Neighbor Love and the Doctrine of God

It's confusing yet strangely gratifying all at the same time. We live in a culture that is moving further and further from the exclusive claims of Christianity yet almost equally—and inconsistently—holds select passages in the Bible in high regard. They hold forth as though they cling tighter to the red letter words of Jesus than those who claim to be Christians. Of course, it’s true that many who call themselves believers fail to live in a way that reflects how we are suppose to live, but these failures are not indicative of a bankrupt theology but rather our need for a perfect Savior. Perhaps this is why Scripture, in various ways, implores us to guard our testimony as unbelievers struggle to separate the message from the messenger. In contrast, while the work of many social justice advocates may encompass a zealous neighbor-love approach, it often neglects a gospel-centered focus lacks any risk.

                                                                                                

In the book of Matthew, we read the account of Jesus being asked by a lawyer which of the commandments was the greatest. Jesus’ response included not one, but two. The first, he said, was to love God with all of our heart, soul, and mind and the second was like the first, that we ought to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:37-40).

Who Defines Feminism?

I think the bigger question is—should we really care? Frankly, I am perplexed by the recent trend of conservative and evangelical-oriented women who are adding their voice to America’s political landscape, and even those who are standing on the sidelines in admiration. I’m not taking issue with their involvement or the content of their positions—I’m so pleased to see basic conservative values take center stage at this time in history. But it does strike me as odd the need of this fresh new culture of prolife conservative women to invoke the category of feminism, as if doing so provides credibility to their mission. It appears to be an attempt to appeal to common ground.

Former Saturday Night Life star Victoria Jackson recently wrote how the feminist value of career first ultimately had a negative impact on her life. She bought into the false dichotomy of career and family instead of pursuing both to whatever degree possible. She suggests that Sarah Palin is the ‘perfect feminist’ and tries unpacks what she means by this.

That is Feminism. A feminine woman achieving goals with the blessing of her man, while she simultaneously supports his career endeavors and celebrates his masculinity.

Victoria goes on in her piece by identifying other problems associated with secular feminism including the willing hyper-sexualization of women in our culture that even Christian women are not immune to. And she approaches the topic of single-parenting, a likely reference to Jennifer Anniston, that women who think they can have children without a man in their life just simply look “stupid and desperate.” She concludes her piece with a thought-provoking statement about how she understands the expectations of secular feminists.

Feminism. Such a strange word. When I hear it I first think of the most masculine and angry women, women with not a shred of femininity. Funny how words are. Then, I think of the meaning they want it to hold. And that word is Sarah Palin.

For Victoria Jackson, the demands of secular feminism have been fulfilled by the person and work of Sarah Palin. I want to suggest that while there is irony in this fact, our fancy with feminism really should end there. We need to think about this a bit more deeply. Do we really want to assert that the conservative values, many of which are distinctively Christian, are better off framed in the context of feminism? This is a dangerous compromise as it obscures the source of these values and blurs the lines between God’s authority and the self-ascribed authority tied not just to feminism, but to fallen human nature in general. It only helps to perpetuate the self-centeredness of our society instead of the God-centeredness we as evangelical women (and men) ought to be promoting and encouraging in the lives of other believers.

In this strange new culture of evangelical feminism, even traditionally left-leaning religious feminists have discovered how they can profit from the movement. New Feminist Christianity: Many Voices, Many Views is a new book of old ideas based in the foundational elements of feminism including a more pluralistic outlook on religion and ethics. And it goes even further as Jeanette Stokes, a Presbyterian ministry and one writer in this anthology states,

…I choose to be a heretic, to remain within the bounds of the Christian faith, to create new forms, and explore new practices…Some of my feminist colleagues have turned in their ordinations. I have no instinct to do that. I still love the religion of my childhood; it is just that when I step into it these days I tend to freeze. I do not want to say some of the words anymore.

One reviewer of this book indicates that some of the Christian practices Stokes is “no longer comfortable with include baptism, communion, forbidding of certain types of art and forms of love-making, and ‘the focus on Jesus’ suffering and dying.’”

Needless to say, by the title alone the new wave of conservative “Christian feminists” will be attracted to it. I only hope they will not be motivated by the appeal to power in its many pages. Other writers in the book include well-known feminists Rosemary Ruether and Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza.

Who defines feminism does not really matter because the evangelical Christian woman should be more concerned with her definition of Christianity. It matters that culture is listening, but how we get their attention is an ethical dilemma for those who call themselves Christian conservatives. Do the ends (conservative values) justify the means of compromise? By stealing the term feminism for our own pragmatic purposes empowers secular feminism. What ultimately matters is whether we are pleasing God in how we speak and act. While invoking feminism might provide a small amount of credibility to the message of conservatism as delivered by women in our society today, it is a proposal that will ultimately have short-lived results.

Worship in Silence

This is a topic I've been reflecting on for awhile now, so while I know it doesn't fit ideally with the current Thanksgiving motif, I didn't want to squander these thoughts.

