While clearly the writers of Scripture were human with the same propensity for sin and suffering, it is difficult to agree with Beth’s rationale for her claim to Pauline insecurity. In fact, her argument depends on an unpopular understanding of 2 Corinthians.<br />
Beth writes that Paul is one of her “favorite people in the entire stretch of Scripture” because<br />
<blockquote>he was enormously used of God in spite of himself [Emphasis hers]. Don’t think for a moment he didn’t fight his own flesh just like the rest of us. Take, for instance, the way he felt the need to affirm his credentials to the people he served in Corinth by using this little twist:<br />
<i>I do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super apostles.’ I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.’ <a class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/2%20Corinthians%2011.5-6" target="_blank">2 Corinthians 11:5-6</a></i><br />
Tell me that’s not insecurity. If you’re not convinced, take a look at what blurted from his pen only a chapter later:<br />
<i>I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles,’ even though I am nothing. <a class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/2%20Corinthians%2012.11" target="_blank">2 Corinthians 12:11</a></i><br />
Do you think just maybe he protests too much? In all probability, he fought the awful feeling that he wasn’t as good as the others who hadn’t done nearly so much wrong. I totally grasp that. At the same time, Paul also battled a big, fat ego. He was a complex mound of clay just like the rest of us, belittling and boasting of himself in a dizzying psychological zigzag.”<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_edn1">[i]</a></blockquote>A key criticism of Moore is how she handles scripture and then how she models that approach to her audience. After reading this section of <i>SLI</i>, my concern persists as I struggle to understand how she arrives at the conclusion that Paul is going through a “belittling and boasting of himself in a dizzying psychological zigzag.” The mere assertion that Paul was driven by feelings of insecurity as the reason for defending his apostolic authority ignores the immediate context of the second letter to the Corinthians, that the church was involved with false teachers claiming a high degree of authority but lacking true knowledge. But this gets at the heart of the problem; Beth does not explain the meaning of the passage <i>as derived from the context</i>, she reads the passage in isolation, an elementary Bible study error. What she often fails to do, as is the case in this instance, is to explain how in submission to the scripture she arrives at her conclusions. She admittedly speculates and introduces personal experience and psychologizing of the text to back up her claims. Her assertion that Paul is motivated by insecurity is dependent on a view that equates the “super apostles” with the true apostles instead of the false teachers, a theory that most theologians and commentators reject. But sadly, she leaves her readers, many who are unfortunately disenchanted with the intellectual nature of the Christian faith, revisioning Paul the apologist as someone whose defense is motivated by self-centered weakness instead of a necessary defense of the gospel. Following Beth’s perspective to its logical conclusion, if Paul did not struggle with insecurity as she claims, perhaps the Bible would contain fewer epistles.<br />
Beth has been working for some time to define Paul as insecure. In <i>To live is Christ</i>, written about Paul’s journey of faith, she admits to speculating on what is going on with Paul “based on hints in the accounts.”<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_edn2">[ii]</a> She describes Paul as “overwhelmed by the polytheistic beliefs of the residents”<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_edn3">[iii]</a> of Athens because few people “believed and received Christ,”<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_edn4">[iv]</a> because they preferred to argue “rather than consider the truth.”<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_edn5">[v]</a> On the next page, she continues her speculation in asserting that Paul’s ego took a beating in Athens and that Paul probably “felt like a failure.”<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_edn6">[vi]</a> Continuing to project into the text, she writes that Paul’s words in <a class="lbsBibleRef" href="http://bible.logos.com/passage/esv/1%20Corinthians%201.18-19" target="_blank">1 Corinthians 1:18-19</a> may have been reflective of his experience with the Athenian philosophers. At the Areopagus, we understand from the text that Paul preached Christ, but certainly not to the contempt of the life of the mind. This kind of speculation paints Paul as being annoyed and fatigued by intellectual engagement in which he encouraged others.<br />
