Humanist Ethics & Arrogance

In her post, Is Humanism Arrogant?, Terri Murray offers an undergraduate level textbook recitation of divine command theory, attributing the position to Christian "theocrats", theologians and otherwise, who engage in a worldview analysis that draws the conclusion that humanist ethical theory represents arrogance because it ultimately lacks any epistemic foundation. Oh yeah, she never explained the reasoning of these "theocrats."

Terri fails in this post, not because she created a strawman--yes, there is much more to Christian ethics than divine command theory--not because she doesn't answer the "theocrat" according to the strawman she set up in the first place, but because she never actually offers an explanation for how humanists "understand" ethics. Frankly, I'm not even sure what "understand" means, unless she is referring to how they ground ethics. If this is the case, she might have better expressed it as an accounting of ethics. So how do humanists account for ethics?

Every worldview has a self-sufficient. In biblical Christianity, the self-sufficient is the God of Scripture. In humanism, the self-sufficient is man who, through the use of reason, locates right and wrong, the ethical and unethical. But in the history of humanity, man has proven that the use of reason never yields the same conclusions among all men. Reason fails. Science is not ethics, science is a descriptive discipline, ethics is a prescriptive discipline. Science can never speak for ethics, it can only offer choices to ethics. Humanism fails the test for objective ethics, and with relativism as that which remains, humanist ethics can never speak for everyone, nor would it ever try to. The fact remains, humanism simply cannot account for right and wrong, because humanism cannot escape relativism. And that's why the charge of arrogance hovers over humanist ethics.

Abortion: The Debate's Transition to the Private Realm

During last night's 100 day press conference, President Obama declared--almost word for word to previous statements--his position on abortion. Even though he isn't a great speaker, he likely is a wordsmith on paper and has framed this language in such a way that it sounds logical, caring, respectful of religion, and dare I say, even centrist.

You know, my view on abortion I think has been very consistent. I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think that those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they — if they suggest — and I don’t want to create straw men here, but I think there are some who suggest that this is simply an issue about women’s freedom and that there’s no other considerations. I think, look, this is an issue that people have to wrestle with, and families and individual women have to wrestle with.

There is some serious strategy going on here. I believe what Obama is trying to do is de-politicize abortion for the sake of the pro-abortion position. By referring to it as a moral issue that "families and women have to wrestle with" he is eliminating the notion of objective morality and linking abortion instead the realm of private values. But if the debate remains tied most dominately to the extreme feminist, reproductive rights movement, abortion remains open to public debate amongst ideological foes, each with the assumption that there is an objectively correct answer. And if that debate continues to rage, Obama can't appear as if he is taking no side. But there is more.

The reason I’m pro-choice is because I don’t think women take that position casually. I think that they struggle with these decisions each and every day, and I think they are in a better position to make these decision ultimately than members of Congress or a President of the United States — in consultation with their families, with their doctors, with their clergy. So that’s been my consistent position.

There is a ton to address in this portion of his statement, but what I want to focus your attention to the "private" relationships he mentions, between a woman and her family, doctor, clergy. His administration's work to mute the public abortion debates leaves it in the realm of these private relationships...and take note that religion is removed from the public realm (no surprise) into the private life of the woman. This is the only place where religion has a voice in the matter.

This statement he makes is clearly driven toward a removal of religious voices from the public square, and the fact that he consistently makes his position known suggests his words need to be closely examined. If the Obama administration succeeds in muting the debate, even if only on the side of the pro-aborts, religious voices will be even further marginalized and secularism will be the default worldview, even among those who identify themselves as Christian. And we see a lot of that occuring already.

Mama's Got a Fake I.D. (Book Review)

Mama's Got a Fake I.D. (Book Review)
Author: Caryn Dahlstrand Rivadeneira
Waterbrook Press, 204 pages

This is not a book about egalitarianism vs complementarianism, career women vs. stay-at-home moms. It is also not a treatise against feminism. But before I even opened the pages of the book, I was struck by the blurb on the back cover. Check it out:

"No one begins life as a mom. Before you have children, you are an amazing combination of friend, daughter, confidant, visionary, encourager, and thinker. You start out in life using your gifts and abilities in a surprising variety of settings. Then you have children and the role of mom-as wonderful as it is-seems to consume you. It's easy to lose your identity when others see you as a mom and little else. What happened to the artist, the teambuilder, the organizer, the entrepreneur, the leader--the person you lost touch with?"