I don't often navigate in the world of worship ministry, so I have no idea if or to what extent this has been a topic of discussion. However, I am not so sheltered that I am unaware of the debates over contemporary vs. traditional music/worship services. Ok, so by now you're wondering where I am going...here it is.

Visiting a church last weekend in Wisconsin, I discovered that I was unable to participate in very much of the singing portion of the service. No, I didn't have laryngitis, and though I'm typically quite bashful with my fellow congregants on Sunday morning, I am not prevented from my time with the Lord in song...unless I don't know the song. This isn't something inherent to visiting a church, sometimes I experience this in my own church. There are times when I can't participate even a little in some of the songs because I'm given only words by projector, I have no access to any of the musical notation--unless it happens to be in a hymnal, which is rare in my experience.

Petty concern? Perhaps you're right, maybe it is. But I persist. I recollect as a child that before I knew how to read music, I closely examined the musical notation in the hymnals. Worship was something I was always able to participate in because at the very least, I could follow the directionality of the notes. I knew when to sing higher or lower....and after more experience with the notation, I was able to determine which notes moved faster than others. Once I did learn how to read music, participation became even easier and, in my opinion, more fruitful.

Prior to my interest in theological studies, I was playing the trumpet actively and passionately, to the extent that I was involved in leading instrumentalists on a worship team. When I began my theological studies, I began to ponder the relationship between music and God. For instance, inherent to music is logic. It makes mathematical sense and is as coherent as a grammatically correct sentence. It also manages to speak to our affections, even without lyrics. That doesn't mean that we will always like or enjoy every manifestation of music, but it does always seem to make sense, even when it doesn't. Music often enjoys the paradox of being logical and beautiful, and in my case there was the byproduct of helping me learn fractions. I will spare you that particular detail.

My understanding of music history is very weak. I don't know anything about the history of notation or when it became common to use notation within congregational worship settings. The Psalms, obviously, are full of references to music and worship and the New Testament references the importance of corporate worship and individual participation (Colossians 3:16). But corporate worship requires the involvement of each of us as individuals. I am left to wonder if, not only has the seeker movement or other similar phenomenons proved damaging to the church by adding the hi-tech aspects to worship in order to make it entertaining or friendly, does the inability of the individual to participate reinforce the idea of the worship-performance team?

Are we also raising up generations of young people who may never enjoy the language of music because they are seldom exposed to it in its written form? Will they ever experience God the way generations before them have discovered truth in musical scales, chords, and rhythms often learned through the visual?

These are just some of my thoughts. I've been around church for a lot of years, so when I discover that I don't know some of the more contemporary songs and choruses, I wonder how much more a new believer is in the dark. Not only is there the risk of alienating visitors to a congregation, but the church may even come across as clique-y because of the manner in which worship is portrayed.

Moral Reform & Ministry to Women: an excerpt

Also posted at First Things

With a sense of urgency, the body of Christ needs to be equipped to give an answer to obstacles and objections to faith as a matter of discipleship within the church as well as for the gospel ministry each member of the body has outside of the church. And how we live from the point of conversion onward will reflect to the world a certain degree of faithfulness to the truths we claim. Transgressions by well-known “family values” politicians who might otherwise be regarded as moral reformers in the years that follow their civil service are often regarded as a failure of the Christian worldview, leaving the church ashamed and silent. The old adage “talking the talk without walking the walk” is taking on a greater sense of relevance in this new century. And due to advancements in technology, sometimes the specific decisions that we face in life need a bit more ethical reflection than a congregation is generally equipped to face. The 21^st century believer is confronted by a plethora of ideas and decisions, and the church must stand firm and prepare her people to think theologically in such a way to impact all areas of life. We must prepare a place for deliberate theology, apologetics, and ethics education in the church, especially in the sphere of women’s ministry. Why particularly women’s ministry?

The experience of womanhood provides opportunity to address certain issues women in particular can relate to, and to disciple in a way that addresses deeply engrained ideas rooted in false belief, replacing them with truth. The choices that many women make about how to live—choices made prior to conversion and perhaps even early in their Christian walk—have consequences that come with them to the pew—when they eventually find the pew. Some of these consequences can never be eliminated, preventing them from finding functional reconciliation with biblical womanhood and related teachings. For instance, a single mother who has no choice but to work in order to care for her family can never fulfill the vision of womanhood that has her at home supporting a husband as head. Of course, this may be taught as the biblical ideal, but never being able to achieve it may have a significant effect on her relationship with God and those in her church. This is not to recommend the abandonment of biblical teachings on the family, church leadership, or parenting because they might seem irrelevant to the particular circumstances of many women. The issue I am raising is much larger.

