Oprah on "Christ's Consciousness"

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

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

HT: Sharon Hughes

Harvard Gym Spin

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

Women's Ministry: What Not to Do

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

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

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

Obama's Public Religion: Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vocational Pursuits: What Would Jesus Do?

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

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

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

In Another 10...

Today is my birthday. I'm not writing this post so that you can wish me a happy birthday, frankly I don't care to acknowledge it. But this is an important year in that it was 10 years ago that I began my undergraduate studies at Trinity. From 1998 through 2005, I had the blessing of studying at Trinity under some awesome professors and found, while completing a masters degree in Christian thought, that God was leading me into unexpected areas of ministry. Bioethics and women's ministry seem so far apart on the surface, but the 2 really do go hand in hand.

So as I'm celebrating my 38th birthday today, suddenly the idea of achieving a Ph.D. in systematic theology or ethics doesn't seem that far out of reach, especially with God on my side. Because of where I've been, nothing really seems all that impossible, and with God, nothing is. So in ten years, as I continue to write on this blog, remind me where I was 10 years prior.

Obama's Public Religion

I never cared to read Obama’s Audacity of Hope, but I recommend you do as it is helpful in understanding the nature of his political aspirations.

Negative Campaigning & Partisan Politics
For those of you fearful of being accused of “negative” or unnecessary “partisan politics,” check this out. Obama hopes that the weight of such accusations are stronger than your own convictions. He writes,

Perhaps my greatest bit of good fortune during my own Senate campaign was that no candidate ran a negative TV ad about me. This had to do with the odd circumstances of my Senate race, and not an absence of material with which to work. After all, I had been in the state legislature for seven years, and had cast thousands of sometimes difficult votes.” (chapter 4, page 132)

This “good fortune” is unfortunate, but seems to be continuing.

One of the messages we hear from Obama is that the focus on what divides conservatives and liberals are really small and incidental issues, and that they should be abandoned for the sake of unity. The notion that taking a firm stand on conservative convictions amounts to nothing more than partisan politics is condescending and philosophically fraudulent because it seems that the issues he thinks ought to be abandoned are those that typify conservatism—I don’t see any concessions coming from him.

Obama’s Postmodern View of Truth
A look at his childhood reveals how he has come to understand truth, and that his political views are really an extension of his religious views, thus his religious beliefs are clearly being communicated in the public square. Speaking of his mother, he says that

In her mind, a working knowledge of the world’s great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. (p. 203)

She’s not entirely wrong, but to what end does this knowledge serve in her mind? We should understand the teachings of other religions, but not embrace them all as equally valid.

He continues,

In our household, the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and the ancient Hawaiian burial sites. But I was made to understand that such religious samplings required no sustained commitment on my part…Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not its wellspring, just one of the many ways…(p. 204)

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I’ve ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct…Without the help of religious texts…she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school; honesty empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice, and scorned those who were indifferent to both. (p. 205)

Christianity is not just about values, nor is it about “personal values,” it is about ultimate truth. This obviously escapes him as he clearly emulates this state of “spiritually awakened” he attributes to his mother. Kindness, honesty, and hard work values that can be seen in the day-to-day life of an atheist. These behaviors should be seen in all believers (fruit), but the presence of these does not make one a Christian.

But it was my mother’s fundamental faith—in the goodness of people and the ultimate value of this brief life we’ve each been given—that channeled those ambitions. (p. 206)

Obama knows that this sort of religiosity is empty as he states that the dilemma his mother faced was passed on to him—that he had “no community or shared traditions in which to ground [his] most deeply held beliefs.” But Obama never really convinces himself—or me—that he has fully embraced orthodox Christianity. I’m not suggesting that he might not be a believer (nor am I suggesting that he is), but he offers several statements that suggest his system of belief outright rejects the historic Christian faith.

Almost by definition, faith and reason operate in different domains and involved different paths to discerning truth. Reason—and science—involves the accumulation of knowledge based on realities that we can all apprehend. Religion, by contrast is based on truths that are not provable through ordinary human understanding—the ‘belief in things not seen.’ When science teachers insist on keeping creationism or intelligent design out of their classrooms, they are not asserting that scientific knowledge is superior to religious insight. They are simply insisting that each path to knowledge involves different rules and that those rules are not interchangeable. (p. 219)

This is almost unfair to Obama because the flaws here are so many and so obvious. His argument suggests that science doesn’t start with presuppositions or pre-understanding. The truth is, science does not operate in a vacuum, outside of the influence of personal bias—and brute facts simply do not exist. Obama’s political philosophy is clearly seen in this statement as he falls into a Rawlsian trap, that moral assertions in the public square can never be grounded in religious reasons because of the pluralistic nature of our society. For religious reasons to have a bearing in the public square is to infringe on the freedom of nonreligious persons according to Rawls. This is where secularism gets some of its philosophical footing, as if it is religiously neutral, as if it is even possible for any idea or philosophy to be religiously neutral. Religious neutrality is a myth and reasons asserted by anyone in the public sphere eventually find their way back to a religion or worldview.

Another statement that impugns Obama on his claim to Christianity is his postmodern hermeneutic that pits certain passages of Scripture against others. It’s reminiscent of a feminist hermeneutic in that he is filtering the biblical text through his experience. Pitting verse against verse, he states,

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

Its unclear how he determines that the Romans passage is “obscure” or how the Sermon of the Mount is to be understood in isolation of Romans or any other area of Scripture. But it is clear that Obama, despite his great spiritual notoriety, is no theologian.

Finally, Obama’s view of Scripture is best understood in his own words.

When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations… (p. 224)

This statement is clearly problematic. While we may refer to Jesus as the Living Word, we must accept the Scriptures as unchanging in meaning and intent, though we as fallible humans may not always understand what read. We cannot confuse our inability to always discern the meaning of the text with God revealing new meanings unrelated to the text. The Bible was written by men in time and space with specific messages, not with ambiguous and every-changing purposes. To be generous, it’s unclear exactly how far Obama wants to take his method of interpreting Scripture, but it is safe to say that he has kept the door open for interpreting Scripture according to experience. His is a faith of values and experience, not of knowledge.

Concluding Remarks
The hype over Obama in the last year has been about nothing—literally. His campaign could be an episode of Seinfeld. He’s gone to great lengths to be not only the candidate of change, but the candidate of charisma….so shallow that it might actually work to win the general election. This is more of an indictment on the American voters than it is on Obama, unfortunately. But realize that he is equally a product of this shallow society. What are the dangers for America if he is to become the most powerful leader in the world? An increase in access to birth control, fewer parental rights, tighter restrictions on religious expression, higher taxes, naïve foreign relations that put America at risk……

Grafitti on the Wall of Separation

These week, a well-written editorial composed by teen Colin Killick was published in the Tucson Citizen on the issue of the separation of church and state. In it, he elaborates on the importance to keep them separate, mainly to protect them from the undue influence of each other. I'm unsure of his motivation to write this piece apart from the nominating process we are currently engaged in-he never clarifies that for the reader.

Because Colin is a high school student, I especially want to encourage him to probe this issue at a deeper level. So much more can and should be said by him on the role that worldview and presuppositions play on everyone, including individuals in the public square. Political philosophy must be studied alongside religion and moral philosophy-and sometimes it is impossible to differentiate between the two. In his own words, he leaves a clue that he may have a minimal understanding of the role worldviews play: "While religion naturally informs the ethical beliefs of our legislators, religious doctrine must never be established as law."

Two questions need to be asked at this point. How can legislators not allow religion to inform the legislative process if their ethics are naturally informed by their religion? What constitutes a religion? The answers to these questions reveal that there is much more religion in the public square than people care to admit, it just isn't Christianity. The truth of the matter is that there is ultimately no problem with religion as long as it is not of the evangelical brand.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Eloquent but Empty

Though I'm a Huckabee supporter, I was thrilled to hear McCain identify his likely opponent as "eloquent but empty." I heard Obama speak last night and he seems to have lost some of the eloquence. It wasn't that noticable to many as they were taken in by his pandering as he made promises he can't keep or shouldn't keep. And frankly, I worry about his demand to students he helps throgh tax payer dollars. Will "giving back" to society be narrowly defined? Would a student who wants to help her community be permitted to cousel women away from abortions as one way of giving back? Or will this be an effort by Obama to step up as the leader of the "Green Church" and only permit certain kinds of activities to qualify as "giving back?"
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Pro-Embryonic Stem Cell Arguments Clouded by Emotions

People who argue against the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research are usually accused of holding a position grounded in the emotions of personal values, that human dignity based upon a Christian worldview is without any scientific merit and, therfore, suspect. The truth of the matter is that science is not opposed to Christianity, faith and reason are happy companions.