Frankly, if this is all anyone read of the book, they would understand clearly the author's intention is grant moms the permission to use their gifts and talents to the glory of God, to remind them that they can be a mom and a writer, singer, cook, puzzle solver, or trumpet player. These moms have teaching gifts, communication gifts, leadership abilities, can enjoy fixing small appliances, and planting a garden. To remember that these things contribute to your identity, including who you are as a mom, is neither to elevate them over motherhood or to intice women to leave the home to pursue a career. They simply are....and all that from the back cover!

I eventually want to get to some of the actual meat of this book, but knowing what so many women in the church are reading and believing, I find it necessary to deal with the ideas associated with the confusion many women will no doubt have about this book. Let me be clear, this is not pop-psychology baptized in scripture, but it offers a real biblical alternative to the spiritualized ascetism that has been mandated for women in the evangelical community. Being a mom, a mom who loves being a mom, a mom devoted to her family and her Lord, need not be a woman who buries her gifts, hides her interests, and squanders her talents.

"When we wrestle with our identities, we want to know who specifically we are. Who we were made to be. Why we're gifted the way we are--and how that fits into our role as mom as well as our lives as women who follow Jesus."

When conversations ensue about women's roles, I believe a great deal of equivocating is done. When we talk about the identity of a woman there is no necessary denegration of her role as mom. Yet the two are often confused. As well, I believe the encyclopedic fallacy is committed when we speak of the lives of women. The Bible simply does not provide exhaustive details of how women's lives ought to manifest day to day. Caryn points out in this quote, clearly not pitting our identities against our roles, how God created us in his image, yet unique in desires, gifts, and talents to function in our own unique life circumstance. Sure, many women are mothers, but not all women are married to the same man in the same house with the same income. Our lives are as unique as our identities. As I believe this book aptly addresses, our role as mom can often overshadow how we are moms.

There are no generic Christians and that moms are getting stuck with generic identification inhibits the disciple-making and fellowship of the church. While our faith represents for us the only worldview that believes in a personal God in touch with the intimate details of our lives, our church life often communicates otherwise. Caryn implores us to adopt a refreshing alternative:

"We love who your kids are, and we love who you are. We can't wait to see what God has in store for you. We know that your gifts, your personality, your passions, and your whole self can enhance this community."

Mama's Got a Fake I.D. will give you the courage to be who you are, not because you have any particular rights or demands that ought to be heard, but because God created you to serve your family and the body of Christ in very unique ways. Generic products have come a long way over the years, but the labels simply hide the essence of the product within. This book is as much for the church as it is for women who might be struggling with their own identity, or wondering if it is ok for them to retain the gifts and interests God has poured into them. WFC

Secularism Need not be the Death Knell of Christianity

Newsweek’s proclamation of The End of Christian America leaves a sense of despair in the minds of many Christ-followers this Holy Week. We have heard President Obama state recently that America is neither a Christian or Muslim country, and now we read in the 2009 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) that the percentage of individuals claiming no religious affiliation has almost doubled. But there is more. The northeast quadrant of the United States is identified by the survey as a new “stronghold for the religiously unidentified.” This is not entirely unexpected as we have seen the ongoing decline of religious influence in academic institutions located in this region, institutions that were originally established to some extent to advance God’s Kingdom. And the concentration of liberal politicians in this region of the country has been noticeable for many years.

Observing that the momentum of the current political climate is resulting in a greater secularization of the American mind, I suspect that the numbers presented in this ARIS report will likely increase in the next five years. As Christian doctors continue to have their right of conscience threatened, as institutions like Notre Dame make an impractical distinction between the office of President and his ideology, and as common, every day believers hand over their religious freedom of expression for a mythical notion of neutral language and practice, I think we will see these numbers increase throughout the country. But this is not the end of Christianity and God is not dead. America may no longer be easily identified as a “Christian nation,” but the work of the church has not ceased.

American Christians do not really know what it means to be persecuted. Yet on a relative scale, I do believe that the infractions against conservative religious voices will motivate an uprising of American Christians willing to challenge the rising tide of intolerance. The question for Christian conservatives is, are we willing to work harder AND smarter to impact individual’s lives that will ultimately have an impact on the overall worldview of our society? In theory, we are all willing, but are we willing to stake our lives and reputation on an explicit expression of the Christian worldview? Perhaps we can even take some responsibility for the problem of secularization for preferring a godless conservative language and approach over that which is consistently and unabashedly Christian. That is not a battle between the conservative vs. the secular, but the Christian vs the secular.