The manner in which the teachings of biblical womanhood are often communicated is a “circle the wagons” approach for which a real potential exists to further marginalize women already on the fringes. Extra caution needs to be taken when communicating a pattern for living, especially to those whose day to day lives will probably never reflect a the model for marriage and family taught in scripture. Discipleship methods need to take into account that women are in a variety of places on their spiritual journey. Women whose lives will likely never arrive at what they have been taught about what God has ordained for marriage and the family are often left floundering, in a never-ending battle to please God. This biblical ideal is so highly regarded that often, little emphasis is spent on equipping all women to glorify God within their current reality.

Indeed, the church must continue to defend a family structure that glorifies God as reflected in scripture so that families might not be influenced or tainted by the whims of culture. But the church must also be intentional about educating and equipping the individuals and broken families who, by the leading of the Spirit, have found their way to the community of believers, but whose day to day life more closely resembles the ways of the world. This is, I believe, more a matter of Christian education than of therapy, the direction women’s ministry often tends to lean.

Conversion changes our position before God, but it does not immediately change the way we think or how we live in our particular circumstances. Women from all backgrounds certainly do need to understand what scripture teaches about the family, because they are being called to effectively impart those teachings to their children, unbelieving husbands, and perhaps other members of their family. In this sense, we must continue to affirm and actively embrace what scripture teaches regarding biblical womanhhood. But these women also desperately need to develop a fuller, more complete theology so that they can make sense out of their circumstances and critically consider how to live to the glory of God in all areas of life for the rest of their life. Trying “to discern what is pleasing to the Lord” in various circumstances is one of the greatest challenges for women today. This is virtually impossible if we continue to circle the wagons and communicate a message that essentially excludes women on the fringes.

Create in Me a Clean Heart

Recently, the topic of indulging in God has been central to my studies and devotions. We are so bombarded by the things of this world--physical pleasures, materialistic attraction, and intellectual autonomy--that we easily neglect our commitment to the Lord. Our hearts, wicked as they are, tend toward sin. We are called to live in a way that imitates God, walking with a consistent attitude of sacrificial love for others--an attitude of self-denial. But the battle persists.

This battle began in Eden, which translated means delight or pleasure. Eden was a place where God provided all that the Creation would need. Food, shelter, companionship, fellowship with God--they lacked for nothing. Yet Eve, confronted by the Serpent (Gen 3:1-6), was deceived into believing that eating of the tree "in the midst of the Garden" would be a good idea.

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. (Genesis 3:6)

This wouldn't be the last time we see this form of temptation in scripture. As Eve was tempted by physical pleasure ("good for food"), materialistic attraction ("delight to the eyes") and intellectual autonomy ("make one wise"), Jesus also was confronted with these temptations, in a location neither pleasurable or delightful, but in the wilderness. (Luke 4:1-13)

The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread." (4:3) (physical pleasure)

And the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time, and said to him, "To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will. (4:5.6) (materialistic attraction)

And he took him to Jerusalem and set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, "for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you, to guard you,'" and 'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone.'" (4:9-11) (intellectual autonomy)

Jesus conquered sin and death with the work of the Cross, but we still live in a world where we face choices and challenges due to the condition of our own heart. As Jeremiah teaches that the heart is deceitful, the Psalmist prays "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me." (Psalm 51:10) We can join in that prayer.

As the Holy Spirit continues His work within each of us, we continue to pursue God by indulging in holy, obedient living, glorifying Him in self-sacrifice instead of self-indulgence. No doubt the battle is real, but the power to walk by the Spirit is greater.

(originally posted in November 2008)

Is Industriousness Compatible with Biblical Womanhood?

Apparently there is something inherently gender-oriented about household chores, but I’m not quite sure where to draw the line. Is it the basement door? The entrance into the garage from the back of my kitchen? Perhaps it is the lawn and the shrubbery. Maybe someone can help me to understand this…

I’ve always thought of myself as a complementarian, but typically don’t advocate strongly for biblical womanhood because of its inability to speak boldly to women on the fringes. I continue to firmly hold a view that women are not to be elders in a local church, and I believe every passage of scripture that indicates that the husband is the head and the wife is his helpmeet, but how the latter plays out is not absolutely defined in scripture. I am also very weary of needing to state these things each time I discuss the logical and practical failures of the biblical womanhood movement, but I will continue to do so as necessary.

So here I am, going out on a limb I fear will break, but I am going anyway knowing I may be fully rejected by the complementarian camp I embrace. In a blogpost by Carolyn Mahaney, she writes about the disapproval she has--and scripture has--for a world where husbands and wives share the tasks of running a household. She begins the post by talking about how she wasn’t feeling well one day and turned on the Today Show as some sort of distraction. That was her first mistake, as the Today Show is co hosted by a professional career-driven female. I would think that watching that would in some way be supportive of Ann Curry’s pursuit of a career outside of the home. But I digress.

Carolyn describes in her post what the Today Show was featuring at that moment. I will let Carolyn speak for herself:

Ann Curry was interviewing two moms who recently wrote a book entitled Getting to 50/50. The point of the book is this: A woman can have a great career, a great marriage, and be a great mother—all by getting her husband to share equally in the responsibilities in the home. Thus the title, Getting to 50/50.”