<hr size="1" /><a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_ednref1">[i]</a> Moore, Beth. <i>So Long Insecurity: You’ve Been a Bad Friend to Us</i>. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2010) p. 56-57 <a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_ednref2">[ii]</a> Moore, Beth. <i>To Live is Christ: Joining Paul’s Journey of Faith</i>. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001) p. 132.<br />
<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_ednref3">[iii]</a> Ibid., p. 132<br />
<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_ednref4">[iv]</a> Ibid., p. 132<br />
<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_ednref5">[v]</a> Ibid., p. 132<br />
<a href="http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/08/more-on-beth-moore/#_ednref6">[vi]</a> Ibid., p. 133Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-63632872911248557802010-08-18T19:56:00.001-05:002010-08-18T19:58:21.918-05:00Is the Department of Justice Investigating Conservative Bloggers?I'm just a small-town girl with a love for God, a passion for truth, and a desire for a safe world for my kids to live in. Writing about matters of faith, ethics, and a smattering of politics fulfills my lofty desires to be a factor in our culture wars, to make an impact in the way people integrate their worldview into every day life. So today, I am caught slightly off guard when I find that someone from the Department of Justice is reading on my primary website, <a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/">The Center for Women of Faith in Culture</a>. Okay, so perhaps it was a government employee covertly looking for a speaker for her next women's ministry event, or a covert conservative needing an early morning dose of reality before embarking on his/her day's work. If that's what it was, welcome!<br />
<br />
More than likely, it was an accidental visit and whoever it was intended to locate the Women of Faith site and mistakenly ended up on my gorgeous Wordpress creation. After all, they only hung around for a few minutes and looked at 4 pages. Then again, Nancy Pelosi is trying to discover who the funding source is for the NY City Mosque naysayers, maybe she thinks its me. I didn't do it. But I also didn't know it took any sum of money to say that's a bad idea. But I digress...<br />
<br />
Are you a conservative blogger with questionable government visits to your site? I'd like to hear from you. Oh, and here's the evidence:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf6S-c7SQxrQvjK1GFrRbm37868_ZYQSqoRxwzKfaHYJLZsERdnNJGj5u-C74rF4eJixshyxH-PSkLiFRBAcfu_nflsY2wmCcNqfcgLN-kUNER0NJYsANYmkP798pJoB3bzIP1/s1600/doj.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhf6S-c7SQxrQvjK1GFrRbm37868_ZYQSqoRxwzKfaHYJLZsERdnNJGj5u-C74rF4eJixshyxH-PSkLiFRBAcfu_nflsY2wmCcNqfcgLN-kUNER0NJYsANYmkP798pJoB3bzIP1/s400/doj.png" width="398" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEigkEHmOpFTb55mlUwgh5ftZYPjrdUuz0Sknh2ly856hhq63R9sFOgLv96CXvnm9pwlhccc_G08fJ9Z4_XEJXGuEi7ZfLH5ugQ1eMwQcT82gqybOq5LJh1rVGPbxtGTSqevOa8o/s1600/doj.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-78753455726347388222010-08-13T09:27:00.001-05:002010-08-13T09:32:28.603-05:00Glenn Beck & the Faith Factor<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMQhtArX_HBnzk7DKFpjaNrPvfHGrmn3JGLgtvASPgSiZ0jp22C4ZLRhGkter4aF69ipGKLLUfzqi6WJ4d5Clv-gHewz3Yzdnhq0riesI56qdzIQv3W_9p8qK01l-vh24W2s_Y/s1600/gb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMQhtArX_HBnzk7DKFpjaNrPvfHGrmn3JGLgtvASPgSiZ0jp22C4ZLRhGkter4aF69ipGKLLUfzqi6WJ4d5Clv-gHewz3Yzdnhq0riesI56qdzIQv3W_9p8qK01l-vh24W2s_Y/s200/gb.jpg" width="156" /></a></div>If you're a conservative and an avid listener of Glenn Beck, likely you appreciate his connecting of dots between Obama administration players, 60's radicals, and the philosophical writings advocating socialism and socialistic policy. Recently, in fact, he showed how the NEA recommends the writings of Saul Alinsky. I find that sort of information interesting and helpful.<br />
<br />
Joe Carter at <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/12/glenn-beck-sees-no-harm-in-gay-marriage/">First Things</a> recently challenged Beck's view that issues like abortion and same-sex marriage shouldn't guide our public discussion as much as they do. Yet, Beck regularly insists we need to be moral in our day to day dealings: don't lie, cheat or steal. Have a strong work ethic, dont be lazy. Oh, and get back to your church, temple, synagogue or mosque. "Find God" so society can return to it's previous version of normal.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>But why should we care about the moral nature of our words and actions, and why does he appeal to our various religious experiences to ground our motivations? He certainly does not believe that each religion is true, because competing worldviews can not all be true. Beck knows that. Maybe he thinks they each have enough truth to provide common moral knowledge for all reasonable people looking for it. If he is holding to some form of natural law, he could probably even include atheists in his appeal to basic morality as well. But he doesn't.<br />
