Preparing Women for the Future: What's the Plan?

Every day it seems that conservative Christians are taking a hit from the liberal left who argue that because Scripture doesn't speak specifically about topics like abortion or embryonic stem cell research, then it doesn't have anything to say about those topics at all. It's true that Scripture doesn't address every possible subject under the sun, but it does provide the framework through which we can process our day to day living. Consequently, in humility and love, we can address even the most complex areas of our lives without compromising the authority or integrity of Scripture. What does that have anything to do with preparing women for the future?

Today women of all ages are faced with a plethora of choices and confront difficult decisions, most of which Scripture has little or nothing say. Bible studies and small groups do their best to promote the character and virtues necessary to live in today's world and succeed in promoting a biblical life ethic. This works well for the women who are involved in these groups. But the challenge of living in today's world - and in the near future - is understanding what we confront. It's not enough anymore to know "right from wrong" for at least 2 reasons: 1. our world has declared that there is no right or wrong because truth is determined by the individual, and 2. It's not always clear that an action or decision is wrong or lacks virtue because it might covered in a blanket of warm words or arguments: therapeutic, self-esteem, merciful, reasonable, etc.

Preparing women to live in this world in the future - and even the near future - necessitates that we address actual issues women face, it's not enough to teach about what makes a woman virtuous or excellent....that needs to be there, but there needs to be more. Wherever and whenever possible, reach out to experts or find resources to address specific areas of a woman's life. How is technology making her life easier and more complex at the very same time? What is the affect of assisted reproductive technologies on a young woman and her [future] husband and [future] family? Why does it matter that she understand that she understand the influence of pornography on the family? How can we be responsible citizens that care about the environment and also be respectors of the image of God in all persons? How do people think and does it actually affect their day to day living? Can an evangelical Christian woman have a career? How does the Christian worldview shape our work, worship and womanhood? These are just a few of the topics that all women need to talk about today. Think about how to prepare women for the future and work this into your ministries as much as you can.

Synergy: Leadership Summit for Women

Coming up next week, October 4 and 5, is the Leadership Summit for Women taking place at Elmbrook Church in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Among the speakers is one of my favorite thinkers, Carolyn Custis James, author of When Life and Beliefs Collide and president of the Whitby Forum. This is definitely an event for women in leadership within the Christian community. I plan to be at this event, so if you haven't registered yet, plan to do so as the deadline is quickly approaching. Be sure to say hi if you see me!

Out of the Box: My Vision for Women's Ministry

When I began to blog at Intellectuelle a while back, I introduced myself by way of sharing my vision, what's been driving my passion for women. I'm glad to look at it again as nothing has changed, it's just good to go back and remember some of the details as a way of avoiding some of the distrations. So I share this with you so you know that I'm on a mission from God and what it looks like.

I just don't fit in the box...and I never really have. I've always cringed at the activities of the typical church women's ministry because what I saw seemed either to focus on a single group of women or lacked the quality and depth of books and studies not intended specifically for women. If you say I'm making broad sweeping comments about women's ministry, you might be right. But the fact is, in many churches, women with more intellectual tendencies are looked upon to nurture others - as they should - but usually are expected to keep their intellectualism to themselves. Women's bible studies are often very poorly written...with the exception of some great materials by Elizabeth George, Elyse Fitzpatrick, Kay Arthur, Jill Briscoe, and a few others.

When I entered into seminary studies in 2002, I promised myself that women's ministry was the LAST thing I would ever participate in. That promise was reminiscent of the one I made when I was 18 - that I would never work in the fast food industry. So far, I haven't flipped a burger, but God seemed to have other plans for me with regards to women's ministry.

I came to the conclusion during one of my graduate courses in bioethics that women's ministry is, indeed, in need of a face lift (but please do not confuse that for some unnecessary nontherapeutic physical enhancement) and that I am called to this work. Born from this was The Foundation for Women of Faith in Culture, its primary mission being to support the spiritual maturation of women through biblical, theological, and worldview education. I'm excited to say that people are finding this ministry on the internet and are responding.

My hope for Intellectuelle is that it is a place for men and women to reflect on faith and living, but I hope especially that it brings together a community of women who will continue the discussion of what it means to be a thinking Christian woman - and that the Church will take notice of our discussion and our existence.