So when I read opinions like the one in today's Daily Herald, I yearn for the righteous philosophers who cannot stand in support of such fallacious argumentation, even if it flies in the face of their own views of ESCR.

It is often said that 2 wrongs don't make a right...and in this case a bad arguement doesn't correct an a bad perception. In "Church Immorality is Issue, Not Science," the writer is attempting to build a case for ESCR by pointing to the failures of the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with the writer that the church has serious issues to address, but it's a serious error to adopt church doctrine (I.e. An embrace of ESCR) because they have erred in another area.

The second argument the writer makes is appealing to her own illness as a way to somehow justify the killing of other people...yes, I am speaking of embryos. It is science that proves that from the moment of conception there is a new member of the human species that requires nothing more added to him or her to be more human. He/she has it's full genetic make-up and simply needs to be allowed to mature, not become something else. The is science which finds its basis within the Christian worldview, not an encyclopedic use of the Bible.

Appealing to one's own circumstance or situation is not a proper way for justifying certain moral positions. It may be the reason for beginning an investigation, but is not the source for knowing right and wrong.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Womens Ministry In the Community

The issues that women face today are much more significant than your church womens ministry is able to address. This isn't to take anything from the work that womens ministry is doing, its just that evangelical ministry by women for women is losing its footing amidst the greater culture wars and societal concerns. If you want your ministry to have an impact on womens lives in your communuty, these are some of the areas that need to be engaged:
1. Single moms - engage them where they are at on their schedule. For them, money is tight and their schedules even tighter.
2. Wives of military personnel - during this time of war, does your church provide any assistance, whether financial, spiritual, etc to come alongside these ladies? Many of these women, some who are widows now, are very young and need to know their Sovereign Lord like never before.
3. Domestic abuse victims - don't be shocked if you discover that there are some among you. Create a culture such that women aren't trying to live up to an image or an ideal, rather to develop a relationship with God and a community of believers. Through this there is help and healing.
4. Students/career women - How is your ministry reaching them? Develop coffee shop discussion groups and book clubs that meet at times convenient to these women. For some, meeting away from the church may offer a sense of ease in joining the group.
5. Teach absolute truth. Don't cave to postmodern ideals of "what's true for me may not be true for you." People today, including women, need truth to grasp because the world they live in glamorizes those things once believed to be harmful. Teach on the problem of evil so that they can see God's work in the midst of this chaos.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Ministry to Women on Sunday Morning: Business as Usual?

Sunday morning service....a great time of worship, fellowship, and prayer. It's the day of the week that each of us really looks forward to, even yearns for. For some, it's their primary time for spiritual nourishment and for others its one of many God-filled days that week, having already listened to their favorite preachers on the radio in the car, attending a weekly bible study with other women from the church and/or community, and plopping down on the couch each morning to read a section of the latest Christian bestseller.

For those whom Sunday morning is primary to their Christian fellowship and spiritual nourishment, this is an important and precious time for them. Their time is short during the week, perhaps because they hold down full-time jobs or transportation issues prevent them from participating in mid-week gatherings. For some, their life just isn't conducive to those things that are culturally church. Unbelieving spouses often make things complicated such that Sunday morning is the only time these women can make it to church. For some, even Sunday morning church attendance is a rarity.

Let's not be "business as usual" on Sunday morning. Pay special attention to the women you don't normally see because it's possible you will miss an opportunity to minister to them in very real ways. See if your church can make women's bible studies a part of the Sunday school curriculum. Navel-gazing on Sunday morning could cause you to miss someone with a real need for fellowship and learning that she doesn't otherwise see during the week. And because of the event-driven nature of women's ministry, the women you only notice on Sundays may have the propensity to feel left out.

It's a complicated world we live in, and the pretty faces in the pews on Sunday don't do well to reflect the things really going on in their lives. And you won't have a clue what is going on unless you are reaching out to these women. So leave the last minute plans for your next event for your next meeting, or take care of some of those things in email. Look around and see those you don't get to see during the week, find out why...and see where God takes you in each others lives.

Dorothy Sayers: The Universe

"[The Church] must insist strongly that the whole material universe is an expression and incarnation of the creative energy of God. For this reason, all good and creative handling of the material universe is holy and beautiful, and all abuse of the material universe is a crucifixion of the body of Christ. The whole question of the right use to be made of art, of the intellect, and of the material resources of the world is bound up in this. Because of this, the exploitation of man or of matter for commercial uses stands condemned, together with all debasement of the arts and perversions of the intellect."
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Demise of Common Sense and Decency: An Argument for a Christian Worldview

No longer can we appeal to common sense or common decency. Anna Nicole Smith, Brittany Spears, and Amy Winehouse have lived (and died in Anna's case) by the belief that you can live any way you want, abusing their bodies with drugs and alcohol and allowing themselves to be exploited by a culture of entertainment and autonomy. But don't think they came to this ideal on their own...they have previous generations of "role models" to thank for their "success." Jane Fonda's use of the "c-word" yesterday probably seems a minuscule issue compared to the entertainment industry's love affair with self-destructive behavior. But I suggest that our culture's relegation of faith to the realm of personal values caused a fragmentation in people's lives such that those who don't abide by a Judeo-Christian worldview found it odd that they were adopting and living by Judeo-Christian morality. So in an effort to be logically consistent, they threw away the remnants of this worldview and are seeking to live out the most godless worldview possible. The intellectual honesty of this is shocking, but it does make it easier to see what's missing from people's lives and understand why they do the things they do. Is there any recovery from where we find our culture?

Just like the absence of philosophy in the public schools, the evangelical church needs to do more than spoon feed their people...they need to be taught to think logically about their faith, the world they live in, and the issues they face. Being a Christian necessitates a change, not just in eternal perspective, but in everyday living. If we want to influence the world for Christ then we need to make sure that our churches are producing people of influence, not just people with a claim to heaven.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

The Faith of 'Americans United'

This week, Americans United put out a press release demanding that the Florida State School Board not consider the inclusion creationism or intelligent design as a part of public school curriculum. Barry Lynn, who manipulatively dons the title "Rev," says that "public schools must teach science, not religion, in science classes." The press release also states that "the Constitution requires a separation of church and state and that the courts have repeatedly forbidden teaching religion in science classes."

We are so past the point of needing to address the role that philosophical/theological presuppositions play in the minds of Darwinists. They aren't even attempting to argue science, rather they are playing a political game intended to further marginalize evangelicals. So let's look closer at the claims of these materialists...and recognize what is a matter of philosophy-not science-on their part.

The latest issue of Salvo magazine sums things up well:

"Scientific naturalism is a philosophical position that assumes an entirely materialistic origin to the universe-a faith claim for which Darwinists have no proof whatsoever..."

Though Intelligent Design doesn't out of logical necessity preclude the possibility of evolution, it does counter well what is the prevailing notion in the public arena-that God is dead and Darwinists are purely objective observers...and that is their fatal flaw.

Beginning with the idea that the material world is all that exists has the Darwinist (philosophical materialist) in the field of philosophy and theology, not science. They simply cannot observe what happened first unless time travel is now also possible.

So while Darwinists are dabbling in philosophy, they need to ask themselves how it is that they can know that only the natural exists. Such an assertion is not only a claim to universal knowledge, but is the epitomy of arrogance and political correctness - not to mention just plain foolish.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Defending the Faith

The ministry of apologetics has the tendency to seem so academic, not relevant to everyday life. But as I read today how the Christian worldview is vulnerable to Darwinisn in multiple areas, I'm convinced that apologetics is not only irrelevant, but necessary to the effective communication of the Gospel.