<br />
Whatever it is that Beck is trying to say about the role of religion in the health of our nation, he has it wrong in what appears to be an embrace of religious pluralism, at least for pragmatic purposes. I get it that he is avoiding telling his audience that it's the Mormon way or the highway. But behind his argument for societal calm is the lie that no matter what you believe, as long as you believe it sincerely and you aren't blowing up other people, America can get it's act together like the way it use to be. This sappy sentimentalism does not acknowledge what separates religious people, the transcendent claim to the source of moral truth and the reality of significant disagreement on a plethora of moral issues. Not to mention the nature and character of God.<br />
<br />
The reality is that though we live in a pluralistic society, our appeal to God and moral facts need to not be grounded in this pluralism. There is no objective, neutral place from which we can each derive our ethics, they are firmly rooted in how we understand ultimate reality. Glenn Beck is moving with dangerous imprecision in the realm of religion and ethics as he argues for an untenable cultural ideal, one which is more damaging to society in the long run. It is one thing to recognize that it is a pluralistic society that we live in, but we should not accept that as the way things ought to be. Whether it is because he is a Mormon or because he is on a nationally televised show, Beck's appeal to God is so general that it is essentially pointless. Perhaps it's time for his program to remain focused entirely on the Constitution and the idiocy coming from Washington DC and to exit stage right the realm of religious ethics.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-19964943328593234452010-08-09T17:00:00.002-05:002010-08-09T17:00:01.396-05:00Life Without the Opposite Sex: Why Not?Women should never "settle" with a man in order to have a child. Granted, women are created by God to have longings for procreating and nurturing, and I believe this is evidenced in the fact that women will go to all kinds of technological extremes to have their own biological children. But this desire should never supersede the proper context ordained for raising children. While there are purportedly many different family models that work in our world today, the family model that is the true cornerstone of civilization, that honors God and respects life at all stages, is one that begins with a God-centered relationship between one man and one woman. A woman who "settles" so that the alarm on her biological clock does not sound before the childbearing milestone slips through her fingers is the personification of self-centeredness. Actress Jennifer Aniston argues that women should not settle, not because of any reason I just offered, but because so many other options (assisted reproductive technologies - ARTs) are available to women today. <br />
<blockquote>“Women are realizing it more and more knowing that they don’t have to settle with a man just to have that child...Times have changed and that is also what is amazing is that we do have so many options these days, as opposed to our parents’ days when you can’t have children because you waited too long.” </blockquote><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/09/jen-aniston-women-dont-need-settle-just-child/?test=faces">Aniston</a> made this statement at a press conference discussing her new movie, <i>The Switch</i>, another story about a woman who decides to get pregnant with the help of a sperm donor.This movie is certainly not the first to discuss the options women have in this biotech century, <i>The Switch</i> comes after two other recent movies about sperm donors including <i>The Back-Up Plan</i> and <i>The Kids Are All Right</i>. Going mainstream with these options is not just about promoting scientific progress in reproductive technologies, but about removing so-called prejudice against alternative families. But we shouldn't be surprised that Hollywood would be the purveyor of secular-feminist propaganda.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/42.11.0.html">Christianity Today</a> recently asked some evangelical leaders about their response to the defeat of Prop 8 in California. Matthew Anderson's comments speak well for what I believe should be the church's focus in areas of bioethics and women's issues in general.<br />