Nancy Pearcey: Scholar for Worldview Studies at PBU

I am so pleased to read that Nancy Pearcey has been named Scholar for Worldview Studies at the Center for University Studies at Philadelphia Biblical University, (PBU), Langhorne, PA.

She will teach, speak and write on the integration of Christian thought with scholarship and the application of Christian perspectives to the academy and across the culture. She is the first-ever faculty scholar to be appointed to the Center for University Studies which PBU recently established to advance its vision of scholarship and cultural engagement.

Highly regarded as "one of the few female intellectuals in evangelicalism," a former agnostic, has addressed staffers on Capitol Hill and at the White House; actors and screenwriters in Hollywood; scientists at labs such as Sandia and Los Alamos; students and faculty at Stanford, Dartmouth, Princeton, USC, Ohio State, and the University of Georgia; as well as educational and activist groups, including the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C.

She's my hero. :)

The Medical Right: Executive Summary

For those of you who are just becoming familiar, The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has recently made public a report on what they term "the medical right" which is essentially the scientific counterpart to the religious right. The purpose of the report is

to provide information on how the incorporation of religious views into secular policy and law is limiting medical services.

The issue of the RCRC is that certain views, what they term fundamentalist biblical values, are having a real influence on the American people and the public square. People everywhere get that abortion and legislation that undermines or infringes upon parental discretion or the conscious of pharmacists is bad. So instead of letting the people hear and be persuaded by prolife groups, the RCRC is doing two things: undermining the credibility of prolifers who appeal to scientific truths, and promoting a secular agenda such that even if they could not undermine their science, they could silence them on the basis of their religious motivations.

The report goes on to assert that the views of the "medical right" contradict "accepted medical consensus" and that to the degree in which they have influence should be cause for concern, especially to those who "value scientific integrity."

Equally disturbing is the disregard of the principle of the separation of church and state in the drive to impose sectarian religious tenets on people of all faiths and beliefs. In sum, the Medical Right threatens basic democratic values by its determination to impose its theological views on a religiously pluralistic public.

So who decides? This so-called "religious coalition" is foolish if they really believe secularism can speak for everyone and protect the rights of everyone. Secularism may not have it's own divinely inspired book (outside of the secular humanist journals) and a higher power (outside of each individual, that is) to which they appeal for truth, but secularism is, nevertheless, a worldview with it's own set of presuppositions and values. In this case, secularists such as those of the RCRC believe that preborn life is not life, or (to be slightly generous) they believe it's less valuable than older, more mature life.

Also interesting to me about this organization's views about religious perspectives is that they fall into the postmodern quagmire of nothing being true. For them, the highest value is inclusivism at the expense of truth and religious perspectives, including any that they hold including their perspective on secularism, are just their own personal values that cannot be true for everyone. So in a pluralistic, yet democratic society, who decides anything? The last I knew, "we the people" have something to say, so the only way to influence "we the people" against fundamentalist biblical values is to silence the medical right with the doctrine of secularism, slamming them up against the wall of separation - or so to speak.

The "Rogue Gallery" of the "Medical Right": See If You Made the List!

rogue (rg)

n.

1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.

2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.

3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.

4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.

adj.

1. Vicious and solitary. Used of an animal, especially an elephant.

2. Large, destructive, and anomalous or unpredictable: a rogue wave; a rogue tornado.

I thought it would be fun to look at the definition. It must have been written by a liberal....note the reference to the elephant. But anyway, who made the list?

1. American Academy of Medical Ethics
2. American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists
3. American College of Pediatricians
4. Americans United for Life
5. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
6. Care Net
7. Catholic Medical Association
8. Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
9. Christian Medical and Dental Society
10. Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer
11. Concerned Women for America
12. Elliot Institute
13. Focus on the Family
14. Medical Institute for Sexual Health
15. National Association for Prolife Nurses
16. National Right to Life
17. Pharmacists for Life International
18. Pregnancy Centers Online
19. Pro-Life Maternal-Fetal Medicine

I'm only sorry I'm not visible enough to have made the list.

Note the introductory material....if you're listed here, you're "controlling the 'facts' of the Medical Right." This document is made available as a resource of the Religious Coalition of Reproductive Choice. Consider it free publicity, your donors will love it.

