Feminization of the Church: Random Thoughts

Bonnie’s posts at Intellectuelle as well as my own engagement with the church’s concern over the feminization of the church has prompted numerous random thoughts. To springboard a bit from Bonnie’s posts on the topic, we need to know how it is being stated that the church’s feminization manifests. This is what I have learned through some of my own research:

1. The majority of those who attend church (on average) are women, over 60%. Related to this fact is that somewhere between ¼ and 1/5 of this percentage are women who attend without their husbands.

2. Some of the music reflects, supposedly, a femininity that men cannot identify with. This, in my mind, begs the question of what masculine music sounds like. I think we’re in safe territory questioning the theological depth of much of our worship music, or the quality of the music as art. Are we to identify the masculinity of music as that which lacks a supposed level of sappiness that is wrongly construed as feminine? Are songs such as Change My Heart Oh God and As the Deer considered feminine whereas songs like He Is Exalted and Blessed Be Your Name might be considered more masculine? I’m not even sure if these would be considered masculine, but they often differ (depending on the worship leader) from the former in tempo and key. If, indeed, tempo and style, speak anything about masculinity or femininity, I fear what might be said about some of the greatest classical works like those of Brahms, Handel, and Haydn.

3. Women in leadership. This is an area where I part ways from many of my friends. I’ve settled on the complementarian perspective, that Scripture does not permit women to be elders, thereby preventing them from the role of senior pastor. This, however, need not be a limitation for women with leadership gifts to serve the church in areas of teaching other women and coming alongside the male leadership in a consultancy capacity. There is a great deal that women have to contribute to the health of the church in addition to teaching Sunday school. It would serve the church well to respect the intellectual gifts of women. As men are discussing the feminization of the church, it would serve them well to be in dialogue with thoughtful, theological women in this process. More men might also consider taking on the role of Sunday school teacher. Teaching children should not be a concession to women (as it seems to be), children should be viewed as the greatest resource of the church to make an impact on our culture in future generations. If the church has been feminized because of anything women have done, might it be because so few men are involved?
In the context of a church with a complementarian culture, the issue of women in leadership is a moot point. This cannot be the blame (if that’s the term we are using) for the feminization of the church. As has been attributed to Phil Johnson at a 2007 men’s conference, the feminization has been caused largely by the abdication of Christian men.

Nancy Pearcey quotes Ann Douglas from her book The Feminization of American Culture, that

"ministry lost a toughness, a sternness, an intellectual rigor which our society then and since has been accustomed to identify with masculinity” and instead took on 'feminine'” traits of care, nurturing, sentimentalism, and retreat from the harsh ethos of the public arena” (Total Truth, 335).

I’m terribly bothered that intellectual rigor is considered a masculine trait by default. The seeker movement and the therapeutic Christianity that has come to dominate the culture of so many publishers and churches is the product of male leadership and lacks a great deal of intellectual rigor. I’m quite sure that having more men in the pews will not repair this epidemic, and I’m not sure that a church with a female majority is really the problem. More and more women within the evangelical community want to do the challenging work of theological reflection and are bored to tears (pardon the pun) with talking about their feelings and only allowed to do church in the form of parties revolving around cosmetics and chocolate. They want more, and a great deal of male leadership has pigeon-holed women’s ministry as a place to be emotional and fluffy, perpetuating the problem.

Looking at feminization through the lens of history, however, perhaps we can better understand it by considering the role the industrial revolution played in taking husbands out of the homes to work in factories, placing women in necessary functional leadership roles in the family. And in this sense, perhaps we can suggest that it was the industrial revolution that sparked the feminist revolution and the feminization of church and culture. Progress may have more to do with feminization than anything else.

Final Thoughts
As a Christian woman with a passion for theological precision, and coming from a Reformed perspective, I think that this whole discussion about the feminization of the church has been without concern for how it affects women. Because certain traits are regarded as masculine and feminine, it’s as if the rug has been pulled out from under women who might be hurt by the tone of the discussion. I say this, because if “hurt” or “sensitivity” are considered feminine “feelings,” then by virtue of the topic, a negative response to it by a woman would probably be considered evidence of the problem. Setting the topic up this way, in itself, lacks virtue and logic. I hope more women can be brought into the discussion, because this is much deeper than masculine or feminine, it’s about Christ-centeredness or human-centeredness, the latter which is typified through the therapeutic subculture of the church.

I have SO MUCH MORE to say on this topic, but I will conclude for now with the place of women in the biblical narrative. I wonder if the disciples thought Jesus was feminizing their new movement by engaging so many women….Mary and Martha of Bethany, the woman at the well, the prostitute who anointed Jesus’ feet, the women he appeared to at the resurrection. We read a great deal about how Jesus interacts with women and cares enough to bring them to theological maturity. In this sense, I find this aspect of who Jesus is absent from so much of today’s male leadership in the church. I expect more. And I know women need more.

The Exploitation of Church and State

Last week in Kentucky, a flier from the Obama campaign was distributed, picturing a large cross and boldly stating, "Faith. Hope. Change." His campaign was reported as stating, "We want people to know what is important to him, and a large part of that is his Christian faith." (Courier Journal).

There may be a certain people who identify themselves as Christians who are swayed by this, but this tactic will have little effect on those Christians who know where he stands on the war, gay marriage, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research. What we don't know about where he stands on other issues is moot at this point as he's willing to see the foundation of civilization--the family unit--disinigrate.

When religion is used as a political ploy, serious Christians find themselves patronized and religion exploited. Obama isn't the first person to use faith as a means to an end, but it's clear that is exactly what he's doing in his run for the White House.
"Faith. Hope. Change." Does this tagline imply that Obama is looking to become our first elected, politically correct Minister in Chief? Even in Huckabee's campaign, Huckabee worked hard to make clear that he wasn't trying to become America's highest ranking chaplain. And many evangelicals supported Romney, despite their substantive theological disagreements over Mormonism. But Romney wasn't running for Theologian-in-Chief, no question about it.

It is not wrong to have a religious posture, but adopting a religious posture for the sole purpose of gaining favor of Christians is demeaning to the office of President. Competence is the highest qualification for the office of President, but politically-expedient religiosity misses the mark entirely.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Evangelism and God's Self-Disclosure

Inclusivism isn't dead because evangelicals aren't drilling the importance of systematic thinking in the lives of church members. Without examining how one held doctrine relates to or impacts belief of another doctrine, it can be easy for believers to hold on to opposing views. For instance, if you believe that only those who consciously place their faith in Jesus Christ are saved, you can't also hold that "God...may save some who have never heard of Christ" (Gagging of God, 279). This is a position called soft inclusivism and means essentially that those who live a life committed to the God revealed in creation, but not known to them as the triune Father, Son, and Spirit, can still be saved. Sadly, I recently heard Romans 1 explained in this way by a seasoned Christian woman, advocating that the passage is describing an opportunity for salvation to people who have never heard the gospel preached instead of the responsibility or culpability of a person to recognize that God exists and he is seen in all of creation and that there is a sense of order that cannot be ignored.

This isn't just a harmless perspective on a non-essential doctrine, it is a grave error in the handling of scripture and speaks to how even many mature believers haven't been taught how to think through the implications of a doctrine. God is just and loving, but man is, by nature, a sinner and needs to hear the gospel, needs regeneration, and needs to confess with his mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord - no other way about it.

If, perhaps, we give any credence to this view of soft-inclusivism, what is it we're saying about the role of evangelism? Is it not ridiculous to send out missionaries if God will save them anyway? I'm reminded of Ephesians 6:12 that states:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

How can the person who does not know Christ put on the whole armor of God? How can they do battle? We must be more concerned with the doctrines we teach, but also with how each of these doctrines is integrated in our lives with other held beliefs. When inclusivism rears its ugly head in your church, bible studies, or book clubs, don't be shy about addressing it in the clearest terms.

Keeping the Home: Titus 2 and the Intellectual Life

Growing up in my family was challenging. I know that every family has their flaws and serious imperfections, but my experiences as a child, I believe, stand out among all that can be called peculiar.

My mom would say that I grew up in a Christian home, my brother would say we did not. I suggest that my Christianity as a child had very little to do with my home, but God certainly used the bizarre and peculiar to develop me into his servant.

My childhood is full of lots of stories. That fact that I was taught to think about God but was never given the intellectual tools to do so speaks well to God's intervention in my life. As a Sunday school student in the United Methodist Church, I learned to open my Bible--but that's about it. The greatest lesson I learned from that church is that God is sovereign. That, however, wasn't a message in a sermon. That came up in a meeting where my mom had been told by the pastor that God can't possibly know when you are going to die.

As a teen, I learned about death and how hard it can be for someone to face as an onlooker. The experience of seeing someone close to her in age drove my mom to pursue the pastoral care of the local RCC priest. I think she was cared for and I was able to see from a distance the important ministry of counseling. But nevertheless, we moved on after she found herself disappointed there..