You can't take your family to a museum unless you are able to refute evolutionary theory. You have to use great caution when your doctor tells you that you've miscarried and offers you drugs normally used to carry out an abortion (see today's news). And since people aren't really people until they have grown to some certain yet unspecified age (somewhere between birth and 5) experiments on human/animal cybrids will become more and more acceptable.

Until fear and respect for the Trancendent enters the hearts and minds of those responsible for the propogation of philosophical materialism, human dignity and the Christian worldview will continue to be assaulted. What's worse than this, though, is the fact that Christians have handed the external world over to secularism grounded in a darwinism. I realize this is the easiest way out in the short term, but since souls are at stake now and in the future, we need to engage these ideas at every level.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Women, Faith, Work, and Ministry

"It is the business of the Church to recognize that the secular vocation, as such, is sacred. Christian people...must get it firmly in there heads that when a man or woman is called to a particular job of secular work, that is as true a vocation as though he or she were called to specifically religious work. The Church must concern Herself not only with such questions as the just price and proper working conditions: She must concern Herself with seeing that the work itself is such as a human being can perform without any degradation-that no one is required by economic or any other considerations to devote himself to work that is contemptable, soul destroying, or harmful...He must be able to serve God in his work, and the work itselrf must be accepted and respected as the medium of divine creation."

Dorothy Sayers, Creed & Chaos (Why Work?)
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Childless Fathers and Fatherless Children

On Friday's episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show, several young women were introduced as products of the sperm donation industry. In fact, one of the young women said of herself that that is exactly what she is--a product--emphasizing the dehumanizing nature of the industry. Two sperm fathers were also present during the show, there to discuss the many children they are starting to become aware of and have relationships with.

What struck me about this program is how the natural implications of the industry were viewed so casually, the emptiness of the children created by what our culture has said is a valid and even ideal family model--single parent and child. Regrets were not communicated by the mothers or donors of these young people, but the offspring certainly felt cheated out of a part of their own identity.

Is it really any surprise that the children of anonymous sperm "donors" are forced to address the decisions made for them by their mother and sperm father? We're not surprised--we've always understood the implications associated with reproductive technologies that make the marital union unnecessary. And Oprah and her guests didn't seem surprised--they too have understood the implications, but they are not looking for a corrective for the industry, they just want to change the rules of the game. In hindsight, each of us sees and knows that fatherless children lack a substantive piece of their life. And now we have to contend with the issue of childless fathers, those who regret the literally hundreds of donations many of them made at sperm banks and wonder where their children are.

It was also said on the program that up to 30,000 children a year are born by this manner of conception. As a society we've been terribly worried for our children with deadbeat dads, now our society is electing to make this paradox the norm--fatherless children and childless fathers.

"Abstinence Sucks"

Shocking, isn't it? Well that's the message being touted at the upcoming National Young Women's Leadership Conference: What's At Stake in 2008 sponsored by the Feminist Majority Foundation. Are we really going to sit back and watch our young women be influenced by lifeless feminism, or are we going to take a stand for the important place of young women in our culture and bring them a message that considers their best interests and protects them and their children, encouraging them professionally and their own involvement socially?

FeministCampus.org states that the conference is to take place in Washington D.C. on March 8-9:

Topics will include Get Out Her Vote (GOHV), Birth Control Pricing, Crisis Pregnancy Centers (Fake Clinics), Global Reproductive Rights, and more!

Again, as I noted last year, this event is driven predominately by bioethics..and completely in opposition to our prolife views. 'Fake clinics?' Yes, it's a political event - I see they're wasting no time so that they can reach young women before the election in November with their message of reproduction.

But shame on us for abandoning these young women to feminism. What the heck is the evangelical Christian community doing to make a place for young women? I'm not talking about making compromises in doctrine, I am talking about entering the 21st century and seeing the leadership potential in both genders and encouraging young women in their quest to fulfill the creation mandate. And what are we doing to teach our young women about 'reproductive responsibility' or the creation mandate? If we keep these discussions among the middle age crowd, we'll lose the battle entirely. Our young women are begging for a movement that recognizes and appreciates their contributions to society and to the church. The time to act is now, let's stop talking about what women can't do in the church and talk about how God wants to use women in church and culture. Then we might not have to worry about "abstinence sucks" campaigns.

Islam, ACLU: Separation of Christianity & State?

The Arab American news reported this week on the ACLU "Reclaiming Our Rights" conference that was held in the Detroit area.

One of the speakers was Arab American News publisher, Osama Siblani, who spoke on "Church & State: Freedom of Religion." One of Siblani's claims stated that of the many presidential candidates, many are bringing religion to the forefront of many issues and using it as a tool to sway voters.

He also stated that after September 11, religion was suddenly thrown back into politics...I don't believe we are practicing separation of church and state; I believe we are witnessing the abuse of religion in politics.

He may actually have a point. I've seen more religious activity coming from the left than ever before-because they know that there is a religious left that they need to address. There has been more "God-speak" on the left than on the right, primarily because each side is held to different standards, but that's a topc for another day.

It is, however, unclear what Siblani's point is...if he is talking about everyone or if is making the charges commonly asserted against the Christian right. Whatever he means, he has opened the door to hypocrisy. Take note of what else was reported about what he had to say:

Siblani went on to discuss the diversity of religion that exists in the U.S., stating, 'We need to use it as a tool to reach out to those around us. Islam should be used in th US as an asset, a way to build bridges with the rest of the world.'

This comment leads me to believe that he is well-aligned with the religious/political left of the US that asserts faith as a matter of political expediency, not as a matter of truth. This reveals a level of blatant hypocrisy that is permissible in our culture. It seems that, with diversity held as the highest value, that the concern isn't really about the separation of church and state. It is a movement to separate Christianity and its influence from the public square.

The God-Complex of an Abortionist

'I can take a woman, in the biggest trouble she has ever experienced in her life, and by performing a five-minute operation, in comfort and dignity, I can give her back her life'

These are the words delivered by Canadian abortion provider Garson Romalis on Jan. 25, at the University of Toronto Law School's Symposium to mark the 20th Anniversary of R. vs. Morgentaler. The thrust of his speech is to show how, even after two attempts by two separate individuals to murder him, he is still committed to the work of providing abortions. Recounting his internship at Chicago's Cook County Hospital in Ward 41, the septic obstetrics ward, he discusses the cases of septic shock from illegal abortions and the ones that resulted in death.

Providing abortion services can be quite stressful. Usually, an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy is the worst trouble the patient has ever been in in her entire life.

He really puts himself out there as the redeemer of those who want to abort their children, those with "unwanted pregnancies." I find it terribly sad that pregnancy can viewed as the worst thing that could ever happen to a woman. That isn't to say that having a baby, making changes to your life, and dealing with the consequences of sex outside of marriage isn't difficult--but nothing is so difficult it can't be faced. Frankly, I think this perspective also diminishes the strength and talents of women....do they really need access to abortion to be all they can be?

Abortion and abortafacients have come to be viewed as redemptive, saving women from the consequences of decisions that have predominately been their own. In this sense, it has become an idol, ironically opposite of the life-giving nature and work of our Creator.

HT: David Mendez

A New Era of Inspirational Leadership

Okay, perhaps it isn't entirely new. Do you recall the clammering over the Clinton's "gravitasse?" It was said of him that he was such an excellent orator, yet it was July 1993 (if my memory serves me right) that Clinton subjected Americans to the largest tax increase in history. 15 years later--enter Barak Obama.

What do we know about Obama? Like Clinton, he is a slick communicator...lots of sentiment and no substance. Even his followers agree. Tonight on tv they all said that he's a great communicator and inspiring, but were clueless about his positions on issues. This isn't entirely his fault, liberal America wants this kind of leader. Obama fits well into the irreligious religiosity that has come to define America's intellectual landscape. All sentiment, no substance. This is seen in many areas of debate including reproductive rights and ESCR. Emotions, not science or rational thinking guide the players on the left. Are we surprised that Obama is their guy?