These two authors were very pleasant and gracious. They were not the militant, angry type who can easily offend many. And they weren’t men bashers; in fact, they seemed to want to pursue a loving relationship with their husbands.

And yet, the premise of their book is in direct contradiction to Scripture, which assigns men and women equally important, yet different roles (Gen. 1:26-27, 2:18, 21-24; 1 Cor. 11:7-9, 1 Tim. 2:12-14).

These women believe that there is no difference or distinction in the roles men and women are assigned. They want men to take on fifty percent of the woman’s role and women to assume fifty percent of a man’s role. Their assertions fly in the face of God’s creation design and mandate—and they do it all with a smile.”

Without watching the interview that Carolyn watched, I’m forced to admit that there may have been some things stated about women and feminism that did not make it into Carolyn’s account in her blogpost. There is no fault in this. But if what Carolyn quoted is the full essence of what was communicated, I would suggest that her post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fuller picture.

Very simply, scripture speaks of women “keeping the home” in Titus 2 and husbands as the heads in Ephesians 5, but neither passage suggests that a husband is walking outside of his role by participating in the management of the home or that she is stepping outside of her role by asking for help with household management. In fact, according to Susan Hunt, Titus 2 is not arguing necessarily that a woman never work outside of the home, but that she be “industrious” in all she does, including the home (Spiritual Mothering, Crossway Books, 1992. p. 64). A good example: The evangelical community was quick to embrace the VP nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin with the full knowledge her husband was helping at home.

One could easily come to the conclusion that 50/50 was an industrious way for these women to come alongside their husbands financially and to be a helpmeet to them in a sense other than handling the daily household chores. We live in a society where it is difficult for many families to live on a single income, and the language of “career” does not necessarily take from the priority of the family. Dependent on her personal circumstances, a woman may be wise by pursuing career-oriented employment that offers a salary structure compatible with her gifts and talents rather than a job that wears her down and makes her useless to the rest of her family because of frustration and fatigue.

If the women on the Today Show stated and believe that there is no difference or distinction in the roles men and women are assigned, I would agree that they are in error. But I disagree strongly that somehow a man and woman are abandoning those roles by sharing in the responsibilities of work and household management. To frame roles in this way places a number of families in irresolvable situations. I could cite various family scenarios that would more firmly root the husband in the home and the wife in the workplace, situations based on matters of health, job loss, and similar situations. If these were to be regarded as acceptable qualifications for how we are suppose to understand gender roles, then I would suggest that the doctrines of biblical manhood and womanhood are not as tightly wrapped up as claimed to be.

I get that the worldview of secular feminism is an assault on the Christian worldview and that it perpetrates great evils in our society. The days are, indeed, evil in this respect. But to frame the sharing of responsibilities of the home, which certainly do include financial responsibilities, within the context of secular feminism’s assault of God and the family is somewhat short-sighted.

Announcement; New blog - Et elle.com

I tend not to discuss evolution at Flash Point, but this is certainly worth noting. Be sure to check out Et elle, et al. which recently evolved from what use to be known as Intellectuelle.com. Formerly a blog of female voices, Et elle, et al is about the human voice. Be watching for the male writers who join the conversations on faith and culture from a human perspective. Yours truly will also be contributing there occasionally on topics related to women's ministry, bioethics, politics, culture, etc. No topic....well almost no topic...is off limits!

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.

Women's Ministry: Why Ethics Matters

At the risk of being misunderstood, it seems to me that Christians often needlessly spiritualize how we fulfill the call to glorify God.(1) Let me explain. There are times when we say that we are praying about matters when what we are really doing is avoiding a reasoned decision because that might be less than spiritual, or too human. And sometimes when we talk about matters of right and wrong, we avoid injecting any sound ethical principles and, instead, tell our brother or sister that their situation is between them and God. To be fair, there are times that these might be the most appropriate statements to make, but it goes against the teachings of scripture to de-legitimize the role of the mind or the pursuit of the holy life. Our Christian walk cannot be reduced to a Holy Spirit intuition or a lack of ethical reasoning.

The theologian L. H. Marshall puts forth this idea that for Christian living, the Holy Spirit functions as a spontaneous power that mystically causes people to know right from wrong. He said,

The Spirit of God in action in a man’s heart was an adequate ethical guide, and that a man under the sway of the Spirit knew from within what the will of God was and was enabled both to will and to do… (2)

This view not only confuses the entity referred to as the heart (the mind), but it under-estimates the impact of unconscious and conscious beliefs we retain. As well, it ignores the deceitful nature of the heart (Jer 17:9). But the New Testament theologian G.E. Ladd writes,

It is striking that Paul does not appeal to the Spirit as a direct source of moral enlightenment. Paul is conscious that the Holy Spirit reveals the things of God (1 Cor 2:10), but this does not mean that Paul feels himself to be independent of the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus.(3)

Ladd shows how Paul’s letters communicate the reality, that new life comes from the Spirit, but that we are commanded to actually participate in this by walking by the Spirit (Gal 5:25).