While in high school, my mother who was now completely disillusioned by the Church, decided it was time to join a cult. In the not so distant past, we hid from the Jehovah's Witnesses whenever they hearkened our front door and now she was seeking to become a baptized member. This made so little sense to me, but hence, I was along for the ride. It wasn't long before I was involved in studies, the situation forcing me to think about why we celebrate birthdays, Christmas, and the deity of Christ. Needless to say, my radar was up as I had already been exposed to some solid preaching, the most sound coming through a baptist vacation bible school. I also do not underestimate the value of Christian radio as it would be emanating from the family stereo all hours of the day and night.

I clearly did not have all the answers as I was moved around from church to church, sort of like a military kid. I did, however, have enough theological intuition such that my mind was not vulnerable to every wind of doctrine that came before me.

Growing up in this environment instilled a passion for knowing God and seeking truth. I had no interest in the moral life outside of true faith as I was constantly besieged by my mom's gospel of legalism. I think the bottom line is that I was not in a home that was being kept spiritually. I had food, warm clothes, I was clean, but I had no example of what it meant to be a follower of Jesus. It is by the grace of God that I have become that person today. I know that through my experiences God was preparing me for a ministry to women that engages the mind. My mom may have on the surface partially fulfilled the teaching of Titus 2, and she may have just done the best she could. But I know that "keeping the home" involves more than domestic prowess, it necessitates sitting at the feet of Jesus and learning to teach, not standing in the shoes of the Pharisees and hoping your family gets their act together.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Engaging Holiness

Last night I was doing a study on the use of the word 'encourage' as it is found in Scripture. As it turns out, encourage, sophronizo in Greek, is used only in Titus 2:4,

so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children (NASB).

The term refers to discipleship in a restorative sense, suggesting that the passage is emphasizing a better way for women to live than the way to which they were accustomed. A brief study of what Crete was like at the time reveals a society of great immorality. In contrast to what were the casual norms of that society, Titus was instructed to teach about conduct and character that "accords with sound doctrine" (2:1). For women, this meant that older women were to mentor younger women, exhorting them

to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled (ESV).

In light of the youthfulness of the church in Crete which is noted by the fact that Titus was there to appoint elders (1:5) in every city, it would make sense that the Christians had not yet learned to live in a way which brought glory to God and an opportunity for the Gospel. The Cretans, essentially liars and drunkards, needed to be discipled, to learn to live in ways which did not reflect poorly on the message of Christianity or the person of Christ. These were not believers who were solidly rooted in the doctrine of the church; heresy was rampant, not really at odds with truth because the church was too young to boldly proclaim truth. This climate enabled men and women to live in whatever way was pleasing to them. The instructions to women in 2:4-5 provided a dramatic change from the life they were use to.

So now I want to turn your attention to the fact that I began this particular study of Titus because women are often drawn to this and Proverbs 31 as core areas of study. Entire ministries are built upon these passages, used as platforms for promoting certain ideals for women that understand these passages through the lens of 1950’s Western culture. I am not in dispute with the clear message of Titus 2, that women are to love their families and keep their homes and to submit to their husbands, but 1) how this looks varies by era and culture and 2) displaces single women or forces them into marriages of spiritual expedience. How women live as believers in our culture is the same as it was for the women in Crete: to love their families, to live pure and holy lives, and to use moderation in all things. For women who are not married, these principles exist for them as well. From Titus 2:4 we get a general picture of the holy life, not a set of particulars on things such as homeschooling our kids, career and education, or an injunction that all women should learn to be great cooks. What we get is an understanding that Christian living involves setting ourselves aside for the benefit of others, an example of how Jesus lived and died. In Crete, men and women who identified themselves as Christians needed to be restored to the cause of Christ by learning how to live in a way that did not actively engage sin. And as the more mature believers were brought into a closer relationship with the Son of God and learning to live in a way that reflects this change, they then had the opportunity to influence more immature believers. As any good entrepreneur knows, an effective path to success is to be able to duplicate what you do. Titus was able to appoint and train elders, they in turn were able to train the more mature members of the churches, and they in turn were able to disciple the younger members. I’m excited to continue in this tradition, to mentor and be mentored, but not if that means understanding Titus 2 as a set of particulars that coincide with a certain subset of the evangelical subculture in the 21^st century.

Women's Ministry Leadership: Teaching Scripture, Avoiding Fads

I'm always looking for the latest book or study for womens ministry study groups. My expectations are usually low because there is so much fluff or theologically weak materials available. Pondering this problem caused me to reflect on the market altogether and why it even exists. While there are many bible studies that exist for men and for mixed groups, I question why there are so many more available to women...and I think its because there are so few womens ministry leaders with the capacity to teach without a study or curriculum. I'd love to be wrong. If there are more women who are capable of expounding on God's Word without the aid of a Beth Moore video or Cynthia Heald study, I'd love to know. I'm not saying those materials shouldn't be available, but it probably speaks to the composition of womens leadership in evangelical circles. What women in the local church are available and equipped to regularly teach directly from Scripture? Because, as it seems to me, that there are few women who can fulfill this role, we need to rethink some things about womens ministry.

1. If there are women gifted to teach in your church, what is preventing them from exercising that gift?

2. Encourage young women to pursue seminary education to serve women in the local church. While I think young women are interested in this, I think there are few more mature women who know to encourage them this direction.

3. Churches: encourage women's ministry leaders to pastoral ministry, not simply event planning. Women can be called "Pastor of Womens Ministry" without compromising any views of roles in the church. Promote the value of women pursuing advanced education to serve the local church.

4. The "rock star" perception of womens conference speakers has got to end. This way of viewing the more famous leaders has a way of making church womens leaders feel very small and irrelevant.

5. Few pastors are raised up out of the ranks of the pews without them pursuing at least a college degree, but usually seminary. Yet this expectation doesn't exist for women's ministry leaders. Why? It's not necessary that she have a seminary degree, but I fear we do more to discourage it than encourage it.

I probably have many points I'm trying to make with this post, but mostly I want to encourage those who are gifted teachers in womens ministry to function according to those gifts and not be dependent on the next cool fad to hit the bookstore.

Mother's Day & the Silent Relationships

According to Wikipedia, Mother's Day was first celebrated by Anna Jarvis in West Virginia in 1905 to commemorate her mother's death 2 years previous. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed a proclamation designating the second Sunday of May as Mother's Day.

Like so many holidays that are packed with meaning, Mothers Day has gone the way of Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter as a victim of consumerism. Is there anything worse? Well, I'm afraid there is.

Mothers Day loses its meaning without that which makes a woman a mother, and that is the relationship with her child. I am not only speaking of the warm, loving relationship of a mother and daughter/son, I'm also speaking of the biological relationship that's overlooked in the spirit of technology and progress.

Today, young women sell their eggs for purposes of research and fertility treatments. They undergo a series of hormone injections and invasive procedures in order for their eggs to be harvested and used to assist another in her pregnancy, or a research lab to practice somatic cell nuclear transfer. I don't believe these young women really understand what they are doing. After an egg is harvested, it's fertilized or coaxed to become an embryo -- that embryo is the egg donor's genetic offspring. Some of these embryos will go into frozen storage--her genetic offspring. Other embryos will be killed in research--again, her genetic offspring.

This Mothers Day as we celebrate the relationships with our moms and our kids, and remember the history of the occasion, let us not forget the children whose mothers don't know how to see them.

In the Bible, the inability to have a child is met with many emotions including deep sadness and even humiliation. The ability to continue a familial lineage was a high value. For Hannah, it was not just the joy and pride to have a child, it was also about the kind of child she might be blessed with--one who would serve God. Left in the hands of her almighty God, she prayed that her one wish would be fulfilled--and Hannah became a mother.

Today our misguided world is so intent on destroying, abusing, and profiting from our children, they have lost sight of the fact that these children still have mothers.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Wallis, Social Issues, and Interdenominational Dialogue

In an interview (not yet posted online) with CT, Jim Wallis gives answers on social issues that are no suprise. While he's adamant on his position on abortion, "The abortion debate has gotten very stale...No one seems to care about the abortion rate...The Republicans want a constitutional amendment banning abortion. That's just symbolic..." Wallis uses vague language to keep the door open for his position on gay marriage. And in a very strange way, Wallis believes poverty is the new slavery. He says "Poverty and global inequality are the fundamental moral issues of our time. That's my judgment." As a child, I experienced poverty in rural Wisconsin, yet my own experience wasn't anything like what we see in other places in the world. But it was the opportunities that only a free society can offer that provided my freedom from poverty, if poverty is, indeed, the moral equivalent to slavery.