How to Do Titus 2

Thinking about how to accomplish transition from event-driven women's ministry to a Titus 2 framework, I realize I ought to define "event-driven."

Churches and women's ministries will always have special events, and they should. But large scale affairs generally do not lend well to relationship building, an element essential to discipleship. Event-driven ministry is best understood as a majority of activities that take away from relationship building. In other words, if your ministry has one dinner function a year, but most of the Bible studies are video-based, my view is that relationship building is inhibited. This is where Bible study becomes a series of events and, voila, you have an event-driven ministry.

A Titus 2-based women's ministry is focused on getting women to talk to each other, where there is teaching and learning--not just about God, but about each other. Where there is no conversation, no learning, there is no mentoring.

So how do you move from event-driven to a Titus 2 ministry?

1. Group Bible studies that invite encounters with God in scripture and opportunities to share with each other about its meaning and application.

2. Activities that reveal common interests. These need not be formalized, it can be as basic as attending Little League games together or going to a teacher's convention if that is your occupation.

3. Casual sack lunch gatherings with or without a planned topic. Every women's ministry event need not be a regal affair.

4. "Cake and Conversation." Again, be deliberate about the cake, and see where the conversation goes.

5. Yes, I'm going to say it. Online social networking takes some of the work out of it, but you can make yourself available, knowable, and reachable with an online presence. The world is changing but we can still be a part of even the busiest person's life through Facebook, Ning, Twitter, and other similar sites. It takes less time to read messages than it does to cater an event!

This is a short, obviously non-exhaustive list. If you have some ideas or insights, leave your comments for everyone to read.

Obama: Clergy in Chief?

When President Obama recently signed the Executive Order that would provide federal funding for embryo-destructive research, the ideological floodgates were opened. Obama said the new order is “about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda—and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Science does not make decisions, ethics and the theories that support them are where decisions are made.

There are two significant issues that arise from this whole discussion. The first is the fact that science can only provide us with an “is.” Science can only describe what we can do or what we might be able to do, but science will never, on its own, answer the question, “what should we do?” Simply because the progress of science and research allows us to do something does not necessitate that we ought to. This IS-OUGHT dilemma is so extremely elementary, yet escapes Obama and his left-leaning ideologues. Indeed, he has answered the ethical question that was previously “above [his] paygrade,” but tries to disguise it as a matter of science.

The other significant issue is that Christian conservatives are catapulted again into the discussion of what is an embryo, when does human life begin, what does it mean to be created in the Image of God, and what are the implications of this research on the character of American society? But oddly enough, while Obama is allowed to bring ideology to the teleprompter in his IS-OUGHT charade, the church is a bit more temperamental about bringing so-called political issues in the pulpit. The fact is, most issues of politics are issues of faith and matters for the church to engage, yet there is nothing inherently political about embryo-destructive research that should make it off limits from our pastoral leadership and communicated from the pulpit. Embryo-destructive research is first a matter of ethics and is secondarily political. In fact, it’s only been politicized because of the desire to appeal to the wants of a very vocal and left-leaning segment of our society. And aversion to these discussions from the pulpit is based on the idea that they have great potential to cause division inside the church so we, for our own good, should abide by the so-called Wall of Separation. Is this evidence that the church is really as political as government, and government is really as faith-oriented as the church? An interesting reversal of roles.

What Embryonic Stem Cell Research has to do with Women's Ministry

Sounds strange, but the repercussions of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) are going to be especially serious for younger women. The research will cause a decline in womens health and objectify women in a way never imagined.

For ESCR to be pursued, cloning (somatic cell nuclear transfer/SCNT) science will need to be perfected, research the requires human eggs, harvested from women of reproductive age.

Womens ministry is in a unique position to educate these young women about the harms of ESCR/SCNT to their bodies and to communicate their worth, their human dignity, and that it should not be violated in treating them as a commodity--an egg farm.

Harvesting eggs even for IVF (same method) can be extremely painful and have long term health implications...including infertility. Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome has been known to result.