To bring more clarification to this topic, consider the distinction that is made between law and grace. Paul never insisted that principles of conduct went away with the Law and that the Holy Spirit would provide an answer for every dilemma we face. For redemptive purposes, Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Law yet he also provided a summary for it’s ethical requirements in Matt 22:37-29 in the Great Commandment. Ethical reflection toward a life that pleases God was never replaced with a mystical, abstract approach to living. We are always expected to obey, though our salvation doesn’t depend upon our always succeeding. Yet any ability to obey—to please God—is found in our new nature accounted for through the regenerative work of the Spirit.

For men and women, many of the decisions we face in today’s world are not to be answered with specifics contained in Scripture. Technology, economics, and entertainment leave us wringing our hands sometimes, not entirely clear on how to think Christianly about these areas. But Ephesians 5:10 calls each of us to discern what is pleasing to God—not to guess, hope, or feel….but to discern. Chapters 2-5 in Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus focus largely on how we participate—ethical reflection—in pursuit of the holy life. This is a very practical, tangible section of scripture rooted in solid teachings on salvation and God in contrast to our sinfulness. The letter concludes with application in marriage and family. But this is hardly exhaustive in content, and many other areas of our every day living call us to reflect on our walk.

In considering the many perspectives that women in particular face in today’s world, decisions from reproductive technologies and birth control to careers, relationships and matters of the family, room needs to exist for deliberate ethical reflection, grounded in a firm foundation the acknowledges the supremacy of God. The ability to move from Scripture into the specific areas of life that are in question is the process of doing theology. Knowing what the Bible says in its context is the first step, but bringing it to bear on every square inch of your life is where it all becomes real.

1. If you are confused after reading this essay, please contact me for clarification. sarahflashing@gmail.com

2. L.H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics (1947), p. 220.

3. G.E. Ladd, A New Testament Theology (2002), p. 563.

Gospel Today, Southern Baptists, and Theology in the Pew

Reportedly, the SBC's Lifeway Christian Bookstores have removed the current issue of Gospel Today from their sales shelves in more than 100 of their stores. Chris Turner, a spokesman for Lifeway Resources, said the cover was not the reason the magazine was pulled.

The buyers said the statements that were in it took positions that were contrary to what we would say...It wasn't so much that there were women on the cover.

What I find very interesting is that the contents of Gospel Today should have been in question in the past. Prior to this issue, other cover articles have included prosperity teachers Bishop T.D. Jakes (who rejects the doctrine of the Trinity) and Pastor Paula White. Yet the same folks who are up in arms over the current cover article don't seem to have an awareness about other equally important--likely more important--doctrines this magazine highlights, or else we would have heard about their concern before. This ultimately points to the overall ignorance of the market at Lifeway Bookstores, certainly not their theological sophistication, otherwise this would have been off the shelves a long time ago.

On the other hand, there is something to be said about having materials available to the Christian community that provide first-hand knowledge of what other schools of thought are teaching. I've never read Gospel Today and don't expect to even pick up the most recent copy. But sometimes people need to read things for themselves instead of being coached on the beliefs of others.

I am not an advocate of women as pastors or elders, but I don't believe a person's salvation or commitment to Christ is or should be in question when someone holds an opposing view on this particular issue. This is not a matter of heresy and certainly not worth the negative publicity that will result, especially in light of the current cultural discussion of women as leaders. For the SBC, this is an embarrassment. For Gospel Today, it will sell more magazines.

Relationship with Jesus vs. List of Rules: An Unfair False Dichotomy

Have you ever heard or read the statement that the Christian faith isn't a list of rules to be followed, it's a relationship with Jesus? I've been hearing it a lot recently and I think it deserves a bit more nuance than what it seems to be receiving.

Where we begin is in understanding what exactly Christianity is. It is the one true religion. It is a system of thought based on the activity of the Triune godhead throughout history. It is the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consumation. It is about Jesus, God incarnate, who satisfied the demand of justice by paying the price for our sins. Christianity is the story of love of the Creator for his creation, and creation's love in return.

What Christianity is not is merely a set of do's and don'ts that provide a framework for salvation. Our faith is a gift from God, not something we receive for good behavior. We don't find our election dependent upon anything we do, and our salvation is not maintained by certain acts of obedience. But does this mean that "do's and don'ts" aren't a part of living our our faith? This is where I take issue with casually stating that Christianity isn't about following a list of rules, because in fact, the Christian life is all about loving God so much that we seek to reflect his goodness in all areas of our life with loving acts of obedience. By de-emphasizing rules, we over-emphasize an easy-believism that says it doesn't matter what one does from day to day, as long as they love God and are sincere. This doesn't seem dangerous? To say that Christianity isn't about a list of rules is to create a straw man argument. But for the younger people and younger believers who hears this, what they really hears is that we need not struggle with the ethical issues of our day.