Asked about civil rights for gays, Wallis talked about it his belief in equal protection under the law, but on the topic of gay marriage he offered no surprises. "But marriage is all through the Bible, and it's not gender-neutral. I've never done a blessing for a same-sex couple...I'm not sure that I would" which means he's not sure that he wouldn't. At this point he insists that churches who disagree on this matter have a "theological conversation" but "live with their differences" and focus their energies on poverty and disease. Clearly those are important issues, too, but now I want to have a debate with Wallis on why we must listen to him and simply live with the differences. Is it the higher moral ground to cave on certain issues and not cave on other issues? Who determines what issues we cave on? Wallis? He sounds a bit like the democrats who expect consevatives to cross the aisle while they sit still. Wallis' condemnation of the Episcopal Church is another example of calling for conversation without expectation for action or decisiveness. Perhaps Wallis is confused, because the church is certainly expected to have views on issues of personal morality...the qualifications of elders and matters of church discipline in Scripture make that abundantly clear. In his recounting of events while he attended TEDS, he insisted on the centrality of the Lordship of Jesus and the authority of the Scriptures, yet it is clear from the interview that his appropriation of the fuller testimony of Scripture is limited.

Stan Guthrie offered a response to the notion that abortion is just one of many social concerns, saying that "if everything is a priority, then nothing is." This is the message that I have been persistent in sharing because there isn't one evangelical who can adequately address every social ill. We need Christians working hard on a variety of issues, and the largeness of the abortion debate and stem cell research necessitates wider evangelical engagement. It's a more complex issue than some others because it involves philosophical dialogue on the nature of personhood and when life begins. It doesn't take quite that much work to agree that poverty is ugly, but it does ask us to consider how to affect societies for longer-term change. My specialization in theology and bioethics doesn't make me the best person to launch a crusade against oppressive forms of government. But there are other evangelicals who might serve better in that area than in the prolife movement or other areas. But for Wallis to encourage dialogue and move no further is irresponsible.

Redeeming Martha

Last week I heard a woman at my church teach on Luke 10, describing herself at times as an "accidental Martha." By that, she was referring to Martha's heart, not choosing the "good part" as her sister had, but letting her circumstances weigh on her to the extent that she could not enter into that special place with Jesus.

Well, the story of Martha does not end with this account, and in my view, Martha needs to be seen with new eyes. Of course, the account in Luke 10 has merit to be studied on its own, but to gather a more complete picture of Martha, we need to look further.

In John 11, the account of Lazarus' illness, death, and resurrection, we see that many of the Jews had come to console Mary and Martha. Martha had heard that Jesus was coming, but she did not wait for him, she went and met him while Mary remained in their house. Why did Martha go?? Martha has obviously learned a great deal since the kitchen encounter becuse in this account, we see a strong woman of faith pursuing Jesus with not just hope but also with understanding. She had chosen the good part, to be in the presence of her Lord.

Are we growing up like Martha? Are you able to articulate core doctrines of the faith as Martha learned of the resurrection? Even our grief, as shown in this account, must be Christ-centered, pursuing Jesus should not be limited to times of comfort.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

See to it...What You Believe Matters

There are some things that have to be done, tasks that are necessary for living. Going to work, feeding the family, doing the laundry...you see to it that these things are done...you can't not do these things.

The scriptures provide many 'see to it's,' and one in particular is found in Colossians 2:8-10:
"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him..."

From this command is found many truths: 1) You are responsible to protect your mind from godless beliefs 2) You have the ability to know the difference between the godly and the godless 3) That to walk in him (v. 6-7) involves our intellectual life 4) There is nothing harmless about human-centered philosophy 5) The deity of Christ is important in our commitment to him in that if he were not fully God bodily, our focus would continue to be human-centered.

My point is that it is important to carefully scrutinize the content of our faith, living out a systematic theology. One doctrine, one teaching of Scripture, will have a relationship to other doctrines and teachings in Scripture. Discovering those relationships will assist you developing a consistent Christian worldview. As a proper and effective witness for Jesus, we shouldn't be willing to live with incoherence, and we should willingly analyze new teachings, comparing them to what we already know to be true. This is the spirit of being a Berean.

Is it possible to welcome aspects of the occult or the new age movement into our life without directly contradicting the testimony of Scripture? Is it possible to believe in Jesus yet deny the resurrection as taught by liberal theologians and other cults? Take, as another example, the gospel. Adopting a view of the gospel that is entirely focused on curing social ills displaces the eternal value of Christ's death and resurrection. What we believe about the gospel matters as it pertains to knowing God's truth and communicating it rightly. Without the Good News with eternal implications, is there really anything good about the news?

In Paul's letter to the Colossians, he exhorts the readers to behavior that is grounded in wisdom and speech that is always gracious (3:5-6). Paul never taught that the content of what we express should be compromised so as to avoid offense, rather he taught that godliness should be expressed in love. To put it another way: It's not just how you say it, it's what you say.

The Era of Works: the Secular Gospel

"Share the gospel, use words if necessary" are the famous words attribed to the historic figure, St Francis of Assisi. Whether or not this is an accurate representation of Assisi's entire framework of the gospel, it does represent a new wave of religion that lacks all content. A gospel with out words is merely random acts of kindness. Agreeably, however, the gospel without acts of kindness lacks love.

The Christian church today is embracing the idea that since younger people aren't interested in the content of faith, but moreso in being benevolent servants in our world, that we, the church, should focus on things other than doctrine. I don't think this is necessarily true of young people, but perhaps it is to some extent.

This week we heard that the black church is different, not deficient. I agree that the superficial things that make us different do not equate to deficiency. But if the gospel message is compromised and is viewed as merely as a matter of correcting social ills, then the gospel is lost in the mire of works.

The gospel is divisive. Teaching that through Jesus alone can one be saved is divisive and judgemental, but it is what it is. That does not mean we don't have an interest in helping the widows and the poor from every faith tradition. But we don't equate the gospel to those helps, though some place within such ministries there is a place for that eternal truth to be communicated.

The postmodern church and secular "religion" have a great deal in common as they elevate works of compassion over the message of the gospel, without which there is little purpose or meaning in benevolence.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

'Different is not Deficient:' Logical Fallacies at Work

Anyone who saw Jeremiah Wright's NAACP speech tonite heard his message that "different is not deficient." Now I don't think that anyone reasonable person would disagree with that. He used many examples to make his point: worship styles, right brain/left brain, musical time signatures, musical scales - I felt like I was in a music theory class again! Even in all white churches, we experience many differences that don't speak to theological deficiency.

But it is a logical fallacy to suggest that the content of a sermon qualifies as a superficial difference in style. His words in this speech are an attempt to make it impossible to disagree on issues. The quotes that are attributed to Jeremiah Wright's past sermons are not in dispute because they were stated in a passionate style or because he might have been jumping up and down or because he was loud. They are in dispute because of the message they bear.

Does it ultimately matter? As different parts of the evangelical community embrace postmodernism such that the content of belief has no bearing on the nature of faith, we will continue down the path of an exclusively social gospel. We are going to see more and more of this as Jeremiah Wright gains more credibility based upon his commitment to logical fallacies.

Indulging in God

I've been working on an essay on the subject of indulgences that will soon be posted here and at Women of Faith in Culture in the coming days. In the process of my studies, I've come to think about the topic as it relates to women in the Bible, though perhaps it is the Psalmist David who has the most to say about self-gratification.

I will go deeper on this in the essay, but I want to draw your attention to the indulgences as a tool in womens ministry (not the indulgences of the RCC). Whether they be coffee, purses, chocolate or shoes--all of which I believe womens bible studies have utilized--is it safe for the women we are mentoring and teaching to get their attention with things that can also be the source of serious struggle?

I love chocolate, and almost immediately after partaking of its pleasure I have a sugar crash and I'm miserable. And then I want more chocolate. Yet when I partake in knowing God, I just want more God, I want to indulge in him.

It is said that your body knows exactly what it needs and at times you will crave only those things that are healthy.. That was my experience during pregnancy...it was wonderful. And when you train the body to receive only what is nutritional, it rejects the garbage. Are we training our minds to do the same, or are we training up women who can only get to God through pathways of personal gratification?

I love to feed on God through studying the Bible, through theological contemplation, and through worship and prayer. God is enough for me because God is everything to me. This doesn't mean I don't eat chocolate, I have many things I struggle with. But I don't want to place these indulgences before women when they can know that they can enjoy indulging in God alone.

Prime Time Bioethics: The Myth of Hollywood Neutrality

The Return of Jezebel James
Boston Legal
House
Law & Order
CSI
Ugly Betty

The above is a short list, but represents some of the current work being done in Hollywood to say something about the issues hotly debated in bioethics today. If the popular culture can be swayed on the issues, the academics who agree with Hollywood have less need for precise, rational arguments their points and our elected representatives have less work to do--or a lot more, depending on which side they fall on the issues.