<blockquote>Practically, I think we have relied too heavily on the will of the majority as our foundation for our legal actions. While political orders must on some level be representative of the people to be legitimate, our founding fathers set up a representative democracy for a reason. Without rejecting efforts like Proposition 8, politically conservative evangelicals should shift their focus toward equipping the next generation of leaders with the philosophical and theological training they need to affect society and government from the "top-down." Majorities are unstable, and while traditional marriage has the upper hand now, it may not in 20 years.</blockquote>Christians definitely need to stay engaged in the public square on all issues that continue to impact our culture, but in agreement with Matthew Anderson, we need to be intentional and focused about equipping the next generation to think through these issues theologically, and prepare our future Christian citizens and leaders to be unabashedly Christian as they argue these issues in the market place. But this isn't just about the future of culture, but the future of the church and the role that Scripture plays in the lives of believers. New traditions will be in place in a few short years, and terms like "traditional marriage" and "traditional family" will have been shed of all meaning. But terms like "biblical marriage" and "biblical family" will always have meaning because they always point to a source.<br />
<br />
But back to Aniston's comments, she is correct, women today don't have to "settle" in order to have children--from a technological perspective, anyway. But without a Christian worldview framework to consider the purpose and role of family and childbearing, what more can we expect? No matter what the law or science may permit, the people can willingly reject it when they have the ability to think theologically.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-21230772744277480642010-08-05T10:23:00.001-05:002010-08-05T10:25:18.831-05:00The High Calling of the Christian WomanSurrogacy, In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), egg “donation”, and even certain forms of contraception are considered by many women–including Christian women–valid options for addressing their reproductive dilemmas despite the embryo-destructive nature often associated with these advancements in technology.<br />
<br />
Over the years, I have known many women in churches who have traveled down these paths only to suffer the pain of knowing their very prolife intentions have led to some not-so-prolife results. For some, they have come to understand that the embryos they placed in frozen storage for future “use” are their children whether or not they are eventually born or do not survive the process of implantation. Others are still learning that pre-implantation genetic diagnosis is not actually a therapeutic treatment of their very tiny children, but a means of discarding imperfect offspring, a technological “achievement” grounded in a philosophy that says only certain lives are worth living. PGD has come to be a routine practice as IVF has come to be more about quality control.<br />
<br />
We continue to love and minister to the women and families who have found themselves in these unfortunate circumstances without being fully informed; ridicule and rebuke have no place as there is so much misinformation about these issues. But as a matter of proactive, educational ministry, women in the church must learn more about these decisions they are contemplating.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/?page_id=372">Continue reading </a>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-41737353565329263542010-07-18T21:14:00.000-05:002010-07-18T21:14:05.116-05:00On Being a NeighborWe see this happen in media interviews all the time. They have come to be known as “gotchya” questions where the interviewer takes joy in setting up a scenario that the responder must either refuse to answer, or he is forced to stumble through the answer to the satisfaction of the interviewer and/or the audience. This is similar to the attempt to trip-up Jesus when asked which commandment is the greatest of them all. A Pharisee, and interestingly a lawyer, posed the question perhaps counting on Jesus to make a misstep and pit one precept against another. How then could Jesus claim to be any sort of authority? The Pharisees could take gratification in his lack of understanding and enjoy his public humiliation. But ultimate truth cannot be destroyed, even by a lawyer driven by an agenda of deception.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/?page_id=360">Continue Reading...</a>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-70179985552723163722010-07-16T22:38:00.000-05:002010-07-16T22:38:59.290-05:00CBHD Beyond Therapy Bioethics Conference<div style="color: black;"><span style="font-size: small;">The 17th Annual Conference on Bioethics opened with <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eethics/Site/Main.html">Dr. William Hurlbut</a> speaking on <i>Embodiment, Biotechnology and Human Dignity</i>. In it, he reminded the crowd that <span class="UIStory_Message">"bioethics is not a profession, it is a conversation for the whole human family"and the physician is really only "nature's assistant." For Dr. Hurlbut, human dignity is most evident in the face of Christ. Not in keeping with a proper view of human mortality, he quoted the mission of those for an unfettered biotech future. William Haseltine, head of Human Genome Sciences, stated: “The real goal is to keep people alive forever.”