For a believer in the wall of separation, Obama is turning out to be one of this countries greatest religious leaders, influencing through inspirational speeches with no substance. "Change" is turning out to be the religious cliche of the millenium.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Reproductive Ethics? Procreation Decisions

Yesterday I spoke at a women's conference on the subject of infertility and the role the church--especially women's ministries--must play in this area. Without someone willing to teach that technical assistance in the procreative process may risk the lives of embryos (people at the earliest stage of life) and violate the image of God as the creator, then even the church will remain ignorant in this area.

Also yesterday, the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity posted an article I wrote on outsourced pregnancy to India, Discount Babies, Discounting Dignity. As we continue to promote ourselves as a globalized society and as a global church, let's not forget about the women in 3rd world countries who are being exploited by "child labor," so to speak.

How we speak of the process of having children, whether as reproductive or procreative, may also speak to the influences that inform our decision making. Has having babies been reduced to the language of manufacturing? Is it about what we do to put the baby together, or is making babies about being image bearer? We create life because God created us to create similarly to him.

Schaeffer on Preparing Future Thinkers

In "Back to Freedom and Dignity," Schaeffer writes about human engineering and manipulation, "We need to understand from a Christian viewpoint what is happening. More importantly, we must help those in decision-making capacities to recognize the implications of the issues we face together as a human race."

Schaeffer was something of a modern day prophet, he knew where we were headed in biotech and medical ethics, though he had many clues to go by.

I take his exhortation very seriously, and I hope you do as well. The things we need to understand and teach others about is like no other time in human history, yet we are barely scratching the surface on these issues that effect the most vulnerable in our society. The evangelical community cannot solely depend on the Colson's and Mohler's to equip believers on these issues, it has got to happen at the local church level.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Excess Embryos No Argument for Access

In this land of plenty and culture of materialism, the tendency is to expect to get what we want and not wait too long to get it. Having an excess of money, for example, often doesn't make American's more generous, but helps them to get more stuff....and becomes a reason for spending more.

Though the debates over the use of embryos in research is a bit muffled by the political debates over immigration and the economy, this debate will take center stage again very soon. The point that needs to be made is that an excess of embryos in storage is not a justifiable reason for access to them for research that causes their death. This argument is put forth as a humane use of a natural resource as the research may lead to cures--inhumane to the embryo, of course.

The question used to support the use of the embryos is utilitarian in nature. "What are we going to do with them otherwise? They will be abandoned or die, we should use them for the greater good." The assertion that they ought to serve a particular purpose is implicit in the initial question, but doesn't speak to the debate over their moral status. Very simply, the argument is that since we have lots of embryos frozen in time, they should be used for research. The argument of quantity bypasses any discussion of quality, the nature of the embryo. Of course, it could be that the argument presupposes that the embryo has no moral status, but the politicians and the scientists have had little use for philosophers in this entire discussion, so it can't be argued that this has been thoroughly addressed.

An excessive amount of anything isn't a logical justification for access to it. We need to remember this as the debate is engaged in the coming months.

Obama Apologist in Need of Facts

"The Truth About Obama's Faith," another piece to be found at Wallis' sojourners.org makes clear who their candidate is.

Obery Hendricks works diligently in this piece to show not only that everyone has gotten the truth about Obama wrong, but that the various charges identified are believed and promoted by mainstream conservative Christians. If he was righting about exteme wackjobs, he wouldn't have written the piece (unless he thinks we're all wackjobs).

Obery states, "Barak Obama has been a baptized, fully confessed and practicing Christian, not only with his lips inside the church but, more importantly, with his limbs out in the community-striving to help the neediest and the most vulnerable..."

He has? Obama is a proabort in the strongest sense of the term, and though he may care about the poor and those lacking healthcare (both worthy causes) he has gone above and beyond the call of duty to defend abortion rights and withhold the most basic right to the preborn-the right to not be murdered. Obery, where does that fit into Obama's practical theology? His prochoice stance is more for political expediency-and he embraces it in full.

Finally, it needs to be said that the Christian faith is grounded on certain beliefs from which acts of mercy flow from. Jesus never taught anything counter to that. Obery Hendricks also wants people to think our criticisms of Obama make us hypocrites because we don't "publically indict the rapacious 'prosperity teacher' and fake healers.

We don't?? One simple google search will reveal otherwise.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Wake Up to Wallis

Jim Wallis' new book "The Great Awakening" appears to be another attempt to marginalize prolife conservatives while embracing just about every other agenda under the sun. On the Sojourners website you can find the study guide to this new book. It's very telling as in these few pages it manages to impose a weak biblical hermeneutuc on the unsuspecting as well as promote a compromise in the abortion debate that "might reduce abortions" and be the "common ground" that unites prolifers and prochoicers.

"The Great Awakening" should be read with a very critical eye, not allowing yourself to be swayed to a so-called middle or common ground position that entails moral and ethical compromise. More to come on this book...and movement.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Primetime Bioethics

The 25th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision was "celebrated" this week by the networks via Boston Legal and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. On BL, the 'right to choose' on the basis of it being her body, was challenged by her male partner who insisted that she abort. An interesting consideration as our society considers father's rights. But is 'he' a father if the embryo isn't a human person?

Law & Order:SVU also challenged societies varied views on the moral status of the preborn in its portrayal of prolifers and our view of embryos. The plot detailed the theft of embryos from a clinic, orchestrated by prolifers, that were being cryopreserved. The embryos ended up dying and the prolifers charged-with theft...though they and the parents who lost their embryos wanted them charged with murder. Bottom line of this episode is that the law hasn't caught up with the truth that each of us ultimately recognize, life does begin at conception.
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

Developing Young Women for Work

We all (hopefully) are familiar with the cultural mandate (creation mandate) as it is termed by theologians. The command to have dominion over the earth...to fill it, subdue it, etc....this is an important place to develop ministry to young women.

In this first command, the inhabitants of the earth were called to labor in the garden. Genesis 2:15 states The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it (ESV). Take note that this command is pre-Fall. Labor--work--has always been a component of our existence. Work is good and is a reflection of God's work. As Creator of everything, He labored to create. As image bearers, we reflect this through the business of cultivating the earth.

Today, young women have many opportunities before them--though we ought not forget the challenges women face in the workforce. But as a matter of spiritual care--because everything, including our work, belongs to God--we can play a part in their vocational journey by providing various mechanisms that serve to counsel her in career decisions. Here are some ways to bring this to a reality in your church's women's ministry:

1. Who on your women's ministry team is already geared toward ministry to young women? She will likely be a key player in this new component to women's ministry.

2. Discussions with men and women in various professions--develop a monthly meeting that will feature a Christian speaker (does not have to be a woman) who represents a select focation. Publicize the talk to the church and in the community. Your community may be pleasantly surprised that your church cares anything at all about career development!

3. Make it known that someone is available to guide and discuss vocation/career decisions, and that doing so is simply a piece of our work as believers.

4. Teach a solid Christian worldview study regularly, one that emphasizes clearly that a Christian vocation need not necessarily be vocational ministry.

5. After your young women begin to make their decisions, you need to nurture them so that they understand that work is labor for the Lord. Connect them with likeminded, mature believers and/or small groups if you know of any.

6. There may be other women in your congregation who are older and might be struggling with re-entry into the work force. Talk with them about their gifts and talents and how those might fit well with particular job or career choices.

7. For all of your women, infest in their development, preparing them to do the same for the young women she encounters in her future.

Further reading on this topic:
Heaven is a Place on Earth by Dr. Michael Wittmer
Total Truth by Dr. Nancy Pearcey
Are Women Human? by Dorothy Sayers
Creed or Chaos? by Dorothy Sayers

Obama's Politics of Religion

In a recent interview with Beliefnet, Barak Obama was asked about the role that faith and faith-based programs might play in confronting social ills. The question posed suggested to Obama that perhaps his view is similar to George Bush's. Obama replied:

No, I don't think so, because I am more concerned with maintaining the line between church and state. And I believe that for the most part, we can facilitate the excellent work that's done by faith-based institutions when it comes to substance abuse treatment or prison ministries...I think much of this work can be done in a way that doesn't conflict with church and state. I think George Bush is less concerned about that.