Egg harvesting is the latest topic to go mainstream, an attempt to bring the process into every day vernacular. While this has been more closely associated to surrogacy on many of these shows, another application is also embryonic stem cell research. Those of us on the side of human dignity have been drawing attention to the dangers of egg "donation," the problem of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome.

Religion is alive and well in Hollywood, and the sect that seems to be winning the culture war is the one that denies the inherent value of all life, the one that believes we can use people to meet the wants and whims of others, the one that treats the female reproductive system as a manufacturing plant. How they are winning the culture war is beyond me given their very low view of women.....perhaps one reason is the lack of basic logic taught in our public educational system.

The "Art" of Abortion: Death Imitates Art Part II

I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote my last post on this topic. The general gist of this story is that a college student, Aliza Shvarts, seems to think there is something about the death of the unborn, the medical "waste," that qualifies as art. I must ask why Yale is so quick to dispute whether she actually inseminated herself and self-induced abortions. Why should they be bothered by this either way? What about her story bothers them so much? What is the motivation behind Yale's attempts to discredit one of their own students?

Whatever her intentions, it appears that Yale finds her political statement repugnant. On this basis, it is apparent that Yale is disqualifying it also as art. Yet this is their statement:

The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body. NYT

I think Yale's statement is more ambiguous than Shvart's attempt to be heard. And whether she actually accomplished what she said she did, she did succeed in desensitizing more people to the suffering of the aborted.

Death Imitates Art

Aliza Shvarts will soon be exhibiting the what she so ridiculously considers art: the videos of her own self-induced abortions that took place in her own bathtub. What made her do this, you ask?

"I hope it inspires some sort of discourse....Sure, some people will be upset with the message and will not agree with it, but it's not the intention of the piece to scandalize anyone." These are the words of Shvarts reported by Fox.

When does art cease to be art? Obviously when it glorifies the destruction of what has been created in God's image. Secondly, however, I believe this ceases to be art in that it is using shock to make a political point - one which fails to be made in this case.

More on this soon.

Prime Time Bioethics: Euthanasia on Boston Legal

The indignity of suffering......euthanasia happens all the time under the guise of pain management.....these are the arguments declared as just reason for ending the life of a victim of Alzheimer's disease. But the actor/state's attorney helpfully insists that the request for morphine to put the patient "to sleep" is really an attempt to relieve the suffering of the patient's family.

Argued as a matter of constitutional privacy, physician assisted suicide is put forth as a safeguard to self-respect and human dignity because the patient in his current state of decline has no intrinsic value....his life is a misery, there is no sanctity in that.

"Whatever one believes about God.....some lives are taken far too late."

If this issue continues to be legislated in the courts, the right to put a qualitative rather than intrinsic value on human life and dignity will reside with someone else. Advocates of physician assisted suicide/euthanasia really believe that common sense will prevail and no one will really be a victim of these practices. But who will protect the person who is mentally deficient or physically challenged if the courts will not protect those who are most vulnerable now?

The Reality of Apologetics for Women

Janet and her husband Jeff were both raised in the church, the evangelical community being their primary experience with matters of faith. Now Jeff is insisting that it has all been a mistake and now abides by the pluralistic spiritualities of Oprah and other segments of our society. Janet is challenged but willing to love her husband and be a witness fo Christ to him, sharing her faith whenever possible. True story.

The inerrancy of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity, the exclusive nature of biblical Christianity...these are just 3 areas of theology that are defended by Christian apologists in academic circles and interreligious debates. Few stop to think that many women in the church must understand these theological topics and be able to defend them. Pastors can't do everything, womens ministry leaders ought to be equipped to meet these challenges as well.

It isn't just what our kids are facing in school that requires both parents to have an unwavering understanding of the content of their faith. There are also many women in marriages where the husband is not a believer in Jesus (but is a believer in something) thus making it necessary for her to really understand what she believes. She should understand the content of her faith anyway, but this reinforces the need. Without this knowledge she is vulnerable to philopsophies not faithful to God's revelation. Without this knowledge she cannot effectively meet the needs of her unbelieving spouse. This is faith in action. God wants us to pray, but ours is also a faith of content and meaning.

Apologetics is important to womens ministry such that the women I know -and you know- can effectively give an answer for what they believe.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Embryo-Destructive Research Testimony for Model Congress

These weekend, on the invitation of Scott Phelps, I had the good fortune to participate in a model Congress at Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, IL organized by U.S. Congressman Mark Kirk (R-Highland Park, IL). The linked article mentions neither me nor Scott Phelps, but we had a great deal of time to testify before the student Ways and Means Committee on the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. This wasn't entirely new to me as my former colleague Joe Carter and I did this once before the Illinois State Legistlature in 2006 on a human cloning bill. Needless to say, the Model Congress was a lot less stressful and we had the opportunity to educate some young people on the issues while not contending at all with fallacious opposition.

We should take any and every opportunity we have to address important issues with young people who are willing to listen. There was genuine interest by several young ladies on the related issue of egg "donation" required for the pursuit of somatic cell nuclear transfer. As much as possible, we need to protect them from being exploited by the research community and by politicians who are in this for the money and the votes.

Having a Cow Over Cloning

Reportedly, researchers at Newcastle University (Britain) have successfully created a clone using the genetic material of a human and inserting it into the ennucleated bovine egg. You heard it right, human DNA was inserted into the egg of a cow, resulting in what is known as a cybrid, a human-animal embryo. The lack of human eggs for embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) is apparently responsible for pursuing the creation of these cybrids. In the name of scientific progress, ethical lines have already been breached in the pursuit of human eggs from young, financially vulnerable women. And now, another ethical line is being entirely ignored, and we're suppose to be comforted by the fact that these tiny human-cows are destroyed after 14 or so days, not allowed to be implanted in a uterus (human? cow?) and permitted to grow.

I wonder what their beef is with the implantation of these cybrids. Do they find something wrong, something repugnant with the idea of human-cow species? Do they think that humanity is somehow defiled by creating something that cannot live as a human nor should graze in a pasture? These researchers and others who forbid the implantation of these human-animal embryos know there is something terribly wrong with this, otherwise implantation would be of no serious consequence. But what they don't appreciate is that this is not a slippery slope concern. The issue here is not about what could possibly be created in the womb, it's about what has already been created in a dish.

The age of a person is discerned by the length of their existence, with certain attributes present at certain places in development. Human persons all begin and develop the same way, unless abnormalities interrupt these natural developments. Destroying an embryo at day 14 does not prevent a human from entering into the world, it ends the life a tiny person who already exists. I am not comforted by the creation and "early" destruction of these human-cow embryos, I'm terribly alarmed that the dignity of humans has been seriously violated by people who are repulsed by the same organism at a later stage of development.

Van Til's Presuppositional Apologetic

I ride the train to work every day, so I often read or blog--or both, grabbing the first thing in my library that grabs my attention (whether I've read it or not). So today, Scott Oliphint is on the train with me. In his book/pamphlet "CVT and the Reformation of Christian Apologetics" he writes (quoting CVT), "While traditional Apologetic approaches ask the unbeliever to understand his world in order to understand God, Van Til affirms, (with Reformed theology) that because God controls 'whatsoever comes to pass,' because it is 'in God that we live, move, and exist,' the world can never be understood aright at any point without reference to God." (P. 5) And later Oliphint writes, "It is important to understand that one of the primary reasons Aquinas...could not account for the existence of the God of the Bible is because, in assuming the autonomy of hiuman reason, he refused to start the knowledge transaction with the Triune God of Scripture." (P. 15).

There is so much to unpack here, but understand that beginning with the autonomy of reason logically leads to the worlsdview of humanism that rejects the supernatural and states that the highest value is individualism and autonomy.

We are in need of a radical restoration of CVT's thought in our sermons, books, blogs, and other places where Christians not only influence unbelievers, but each other. The autonomy of reason finds itself elevated in Christian circles as much as anywhere else--it affects how we think and how we live. Talking about submitting to God in all areas of our life is immediately limited by how we think about ourselves. We must start everything--political engagement, apologetics, infertility, and our grocery shopping with the God of the Bible.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Fallacy of Feminism

Have you ever wondered what a feminist looks like? Apparently the Feminist Majority thinks you do. In an effort to put a pretty face on a worldview that has lead the charge in the abortion industry and yet has little interest in protecting their future leaders from ovarian exploitation, this video demonstrates more of empty words with a smattering of philosophical concepts left to be unpacked by those who lack proper tools to do so. Smart of them, you might say? I say, manipulative and conniving.

Cool. Funny. Smart. Beautiful. Strong. Kind. Confident. Active. Empowering.These are a few of the words used by the celebrity faces and regular people to communicate what feminism "looks like." With half the cast of Ugly Betty, Larry David, Amy Brenneman, Michael Moore, Rob Reiner, Kate Walsh, and many others, not to mention the non-celebrities who play a role in the video, its clear that they really don't want us to understand what a feminist thinks. If they did, they would have defined those other terms they buried used: humanist and individualistic.