The Medical Right: Remaking Medicine in Their Image

Have you ever heard of the "Medical Right" ?? This term is used "to show the connection of religiously influenced medical organizations to the 'Religious Right,' a political force primarily comprising fundamentalists in the Protestant and Roman Catholic traditions."

A report written by Marjorie Brahms Signer, the communications and policy director of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, spends countless pages showing the interconnectedness of organizations and coalitions like The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, Americans United for Life, The Christian Medical and Dental Association, Family Research Council, Do No Harm, etc. I'm left asking, so what? I know you're curious now, read the whole report here.

This report is fundamentally a list of unsubstantiated assertions about what Christian prolife conservatives think about human life and dignity and what they (supposedly) don't understand about science.

From the Foreword:

As we researched the organizations and individuals in this religion-politics-medicine network, a pattern became clear: science and medicine are being purposely used to provide a convincing rationale for political activities that appeal to Religious Right constituencies.

The charge of politicizing the issue does nothing more than fuel ignorance on their own side because until the lives of every person at every stage are safe from experimentation and extermination, this is and should be political. Of course, it need not be a Democrat vs. Republican debate, but pick a side and be a liberal or a conservative. But I do find the above quote curious in that networking is a very smart thing to do, and if science and medicine were on your side, wouldn't you also "purposely use it?" What is unstated in the above quote, of course, is the belief that science and medicine are not on the side of the Medical or Religious Right. This becomes all too clear as Signer's position in the remainder of the report.

More soon: The Executive Summary

About the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

Located in Washington D.C. and online, their mission states (in part):

The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice brings the moral power of religious communities to ensure reproductive choice through education and advocacy. The Coalition seeks to give clear voice to the reproductive issues of people of color, those living in poverty, and other underserved populations.

While our member organizations are religiously and theologically diverse, they are unified in the commitment to preserve reproductive choice as a basic part of religious liberty.

Our rational, healing perspective looks beyond the bitter abortion debate to seek solutions to pressing problems such as unintended pregnancy, the spread of HIV/AIDS, inadequate health care and health insurance, and the severe reduction in reproductive health care services. We support access to sex education, family planning and contraception, affordable child care and health care, and adoption services as well as safe, legal, abortion services, regardless of income.

Rational; theologically diverse; safe, legal, abortion services.......these all seem to be very warm, welcoming terms, everything a good public relations strategy would encompass. Smart, pluralistic, safe, and legal do not look beyond the abortion debate, they ignore it.

The RCRC statement on ESCR is lacking some serious content. Perhaps the organization is uninformed about the process of SCNT and the desire for proponets of ESCR to clone embryos for research. And if they are uninformed about SCNT (I doubt it), it's time for them to learn why bioethicists like myself are concerned not only for human life and dignity in all stages, but also for the young women who are being exploited by the pursuit of their eggs. It is difficult to believe that the best interests of young women are really the highest concern of pro-Roe activists. Willful disregard for the health and respect of young women is a prerequisite to the pursuit of ESCR.

But what about this "moral power of religious communities" ?? I'm not exactly sure what it means. It seems to suggest that a certain degree of influence in the area of reproductive choice on the part of this pluralistic religious community is something to be recognized and engaged. Is that really any different from the "moral power" leveraged by prolife conservatives? I don't think so.

"The Medical Right"

Talk2Action's frontpage article "The Medical Right: Remaking Medicine in Their Image" contains so much that it deserves a very lengthy response, so I will be spending the next few weeks offering an analysis of this and the 80 page document they have posted here. I encourage all of you to read this.

The article I am referencing in this post is just a lot of the same bad arguments that are usually lobbed at the prolife community. How I wish for something new.

Here is the essence of the article at Talk2Action and the 80 page document by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

Religion comes into the equation because the Medical Right operates from a generally unstated, implicit and unwavering biblical worldview and intends to enact its version of Biblical values into law. The “sanctity of human life” is Religious Right Speak for the Medical Right non-medical definition of the beginning of life.

Once again we are seeing people with a particular worldview, and in this case an obvious liberal bias, suggesting that only conservative Christians have a worldview. As soon as anyone begins to make statements about when life begins - or when it doesn't - they are engaging in a metaphysical dialogue that really goes beyond science. But at the same time, we know that at the earliest stages of development that an embryo is indeed a human life. ESC researchers don't ask for dead dog embryonic stem cells to study....they want living human embryos.