Feminists aren't interested in protecting women from the harms of this research because their agenda demands that whatever can be done to deconstruct reproduction ought to be done. Christian women mentoring younger women are in a key position to communicate a vital message of human dignity that can not on protect women's health, but draw them closer to the God who defines dignity in the first place.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Women's Ministry: Spiritual Anemia Requires Spiritual Meat

Recently, I wrote a piece for the GFL blog that was titled "Does 'Complementarian' Equal Anemic Women's Ministry?" I'm thrilled with the comments it has received and the encouragement it has provided to women who want to bring a certain degree seriousness to their call to ministry. I cannot count the times that I meet women who, with me, joyfully identify with the complementarian perspective, but wonder how they can bring more meat to the table of women's ministry when it is overflowing with so much dessert. The answer to that question is going to depend on the kind of support that exists in the local church and the willingness to work together toward the same purpose and goal that is God-centered and gospel-driven.

I was honored to discover that the folks at the Council for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood thought my commentary had a sense of good "direction," but I'm sad that they responded to an article that simply was not the one I wrote. If you have not read my commentary, please read it before you continue reading here. In fact, read Brent Nelson's as well, then come back.

Welcome back!

In What Makes for a Strong Women's Ministry?, Brett Nelson writes that my commentary "wafts an air of chronological snobbery" in response to this statement I make in the GFL commentary:

These are women who want to fulfill the Titus 2 mandate, to mentor and minister to other women, who want to play a significant role in Christian education, but also want to escape the culture of women’s ministry that they inherited from their grandmothers.

I am unclear how this is "chronological snobbery," and Brent Nelson is unclear as well, because he follows up my statement with his own question.

what is it about their grandmothers' culture of women's ministry that must be escaped from just because it was two generations back?

He rightly states that every generation has their blind spots, and that every generation has something to teach each other. I couldn't agree more! But my own commentary does provide an answer his question. As you have already read, I point out many examples of fluff n' stuff we have inherited from previous generations of women's ministry that are becoming obstacles to discipleship and in developing future women's leaders. Perhaps it was short-sided of me to not pay tribute to the legacy of women from the past, but that wasn't the purpose of the commentary. Brent Nelson is right to point out that it hasn't all been fluff n' stuff, but he commits a logical error by suggesting the desire for escape is based on ageism.

In developing his argument, Brent Nelson asks yet another rhetorical question,

Are those who reject their grandmothers' kind of women's ministry sure of what they reject?

Well, that was the point of my commentary, and it was long enough and specific enough for that detail to be located by the reader. Yes, we are sure! We, the silent critical mass mentioned at the beginning of my commentary, reject the fluff n' stuff that inhibits discipleship and takes up our time in needless event planning. I certainly should offer a caveat here, not all event planning is needless and many of the activities serve as instruments for discipleship. It is when women's ministry becomes event-driven and programmatically set in stone that we lose opportunities for discipleship and actually keep women away. But then again, that was detailed in my commentary.

In something of an answer to his own rhetorical questions, Brent Nelson rightly states that

some who led women's ministries in the 1950's may have lived the scriptural ideals of ‘self-control, purity, working in the home and submission to their own husbands' far better than some today.

Agreed.

The real danger here is not my disappointment with the fluff n' stuff of women's ministry, but the belief that there is little wrong with the intensity of the traditions that have been inherited, the poor examples of biblical interpretation offered by some women's ministry leaders, the weak materials marketed by Christian publishers who know that women represent a large majority of church attendance, the self-esteem/self-centered therapeutic methodology that is said to be God-centered, and the unwillingness to see women's ministry for the significant role it can play in the advancement of God's Kingdom. But then again, if women's ministry is primarily about fellowship with discipleship flowing out of that, then perhaps my view that it can play a role in advancing God's Kingdom is unwarranted.

Women's Ministry: Part of His Story

Occasionally I receive requests on how to successfully launch a church women's ministry. Well, I'm not sure any of us know how to successfully do anything, though we are pretty good at messing things up. With all the ways the contemporary church tries to measure success, what I am confident of is that we have mastered leaving God out of the process at times. This, of course, does not mean there are no practical tips for launching or growing a women's ministry, but we need to be reminded that what we might perceive as success or failure may not be the same as what God sees. So our ministries are to be prayerfully God-centered and doctrinely sound, with a vision for glorifying God as both the purpose and goal. Ultimately, we need to remember that His story is for His glory, not our own.

What follows is some basic wisdom that comes from both research and the experience of myself and other leaders in ministry. As we all try to learn more about doing women's ministry in this 21st century context, please consider participating in a women's ministry survey at my website. Will these results yield a perfect plan for ministry? Surely not, but quite possibly we will discover some trends that can be more closely examined and praise God for all the awesome work being done through him and in him.