His response reminded me of the claims made by a Wisconsin based atheist organization that put forth a lawsuit claiming that the government had crossed the so-called wall of separation in allowing faith-based organizations to receive government funds for the purpose of taking on these social ills.

the Freedom From Religion Foundation Inc., objected to government conferences in which administration officials encourage religious charities to apply for federal grants.

But I'm not here to defend Bush's work against the charge that he isn't concerned about the separation of church and state. That's like asking someone if they've beaten their pet rabbit today. The charge is simply ridiculous as it assumes that Obama's view of the wall of separation is the correct position. To equivocate in response to the question posed to him is, at best, the artistry of lawyering, or is simply pure ignorance.

It's not been established that any of the faith-based organizations that have received federal grants to confront social ills have inappropriately diverted such funds to proselytizing efforts, nor has it been shown that Bush doesn't care whether that happens or not. But to put this to rest, the atheist organization did not get a hearing because their complaint was without merit. Faith-based organizations have always been a part of the work in our society, this isn't anything new.

Roe v. Wade: The 'Destruction' or 'Death' of Embryos?

January 22 is the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Courts decision to legalize abortion. In these 35 years, we've debated the issues from the perspective of women's rights, the right to life of the unborn, the health of the mother, the personhood of the fetus, etc. Images of dead babies ripped from their mother's uterus and the use of ultrasound to reveal babies in the warmth of their mother's womb have served to bring about wide range of emotions that have benefited the movement for life.

When we think of these images, we call them babies, people, and life. But when you see the image of an embryo, do you think of it as a human being whose life is at risk by the hands of scientists researching stem cells or women/couples who are utilizing ART's? The truth is, we don't speak of the death of embryos, we speak of their destruction. It seems perhaps we have adopted the language of science as we speak of embryonic people and this may prove to be a disastrous move on our part.

I believe part of why we speak of embryos being destroyed instead of being killed, destruction vs. death, is because the image of embryos does not conjure up the feelings we have for people at the infant stage. We are repulsed at the idea of small, vulnerable people experiencing a painful death at the hands of those who are expected to do no harm. While the image is important in retaining our sense of repugnance, it may be that this image has become the basis for our prolife position and is preventing us from being a stronger voice for the lives of embryos in frozen storage and/or being sought for research purposes. Without the images to generate our emotions, have we lacked the motivation to fight as hard for the embryo as we do for the child at a later stage of gestation? I believe this is the case, and this is why some of our republican presidential candidates are getting away with an inconsistent life position.

As this 35th anniversary comes and goes, remember the embryonic life at risk in cryopreservation and in research labs. We shouldn't need to have the bloody images to invoke our outrage and sense of humanity.

Fill the Earth....At Any Cost?

On Feb. 2 I will be speaking at Crossroads Church of Hillside (Hillside, IL). The topic I will be addressing is infertility, but from the perspective of the decisions that correspond to the problem. Should we be about fulfilling the creation mandate at any costs? In other words, should our interest in procreation be greater than the concern for the embryos that often die or put at risk as the result of IVF? Does the embrace of IVF provide a path to embracing preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). And what about sex selection? These are some of the questions I'll be discussing on Feb. 2 at Crossroads Church. If you're interested in attending, please email me and I'll send you more information. sarahflashing@gmail.com

Model4Jesus: Women's Ministry on the Catwalk?

Every once in awhile as I'm channel surfing, I check out what's happening on Oxygen channel's Janice Dickenson's Modeling Agency. It's not a very interesting show, as you might guess it features young women who look very hungry, involved in an industry that doesn't necessarily have their best interests in mind. Tonight I was surprised to see the show feature 2 models challenge the status quo of the industry, asking that they be excused from jobs that require nudity. Why? Nude modeling clashes with their Christian worldview...and this was my first introduction to the Model4Jesus, a ministry

for women and teenage girls that uses fashion shows as a tool to reach today's generation, demonstrating that a woman does not need to conform to the world's concept of beauty.

There is no statement of faith on their website, so this isn't a full endorsement for the ministry. But I'm left wondering about what it means to be a model for Jesus. I understand the need to challenge the image of beauty promoted by Hollywood, and I suppose there is forms of professional modeling that don't necessarily objectify the models while selling a product. Walmart ads and JCPenney catalogues come to mind in this regard.

I'm happy to see that there are young people in the modeling industry, as exemplified by Michael and Dominique on JD, struggling with the demands of their work. I just hope that at some point that they realize the compromises they are being asked to make happen long before they are asked to remove their clothing.

Purity Galas

Today I was interviewed by the University of Chicago Laboratory School's newspaper on the topic of Purity Balls. I would assume by their name that it's clear what these events are, but just in case....

Purity Balls, probably better termed "galas," are an effort on the part of predominately evangelical Christians to promote sexual abstinence in the lives of the young women in their families. Young women attend these galas usually with their fathers, sometimes with a brother, uncle, or another male role model in their lives. The purpose? To pledge to remain pure until they marry. As you might suspect, a lot of people find these galas, at best, meaningless, and at worst, the father's attempt to own their daughter's sexuality and her body.

From Generations of Light:

The Father Daughter Purity Ball is a memorable ceremony for fathers to sign commitments to be responsible men of integrity in all areas of purity. The commitment also includes their vow to protect their daughters in their choices for purity. The daughters silently commit to live pure lives before God through the symbol of laying down a white rose at the cross. Because we cherish our daughters as regal princesses—for 1 Peter 3:4 says they are “precious in the sight of God”—we want to treat them as royalty.

While the silent commitment is on the part of the young women participating in the gala, this pledge is give by the father:

I, (DAUGHTER'S NAME)'S FATHER, CHOOSE BEFORE GOD TO COVER MY DAUGHTER AS HER AUTHORITY AND PROTECTION IN THE AREA OF PURITY. I WILL BE PURE IN MY OWN LIFE AS A MAN, HUSBAND AND FATHER. I WILL BE A MAN OF INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABLITY AS I LEAD, GUIDE AND PRAY OVER MY DAUGHTER AND MY FAMILY AS THE HIGH PRIEST IN MY HOME. THIS COVERING WILL BE USED BY GOD TO INFLUENCE GENERATIONS TO COME.

From this, I don't see that these young ladies are pledging their purity to their fathers, but committing a precious part of their lives to God. One of the questions posed to me was, do the purity balls/galas work? My response is that in many cases, it won't, but many times what works is not necessarily helpful. What's right is not always the easiest thing to do or accept. Some of the criticism of the purity movement relates to the teaching of abstinence, and it is my belief that we are foolish not to teach abstinence. Not to teach abstinence because abstinence doesn't work is like saying we shouldn't teach long division because everyone owns calculators.

Nothing about the purity movement concerns me except any attempt to turn it into a commercial enterprise. The interviewer shared with me that one of the products marketed to the young women in the movement is underwear that says "my daddy is watching." That's a bit much. But the movement is, in general, a positive promotion of what is truly good and beautiful.

Human Dignity, Personhood, and Embryos

Referring back to the case study on infertility, think about what you believe—in thought and in action—about the issues. Do you hold that s/he is a fully a person created in the image of God or do you view an embryo in as an incomplete or potential person? I believe that the reason we, even as Christians, so easily embrace assisted reproduction is because we don’t fully embrace embryos as persons, though in their earliest stage. We are as attached to certain appearances and abilities as a requirement of personhood as is the proponent of embryo destructive research or abortion. Can a person truly be prolife if s/he passively and/or actively denies the personhood to an embryo? To follow with another question, if you hold that an embryo is a person, are you willing to freeze people via cryopreservation? I don’t believe we want to develop a nonchalant attitude toward the embryo by continuing to advise women and couples toward IVF. Granted, IVF doesn’t require freezing embryos, but the process is most economical when eggs are harvested and fertilized in larger quantities, thus necessitating the cryopreservation. If we are motivated by virtuous living and following Christ in thought and action, we ought to concern ourselves with the activities of an image bearer, activities which potentially mirror or deny the Creator. The call of the creation (cultural) mandate to multiply and fill the earth is not a call at all costs. We must not argue in action that to follow God we must violate his character by lowering our view of what it means to be human.