<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thehumanfuture.org/about/scholars/waters.html">Dr Brent Waters</a> of Garrett Theological Seminary spoke on <i>Late Modern Medicine and Bioethics</i>, drawing our attention to the Creator-creation distinction and reminding us that it is good to be a creature, but being a creature comes with limitations that should be embraced, not overcome.</span></span></div><div style="color: black;"><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial","sans-serif"; line-height: 115%;">It is good to be a creature. To be a creature requires that we have a beginning and an end. A creature depends on its creator and fellow creatures. Our creaturely status reminds us that we are not God. When we tend to ignore our status as creatures, we tend to view ourselves as self-made beings.</span></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "arial","sans-serif"; line-height: 115%;">In Being Human in a World of Digitized Reality and Artificial Life, Dr. Mike Sleasman, Managing Director of <a href="http://www.cbhd.org/">CBHD</a>, walked us through the technological forecasts of Sir Robert Boyle and Sir Arthur C. Clarke, contemplating those things yet to be achieved. Sleasman well-articulated the problem of the "consumer doctrine of planned obsolescence." <br />
<br />
To conclude the day, <a href="http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/profiles/DorothyRoberts/">Dr. Dorothy Roberts</a> of Northwestern University discussed <i>Race and the New Biocitizen</i>. In this very interesting talk, she drew attention to a particular problem of unnecessary correlations between race and genetics, highlighting the FDA statements and marketing of certain phamaceutical to the african-american population.<br />
<br />
To obtain recordings of these and other paper presentations, visit <a href="http://www.cbhd.org/">The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity</a> for more info. More highlights from the rest of the conference tomorrow!</span></span></div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-74987435449251420932010-07-05T19:33:00.002-05:002010-07-05T21:51:57.829-05:00Is IVF a Sin?On an <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080810185108AAxzB2W">internet discussion board</a>, several (Christian and non-Christian) have been interacting on the question of whether IVF is, according to Christianity, a sin. Without going into tremendous detail here, IVF (In Vitro Fertilization) is an artificial reproductive technology (ART) used to fertilize a woman's egg outside of her body and implant it into her uterus later. The process may move as quickly as having one egg fertilized and immediately implanted, or the process may be longer where several eggs are fertilized and 2-3 are implanted and several embryos stored for use another time. And then there are variations in between as well as some extreme circumstances like the so-called Octomom story of 1009. Some couples choose to have the embryos screened for genetic defects or gender, never implanting the "bad" ones. Others will freeze and store dozens of eggs, not knowing exactly what will become of them in the future. Some of the debate over embryonic stem cell research stems from the existence of hundreds of thousands of embryos that are currently in storage, many of which will never be claimed by their parents. Yes, I said parents. <br />
<br />
So below is the discussion which caught my attention:<br />
<i>I don't know that IVF is a sin. I have issues with it, but they are only my opinion, and I have no Biblical reference for it or any other reference. Some of my issues include fertilization of numerous embryos: what do they do with the ones they don't implant? If they implant several embryos, what happens if they all implant? I know several people who were offered selective abortion, which I believe is wrong. And when it comes to choosing gender, I just think that is way wrong. <br />
However, I would not presume to judge you for undergoing IVF. It is ultimately your choice. If you have prayed about it and strongly feel it is the right thing to do, then go for it. </i><br />
<br />
It's a good thing we don't make all of our decisions according to the few final words in this emotional recommendation. She believes there is something wrong with the use of IVF if it involves the creation of unused embryos, the destruction of embryos, or sex-selection. Her concern is rooted in the concept of human dignity, that life is precious and worthy of respect at every stage. Sadly, she does not explain that the embryo is a human at its earliest stage and destroying a tiny human person is to kill that person. If we think something is wrong, we ought to be able to say why, but perhaps she was driven by the higher moral principle to not judge. That one she claims without hesitation and it appears to be at the top of her moral hierarchy. Is this the kind of advice we should be giving for any questionable situation? "Pray about it and if it feels right...." ? Perhaps "continue to seek wisdom and knowledge from others AND continue to pray" is the better course.<br />