1. Women's ministry is vital to the life of the body. Barna has reported that 60% or more of people who attend church are women, and around 25 % of that number attend without their husbands. Many women are functionally the spiritual leaders in their homes because they are single parents, their husband is not a believer, or they are single. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasized. These women need to be equipped to understand what they believe and why, because they have a ministry and responsibility to so many others in their lives. A women's ministry that is able to come alongside and unite in purpose with a church's pastoral ministry will be able to make an impact in these women's lives.

2. Women's ministry must be cross-generational. Whatever the ethnic make-up of your church, women's ministries face what I believe is the greater challenge of how to do ministry across generations. There is no magic cure for this particular issue, but some are finding that common ground exists among most women as it relates to biblical studies rather than social events. While the mature women of the church ought to be training the young women in the things of the Lord (Titus 2), the younger women have less and less time to participate in women's ministry functions due to the demands of the era. They want to make the most of their time and many are likely to choose Bible studies and book discussion groups. The message of scripture is timeless and never goes away as a worn out fad!

3. Be deliberate about the youth and college aged women. The women in the congregation with a greater propensity to be influenced by the whims and philosophies of our culture are women between the ages of 15 and 25. This is where youth and college ministry must meet women's ministry, and relational and educational opportunities must be developed to minister to this age group.

4. Teach. Women's ministry leaders need to model for women not only how to properly interpret and apply scripture, but that the process is to be sought after and enjoyed. While our faith ought to be lived in community, understanding it is a also a matter of personal responsibility.

5. Pastors must be involved in women's ministry. Teaching materials and other resources must be held to a standard as high as what is preached by the pastor on Sunday morning. Typically, this is the case with church Sunday School materials. Because Christian publishers and resellers understand female buying power, and they also know the church population statistics, women are a target market for all kinds of resources, An example of why this is important is the controversy over a popular women's bible teacher several years ago whose theology was not closely examined until she had staked a claim in thousands of evangelical churches with her message of godly eating. The fact that she rejected the deity of Christ did not become an issue until a few years into her ministry because no one had taken the time to closely examine her beliefs up until that point. As a result, many woman and their families have abandoned biblical Christianity to join the church this woman currently leads.

Womens Ministry Leadership Survey

In an effort to identify and assess the needs of women in the Church, a helpful approach is to discover what is currently available through the church women's ministries. If you are a women's ministry leader or a member of a women's ministry team, please take the time to fill out the survey at Women of Faith in Culture. After the survey ends, an analysis of the results will be made available. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

Inspiring Leadership

Who do you inspire? Who inspires you?
When are you all out of inspiration and just want to call it quits?

These are areas I will be touching on tomorrow at the Women's Ministry Institute graduation in Hillside, Illinois. I am personally inspired by many women in scripture including Eunice, the mother of Timothy. Look for more on that subject in the coming days.

Leadership Tip: Truth and Love

As a kid, I experienced "Christianity" in various settings including fundamentalism, mainline denominations, cults, and fringe charismatic churches. God used these experiences to give me a passion for theology, a desire to know him with certainty and precision.

As an ever-maturing believer, I continue to learn and experience God's truth and God's grace each day. Through this grace, I was able to escape the influence of the bad theology of my childhood, but what God used was not only a new set of beliefs, but people and friends and teachers and other students who lovingly and very pastorally communicated these truths, showing me why they ultimately mattered.

Defending the faith and promoting solid theology ought to be in a spirit of love and truth. The motivation should not be rightness for its own sake, but for the cause of Christ--a genuine love for people. God's love and God's truth go hand in hand and should never be divorced from each other.

Does 'Complementarian' Equal Anemic Women's Ministry?

In 2007, Amy Simpson wrote “Why I Don’t Do Women’s Ministry,” citing the reasons for her struggle to fit in an essentially shallow church culture. She may have surprised a few readers, but clearly she spoke the heart of a silent, yet critical mass of women in the church.

These are women who want to fulfill the Titus 2 mandate, to mentor and minister to other women, who want to play a significant role in Christian education, but also want to escape the culture of women’s ministry that they inherited from their grandmothers. They want a more substantive interaction with the women they lead, because they know that time is a priceless commodity and they want to make the most out of every opportunity.