The word humanist is a person who represents the worldview of humanism. This worldview "is centered around human value rather than upon God." This secular humanism rejects supernaturalism and "attempts to establish the dignity of man on a naturalistic base..." and becomes the highest reality. To sum that up, humanism starts with man and ends with man. It is also in this sense that it becomes individualistic. With no focus on anything higher than the self, even community is displaced within this framework so that the highest value is the autonomy of the individual. With this philosophical system, there is no motivation or basis to value someone more than the self.

Reading "Womens Books"

Like most people I know, I read a lot of books. I rarely browse when I go into a bookstore or visit Amazon, I generally know exactly what I'm looking for. As a woman in ministry to other women, I have to say that I rarely read books written by women for women. That isn't to say that I can't or shouldn't -- after all, I'm working on one of my own for women in the church. But when I do browse in a Christian bookstore, I usually head for the theology or apologetics department to see what's new. I like to check out the latest in the great apologetics methodology debates (which, by the way, seems silent these days). Bioethics books and other reflections on contemporary culture are equally interesting areas to browse. I don't usually end up in the women's Christian living section until right before I head to the checkout. Sometimes I pick something up, but generally I don't. There are wonderful books written by women for women, and I think I own them all (well, almost). Carolyn Custis James, Elyze Fitzpatrick, Elizabeth George--these are solid women writing for women in the church. I hope someday soon I can be added to that list.

Is there a propensity for women in the church to first enter the women's section of the Christian living isles in the bookstore to search for a book? I wish I had some statistics, I just know that of the women I know, many are doing just that. Occasionally I hear someone say how much they loved reading Martin Luther (however, this was a seminary graduate), but what I usually hear is women looking for the right topics, but pursuing the topics through women's authors.

A question recently asked of me is whether I could point a woman to some theology books written by women. I certainly can, but why do they need to be written by women? Do evangelical women think they can only read books written by women? I think many do. For those that lean that way, I hope it isn't because they believe male writers are writing for men and that serious theology books are off limits to women.

I'd like to hear from you, Christian women, on this topic. What are your own reading habits like? What do you read? Who do you read? What about the other women in your ministries? I realize that not every woman is interested in reading Cornelius Van Til's Systematic Theology or Carl F.H. Henry's God, Revelation, and Authority like I am. I just hope at least we're buying books on hermeutics instead of allowing our women's bible studies to provide a short cut through the work of locating context.

Making God-talk the Norm

This morning I had coffee with 2 new friends in a coffee shop in Rockford, Illinois. When I entered the shop, I had a couple of books with me to read, one of them Reviving Evangelical Ethics, and the other was the latest Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. I ordered my coffee and then sat my books down on a table nearby, noticing in my peripheral vision a Christian doing a Bible study at a table near mine. He also saw what I was reading and took note, but neither of us said anything to each other.

Soon after, the first of my friends arrived and we had a great discussion about women's ministry and Christian education over a muffin and a couple of creamy lattes. The man I had noticed doing a Bible study was replaced by another person with another Bible doing the same thing. It was a little bit disorienting to see so much of God at a coffee shop in Rockford. It was no less than thrilling to have this new person interject in our conversation about women's ministry and possible speakers for upcoming seminars. Had I died and gone to Heaven? Is Rockford, perhaps, the new earth that we are all awaiting?

As I said goodbye to the friend with whom I conversed about women's ministry, I decided to stay and chat with my new friend, RT, who previously had suggested we check out John Piper as a women's ministry speaker. We briefly touched on several areas of interest to those in ministry including the emergent church, gimmicks of the seeker driven churches, how to reach youth, the power of the Gospel and how women can and do serve God. It was so exciting to hear so much passion and zeal for Christ and the work of ministry. Before I left, he even prayed for the blessing of our encounter and how God might continue to be glorified in our ministries.

Nothing about this morning was what I consider to be normal, but it is exactly what we should expect. When we advocate for living out our faith and encourage the development of a Christian worldview, isn't this exactly what we should be looking forward to? We're so predisposed to a world where God-talk is not the norm, where expressions of faith are mere whispers, and Bibles are hidden in our laps. We look around to see if anyone is offended by what we can't help to display or speak aloud. We wonder if our faith made public is a stumbling block to the world. What is wrong with this picture?

I learned a lot today about the proclamation of the Gospel, about being bold about my faith and about who I follow. The thing is, I know better. I'm all about a theology and apologetic that is, well, unapologetic. I am experiencing pure joy about being further liberated from my cultural captivity. God-talk should be a normal activity of living out our faith, no shame should accompany us, no fear should drive us.

Jesus said, "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you." (John 15:18) We shouldn't be surprised by a rejection of our expressions of faith and we should not suppress them for fear of rejection or hate. In this coffee shop, the Gospel was clearly presented for anyone who could hear and truly is the power of God unto salvation. We have no way of knowing for sure if anyone who heard had an encounter with God, but one thing we know for sure is that what is silenced cannot be heard.

Reviving Evangelical Ethics: Book Review

As an ethicist and cultural critic, I enjoy engaging all kinds of ideas because I take seriously the biblical injunction to 'take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.'

People face an onslaught of challenges in todays world that necessitate biblical reflection such that their decisions are most glorifying to God. This isn't to imply that the bible contains every answer for ever dilemma we face. It does, however, provide us with principles and rules through which we can consider other matters that aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible.

So I find myself baffled, when with little explanation, I hear it taught that "Christianity isn't a set of rules," that it's about a relationship with God. You probably think at this point that I'm a moron, that I would actually question such a statement. Of course, I accept and embrace that Christianity is about the relationship I have with God, but this isn't to the exclusion of considering ways of right living and a pursuit of God that seeks to glorify him in our lives, lives that are a sequence of actions. I fear we confuse people when we speak of it in any other way.

Often when we consider the overall nature of the bible, we think of the old testament as containing the Law and plethora of unachievable expectations in the form of rules and regulations. Then as grace enters the picture through the loving sacrifice of Jesus, we see the fulfillment of the Law in Christ. The tendency to not see grace in the old testament and see no place for rules in the new testament leaves a believer missing a lot of what the Bible was intended to communicate to its readers.

In her book, Reviving Evangelical Ethics, Wyndy Corbin Reuschling hones in on the topic of ethics and its relationship to the Christian life. She states,

Righteousness or justification is not just 'being made right with God;' it connotes living right with God, fulfilling moral obligations consonant with a new orientation and perspective. To think of being declared righteous' without any accompanying commitment to actually act righteously is not what the biblical writers had in mind in their instructions on the Christian life. (p. 110)

Our ontological status, our state of being righteous, gives great hope to the individual that their eternal future is secure in Christ. But as we unpack what it means to live for Christ, we discover the important element of sanctification and our participation in that process, sinful creatures seeking to live the moral life. Frankly, its clear by looking at our daily activities that we are constantly up against ethical quandries. So how is it that Christianity isn't about rules?

Obviously becoming a Christian isn't dependent upon doing something that puts you in a position of acceptability before God. In that sense, Christianity is not about a set of rules. And of course, living the Christian life is about constantly seeing God's grace manifest in ways unimaginable. We see God's hand care for his children in ways that demonstrates his graciousness. But this isn't to the exclusion of expected ways of living and being.

Reuschling does a great job speaking to the misuses of the Bible and the danger associated with seeing Scripture is merely a set of categorical imperatives. She states,

My concern with this deontological approach is twofold. One is that it actually undermines scripture as revelation, since it limits scripture to little more than a book of revealed rules. Two, this view limits scripture's effectiveness in shaping our moral lives if the primary question posed is "What ought I do?"...For all the emphasis that evangelicals place on the authority of the Bible, a deontological perspective may reduce and diminish the Bible's importance as a source for moral guidance because it restricts ethics to just following principles, rules, and commands, and the Bible to a mere instrument.....Moral formation requires more than just the ability to follow principles and rules. We need the requisit discernment, practical wisdom, and virtues.....The scriptures shape and direct our moral sensibilities, vision, and capacities in many ways. (p. 69-70)

Here she has effectively assisted the church in stating that being a Christian isn't about following a set of rules, but she does not suggest that their are no rules. The Bible is limited if we posit that it is merely a book of rules. Clearly, it contains directives and, as God's spoken Word, it develops us as His followers. What that means is that as we are becoming closer to God in our sanctification, we are gaining wisdom that assists us in our decision-making. As our worldview comes together coherently, we are able to consider whatever comes our direction because we are reflecting on what we know about God and what he has given to us in scripture.

There is much more to be taken from this book, I've merely touched upon some things that I've been considering about ethics as it relates to the lives of women in the church. I believe this will be a helpful book to students of ethics. This book is due to be released in April by Brazos Press, and I obviously encourage you to check it out.