Bioethics Case Study: Infertility, Cures and Questions

This case study is an adaptation of true account. I hope you will take the time to engage the questions at the end of the case, and maybe provide some more.
-----
Jane and John Dough are a happily married couple in your church. Jane grew up in the church, a daughter of an upstanding member of the community who is also a church elder. Jane met John while they were both in college. They were engaged and were married in Jane's home church and eventually moved back to the community where she grew up.

It's been 6 years since they were married, Jane is now 28 and John is 30. Still well within their reproductive age, they have experienced difficulty in conceiving a child. Their friends and others at their church try to encourage them by telling them "don't worry, you will have a baby soon enough," and "you just need to relax." Jane's best friend suggested that maybe she needed to consult with a fertility specialist. They take her advice and consult with a specialist.

Through many tests and procedures, they learn that they can have children, but not without IVF. Because this procedure is very expensive and the harvesting of her eggs can be a painful procedure, they opted to have 10 of her eggs fertilized at one time.

It is now 5 years since the IVF procedure, Jane is 33 and John is now 35. They have 2 beautiful children who are 3 and 1. They are the result of implanting 4 embryos, 2 of which did not successfully implant. A fifth embryo was discarded because it was discovered thorugh PGD (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) that the embryo had a genetic defect, likely Down's Syndrome. 5 of the original 10 embryos remain cryopreserved, they have been there for 5 years. However, the recent debates over embryonic stem cell research have caused Jane and John consider the life of these embryos, but the prospect of 5 more children is overwhelming. They seek to donate them to family members of friends.

Issues:
Should they have consulted with someone else in addition to an infertility specialist?
Is dealing with infertility about finding cures only, or is it a worldview question?
How might have things transpired had they been equipped before their own crisis?
What is the moral status of the embryo?
Does personhood apply to imperfect embryos?
Who will be affected if the embryos are adopted by close friends/family?
Does being a Christian guarantee that you will automatically pursue the right course of action in this or any other dilemma?

Embracing Change

What do women need to get from their church women's ministry? The answer to that will vary from church to church, but as younger women are entering into the community of believers, I exhort you as leaders to embrace change. This is not to say that we change everything, do away with anything that is old, and reject the older women in your circles. May it never be! What I am saying, however, is that if you remain set in your ways in the overall focus of how you do ministry, you will continue to get the same results you have always gotten and you may not have the opportunity to engage new women of many age groups. I'm not an advocate for embracing the philosophies of any given era because they might be popular, and anyone who knows me will vouch for me when I say I'm not a pragmatist. But as times change we must have a knowledge of what women are hearing and speaking, what they believe and what they want out of life. I also challenge you to look around your congregation: it isn't just singles, married, and widows. It's all those, but it's also the functionally single (the women with husbands at home), the divorced, the teen mothers, even the single women who have never been married but have elected through reproductive technologies to have children without a spouse.

This isn't a call to embrace unhealthy and unbiblical choices, this is for you to accept the fact that changes are occurring in our world in ways you could never imagine. Know that traditional women's ministries made primarily of fellowships and bible studies will not cut it without educating on matters related to todays culture. Embrace the changes you need to work on in your area of ministry so that you can embrace the women who need to be reached and discipled.

Women of Faith: In Church and Culture

Women mentoring women-this is an important aspect of women's ministry.In fact, I think it defines at the most basic level what women's ministry is. Of course, unpacking women mentoring women exposes numerous areas to women's ministry that are a part of this mentoring: bible study, theological reflection, personal coaching, fellowship, worship, prayer. These are some core areas of women's ministry...in the church. What about in culture? Is society interested in these areas of our internal ministries? Are women in the church prepared to go out into the world and give an answer for the hope within them? One might ask, should women go out into the world in this way. Isn't that men's work? I'm not one who is asking that question, the way of salvation and call to defend the faith is not exclusive to the domain of men. So how are you preparing the women in your church to speak to their culture? Are they prepared to defend their faith with meekness and gentleness? Our children are entrenched in other philosophies in their elementary, high school, and college course work. Women-moms-need to be prepared to speak to these issues. My own son, quoting Mr. Spock from Star Trek, didn't realize he was espousing a utilitarian ethic. I'll post on that another time....but I recognized it and it's dangers. Are you prepared?

We encounter other women every day who are from other religions and worldviews. Have we left the apologetics task to men or relying on our feminine relational nature to reach out to these women? Cookies and flowers may get you in the door, but a substantive relationship will necessitate engaging each other's minds.

I'm going to stop for now, but let me be clear that women need to know how to reach out beyond the walls of the church. We need to be women of faith in culture as well as in the church.

Women's Speakers Conference

Without a doubt, there are far less opportunities for women in the church to hone their speaking skills than their are for men. I was at my church this Sunday where we had the opportunity to hear from a seminary student in his mdiv program, obviously studying to be a pastor. He wasn't horrible, and although my kids were able to point out some of his inadequacies, I'm quite sure he struggled because his subject matter was a little too broad. He engaged the commentaries, but had a hard time engaging his listeners. I'm sure he would have done much better if his topic had been a bit narrower, but it was an excellent opportunity for him to become a better preacher with hands-on experience.

As I listened to him, and as I ponder it more this morning, I wish there were more opportunities for women's leaders to develop and grow their speaking and teaching gifts. In my world, the pulpit on Sunday morning will not serve this need (and I'm ok with that). So what exists that will give women more opportunities to get this training? And is there a need for it?

Last question first: there is a need for it. The more gifted women's speakers there are at the local church level, the more opportunity we have to provide solid teaching events. Being a teacher necessitates some degree of speaking ability, and while on the job training is helpful, it's very minimal within the women's ministry context.

First question: what exists that will give women more opportunities to further develop their speaking skills? Carol Kent provides Speak Up seminars that help women's speakers to fine tune what they do. These seminars get into the nuts and bolts of how to be a great speaker/teacher. I've never personally attended one of her events, though I wouldn't mind doing so in the future. I know someone who has and she greatly benefited from the event. Beyond Speak Up, there isn't really anything else. But an event like the Evangelical Theological Society's annual conference would provide women opportunities to speak on selected topics with theological/biblical content. Women theologians and student academics are already involved in these events (as do many male mdiv students aspiring to the pastorate), but nothing like this exists on the women's lay leadership level. Some would argue that it need not exist.

Would you participate in a women's leadership speaking conference?

"What the Scripture Means to Me"

Speaking of cliches, this is yet another that I hope our prepared women's ministry leaders will choose to confront this year. I've heard this from women in bible studies as well as from seasoned leaders. As they discuss a portion of Scripture, it inevitably comes back to the individual, themselves. They begin the sentence with "what this verse means to me is..." and then they go on to explain how a particular experience helps them to understand the meaning of the verse. At best, they share how the verse speaks to their own circumstances, yet they do this prior to working out the actual meaning associated with the context of the passage. Either way, this approach not only encourages a mishandling of Scripture and a misapplication of the text, it also neglects to honor to the inspired meaning. I do hope we won't throw inspiration out the window.

The problem with "what the Scripture means to me" is that it is, by definition, creating an environment for subjective interpretation. We are in dangerous territory when we encourage this manner of handling the Bible as we are ultimately allowing for many understandings of a given passage. Who can argue with anyone's subjective experience? I'm reminded of yet another overly used cliche, "the Lord led me..." who can argue with that? Appealing to God in this manner, taking the self out of the decision making process, makes it virtually impossible to argue against. We must be so careful with the use of our evangelical vernacular. Interpretation of a passage may sometimes be difficult, but a proper understanding of the meaning is our ultimate goal.

We have been given the responsibility to teach from the Scriptures and to teach others how to understand them on their through their own studies. We need to discourage the type of subjectivity that encourages the reader to be self-centered instead of Christ-centered. Ours is a faith that includes our every facet, let's not neglect the role of the mind.