Continue reading at Gifted for Leadership

The Christian Life and Women's Issues

As an effect of sin, humans are deeply driven toward autonomy, preferring to live independent of God’s authority instead of within the shelter of his divine sovereignty. This is the temptation to which Eve would surrender. Instead of a life dependent on God, she evaluated on the basis of her self-appointed authority that the fruit of the forbidden tree was beautiful and an acceptable source for knowledge and sustenance. God was no longer necessary in her new view of the world because she chose instead to believe the twisted words of the serpent, that she could “be like God” (Gen 3:5). She quickly dismissed the distinction between herself, the created, and the Creator.

When faced with difficult life circumstances, we are called to submit to God’s wisdom and authority and recognize our own insufficiency. It is true that scripture does not provide explicit answers for each and every situation, so while God’s normative method of self-disclosure is not through audible voice, studying God’s word is necessary to develop a biblical worldview that will enable godly reflection in the absence of obvious solutions. Trusting God in the midst of any degree of crisis is probably one of the the greatest challenges to living the Christian life.

Popular culture argues, on the other hand, that God, if he even exists, is irrelevant to just about everything. Religion, and specifically evangelical Christianity, is regarded as bigoted and narrow-minded, outside the scope of logic and reason. Christian truth claims are viewed as merely private values, but the “promise” of scientific progress and “hope” through human reason—with little room for ethical reflection—are believed to be neutral sources of information, and therefore, the source of truth for everyone. This way of thinking is dominant in the area of women’s issues and is wielding great influence on the lives of women inside and outside of the church.

continue reading...

Why are we Repulsed by the Proper Use of Embryos?

The story about the woman from California who recently gave birth to 8 babies through IVF has stirred up what is, in my opinion, a very odd sense of moral outrage. "Who is she to have 14 kids, wasn't 6 enough?" "She still lives with her parents? With all those kids?" And my favorite, "It's not like she did it naturally" as if the method of accumulation should make any difference.

I am not suggesting that the use of ARTs (assisted reproductive technologies) hasn't proven to be a disastrous slippery slope, nor am I recommending single women run out and start their own country by birthing countless numbers of children. But we must examine the moral assumptions behind this outrage. For instance, the person who said "wasn't 6 kids enough" has the right to her own opinion, even if it is dependent on subjective ethical relativism. What prevents her from saying just one more child would have been enough? Who decides how many kids a person can have?

The expected response to that is to focus on the anticipated burden she might be on the welfare system. I realize it is popular right now to believe that limiting the amount of children born to people of a certain economic class is looking out for the common good, but how is her 14 different from the millions of women who have given birth to just one? Who decides how many is enough?

As Christians, we should applaud the fact that these little humans were allowed to be born. She could have allowed research on the embryos or simply had them destroyed. She likely couldn't afford more than the one implantation...and she opted to give them all a chance. Granted, there are some ethical questions with the doctors' willingness to implant so many embryos, but medicine today is consumer-oriented. Should we really focus any outrage on medical care on just this incident? This isn't the first time science and medicine has commodified human life.

Finally, I believe the inclination to desire to have children is going the way of the seared conscious. Culture is moving so far from God that we should celebrate anything that even resembles a desire to fulfill the cultural mandate. All other motivations aside, if she sincerely loves children, praise God!

Frankly, I'm more confused by the reactions about this story than I am bothered by her having so many kids. In fact, now is the time for the church to put words into action and come alongside this woman who chose life for the already living instead of death for these little souls.

What Pelosi and Sanger Have in Common

When the government seeks to influence the number of children born to a certain segment of the population as a means of saving tax dollars, one must realize that the motivation is not the preservation of women's rights, but literally the rejection of them. This portion of the stimulus bill, which may be removed today to ensure its passage, harkens back to the era of Margaret Sanger who sought birth control for an "undesirable" immigrant population. There is little difference between Pelosi and Sanger in this regard, because neither were motivated by the rights of women, but in the elimination of a perceived problem and using "women's rights" as smoke and mirrors.

Spending money on birth control services as one means of helping along the ailing economy is a manipulative tactic that should be exposed. I reveals clearly that not everything that happens under the banner of womens rights is not motivated by women's rights at all. The movement is not as altruistic as they would have people believe, and it is extremely urgent for young women to understand that secular feminism believes women's potential--and now our nations economic potential-- is inhibited by their reproductive system. Or perhaps Pelosi realizes how mistaken they have been all along about the implications of a sexually permissive society--the other side of this outrageous coin--or maybe not.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Who Will Protect Women from Women's Rights Ideology?