As we prepare members of the community of faith to live in this world, we find that we are preparing them to encounter another set of moral precepts. Sripture tells us to avoid any resemblance of evil and to live our life in such a way that we bring glory to God. So how is it that we can have a relationship with Christ without our faith having a relationship to every day do's and don'ts? It is impossible to pursue a biblical faith--our relationship with God--without thinking Christianly about our every day activities. When we encounter dilemmas in life that the Bible speaks nothing about specifically, we have to reflect on biblical principles to determine the next step. But to say bluntly that Christianity isn't about a list of rules undermines a significant amount of scripture that emphasizes obedience and the pursuit of sinlessness. Perhaps, it over emphasizes a positional perfection over an ongoing sanctification. I think we need to use more care in how we communite this "relationship with God" that is becoming more and more abstract as we move further and further away from discussing ethics and morality among the community of believers.

Christian Charm: Loving God with the Heart, Good Posture, and a Clear Complexion

I know now I'm not crazy and that I've understood and perceived matters correctly--this book affirms it. Ministry to young women is in trouble. My friend Karen introduced me last night to a little booklet called the Christian Charm Notebook. Her copy is from 1972, but you can--shockingly--still purchase your own copy on Amazon and Christianbook.com. I am greatly disturbed by the fact that it is still available. So if you're looking for a book to help you grow young women who love God with their heart, soul, and mind, then this book isn't for you. Not a single mention of the life of the mind is to be found in it.

The book is full of a lot of advice on posture, hair styles, and manners. Not bad things to know about I guess. It begins by describing the inherent beauty of being born again, contrasted with the unattractiveness of unbelief, utilizing storm clouds, sunshine and heart-shaped faces to depict this distinction. Unfortunately, it all goes downhill from there, because what it accomplishes is equating godliness with physical attractiveness, aka Christian Charm. In lesson 1, the student is encouraged to consider her inward appearance:

I want to be lovely and beautiful within, so that I will please God. I realize that I cannot change my heart merely by self-effort. I realize that I must allow God to enter my life and do His transforming work within me.

And then, she is encouraged to consider her outward appearance:

I want to be attractive and charming, so that I will please others. I realize that this will not come about through wishful dreaming. I realize that I must work toward that goal diligently and steadfastly.

So then the students are asked to fill out of things they would like to change inside and out. Remember that the goal is to please others--when did it become ok for women to be objectified...by the church?!?

You probably think that this book can only get better. Trust me, it doesn't. Lesson 6, page 31 is titled Femininity--My 'Crowning Glory,' stating that to be truly feminine

• See that you look like a girl--not a boy! (1 Cor. 11:15; Deut 22:5)
  
• Don't usurp the role of the male (1 Tim 2:12-13; 1 Pet 3:7)
  
• Cultivate a quiet, gentle spirit (1 Pet 3:4; Titus 3:2)
  
• Value your chastity (Prov 31:10; 1 Cor 6:19; 1 Tim 5:22)

The next page then provides a chart that shows those things that destroy femininity, and those things that increase it. Some on that list described as destroying femininity include "a bulky, flabby figure," "a dead-pan face," "a slouching posture," a "raspy, gravelly voice," "mannish attire," and "pessimism." Some that increase femininity include "a trim, disciplined body," "dainty, pretty clothing," "a lovely, graceful walk,"a queen-like posture," "modest self-confidence," and "ladylike reserve." For women of all ages who haven't been groomed for beauty pagents, this material could be devastating to their walk with Christ. If my spirituality is measured by the cleanliness of my cuticles (yes, page 35) then we have serious problems.

Some would immediately look at this book and just chuck it aside, regarding it as outdated. In fact, a review at Amazon said just that. "This is a sadly outdated book...a waste of money." I want to suggest that this book was NEVER dated. When it was first published in 1967, it was irrelevant. In 1950, it wasn't appropriate for girls. And in 1900 it was still a shameful attempt to box up femininity. This book affirms so many destructive behaviors that cause many young women to become obsessive, and then self-destructive when they learn how hard it is to please everyone else. Yes, a woman should care about her appearance, but any more than a man? If she has short hair, is she any less loved by God?

This books claim to fame is that it "exalts TRUE FEMININITY--modesty, purity and honor, rather than a bold outward display!" The problem is, it fails to counter culture's obsession with appearance in that it actually adopts similar standards. Christian Charm is clear that they are obsessed by appearance and equate it to a certain level of spiritual maturity. But there is truly nothing modest about this, and it will destroy the esteem and faith of so many young women exposed to it.

Obama: No Longer 'Above My Pay Grade'

On the way home from work I received an interesting email on my blackberry. From Obama's campaign manager, I was informed that I am one of the "most extreme" people ever to be seen in America because of my view on the nature of human life. Apparently it's no longer above his pay grade, he's quite clear here that big people have more rights than little people. I wonder if that makes him a 'size-ist.'