Apologetics 101: Faith vs. Values?

This interview of Will Smith in Men's Vogue reveals a guy with great personality, significant intelligence, and tremendous character. He's in love with both his family and his work and is portrayed as someone who usually puts others before himself. I'm sure he has his flaws, but I think its safe to say that the overall clean-cut image he puts forth is probably not very common in the Hollywood subculture.

But despite all that is good about Will Smith, his significant intelligence has sadly evaded him as he has been taken in by the cult of Scientology a la Tom Cruise. I like Will, I hope he will come around. In the interview with Men's Vogue, he states very tragically that he sees little difference between Scientology and the Bible, because there is much more to Scripture--in content and in purpose. He says,

I’ve studied Buddhism and Hinduism and I’ve studied Scientology through Tom. And nobody’s saying anything different! Look, I use the Bible to explain the ideas of God, and life, and love, and relationships, and the life of Jesus Christ to teach my children how to defend their spirit. But in all of the experiences I’ve had with Tom and Scientology, like, 98 percent of the principles are identical to the principles of the Bible. The Bible says, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And you know, there’s a Scientology principle: Do not create experiences for others that they cannot comfortably perceive.

It's unfortunate that he has come to think of the Bible this way--as merely a handbook for morality. Do unto others should not be approached independently of no one comes to the Father except through me. But is he all that different from many Christians who regard the moral propositions of Scripture above the saving power of the gospel. Perhaps we could helpfully understand the gospel call as one of many moral appeals, yet is the one that lacks political correctness.

As an ethicist who believes we need to always be in conversation about morality, the good, true, and the beautiful, I'm saddened that the Bible has been reduced to merely a set of values. The Bible does contain moral precepts, but not to be removed from the context of the Christian life, apart from which they make little sense. I make this argument from an epistemological perpective because while people can do good and know right from wrong, they cannot always account for it.

As a believer, have you been prepared to engage someone who aspires to the values but rejects Christ? Do you have the knowledge and the courage to confront someone who chooses only to accept bits and pieces from Scripture, ultimately making themselves their own authority? As Christians we need to consider the moral conditions in culture that we are growing our families in, be we need to be prepared to show the difference between adopting a set of moral values over and above embracing the gospel. There is no absolute truth, no absolute right and wrong, without the God from whom all truth eminates.

On Heaven and Earth

The context of Scripture is such a great thing, it helps us to avoid the dangers of misapplying or misinterpretting a passage. I woke up this morning thinking about what it means to be a "citizen" of heaven while at the same time being an image bearer with the task of the crration mandate. How are both true when Scripture seems to weigh so heavily on the heavenly? After all, in times of trial and despair, this is what we hear from the pulpits. Or perhaps the emphasis is slightly in error?

Philippians 3:18-20 states "For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ..." and so the passage continues.

It is clear from the context that Paul isn't doing away with the creation mandate. He is not speaking of "earthly things" generally, rather he's contrasting idolatry with godliness, "earthly things" a rhetorical device for what is sin.

This is an example of how a particular verse can be taken out of context and misappropriated. Paul's intention is not that we be so heavenly minded that we're of no earthly good, he is simply saying that there are those wh elevate the sins of the flesh over the things of God, and as Christians, we are called to a higher standard.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Joy in the Wise

I had a terrific time in church this Resurrection Sunday, but an even more delightful time with the young ladies I sat with in Sunday school. Ok, they weren't young, they were old enough to be my grandmothers. But they made me feel young - not because they're so much older, but because they were so engaged in the class and friendly with me. I was instantly drawn to them, not because one was hanging on my arm and not because one of them preferred to talk over the Sunday school teacher to chat with me at one point. What I saw in these ladies was character and wisdom that I can only hope to emulate when I am their age. They wanted it all.....to grow in the love and knowledge of God, develop a new relationship, engage their intellect, contribute in the classroom, and discover new ideas.. These were not 2 little ladies who were interested in keeping a couple of seats warm, they wanted a meaningful participation in the activities of the congregation. Praise God for these strong women of faith! I look forward to spending more time with them in the future, I'll keep you posted.

Primetime Bioethics: Surrogacy on Fox

Glorification of multiple sexual partners, mocking of Christianity, trivializing of relationships, comedic gynecological visits....these are a few ways Fox is participating in our culture's affair with unfettered sexuality and science. The show is The Return of Jezebel James and is about the lives of 2 sisters, one who has a career as an editor with Harper Collins children's book division and the other who seems to be wondering life aimlessly and unable to make the simplest of decisions, except the one to carry her sister's child. Sarah is the sister unable to have her own child, given the options only to adopt, hire a surrogate, etc. This is the first time in her life she's been confronted with any serious challenge to getting what she wants, so she is able to profit from her sister Coco's lack of focus and rent her womb.

We are way past the point of asking what's become of this world, we can only inquire as to how we, as caretakers of God's creation, can participate in the restoration of a view of humanity that respects the dignity inherent with being created in the image of God. Correcting society's view of human dignity is fundamental to addressing the particulars of society, whether the issues are as basic as our treatment of each other in our families, work, and other relationships, or the very serious bioethics issues of our time that violate human dignity to the extent of compromising life.

While television is indoctrinating the intellectually vulnerable about how to treat one another, those who hold a strong view of human dignity need to work hard to have as much impact on the people around them. This is a high spiritual calling that belongs to the Church.

More on Black Liberation Theology

The Exodus out of Egypt is pointed to as evidence that God seeks to deliver people from oppression. For more on this, read Cone's book as cited in my previous post. But the reason the Exodus doesn't serve as a parallel to the concern of black oppression today is because that cause is dependent on government-not God-to be the Redeemer. To view it this way puts the death and resurrection of Jesus in a new light, stripping it of any supernatural meaning, perhaps even reducing it to a metaphor for today' plight. The theme of deliverence runs through the whole of Scripture, and all od the stories pointing to the ultimate, when our Lord humbled himself to the point of death, to be raised by the power of God, not man or his government.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Clear Blur of Church-State Separation

The graphic above is very difficult to look at, but it is a helpful way to demonstrate the confusion inherent to liberation theologies. As the scandal over Obama's membership with a church that embraces black liberation theology, Americans need to take an honest look at what this movement actually is.

Feminist, womanist, mujerist, black.....these are a few of the areas that have a stake in the liberation theology movement. Womanist is essentially the African-American counterpart to the feminist theology. Mujerist, similarly, is the Latina version. Feminist and black are self-explanatory in light of a fuller definition.

Black liberation theology shares much in common with liberation theology in general but also has its own uniqueness. As a theology of liberation, it is concerned with the political and economic aspects of salvation rather than salvation in spiritual terms. Moreover, God is viewed as being primarily for the poor over against the rich in society. However, black theologians seek to interpret liberation from a black American or black African perspective (though even blacks in the United States and Africa sense differences in their emphases). Black theology, unlike Latin American liberation thought, is concerned with racism and a historical identity.

A casual reading of this definition reveals a "theology" that begins at the point of correcting a wrong--oppression and racism. No one will deny that issues of race have gone unresolved in this country, and like the prolife movement, those engaged in the cause will and should continue to battle these issues. However, when we speak of the task of theology but interpret the Scriptures through the lenses of our own experience, we are not doing theology, that is called politics and politics is the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy.

James Cone is a key player in the history of black liberationism, having written many books that try to locate the solution to racism exclusively in black theology. The foundation of this so-called theology is in the experience of oppression and fails to be Christocentric. It finds answers to concerns of justice and racism not in the church or the Scriptures, but in the outworking of government. This is a "theology" that begins with and is deeply rooted in politics. Cone writes,

Christian theology is never just a rational understanding of the being of God. Rather it is a study of God's liberating activity in the world, God's understanding in behalf of the oppressed. (A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 3)

At first glance, Cone doesn't seem to dismiss the study of the nature of God, but then he insists that instead of that, "rather" it has to do with what God is doing here on earth on behalf of the victims of racism. No serious theologian of any race would suggest that God isn't interested in the lives of people on earth here and now, that our doctrines are only concerned with the hereafter. But several areas of theology all work together to help us understand how it is that God is working in our lives. While we can't tolerate racism, we must recognize the significance of sin, that man is fallen. We can't ignore that God is sovereign, though man is still responsible for his actions. We must think of creation, fall, and redemption on a spiritual level with earthly implications, but no where in Scripture is man promised a easy ride and in no way is God's ultimate plan about Jesus' kingship here and now. During Jesus' time on earth, the same mistake was made, that he would be some sort of earthly king at that time.

But for Cone, that task of theology is to explicate the meaning of God's liberating activity so that those who labor under enslaving powers will see that the forces of liberation are the very activity of God. (Ibid., p. 3) And as this movement actually embodies politics and does little actual theology, we are to understand the government as its agent of grace, not the church.