<br />
So the question is, is IVF a sin? Let's rephrase it. Is killing another person a sin? If the technology involves the destruction of human embryos, we are in safe, though sad, territory identifying the act with an act of sin.<i><br />
</i>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-59328150317718041612010-06-29T14:47:00.000-05:002010-06-29T14:47:16.282-05:00Will Socialism Save Evangelicalism?As everyone becomes increasingly uncomfortable with global economic woes, many of which have been brought on by big-government economic policies, I have to wonder if this could actually be good for the church. America's history of prosperity can be understood to be the result of divine blessing, solid economic policy, or a providential combination. Yet maybe since this is all Americans today are familiar with--the comfort of prosperity--we are being forced to draw closer to God and consider the deeper meaning of trusting God in every single area of life. I am no friend of socialist policies that bring higher taxes and income redistribution, but I am all about seeing God at work, and maybe...just maybe we are edging closer to another great awakening.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-72603416939624907232010-06-20T17:55:00.000-05:002010-06-20T17:55:19.302-05:00What Are We Waiting For? Bioethics & the Progressive Agenda<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/mini-ivf-baby-279x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/mini-ivf-baby-279x300.jpg" width="186" /></a></div>For whatever reason, the six-year venture of the <a href="http://www.womesbioethics.org/" mce_href="http://www.womesbioethics.org" target="_blank" title="Women's
Bioethics Project">Women's Bioethics Project</a> has come to an end with a<a href="http://www.womensbioethics.org/" mce_href="http://www.womensbioethics.org/" target="_blank" title="Women's
Bioethics Project"> recent announcement</a> that they are closing their doors. But their work is not really finished, it is evolving. Kathryn Hinsch writes on the organization's website:<i> </i><br />
<blockquote><i>We need ways to reach people outside of the academic and policy realms. Leveraging the power of popular culture is a compelling strategy that engages the public in a visceral and dramatic way. Many emerging technologies and ideas were unimaginable until recently. Genetic testing, designer babies, radical life extension, and neural imaging, to name just a few, are still in their infancy. And there is a great opportunity for determining how these issues are framed in the public mind. Policy will follow public opinion, so we must ensure progressive values are part of the national conversation.</i> </blockquote>Christian bioethics similarly needs a strategy to educate and equip those in the pew. Academic materials are not easily translated and filtered down to families who I personally know are engaging in embryo screening and pursing IVF without the ability to acknowledge some of the theological considerations or tragic outcomes. A new project I am embarking in with <a href="http://www.cbhd.org/" mce_href="http://www.cbhd.org" target="_blank" title="CBHD">The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity</a> is a church bioethics council which seeks to develop lay-level materials for the church. Christians will (hopefully) not only be better equipped to engage these ethical dilemmas in their own circumstances, but also equipped to impact culture with a theological view of bioethics that recognizes the dignity of all humans, no matter their age or stage, above a progressive bioethics agenda that seeks whatever science will permit. Kathryn Hinsch has a great insight, that in order to inform public policy, people outside of the academy and political realms need to be reached. What Christian bioethics has that secular bioethics does not have is a gathering place for a concerted educational impact to occur.Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-30821347126336460082010-06-09T09:17:00.000-05:002010-06-09T09:17:57.699-05:00Conjoined Twins and Christian bioethicsAbortion was never an option, nor is a do-not-resuscitate order (DNR). Her conjoined twins, which have survived long past the time doctors deemed possible, are become less stable each day. It’s hard for the <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/ct-met-conjoined-twins-20100608,0,7194206,full.story" target="_blank" title="Conjoined Twins">Chicago Tribune</a> article to give us all the facts, but what do you understand about life saving options vs. those which unnecessarily prolong death? What is your church teaching you about these bioethical questions? <a href="http://www.womenfaithculture.com/">continue reading...