The issues of life and human dignity are now front and center again and the next 9 weeks are crucial on the political front on the issue of protecting human life. Obama should be held accountable for avoiding the question of human rights for the unborn and not understanding Bush's position on embryonic stem cell research at the Rick Warren discussion.

Here is what the email stated:

He [McCain] doesn't want Americans to notice that the Republican platform is the most extreme we've ever seen -- opposing stem cell research, denying a woman's right to choose no matter what the circumstance, and continuing to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq. 

To that, I ask with the greatest of profundity I can muster...huh? Of conservatives--some of which Obama is trying to court--the letter explains what makes us "most extreme." I have included appropriate responses which reveal where the extremism actually rests.

They've come out against the life-saving possibilities of stem cell research. 

• Conservatives want to save lives and are driven to compassion by an understanding of human dignity that transcends the pragmatism of liberalism. 
  
• We stand against any research that demands the death of human life at the earliest stage and the exploitation of young women from whom eggs are required in order to pursue embryonic stem cell research. 
  
• Conservatives fully support non-embryonic forms of stem cell research, note the recent news in the area of induced pluripotent stem cells.
  
• Thus far, the "life-saving possibilities" are just that, possibilities...aka HYPE. There is no good science to back up such political pandering.
• The above suggestion by the Obama campaign is dishonest in that it lacks of specificity. Perhaps they didn't get the press releases about the different areas of stem cell research.
  

And they make zero exceptions for a woman's right to choose -- even in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. 

• Conservatives who understand the inherent dignity of all persons at all stages recognize the dignity and value of life as a first order principle. Any "rights" that exist can only be derivative of this higher view of life. Without it, "rights" have no foundation and are stipulated only by the winds of the day.
  
• For those of us who are prolife in every situation also recognize the difficult but rare cases. When a woman's life is truly at risk, and not from low self esteem or financial considerations, but when she may actually die, realistic steps are pursued by even the "most extreme" prolife individuals.
  
• Sadly for those who have been victims of rape and incest, once again, we point to the inherent dignity of the unborn child. It is not her fault that the world in which she was conceived has become overly sexualized and disrespectful of the dignity inherent to each of us. We will continue to fail as a society to protect women and children from these great harms if we can't even recognize each person's worth.
  
• Promoting the destruction of the smallest people perpetuates the problems stated above.

The "women's right to choose" is not a human right, it is a legal right. And as we know, bad laws are often repealed. It is my hope that Sarah Palin will bring to Washington D.C. a fresh perspective and contagious zeal for the dignity of all persons. It is my "most extreme" wish that she will inspire life to be granted to the 80-90% of Down's Syndrome babies who are currently being aborted by the women emotionally manipulated into being a "good mom" and sparing their children from a "life of suffering."

Obama is clear on what he believes about when human rights are conferred to people, and it isn't before they are born. 

Where Women's Ministry Meets Youth Ministry

I've been reading The Good Girl Revolution over the weekend and will be posting a review of it in the coming days. Due to all the issues that young people face today, having to contend with an overly sexualized society and made to feel bad about being good, it's no wonder there is so much depression and despair among our youth. But I can't help but to probe a bit deeper into the disconnect between those who should be our role models and those who actually are--if this is a core issue with regard to this dilemma. In fact, the problem is not just within pop culture where young people admire the the Paris Hilton's and Brittany Spears' for their trendy clothes and rebellious spirit, the problem may also exist within the church. In what I'm about to say in no way suggests that the evangelical community is perpetuating the problem of sexualization, it's a different problem but is at its foundation fundamentally the same...a lack of appropriate role models.

Let me first begin by saying that I understand and value the existence of powerful youth ministries, and I'm familiar with many leaders in this area who are doing marvelous work. But....yes, there's a but. I can't help but wonder if the existence of youth ministry is in some way preventing the older women from having a Titus 2 influence on the younger women in the church. And this is a 2 way street...maybe the older women just aren't interested in influencing the younger generation. That's a problem.

I've attended a lot of women's ministry events over the years, and only a few have had a focus on the older women relating to the much younger women. We spend a lot of time talking about how we need to bridge the generational gaps, but often we end up not pursuing anything with the much younger women not involved in women's ministry. The excuse is that they are involved in youth ministry. It's not our job. They don't think we're cool. We're too old. We do things differently. Change how we do women's ministry? I think not. These are some of that attitudes, conscious or unconscious, that impact our inability to reach the younger women in the church.

For the biblically instituted ministry between women to occur, access needs to be granted and coordinated within the local church. Younger women (teens, high school, college) should not be viewed as aliens to the women's ministry, as too immature to be involved. No, the women's ministry should view their role as equipping young women for successful, godly living in all areas and spheres of life. From dating to homemaking, cultural issues to biblical studies, older women need to be actively influencing other women, cultivating an environment where positive and significant role models are readily found.