Though grateful for the right to vote and to pursue a career of my choice, I cannot help but to be terribly frightened for the women at the mercy of the movement that claims to be looking out for their well-being. As Obama begins to lift funding restrictions on abortion and embryonic stem cell research, NOW, NARAL, and the Feminist Majority drown me in press releases about the so-called victories for women's rights. Yet, women are more vulnerable now than ever before as the media continues to worship their messiah and killing unborn children is still, somehow, considered a women's health issue. There is a reason the new administration is removing "war on terror" language, because they rightly understand this this is a war of words. Only words can explain to young women about to have their ovaries invaded, that when their egg is fertilized, it is an embryo, the technical term for what is otherwise known as their child. And make no mistake about it, this genetic material--another word for their child--is living. After all, embryonic stem cell research is not pursued with non-living (i.e., "dead") embryos.

Here is another interesting use of words on the contraception marketed as Mirena. With all of its risks, this IUD works like....well, they don't exactly know. See what they say about it:

How does Mirena work?
It is not known exactly how Mirena works. Mirena may work in several ways. It may
thicken your cervical mucus, thin the lining of your uterus, inhibit sperm movement and reduce sperm survival. Mirena may stop release of your egg from your ovary, but this is not the way it works in most cases. Most likely, these actions work together to prevent pregnancy.

This post is not an appeal to the Obama administration or the FDA or to womens' rights groups to practice integrity and responsibility with their use of words. That is a fairy tale dream. This is an appeal to women to practice critical thinking skills, and know when your life is being put at risk for the sake of political ideology.

For Sale: Human Dignity

Though still on my blogging hiatus, I felt compelled to respond to this news story. A 22 year old girl is selling herself online...her virginity, that is. And apparently it is worth $3.7 million to one potential buyer. The lack of moral outrage by feminism doesn't surprise me as contemporary feminism has discarded the good it once represented in order to promote a completely unfettered lifestyle. Women are free to be exploited themselves, and this is somehow empowering. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that by creating a culture where women's bodies, eggs, and chastity are up for sale, created is a pleasant environment for human trafficking. There is no need for restraint in a world where individuals willingly put a price tag on what is priceless.

Blogging Hiatus

To all who faithfully read Flash Point, and to those who accidentally find yourselves here, I want to wish all of you a joyful and God-centered new year. I am taking a brief hiatus from the blog so that I can finish a writing project. I anticipate returning to the blog in a couple of weeks. At the time, I have a book project in the works that I need to finish so that I can move forward in ministry.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Demise of Evangelical Distinctiveness?

I feel like I'm living in a historic time, not simply because our next president is mixed-race or because Illinois political corruption is finally revealed for the rest of the nation to appreciate, but because I think evangelicalism is caving to societal pressure to look like anything other than its former self. My concern is that evangelicalism in the public arena no longer includes a passionate defense for the unborn (because that would simply be too politically divisive). Instead, it seems we are focusing our greatest energies on other issues-- not for the sake of those other issues, but rather to gain some political common ground. Don't get me wrong, I know there are many evangelical individuals and organizations still in the fight for the rights of the unborn. But as some older generations are beginning to fade away, I wonder who will be interested in continuing to support this and related causes. As I watch the news and trends in the church, I wonder if there is a generation of evangelicals even interested in taking up the cause for life. Feminism is succeeding in indoctrinating several generations of women on their platform of equality and corresponding reproductive rights while the church fidgets to understand how to develop a culture of God-fearing women who can love both their families and careers, or at least appreciate that our society simply demands that women be able to work because men have failed to responsibly lead. But I digress. Will Christianity be able to survive this politization of faith? Where it appears that the left is capitulating to evangelicalism, such as by inviting Rick Warren to do the Inauguration, do you think it might really be about blurring the lines and causing confusion? The ability for any party to cross party lines is usually indicative of moderate-ism. Is this what we should expect of our faith-based discourse? The church is being silenced internally and externally on life issues someone needs to speak to; it's never taken up the cause for women in a real practical way that avoids the extremes of secular feminism but still appreciates the giftings of women in whatever sphere she participates in; and the evangelical church is losing its distinctive voice by the manipulation of the smooth-talking left who are out to gain the loyalties of the pragmatic and uninformed. Can the evangelical church survive the next decade?