More to come.

Keeping the Faith?

Religion has no place in the public square. Questions of law should be decided independent of religious voices lest we shove religious views down people's throats. Secularism has the ability to speak for everyone.

These are just a few of the rationales used to sanitize the public square of the religiously influential. My response to them has been and always will be this: simply, the public square cannot be cleansed of religion or worldviews because everyone is driven by them. There is no pure secularism; there is no neutrality.

So, much to my surprise and amusement, I read in today's Chicago SunTimes the religious - even "biblical" - arguments in support of a new Planned Parenthood abortion facility in Aurora Illinois. Dubbed as "pro-choice clerics," they have declared a day of prayer for this Sunday in support of this soon-to-open facility in Aurora.

"The religious right believes that they have heard the voice of God, and they try to impose their hearing of it on the rest of us by law......But there are many women of faith who have heard a different voice of God when they've prayed." These are the words of the Rev. Ana Levy-Lyons of Oak Park, Illinois. It's clear from her words that the problem isn't that religious views are informing public policy, it's that certain religious views she disagrees with are informing public policy.

Rev. Larry Greenfield of the American Baptist Churches of Metro Chicago inserted a "biblical" argument into the controversy. "To deny somebody choice is contrary to what I believe to be the teachings of Jesus as a Christian." A great deal needs to be said about drop-kicking Scripture into this debate, but I most certainly enjoy the fact that it came from the side who embraces the killing of the unborn. Talking about Scripture in an authoritative fashion as Greenfield has done offers an opportunity to deal with the much debated topic of absolute truth and religious pluralism and the ethical implications tied to both, especially as it pertains to social justice. To be clear, abortion is an issue of social justice, but not because of the "choice" or lack thereof, but because of who it hurts - the unborn child and the mother.

I'm thankful the door has been opened, this is a matter to which Scripture does speak.

Amy Simpson on Women's Ministry

It seems I missed this awesome post by Amy Simpson on August 28th, titled "Why I Don't Do Women's Ministry." Like the Invisible Christian Women post at the TCW Editor's Blog, this also addresses the complicated culture of women's ministry. And while you might not agree with Invisible Christian Women or this particular post, it's definitely worthy of your consideration.

It’s been a long time since I attended a women’s Bible study, luncheon (why don’t they just call them “lunch”?), or anything else just for Christian women. I’ve spent enough of my life feeling bored, self-conscious, and out of place (think junior high gym class).

In my experience, the people who plan these events make all kinds of assumptions about who I am as a women. For starters, most assume I’m a full-time stay-at-home mom (and the best time of day for a meeting is, of course, 10:00 in the morning). They also seem to believe I enjoy making refrigerator magnets, spend most of my time thinking about fashion and chocolate, and can think of nothing better than getting away from my husband and kids (even though I’ve been at work all day) and hanging out with my “girlfriends.” This isn’t me—at all.

I used to think I just didn’t fit. Somehow I wasn’t like most women, and this probably had something to do with my spiritual life, so I should try harder to fit in. Now I realize that’s not true. In fact, the funny thing is, I don’t really think I’m a misfit. Most women I know feel the same way I do about women’s ministry programming. I know that women’s ministries do connect with many women and provide important opportunities for growth. But they seem to be focused on serving a relatively small segment of the population. So I wonder: Why do so many of our women’s ministry efforts treat women as if they all have the same lifestyle, schedule, goals, affinity for June Cleaver, and penchant for pink roses? And why are we expected to call ourselves “girlfriends”?

I don’t mean to undermine the importance of women’s ministry, or trivialize the effective ministry that’s happening in many churches. But by and large, I believe our churches are running shallow, one-dimensional programs that miss important opportunities to minister to many women.

I more than identify with this post....I've made the same complaints, same assessment and have asked the same questions. Are we taking the next step? What is the next step? I want to see this discussion continue because it will help to free more women who participate in women's ministry, to know that they don't have to conform to a certain image. Biblical or Christian womanhood, or whatever you want to call it, necessitates a high view of Scripture, an understanding of Christ's holiness, man's sinfulness, the precious gift of redemption, etc., but it doesn't require that we all take an interest in similar things and lead similar lives. I believe the culture of women's ministry in the local church is shifting. More are being stirred to speak out on the blogs about this culture, more Christian women's writers are doing more than supplying fluff, and more and more women are entering seminary and phd programs in order to serve women in the church(not a requirement of course, but quite refreshing). What are you doing to include more women and shatter the stereotypes?