A Personal Relationship with Jesus: Goals for Women's Ministry Leaders

Has the call to have "a personal relationship with Jesus" become more of a cliche that feeds into our individualistic ideals, or does is point clearly to the need to know Jesus as both human and divine and his redemptive work on the cross? Does "a personal relationship with Jesus" bring to mind the core doctrines of the Christian faith, or does it propose a feminized Christianity that appeals to our therapeutic needs as something separate from our intellectual life.

As I have been thinking about the work of women's ministries in the local church in the upcoming year, I hope that this is the year that our womens ministry leaders will not only move away from the cliches and stereotypes, but actually refute them. And so I challenge each of you to consider this, "a personal relationship with God," and be prepared to talk to the women in your ministries about what this really means.

My friend, Keith Plummer, addressed this issue in a blogpost in 2005. I'm thankful for the archiving of blogs as this is one you should take a look at. In it, Keith reflects:

Talk of having a personal relationship with Jesus is so deeply entrenched in evangelical discourse that calling it into question may strike us as sacrosanct. But hopefully we're willing to ask, along with Noll, whether this emphasis is due more to an attempt to be biblically faithful or to the imbibing of American cultural values (e.g., individualism).

In one sense, the idea of needing to come to Christ in order to have a personal relationship with God is misleading. Every person stands in a relationship with God. Coming to Christ changes the nature of that relationship from one of condemned criminals before a just judge to that of pardoned and accepted sinners graciously adopted into a nurturing family. So, the critical question as far as the gospel is concerned, is not so much whether one has a personal relationship with God but rather what kind of relationship one has.

What is the nature of your relationship with Jesus? Is it grounded in an understanding of the Scriptures? Is it purely existential in that it that the relationship is reduced to merely the individual experience? Is the relationship measured qualitatively according to how you feel on a given day? Does your understand ing of who God is include a biblical anthropology?

It's not about whether or not you have a relationship with Jesus, it's about what that relationship looks like. We have the Scriptures to teach us about who God is and how he has acted in history. Because the testimony of Scripture points to a sovereign Lord who cares about even the smallest details of our lives, we can call him our personal savior. He works within human history, having his hand on the course of events without limitation. This is the God who can be trusted and depended upon. Does your relationship with Jesus acknowledge this truth?

Women's ministry leaders: make 2008 the year for reflecting on the sovereignty of God.

Is a Blastocyst an Embryo?

This is an interesting question as we ponder the birth of our Savior this Christmas Eve. I wasn't anticipating that this was even a question but as I began checking out some of the usages of the term blastocyst, I found myself intrigued.

According to the National Institutes of Health, a blastocyst is

a preimplantation embryo of about 150 cells produced by cell division following fertilization. The blastocyst is a sphere made up of an outer layer of cells (the trophoblast), a fluid-filled cavity (the blastocoel), and a cluster of cells on the interior (the inner cell mass).

So to rightly understand the use of the term blastocyst, we need to think not about what it is, but when and where it is. To answer the question: yes, a blastocyst is by its very definition an embryo, an embryo that has not yet implanted into the uterine wall, which is the distinction associated with the term 'preimplantation'. But the lack of implantation does not change the genetic makeup of the embryo, it simply is a geographical difference, not a logical or biological difference.

Be careful not to be confused by those who support the pursuit of embryonic stem cell research. I see them deliberately moving between the use of terms like 'blastocyst' and 'embryo'in order to create confusion because if you believe an embryo is a human being, but don't believe a blastocyst is yet an embryo, why would you object to this area of research?

Ruby Slippers: An Interview with Jonalyn Grace Fincher

The following is an interview that I did with writer Jonalyn Grace Fincher on her new book Ruby Slippers. Jonalyn is a Christian apologist who, with her husband, has a ministry called Soulation. Both Jonalyn and I look forward to your questions and comments!
----------------------------------------------------
Sarah: Jonalyn, thank you so much for talking to us about your book Ruby Slippers. You say in your book that you "will not offer the final words on femininity." I find that your book is helpful to begin thinking about femininity of the soul, perhaps more of an abstract distinction from masculinity. Do you think that's a helpful way to begin to unmask the stereotypical perspectives on femininity in the evangelical community?

Jonalyn: Sarah, this is my favorite topic, women and God’s value for us. Thanks for asking me to join you!

In answer to your question, I think the evangelical community needs to get beyond our stereotypes if we’re going to get at helpful, practical, essential differences between men and women. You know it’s interesting when you go into Christian College libraries. There are mounds of books on femininity, how to be a godly woman, how to be a Biblical woman, how to excel in femininity and on and on. But as you read them (especially the older ones) you can’t help but smirk and find exceptions to the rule. If we’re claiming to know the final answers on femininity we need to make sure our answers are not culturally bound. We need more back-up examples than anecdotes or cultural norms of the day. That’s why I refused to offer final words. Femininity is not something clearly stated and defined in Scripture, for that reason we need to tread carefully, humbly, flexibly as we talk about what makes a woman female. But there are, I believe, some sure words to walk into about our womanhood. My book is about those sure words.

Sarah: No doubt the issue of femininity is front and center for many women. I had never thought about needing to define femininity prior to reading Ruby Slippers, I just knew that I was different from other women and it wasn't because I don't have an appreciation for make-up, lace, or tea parties. In fact, I love those things. Your book admits the problem of defining femininity and provides a philosophical framework to think about it that is called "family resemblance." Can you explain how this is helpful for women to begin thinking about understanding femininity?

Jonalyn: Family Resemblances is a way of defining something that is hard to nail down with a simple list. For instance, it’s easy to define a mammal (all mammals have vertebrae, four-chambered heart, sweat glands, nurse their young, are warm-blooded, etc), but when it comes to femininity or masculinity, it gets much harder. That doesn’t mean, as many have believed, that you cannot define femininity. It does mean we need another tool.

Femininity isn’t the only thing that’s tough to define. Art, religion, beauty and pornography, for example, are also difficult. When we run into trouble in these areas, many philosophers use Wittgenstein’s idea of family resemblances, which is a more flexible list of items.

It works like this. In my family, the Taylor family, there are certain similarities that make us belong, things like brown eyes, thin build, curly thick hair, olive skin, long-distance muscles, connected ear lobes, last name is “Taylor”, etc. But, in my family, one member, my Aunt, was adopted from Korea. Now, my Aunt only many of these family resemblances, she has Taylor for her last name, thick hair and brown eyes, but she doesn’t have all on the list. But we don’t say she doesn’t belong to the Taylor family. You don’t need all the resemblances to be a bona fide Taylor, you only need a few.

Family resemblances is a way to find the common characteristics in a grouping. The list is flexible because you don’t need all the items to fit and having more items on the list doesn’t make you any more a “Taylor” than having less.

This works well for something like femininity, there are many things that most women share, but only a few (I argue just one, our souls interwoven with a female body) that all women share. So we should focus on this one universal family resemblance, examine, research, talk and make a big deal of it. We should not make other women feel less feminine because they don’t have all family resemblances, just like I should not make my Aunt feel like she’s not a Taylor because she doesn’t have connected ear lobes.

Sarah: Do you think it's possible that femininity is simply a cultural construct and that might explain why femininity is as easy to nail down as jello?

Jonalyn: Though femininity does vary according to culture, I’d say it varies in the flexible manifestations (the family resemblances that are not essential). It’s easy to assume that variety means femininity is culturally formed or to assume there is no core femininity to all women, but I can’t agree. I’m an essentialist when it comes to femininity, I just think the essentials are few. Femininity like all aspects of humanity has been hurt by the Fall. That means, we will need other cultures to help inform our femininity, to glimpse new ways of being female that our own culture has silenced, but variety won’t dispense with the one universal family resemblance we all share.

You could compare the variety in femininity to the variety in application of morality. In some instances it is not good to lie, in others it is good to lie (Corrie Ten Boom in Nazi Germany, for instance), but we know there is a foundational moral code that says it is not good to deceive for the sake of harming your neighbor (as the Ten Commandments say). But just because you apply morality in different ways across cultures and across times, we don’t doubt that there is such a thing as unchanging morality.

