Epidemic Among Women

Apparently there is concern that women all over the U.S. are experiencing feelings of low self-worth. Some even suggest that this is an epidemic. I have difficulty believing that this is the case, in fact, I would suggest that the opposite problem exists. I know, there are women who are going to great lengths to improve their physical image by undergoing physical enhancements such as breast implants, liposuction, face lifts, and botox treatments--among other things. I don't believe these actions are primarily the result of low self worth, but are evidence of a society that is never satisfied and just wants more. These women aren't necessarily dissatisfied with who they are, they are dissatisfied with what they have--and don't have. The quest for extended life spans and a youthful appearance that endures into the 60s isn't an issue with low self-worth, its a manifestation of entitlement. "If I can, I will." This is the real epidemic, and it transcends the issue of physical enhancements. It explains the rampant materialism and consumerism that plagues our world....and it does stop at the doors of the church.

As leaders in womens ministry, we have an opportunity--and responsibility--to help women reconfigure how they view the world, living the Christ-centered rather than the self-centered life. Don't be deceived--women, for the most part, feel very good about themselves.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

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.