The Legacy of Dr. D. James Kennedy

Separation of Church & State...definitely not a notion held by the now departed Dr. D. James Kennedy. Much of his work is defined by his understanding that Christian voices have a role in the public square and therefore, have an equal opportunity for influencing and impacting culture. Regarding the so-called "wall of separation," some have quoted him as saying that the concept is "diabolical," a "false doctrine," and "a lie propagated by Thomas Jefferson." I can't say that I disagree because to use a misinterpretation of the Constitution to silence any particular group or particular way of thinking is to completely misunderstand the intent of the writers and the words on the paper.

Kennedy was successful in getting my attention as a child. Raised in a politically conservative home, it made sense to me that the my the source of my values should be a part of the communication of my values - the Christian worldview being one of many voices vieing for predominance in the public square. But I often hear the complaint that Christian conservatives are too wrapped up in legalism, focusing on what we should and should not be doing. Ethics, I believe is a key component of the Christian faith, and I believe Dr. Kennedy understood this to be true, also. What we are to do as followers of Christ is to act ethically in and through responding to needs in the world: caring for the widows, the poor, the vulnerable. To ignore these people would be unethical....unchristian. So it hasn't been a stretch for me as an Ambassador of Christ into all the world to agree with Dr. Kennedy that the public square is an important and necessary location for the influential role of Christianity on all of society. This is not because I am merely interested in society conforming to the evangelical Christian ethic, but so that lives could be genuinely affected by what is good, true, and beautiful.

I am thankful for the work of Dr. D. James Kennedy and I know he has served the Kingdom well. He may not have been as prominent as Robertson, Falwell, or Dobson, but he played an important role in stirring and equipping the grassroots.

The Passing of D. James Kennedy

Mega-church pioneer, evangelist, religious broadcaster, key figure in the "religious right".......the legacy of D. James Kennedy is one of a person with a great deal of impact on the church and culture. This year is proving to be something of a transition year for Christian conservatives, first in the loss of Jerry Falwell, then in the passing of Dr. Kennedy. I can only hope that the vision of theirs, to allow Christianity to participate as a voice in the public square, will continue under and new generation of leaders.

John Edwards will 'Respect Science'

Forget about respecting life, as president John Edwards plans to "respect science." This is really no surprise to me, I'm just amused at the constant, ignorant rhetoric by the Left on ESCR. You can see this at his own site.

John Edwards believes that policy should be science driven, and that science shouldn't be politics driven. Ideological debates have drained resources from promising research. Edwards will increase funding for and lift stifling research restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, while banning reproductive human cloning.

Aside from his writer's assault on the English language, it's clear that he has no intention to allow ethical reflection on this controversial area of research. As well, it's clear that he doesn't understand that all ethical reflection is the outworking of somebody's worldview, and so his increase in funding for the research is as ideologically driven as my own desire to ban the research entirely. Finally, Edwards hasn't a clue about the science - cloning is cloning. Apparently we need to continue the discussion about so-called reproductive and therapeutic cloning. I'm sure I've blogged on that before.

But alas, does any of this matter? I think Edwards does need to hear from people of wisdom and sound mind regarding this research even though he hasn't a chance to even be the democratic nominee.

Being Green - Being Human

Pondering the role of ethics in scientific pursuits over the weekend, I started to consider the issue of global warming and the associated fact that there are costs to scientific progress. Let me first say, I don’t buy totally into the alarmism of global warming, but I do see that there are real consequences to not protecting the environment. In fulfilling the cultural mandate, caring for the condition of the earth is as much our responsibility as is preaching the gospel or defending the life of the unborn.