</a>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-11459930082597239272010-05-26T11:43:00.000-05:002010-05-26T11:43:19.051-05:00Living in the Shadow of Truth<em><span style="font-family: Arial;">You can’t say that Christianity is true for everyone because that’s just how you were raised. </span></em><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">How prepared are you to respond to this statement without pitting faith against reason? What I mean is, do you respond by saying that Christianity does not meet the demands of logic and reason, <em>you just have to believe</em>, and that’s the end of the discussion? Or do you unpack the assertion by challenging its fundamental assumptions? The assertion that Christian belief is merely cultural, a set of values passed down from parents to children and therefore not something that can be considered true or false, can be destructive and discouraging to the mind of the believer because of a misapplied truth...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://womenfaithculture.org/home/node/61">continue reading... </a></span>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-30446641824868958082010-03-25T10:09:00.000-05:002010-03-25T10:09:02.875-05:00Christian Ed. and the Risks of On-the-Job Training<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Just about every evangelical church has lay people positioned as elders and teachers, rarely with formal theological training. Obviously, formal training doesn’t necessarily make one a good teacher, but it gives warrant to the belief that the person has a certain degree of knowledge of what they are trying to teach. But as a teacher, how much more does he or she need to know beyond that of the students? Is it appropriate, as the adult in the room, to be learning along side the students? (This may be an overstatement.) That’s something of a rhetorical question, because my current position on this is that, while teachers don’t need to know everything to the degree of having seminary education, they must have basic familiarity with the concepts whereby they can refresh themselves in further study and can actually lead the students without hampering their learning with on-the-job training. I’m curious what kind of training your churches offer in order to equip each teacher for their particular context.</div><div> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">I recently brought this up to a friend who suggested<span> </span>leadership development whereby teachers can learn to relate with their students and learn about the role of character in their leadership, becoming better teachers as a result. But that escapes the nature of my concern because even if a teacher is equipped at the most basic level, I’m not sure we are doing enough to take them to them further. Has the church made so much out of leadership development that we have neglected the equipping our teachers with the content they need to be truly effective? Not every teacher is a leader, yet the church is inundated with leadership conferences, books, and other materials. Everyone wants to lead and learn how to lead. But who wants to study? With anti-intellectualism rampant in the church, I say few really care to study.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Currently, I have one of the best teaching pastors I have ever known, I am blessed. <span> </span>But I’m unconvinced that Sunday morning is sufficient for equipping teachers for their own work. Whether Sunday school or youth ministry or adult studies, the gambit of information runs from basic Bible knowledge to apologetics and theological understanding. Pastors can’t do it all, and they definitely can’t do it all on Sunday morning, but maybe they could do more in the church if more direct training is required for all engaged in teaching ministry. Unfortunately, so much of teaching has been reduced to nonteaching. What I mean is that women are often not teaching Bible studies, they are facilitating, plopping in a video and asking “how does that verse make you feel?” The same may be said of Sunday school teachers who use prepackaged curriculum and are simply guiding 3<sup>rd</sup> graders in self-study. Can’t we do better?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">The picture I have drawn here may be overly pessimistic. I know many good lay teachers are out there. But I also know a lot of theological incompetence exists, but the training available for non-pastors is limited, especially when the teacher doesn’t quite know what he needs. This is a local church issue and we need to do more than hope lay teachers find iTunesU or read a few interesting blogposts.