I am not suggesting for one moment that people of religion have to leave their voice outside of the public square and adopt some sort of secularist common ground. In fact, I wrote my master's thesis on just the opposite idea and spend a great deal of time showing how the notion of religious neutrality is impossible. So I have no qualms with black liberationism in the public square. What I do have a problem with is the advocates of this so-called theology arguing for a public square sanitized of any religious language or influence, knowing full well their politics and their theology are a single entity. When evangelicals argue for certain moral positions, they are generally shouted down for having religious reasons and verbage. Yet those engaged in government who are also advocates of black liberationism are free to bring their theology into the public square. The pursuit of universal health care, redistribution of wealth, unfettered access to abortion and birth control, and other matters related to social "justice" are how this movement understands God acting in today's world. In this view of reality, "God" actually becomes big government and enslaves not just the black community, but every community to higher taxes and limited resources and opportunity.

I am equally, if not moreso, bothered by the lack of respect for the church as God established it. The church is not primarily a political bandwagon, it is a community of believers whose primary focus is the worship of God and glorifying him in all areas of our lives. The church is the body of Christ, a doctrine that is not to be taken lightly. A church willingly used for political expediency is apostate.

Clearly there is a difference between church and state, but no necessary separation. Hopefully we don't have to be witness to Obama's form of spirituality that embraces black liberationism as a Christian theology and government policy while shutting out all others.

Politicizing the Pulpit: Obama's Credibility and Wright's Ordination In Question

We haven't known much about Obama, but this week we learned that he has a serious credibility problem.

No doubt Trinity UCC on Chicago's south side has been doing some marvelous practical ministry in the inner city, and I'm unaware of any attempt by media to invalidate this work. The UCC is trying to spin this story another direction. The character of Jeremiah Wright is altogether another issue, and while the United Church of Christ is a denomination that leans way to the left, it would serve them well to consider their ordination policies and revoke the ordination of Jeremiah Wright and renounce his teachings. Wright's comments reveal a racist posture that doesn't assist in healing racial divisions, rather it exploits them. Wright, in making these inflammatory statements and in propagating black theology, has brought the issue of racial divides back into the limelight even while Obama pledges to be post-racial.

Are we really suppose to believe that Obama, who regards Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor and allowed him to be a member of his campaign, has been mostly unaware of Wright's views and the content of his sermons? I cannot be convinced that this is the case, given his 2 decades of membership at this church. Either Obama and his family rarely attend church and his membership and involvement is strictly on paper, or he has chosen to support the teachings of this movement. So what kind of change can we really expect from Obama given his willingness to look away from the words and character of this spiritual mentor of his? Seems like politics as usual to me.

Out of the mouth of a pastor especially, these statements bring shame to the nature and role of the church is and Wright's role in the office of pastor:

"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty."

"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that."

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

This isn't a matter of a fallacious guilt by association, Jeremiah Wright has served as a pastor and spiritual mentor to Obama, and if Obama was unaware of the views taught during these 20 years, his ability to assess people must be called into question. At this time, Obama needs to resign his membership at Trinity in order for any evangelical to begin taking him seriously as an honest, thinking person who also happens to profess being a Christian. I realize the counter-arguments to this appeal, that Obama is running for President, not Chief Executive Theologian. But since his church has politicized the pulpit and his pastor was a member of his campaign team, and because Obama has been running his campaign on a spiritual platform, speaking freely about his faith and the role of it in his life, he owes it to himself and to his campaign to pursue a life of integrity....that can't happen with a continued association with a church that has yet to renounce the teachings of Jeremiah Wright and a congregation who was noticeably enthralled by this message of hate. The whole issue speaks to Obama's judgment and character.

Pastors, as we understand the office in Scripture, are not dictators. They are accountable to the elders whom they work with in the church and to the congregation. We are called to be Bereans, people who are always studying the Scriptures and testing the teachings of our leadership against the testimony of Scripture. The Bereans of Trinity UCC need to step up......if there are any.

It seems inevitable that we are going to have a democrat in the White House in 2009. If it is going to be Obama, I would hope that he would give us a better idea of what to expect out of him - or perhaps he has and we really need to worry about his integrity and real (in)ability to lead. At this point, it looks like politics as usual, but even worse as he uses his faith as a way to shroud his views. At least with Hillary, what you see is what you get, at least moreso than with Obama.

Life Issues in Context

Sometimes I have this internal debate with myself about how to approach bioethics issues such as abortion, stem cell research, euthasia, etc. Will I win over someone's sensibilities by arguing from a more sterile natural law perspective or should I be driven by principles and argue from my Christian worldview which enlists Scripture and reason?

Since I'm arguing with myself, I always win the debate. But seriously...

In a society become more and more secularized, how is it that we can expect peoples views on matters of bioethics to align with those of a Christian perspective if they simply do not cohere with their naturalist paradigm? As we are seeing, our culture is becoming less Christian all the time, society is becoming more consistently pagan in their views of life and death.

This leads me to conclude that matters of bioethics MUST be coupled with the gospel and not addressed in isolation. To truly promote a Christian worldview, we can't be responsible for instilling the idea that these issues are merely Christian values that can be adopted on a whim. These are positions on matters of life and death that have meaning in relationship to our Creator and to the gospel. The context of evangelical bioethics is in our theology, without which there lacks true understanding.

The future of Christian bioethics depends significantly upon revival, for lives to be transformed by the message of Christ. The church is called to step up in this regard, to be the bearers of this message and to address these violations against human dignity. Without a true awakening, without the movement and work of the Holy Spirit, I believe the current debates in bioethics will yield little change in ou culture's love affair with death.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Re-educating Teen Girls & Young Women

Joe Carter's post today serves us well in revealing the agenda of Planned Parenthood and similar organizations. The facts about condoms don't really matter, even while the sexualization of our entire culture is placing young women's lives at risk. Of course, PP's agenda is not based upon some neutral, bias-free notion that they just care about women's health and, therefore, only interest in promoting safe sex for the sake of safety. There is nothing altruistic about what they are doing. The fact is that money and their entire worldview is at stake, and the 'anything goes' mentality must continue to be dominant. So what does this mean for girls and young women in our community? In our churches? What's a church to do?

1. As I said in my previous post, it's time to be raising up womens leadership in the local church. They are the ones in relationships with other women and teens in your community.

2. Understand abstinence education as entirely counter-cultural. Give this area of education more prominence, keep it on the forefront of discussion. It must always be a taught as a matter of theology, a matter of worldview and not taught in a vaccuum.

3. Don't wait for the experts-learn the data and don't wait to begin discussing it.

4. See the opportunity. This area of ministry will serve to help bridge the gap between older and younger generations.

5. Expand the focus of your womens ministry. While these issues can be addressed in youth ministry, this is a place where real mentoring among women can and should occur. Womens ministry should be about making disciples who can contend with and address today's issues, not just helping them to survive.

6. Take a look at who is on your leadership team who can address these and other contemporary concerns. If she isn't there, I'm sure she is in your congregation somewhere. If you are a lone leader and don't feel equipped or called to this, its time to raise up someone who can.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Women's Ministry: Raising the Bar

I know I've written on this in various ways in the past, but this time of the year necessitates talking about it again. Believe it or not, it's the middle of March and a lot of young people are preparing to leave high school and enter into university campus life. For young Christian men pursuing higher education to serve the church, their options are many...more so than for young women. As the young men enter into college and seminary, they have the blessing to pursue various pastoral positions ranging from youth pastor to associate and sr. pastor within the evangelical context. It's also clear that many of these men will find themselves quite lucky (I'm a Calvinist, that's just a figure of speech) to become college and seminary professors-with greater ease than women. I'm glad that these young men are pursuing these and other avenues to serve and I'm not about to argue for a liberal perspective on gender roles. But I do think the church needs, at this time in history, more women on staff and in full time ministry.

Young women today are extremely interested in the life of the mind and the study of theology. This isn't to suggest that she never has been before. But today's young women are inspired and have a serious passion for engaging culture and sharing the gospel, being a part of the transformation of hearts and minds. The culture of women's ministry in evangelical circles has largely been focused on women's survival....getting enough encouragement to get by. Because of the complexities of today's world, in the areas of worldview and activism, its becoming more urgent for seminary-level trained women to enter the evangelical community vocationally. The needs of women in church and culture are well beyond the scope of what traditional event-driven women's ministry can address.

I've read a lot about how the church has or is becoming feminized, that worship music and styles of preaching have led to the disenchantment of men to such an extent that he isn't interested in going to church-it's for girls. And yet the expectations of girls-women-is to remain as they are, and not pursue more manly things. I realize the big metaphorical broom I have here, but its time to stop sweeping this under the rug and place it where all can see. Our Christian culture expects to train young people to be able to cope with whatever society throws at them, yet young Christian women are often held back from higher theological education. We need to not only encourage them to pursue philosophy and theology in the seminary context, but the church needs to recognize their role in God's Kingdom and how they can and should serve. Let's stop business as usual in women's ministry and raise the bar for its leadership. How can we do that?