So how many environmentalists do you think would like us to turn back time, if it was possible, and reassess some of the so-called scientific progress our society has achieved? “Progress” that has increased the speed and efficiency of our society as well as providing great personal conveniences may also be responsible for the damage to the ozone. It isn’t easy being green when the science and ethics find themselves pitted against each other by politicians ill-equipped for ethical reflection and scientists with financial conflicts of interest. Science isn’t neutral, whether the question is environmentalism or biotechnology.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that scientific progress in biotechnology necessitates unfettered science, and this will outweigh any of the ethical considerations being raised by those who oppose the research. The discipline of ethics plays a role only when the life of the research is at risk of being terminated, not when the life being researched for cures is terminated. As environmentalists and creation-caring individuals wish for a second chance, someday we may also regret the violations against human dignity in the name of scientific progress.

A "Generous" Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport

While making arrangements to attend GodBlogCon 2007 in Las Vegas, I remembered a book on my shelf I had forgotten to finish reading. "Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport" was written by Richard Mouw of Fuller Seminary. It's a great read in that it shows the practical side of belief in the 5 points of Calvinism, aka the "TULIP."

I still haven't finished reading it. It's not that it's a large book, I'm just dumbfounded by something I read on page 87. The section is titled "Hoping for Generosity" and he's discussing how some Calvinists insist on playing a numbers game, "insist[ing] that only a very small portion of the human race will make it to heaven...". But Mouw continues, suggesting that he's holding out for a "divine generosity." Here's what he means:

I have a rabbi friend who is now very old. He has often sent me friendly notes about something I have written, and on a number of occasions he has told me that he prays for God's blessing on my work. I have a spiritual hunch about how things are going to end up for this rabbi. I would not be surprised if, when the final encounter comes with his Maker and he sees the face of Jesus, he will bow in worship, acknowledging that Jesus is the One whom he should have named all along as the Promised One of Israel-and that the Savior will welcome him into the eternal kingdom. (p. 87)

Mouw then completes the chapter by discussing the election of infants and those who are unable to respond to the gospel because of disability or geographical distance from the nearest presentation of the gospel. It seems that because mystery surrounds the issue of salvation for some of these people categories, he's willing to posit some sort of salvation experience in the presence of Jesus for his friend the rabbi.

Is anyone else alarmed by this? Whatever your view on election, the TULIP, etc (that is not open for debate in this post, sorry...) Scripture is clear that the born again experience is one of this world and this life or else what is the sense of urgency of the Church for missions and evangelism? Hebrews 9:27 says that "it is appointed to men to die once and after this comes judgement."

I think Mouw's "hunch" about his friend's eternal situation is left a bit ambiguous, it's not all that clear what Mouw is thinking - so I will remain gracious in my assessment until he or someone else can set me straight on this. But I am alarmed.

Reformissionary

This blog I stumbled on today is worth the read, check it out.

Reformissionary

Invisible Christian Women - Today's Christian Woman

This has got to be one of the best pieces I've read from TCW. From the Editor's Blog, read Invisible Christian Women.

My mom and I were attending a women's ministry event—a weekend retreat dubbed an escape. To us busy career women, this sounded like just what we needed—time away from the daily grind. And connecting with one another on this getaway was the biggest draw of all.

So on a Friday afternoon we flew to this national conference anticipating encouragement, togetherness, and a sense of belonging to the larger community of Christian women.

But by Saturday night I simply felt invisible.

The event was certainly well planned and executed. I enjoyed the great worship music, the chit-chat with women from around the country, the chance to hear some top-notch speakers. But the entire weekend seemed geared toward young married moms. And as a single 30something with no kids, I felt like an outsider. Even my mom, an empty-nester nearing retirement, felt a bit out of the loop.
...
I don't think this evening would've bothered me if its narrow focus had been an isolated instance. But I've been to many women's ministry events over the years—teas, luncheons, weekend retreats, national conferences—and many of them have had a very homogeneous demographic in mind: young married moms.

The editorial ends with a series of questions, many of which I have been asking for a few years myself.

Is your women's ministry group inclusive and diverse? If so, how do you accomplish that accepting atmosphere? If not, how can you help make it more welcoming to all?

I consider myself something of an expert on this topic because I have been on the outside since I first became involved in church women's ministry. For awhile, I tried to fit in trying to look like everyone else. But my life and my personality were not like everyone else. For example, being "functionally single" at church makes it really hard to find a Sunday school class to fit in (I'm not single, widowed, college aged....but the married group is full of couples!) and in women's ministry, it's even more challenging. And it was one thing if I didn't fit into the group, but when the focus was on happily married young moms with Christian husbands, I felt worse than invisible...more like an alien. Now I'm a functionally single woman with great kids, a great husband (who is still an unbeliever and doesn't attend church with us), and on top of that, I am an academic of sorts.