With this view of ministry in mind, women's ministry had to change. No longer can it be exclusively about the social activities and daytime bible studies. Engaging the young women means engaging their world, knowing everything about it and being ready to give an answer to them for the hope we have in Christ. It's about knowing theology and engaging cultural understandings of God and spirituality. It's about knowing the self...the sinful nature and our need for a savior, and how man seeks continuously to be autonomous from God's sovereign hand. In other words, women's ministry has to broaden her understanding in order to broaded her audience. Leadership teams need to invite younger, godly women to help bridge the generational gaps (intellectually/functionally) and youth ministry needs to encourage the development of young women in the context of women's ministry. Some churches might even consider a youth women's leader who is also a part of the women's leadership team. The bottom line is, if women's ministry wants to continue having a real impact on the lives of women into the future, it must consider new avenues of action.

This is a topic I often speak about. Should you have any interest in this message being communicated to your women's ministry, please contact me to arrange for a time. sarahflashing@gmail.com

Sarah Palin: Hope, Change, and a Role Model to Christian Women

I was hoping for Huckabee, I was expecting Pawlenty or Romney. Pleasantly suprised, I am so excited about McCain's selection of Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice President.

The choice of Gov. Palin as McCain's running mate brings conservative values and government ethics reform--something Senator Obama fails to address of his corrupt home state of Illinois--to the forefront of this election cycle.

Wife to Todd and mother to 5 children, including one with Down's Syndrome who Gov. Palin chose not to abort, is an inspiration to women everywhere, but particularly to women in the evangelical community who aspire to leadership but have few role models. In addition to her work throughout this election, I encourage Palin to reach out to young women who want to know how to be a Christian and how to be an effective leader without compromising ethics and integrity. Gov. Palin has broken through the glass ceiling in the sense of being called to the role of Vice President, but she makes it possible for women in the evangelical community to recognize that one need not be a secular feminist to aspire to such possibilities.

Most People are Single-Issue Voters

Prolifers, myself included, are often accused of being single-issue voters. I think its generally true for everyone that there is a particular issue that causes you to lean a certain direction. If you homeschool your kids your issue might be vouchers or protections for homeschoolers, likely a conservative candidate. If you support abortion rights, chances are you aren't voting for any prolife candidate. If you are anti-war, you aren't going to vote for a candidate who is a respected veteran. If you think universal health care is a high priority, chances are your vote will go to a democrat. We all have many issues we're concerned about, but one or 2 in particular will be what drives us.

I believe there is nothing more fundamentally important than the sanctity of life and human dignity, for it is those two that undergird every other good piece of legislation. I can care about other issues, but my priorities begin with respecting life. For instance, I can't imagine supporting someone with a great plan for the economy if they support and encourage the death of millions more unborn children. If we were promised that poverty in the US would be greatly diminished, yet they upheld a woman's right to choose to kill her unborn son or daughter, I could not give him or her my vote. If a candidate could provide substantive evidence that he had a clear shot at peace in the middle east, yet would persist in embryo-destructive research, the ordering of priorities would necessitate I vote for the prolife candidate.

Are economics more important than the lives of the unborn?
Is the concern about poverty a greater concern than the concern for the life or death of others?

Without a proper respect for life at every stage, we cannot create a society--a world--where a great economy or world peace can truly exist. Human dignity needs to be the basis for real change, or there can be no change at all.

Loving God, Living Contentment

Looking back on our lives, each of us is prone to think about the “shouldve’s” and “couldve’s”. “If I had made a different decision, life would be so much better.” Similarly, in the present, we often ponder the way things should be. As one writer[1] has expressed it, we act as if we’re living “plan B” while we await God’s “plan A” to rescue us from the current circumstance—as if it couldn’t possibly be “plan A.” Those who are waiting for the right job or right spouse know exactly what I mean. Although it is difficult to resist this way of thinking, every attempt must be given to pursue a life of contentment. In this regard, Philippians 4:10-13 states:

… I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me.

The Apostle Paul serves as one of many biblical illustrations of what it means to be content, even in the most difficult circumstance. But his ability to be content is not rooted in his own personal will power to endure or cope through sticky situations but in the strength provided to him by God to endure through all things, accompanied by the higher value of the advancement of the gospel (1:12).

Very few of us will ever experience the kind of life as that of Paul or any other missionary persecuted for the sake of Christ. This is not to diminish the day to day concerns each one of us faces daily, because we know, not only, that God cares about the details of our life, but that in his providence he ordained each day. The appropriate response then is to live in a way that accords to loving God with our heart, soul and mind. The person who is content in their life will focus on God and not on themselves.

---

[1] James, Carolyn Custis. When Life and Beliefs Collide. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001) p. 72.

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.

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.

Apologetics 101: Faith vs. Values?

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

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

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

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

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

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