1. Expand your view of women's ministry to see the opportunities for engaging the women not in church. How can you use elements of today's culture to reach women? Oprah's book club is a key example.

2. Excite women about the life of the mind. Provide a context for women to excel theologically in their studies; the lowest common denominator shouldn't be the primary focus.

3. Reconsider the solution to feminization. If this is a problem in your church, a solution might actually reside in the ministries to women. Develop those ministries beyond the clichés, raising up leaders who see the church as more than a place for group therapy and personal survival.

4. Develop a vision for women in ministry that encourages young women to seminary and invites women as an appropriate member of the pastoral staff. She has an important place in ministry to women.

Spitzer Violates Human Dignity

Violations against human dignity occur in many forms, and New York's Gov. Spitzer has brought shame to his office and to his family by objectifying women and reducing a core element of human relationships to a financial transaction. Spitzer can't have it both ways--he can't be in support of women's rights and also be willing to exploit them for his own personal interests.

Without the ease and availability of abortion, contraception, and abortafacients, someone like Spitzer might actually rethink his involvement in prostitution. Perhaps the suggestion the he has had a conflict of interest in recent legislative proposals is a stretch, but it is absolutely clear that his respect for women is nonexistent, reducing his political endeavors to just that -- politics.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Women Exploiting Women: She's Blinded by Science

Reflecting during this internationally declared Women's History Month, it seems that indeed the impossible has happened. Ok, I guess nothing is impossible, but this is quite interesting. If you are following the recent news about outsourcing pregnancy to India and other third world nations, you know that there is great concern about poor women being exploited by an industry blinded by its own progress.

In a post at the blog Feministe, the writer states:

Rich white American women paying poor women of color in developing nations to gestate their children for them seems wrong. I don’t oppose reproductive technologies, but it gets trickier when you’re paying someone in a far less privileged situation to be a human incubator for you.

I like to get to the bottom line. As women are aspiring to empower themselves and other women, while at the same time pursue scientific progress without room for ethical reflection, it turns out that women have actually been empowered to exploit other women. Interesting quandary.

Apologetics 101: The Exclusive Nature of Religious Pluralism

The latest book to be introduced through Oprah's book club is easily described as new-agey. The implications of this term are quite broad, but it includes the idea of man as the divine-self who creates his own reality, God as an impersonal force or consciousness, altered states of consciousness, the use of yoga, crystals, past life therapy and acupuncture. You can read more indepth information about the new age movement here.

Understanding the concept of religious pluralism will help you to navigate the myriad of religious claims that permeate our society, including but not limited to the new age movement. Oprah's claim is, I am a Christian who believes that there are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity. This is the essence of religious pluralism.

Religious pluralism (RP) is the belief that every religion provides an adequate means to "God" and is, therefore, true. The problem with RP is obvious when comparing it to a biblical Christian worldview. The law of noncontradiction says that no 2 completeing claims can be true in the same sense at the same time. Therefore, there are no 2 opposing views of ultimate reality that can be true at the same time in the same sense without violating this law of logic. Yet, representatives of RP insist this is no big deal. (While I'm weary of politicians trying to be philosophers, I'm even more weary of talk show hosts being theologians.) One cannot say that Christianity is as true as any other religion, or call oneself an "open-minded" Christian without first redefining Christianity. And it is at this point that it no longer remains the historic faith that it is -- and is no longer Christianity. Words have meaning, and the term Christianity is defined by Scripture and a host of doctrines contained therein.

RP says basically that all roads lead to God, yet the knowledge for this claim is absent. Those who promote RP lack the epistemic foothold on the argument, but because it is such an attractive idea to a world who views religion merely as a set of personal values, this ideal sits well with contemporary culture.

To look at RP more closely, one has to admit that it cannot really exist because religious pluralism cannot embrace historic Christianity, it rejects it. Historic Christianity teaches that it is only through faith in Jesus can anyone be saved, and RP rejects this claim. Therefore, all roads do not lead to God, rather any road other than historic Christianity leads to God. This view of religion forces religious pluralism into the category of exclusivism, that only one religion is true and any religion that opposes it is false. On the surface you may find yourself rejecting this conclusion, but if you consider RP as a collective of many views becoming one religion, than you can recognize how it fits into the category of exclusivism.

Is faith a matter of truth or personal values? Do you as a Christian contribute in some way to this way of thinking about your faith? Christianity is more than a set of personal values, is more than scripture slapped on top of truths common to us all, it is the total truth. When confronted with the notion of RP, remember that there are limitations on what it embraces, and historic Christianity does not fit snuggly into its paradigm.

Oprah on "Christ's Consciousness"

I don't believe Jesus came to start Christianity. ~ Oprah Winfrey
If you go deep enough in your religion you'll all get to the same place. ~ Eckart Tolle
I am a Christian who believes that there are certainly many more paths to God other than Christianity. ~Oprah Winfrey

Oprah's pop spirituality is alive and well in the homes of vulnerable young mothers, homemakers, retired women...and if there's a DVR in the house, she can be viewed after work, too. I urge you to spend a few bucks on Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth: Awakening Your Life's Purpose and examine the worldview for yourself and engage her audience. Oprah demonstrates clearly in this video that reason is not the basis for her embrace of religious pluralism, but I think your neighbors are probably smarter than Oprah. Buy the book and discuss it in your book discussion groups, equipping each other to engage others who are reading it.

HT: Sharon Hughes

Harvard Gym Spin

It is curious how Christianity is so ridiculed by our society for its prudish and oppressive beliefs regarding sexuality and gender roles - an assessment I wholeheartedly disagree with, by the way. So it amazes me that Harvard would choose to accomodate the request to ban men from a workout area to accomodate the modesty of Muslim women. I'm really not bothered by the request for an environment that supports their need for privacy, it would be nice if Christian women were as concerned about modesty. What is most shocking about this story is Harvard's ease in embracing a worldview that is truly oppressive of women, one that treats them as property and denies their human dignity. Islam is apparently in vogue, the fashion statement of the elite.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Women's Ministry: What Not to Do

Thanks to my friend Matthew for sending me the link to this article, it's worth the read. Wendy Alsup wrote a great piece entitled How to Ruin a Women's Ministry. I especially appreciated what she had to say in point 4:

We tend to identify and empathize with people that share similar backgrounds to us and therefore are burdened to equip people in the areas with which we have struggled. But will your ministry only minister to people like you? Are you even aware of the people in your sphere of influence whose background and struggles are different from yours?

Whenever humans are involved in anything, the potential for disaster increases exponentially. No doubt it's a challenge to do ministry to the glory of God instead of the glory of ourselves, but it must be done to avoid ruining it.

Obama's Public Religion: Part 2

On February 24th, I posted a review of Obama's Audacity of Hope. In the book, he writes,

I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union…nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount. (p. 222)

So I was quite surprised to see the shock in the news about Obama saying just this in a Q & A session with voters in Nelsonville, Ohio. According to the Baptist Press, a local pastor asked Obama how he plans to win over evangelical voters when they disagree with him on moral issues. Obama's response?

"I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other...I don't think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial, then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans. That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that." HT: Baptist Press

It's apparent that if Obama is nothing else, at least he's consistent. But his response never answered the question of the local pastor for he has no intention of winning over evangelical voters any more than he plans to cross party lines to place nice with conservatives.

What is quite interesting about this exchange with the pastor is that Obama seems unable to separate his politics from his religious beliefs, the basis for his view of civil unions is articulated in a purely Christian terminology. It is unfair for him to answer clergy in a way that he would not permit clergy to answer for themselves in the public square.

Vocational Pursuits: What Would Jesus Do?

My apologies for invoking the Christian marketing strategy of the 1990's, but I'm sure you can forgive me.

As I return to work today (and to blogging-had a fulfilling week long vacation devoted to writing and research) I am pondering how Christians view vocation. From a 'Total Truth' worldview perspective, we as a church need to ask ourselves what worldview steers our perspective on work.

It seems to me that it is the worldview of Darwinism, philosophical materialism...whatever you choose to call it, in is the basis for the cut-throat mentality people have about careers. The best jobs are the highest paying jobs with the most power at the top of the food chain. It isn't so much that there is anything wrong with being the boss...her work should be performed to the glory of God. But what are our attitudes to people in the so-called blue collar jobs? To challenge your thinking on this, would you discourage your son away from career of garbage man? Certainly we need garbage men, we should consider it as the noble task that it is. But I wonder if we have been so subtley influenced by an evolutionary worldview that we fail to see the importance of some jobs. Even worse, we fail to see how pleased God is with those who are willing to humble themselves to work not remotely close to the top of the food chain.