The bottom line is, I know, it's not about me, but I do have a passion for the women who are on the outside like I once was (and still am) and I want to be part of the solution. We want everyone to have a sense of belonging, to be nurtured and discipled. The church really needs to take serious the different kinds of women inside and outside of the church. What can we do to reach them? Today's women are extremely diverse in age, experience, career, parenting, etc. Understanding that this diversity exists is the first step towards creating opportunities through bible studies, discussion groups, target specific conferences, etc, to minister to all kinds of women. Yeah, we'll miss some - we can never be so target specific that we'll always hit the nail on the head, but we can do more to try. Find out what the diversity of gifts are in your ministry and see what you can do to expand the influence to the women already in your church, and then look at the women who aren't in church but are a part of your church's community, and see how the diversity of gifts in your ministry can be used by God to further the growth of the Kingdom and have a real impact on women's lives.

The Relationship between Secular Liberals and Religious Conservatives is Shifting

As the battle over the separation of church and state rages on, it seems that the battles between secular liberals and religious conservatives are shifting because apparently the face of conservatives is changing.....and I'm not sure that it is for the best.

USA Today online includes an Aug. 6th article, Who Speaks for Evangelicals? Writer Mark Pinsky wonders

Will it continue to be bombastic, GOP-leaning, Southern preachers, such as the late Jerry Falwell, and strident, hard-line broadcasters such as Pat Robertson and Focus on the Family's James Dobson? I don't think so. From my neighborhood in the suburban Sunbelt, it is clear that a subtle, incremental but nonetheless tectonic shift is under way.

I think it's a worthy question, especially in light of what I am seeing in the evangelical community these days -- where pragmatism, not Scripture, rules the actions and activities of the church -- and it makes sense that this would translate into political-religious conservatism. For more on pragmatism in the church, check out Challies.com.

The article continues...

The emerging face and voice of American evangelicalism is that of a pragmatic, politically sophisticated, pastor of a middle class megachurch. A younger generation of ministers such as Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life; Bill Hybels, of the pioneering Willow Creek Community Church outside Chicago; T.D. Jakes, the African-American pastor of The Potter's House in Dallas, as well as a music and movie producer; and Frank Page, the re-elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Or, this younger generation might be personified by someone like Joel Hunter, of Northland Church, just outside Orlando. The amiable Midwesterner, who opposes the death penalty, looks like Johnny Carson and sounds like Gene Hackman....

...Groups such as the Moral Majority, the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family "almost demand a more strident tone to raise money or media ratings," Hunter says. "As pastors, we don't have the same pressures on us. We work with people. We know what it takes to be patient and motivational and encouraging."

...Last year, fellow evangelicals chose him to be their voice in a national television campaign for "Creation Care," the evangelical euphemism for environmentalism and the effort to slow global warming.

"Did you know that evangelical leaders are telling us that global warming must be stopped because it will bring more devastating floods, droughts and disease?" Hunter asked..."As Christians, our faith in Jesus Christ compels us to love our neighbors and to be stewards of God's creation."

Pastors like Hunter, Warren, Hybels, Jakes and Page have a shared vision.

They want to change the tone of the national political debate, making it less confrontational, and to open the movement to tactical coalitions with mainline Christian denominations, other faiths and even liberal secularists on a broad spectrum of issues.

True, on cultural touchstone issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, there is no difference between the Old Guard and the New Guard: All are equally opposed. But the younger pastors want to broaden the evangelical agenda beyond what Hunter calls "below the belt" issues linked to sexuality. For them, people of faith should engage issues such as AIDS, Darfur, economic justice, war and peace, prison reform and human trafficking. For Dobson and Robertson, this represents an unacceptable dilution of focus and a squandering of political capital.

I'm alarmed by the "broaden[ing] of the evangelical agenda." Please don't misunderstand me, we should engage issues such as AIDS, Darfur, etc. because they are issues of human dignity (as are abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research) but my sense is that these "young pastors" may be buying into the politically-correct tone of the day and abandoning certain issues instead of adding to them. And I don't mean to say that everyone should be a prolife activist, but I do take serious issue with developing alliances with political figures who are so boldly prochoice. As Billy Graham has historically been the "pastor to power," I see these young pastors not so much pastors to power, more like pragmatists to power.