</div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33809926.post-41353045881013958822010-03-22T22:23:00.003-05:002010-03-22T22:41:39.264-05:00What Would Jesus Do? Compassion in Conflict<div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">From a Christian point of view, the virtue of compassion is rooted in the character of God and exemplified by the saving work of Christ. His was an example (though not merely an example) of ultimate compassion, giving completely of himself not out of compulsion but out of pure sacrificial love and devoid of political motivations. It is a model of compassion that we can only live out analogously because we fail to meet the standard of pure selflessness. For Jesus, he willingly chose to lose when he had already won. He is God! We strive, and with God’s power we achieve, but due to the fallen state of things, someone inevitably encounters our weaknesses. But we still seek to be compassionate.</span></div><div class="ii gt" id=":5n" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">Caring for society’s most vulnerable is part of our mission as the church and one that Christians take very seriously and act upon on a daily basis. The poor, the widows, the children—these are a few segments of society to which scripture explicitly challenges us to give of ourselves. And God’s church understands that the gospel without a cup of cold water isn’t very good news. Could we do better? Obviously.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">As it pertains to the recent passage of health care reform, some left-leaning Americans suggest that conservative, especially Christian conservatives, lack compassion because some—ok most—have been opposed to the health care reform bill in question. They abide by the bold assumption that the health care reform bill sits above other acts of compassion. It is better than creating jobs, it is better than smaller piecemeal options like opening of the state borders to more health insurance competition. It is better than simply working at the elimination of fraud and wasteful spending.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">What would Jesus do? What would he think?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Some liberals think he would do what they did on Sunday night, the Lord’s Day as one representative reminded us. That was disorienting. He said it was time for the representatives to “walk by faith” and pass the bill. Would Jesus do health care reform as they have penned this legislation? Probably not. Jesus would turn over the tables in congress and tell them to stop making deals that squander funds that could help those in need…..if Jesus were invited to comment on the dealings, that is. The bottom line is left-leaning Americans seem to be saying that godly compassion necessarily includes health care insurance. Furthermore, they seem to think that health care is a need that overrides other acts of compassion and ought to be raised to the level of rights. Maybe Jesus would ask us to be better stewards of our financial resources or maybe he would ask us to view the economy as a fishes and loaves opportunity. None of us can know for sure what Jesus would say, he’d probably call us all out as fools. But what we can know is that we are often faced with moral conflicts and the methods of compassion can also conflict.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">I know of no Christian conservative who takes joy in anyone lacking health care resources. But economic utopia is not possible on this side of eternity. Safety nets are in place like Medicaid to help families in need, and I know because I benefited from prenatal care through Medicaid in 1992-93. And by the way, it was top-notch. Yes, we can probably do more.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">Like jobs and education, healthy families and hunger-relief, access to health care is something we would love for everyone to have. Which one takes priority? To suggest that health care is a natural right is to reduce rights to consumer goods. Rights cannot be sold or traded or granted, they can only be recognized in that they are inherent to being human. But a non-evolutionary view of humanity is required to agree with that statement. Or maybe it is true that Darwinian theory impacts absolutely everything, including health care policy. Public funds can only go so far and private industry will pass on additional expenses and tax hikes on to consumers because business doesn’t exist primarily for benevolence, and it shouldn’t because then it ceases to be a for-profit entity.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;">Compassion comes in a variety of forms, some better implemented than others. We might also ask who has the most to gain when compassion is implemented. The dignity of an individual is infringed upon when, in the name of compassion, someone profits from exploiting what others lack. But at this point, compassion is no more.</span></div></div>Sarah J. Flashinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01847959531955967700noreply@blogger.com1