Discussing this with my brother Collin Brendemuehl, he offered the insight that the postmodern equivalent of the televangelist is the use of community rather than TV/Radio. There is definitely a sameness, obviously the medium has changed. But the desire to persuade is the same and I don't think one is holier than the other. But given my concerns about the pragmatic nature of the seeker movement, I can't help but to lament the Seeker Leader's involvement in this broadening of the evangelical agenda. I don't want to see evangelicalism hijacked by the political/religious left.

Defining "Church Lady"

Recent posts to my blog Flash Point and Intellectuelle relating to the various ministries of women seems to have inspired discussion about this person I refer to as "Church Lady." I feel a sense of responsibility to all who read this blog because my desire is not create a collective stereotype of those women who seem to be the opposite of our group here at Intellectuelle. This matter deserves greater qualification, for the dignity of all women and for the benefit of those of you who care to interpret the meaning of my posts. So, the question remains, what is a church lady? This is my response (in no particular order):

A "church lady"...
1. is only able to see one possible role for all women, the stay-at-home wife and mother. (Be careful here, not all stay-at-home wives and mothers see this as the only possible role for women.)
2. believes the hard work of doing theology is men's work, women should only bother with the practical matters of the household.
3. perceives the application of Scripture as logically prior to examination toward understanding context.
4. concludes that her "child like faith" is all she needs to contend with life in this world. Words and concepts that require more than minimal work are unnecessary to grasp, especially because they do not directly pertain to salvation.
5. regards group outings to the mall, cookie exchanges, and the annual Mother/Daughter banquet as the core of a successful women's ministry - ENTERTAINMENT. (These things in and of themselves are not bad, but obviously there is much more.)
6. thinks that evangelism and discipleship of women today is more than redemption from sin, but redemption to something, the role of "church lady."
7. believes that a core element of her faith is to be encouraged, reducing God to personal therapist/coach. (Encouragement isn't a bad thing, but God never promised we'd feel good about ourselves and our circumstances all the time, but asks us to rejoice in Him at all times. These are different categories.)
8. thinks seminary, higher education, and/or the pursuit of a career are exclusively the domain of men. (See #1)
9. isn't [consciously] aware of the need to have bible studies, discussion groups, and other gatherings at times when working women can join.
10. often understands the doctrine of sin and salvation, but rejects the need to understand other core doctrines because knowing them will not impact or affect her salvation.
11. thinks reading books other than the bible is a complete waste of time.
12. prefers to completely cloister her family from the rest of culture, thus paying homage to the sacred/secular divide, as the best way to protect them from the evils of society.
13. believes that there are 2 kinds of women (ala the account of Mary & Martha....Mary at the feet of Jesus) and focuses on living like Martha and never gets to the feet of Jesus.
14. says you don't have to come to church already "cleaned up" but certainly acts like you should.

As a result of these dearly held views, single women never seem to fit in well in relationships with this kind of woman. Women of questionable backgrounds are avoided (can God possibly really redeem "there kind?") and church ladies are almost always what churches want to put in place as women's ministry leadership. From my own experience, I can tell you that I was overlooked by a church as a salaried pastor to women because my husband is an unbeliever....because he doesn't come to church with me.

I'm sure I can say a lot more on this matter, but I really wanted my views to be understood. I do not speak for everyone here, but I'm sure there will be more agreement than not. And just to be real clear here, I am not ridiculing or chastising women who might not consider themselves abstract thinkers are academically geared. I am very supportive of all women, to whatever ministry God has called them to. But I simply cannot tolerate the one dimensional view of women that permeates the church and women's ministry today. I met a woman recently who identifies herself formally as the "wife of the director of....blah blah blah....for such and such organization." How sad is that.

To conclude, I need to give myself a bit of credibility here: I absolutely love to throw a good tea party and I'm as much of a girly girl as anyone else. I know how to have fun, to throw great events, to fellowship, and to encourage, but there is more to the Christian life than all those things. Aspire to Christ-centered ministry, not event-driven ministry.