In the same way, though we do see various ways femininity is applied in a culture, femininity at core (owning a female body) is an essential part of every woman, no matter how feminine she feels or acts. Femininity is wound into her soul. That’s what Ruby Slippers is about, walking into the freedom and community of womanhood.

Sarah: The Bible speaks of women not really from a perspective of femininity, but more in terms of how their character does or does not align with God's character. I think of the woman of Proverbs 31 in this manner. As well, we see in Mary of Bethany, in a sense, renegotiating womanhood--at Jesus feet. We see the sacrificial, Christ-like nature of Ruth choosing to remain with her mother-in-law instead of returning to Moab. There are countless examples. Do you believe our femininity is an element of our character?

Jonalyn: In Ruby Slippers I make a very big deal about the soul, that immaterial core of every human being that holds our mind, will, feelings, desires and for that matter, character, too. I don’t think you can dissect character from soul. In fact, a good way to define our character, is “the habits of our soul.” All aspects of character (integrity, faithfulness, self-sacrifice, etc) are aspects that are rooted in our souls.

So if our femininity changes our soul (meaning femininity orients our minds, feelings, will differently) then it goes without saying that femininity will affect our character as well. I don’t see how being a woman could not affect our character.

The way we see life is essentially different by the very body we have. And our female body interwoven with our soul affects what builds our character. We have different material to grow character out of, cycles every month, weight gain and loss relative to motherhood, different weight distribution that affects our ability to do manual labor, pregnancy, lactation, menopause and many more.

If a soldier built his long-suffering character out of manual labor in concentration camps, he will have different textures in his character than a woman who builds her long-suffering character out of the loss of two children in childbirth. Different situations build different character strengths. That’s part of why the body of Christ needs both men and women.

Sarah: In chapter 7, I was intrigued by the revealing of "our secrets." For those who have not read the book yet, it is a secret prejudice women in the church have against other women. These women tend to want approval more from males than females, they take more seriously male leaders as well as prefer their direction. (page 170). You go on to suggest that our prejudice is based on flawed perceptions of femininity, that we believe that femininity is inferior. Is it possible that there is something else going on here other than a prejudice that is based on flawed perceptions of femininity? I agree there is a prejudice, but based on the conversations I have with other women, I wonder if the prejudice is based more on having been alienated by women and the unwelcoming nature of the evangelical women's ministry culture. This is a culture that, in many ways, promotes a very narrow view of what it means to be a Christian woman. As a result, professional and intellectual women have a hard time fitting in to the extent that everyone including themselves thinks their is something wrong with them. So even though I agree that prejudices and loss of respect for each other are wrong, I understand how these prejudices have developed and need to be addressed as we are doing here. Do you think it's possible to view this prejudice as a symptom of a larger or different problem?

Jonalyn: I do think this prejudice of women against women is a symptom of a larger problem, but not a different problem. Since both sexes are riddled with weakness, both have played up to the world's expression of their gender; both sexes have reason to think their sex is inferior. Interestingly enough, as I've begun a quest into masculinity I've found men are as homeless and insecure in their masculinity as women are in their femininity. And you can even find men who prefer women's company to men. These aren't just gay men, either. There are "same-sex-bashers" among men and women. The prejudice against our own sex makes me realize that we are not comfortable with gender. This homelessness gives rise to all sorts of nastiness in the church’s body. And herein lies the root of the larger problem. This is a nastiness as old as the Judgment in Eden.

Whenever a culture (be it Christian or pagan) teaches that a woman’s soul is deficient in mind, will, emotions, spirit (and this usually doesn’t sound so blatant, it might sound like “a woman is not capable of leading as well as a man” or even a compliment “women are more naturally loving”), my alarm bell goes off. Not because I do not believe in differences, I do, but I do not believe in differences in soul capacity. I believe in difference in the way these capacities (mind, will, emotion, spirit) are manifested, but I do not see that an intelligent woman in leadership is any less feminine than an emotional man in childcare is less masculine. Both the emotional man and the intelligent woman are human. Thinking and feeling are human abilities not gendered ones. Before the judgment there was mutuality, the sexes cooperating in the task of taking dominion. Now, we find that each person is afraid. We live as if there is only one Validation Pie, with a limited number of slices. Only the truly valuable ones get a validation slice, the rest continue homeless and hungry. This idea that validation and love only comes in a limited supply is a fallen masculine idea, one that females have eagerly swallowed when they try to show they can do anything “as good as a man.” They forget that becoming like men does not validate us anymore than distancing ourselves from women validates us. The truth of Christ is that all of us get a slice of validation, male or female, slave or free, Jew or Greek.

All the hyper-polarized lists of femininity and masculinity, popularized in evangelical culture, actually point back to the original battle between the sexes, begun in Gen 3:16, not the goal of Man and Woman pre-Judgment in Gen 1 and 2. Because of the judgment, “he shall rule over you”, we find woman and man pitted against one another, exaggerating their differences, pointing to insecurities, clambering for validation. And in this battle each person tries to come out with more, even if she must denigrate her sex to do so. In this thousand year battle it’s so much simpler to get validation by meeting the cultural norms of femininity, fighting over the slices of “biblical womanhood” trying to validate our existence. For a piece of the pie, women have silenced their gifts, their minds, their interests, their opinions, their souls. Men have, as well, but that’s another book altogether.

Today, in the wake of Christ’s work, the only reason I can see for assuming femininity is inferior is if we choose to live under the Judgment of Gen 3. And to be honest, that's where most Christian women have parked. In the words of the politician Patricia Schroeder, “Many women have more power than they recognize, and they’re very hesitant to use it, for they fear they won’t be loved.” We live as if Christ did not love us. We think we have to live under the curse of Gen 3. Even though we have chosen to take Christ's redemption for eternal life, lifting the curse of Gen 3:19, we bar Christ from helping us with the gender war and our own insecurities with being women. Our fear of never finding validation in our femininity prevents us from honoring others in own sex. It’s a huge problem. My next book is going to delve deeper into this tendency in women, unpacking the root issue to show in practical ways how we can walk out of prejudice and into friendship.

Sarah: Ruby Slippers is an excellent resource for helping women breakdown the stereotypes and think about who they are as an image bearer. Is there anything you'd like to share with our readers?

Jonalyn: Thank you, Sarah!

If there’s one thing I’d love to tell your readers it would be this:

I’d want them to know that every part of them (body and soul) is magnificent to God, that they are worthy of honoring God on earth, that they don’t need to do anything better to be God’s image bearer (see pg 187 in Ruby Slippers for a more polished take on this). I’d want to refresh their perspective on verse like, I Cor 11:7, “but the woman is the glory of man.”

I think this is a promotion not a demotion. We can see God’s love for women in this passage. Isn’t it lovely that God did not make another man for the glory of Adam? Nope, a man couldn’t do it. Only woman is the glory of man. That phrase needs a lot of unpacking, but I think theologian Thomas Hopko gets at it when he says, “Adam cannot be the image and glory of God without Eve.” It’s time to live as the image-bearers we are.

What Makes a Woman an Intellectual?

It's come up recently in conversation and in email, what exactly do I mean when I speak of intellectual women? What does intellectual mean? Is it highly exclusionary in that it references only academic women with a few advanced degrees? Does it imply an IQ way off the charts? Does intellectual refer to women with who only engage in the use of multi-syllablic words that even a spell-check doesn't know like supralapsarianism, self-referential incoherence, anthropomorphism, and hypostasis?

Let me put you at ease. I won't speak for the other 'Elle's, but I think Meriam-Webster's definition is helpful. In part, it suggests an intellectual is someone who is given to study, reflection, and speculation. A lot of women might say that they identify with this definition, and I definitely believe it's more inclusive than exclusive. A woman doesn't have to be in academics for this definition to apply, she just simply needs to be a thoughtful, reflective student. We should be life-long learners, always eager to grow in all ways. The definition introduces the term speculate which simply refers to pondering a subject, very similar to reflection.

So someone who is an intellectual is someone who cares to study. I would add that such a person seeks careful reflection, analysis, and application. Without the application, there is no real study because all that matters in life is worth study and all that is worth study matters to life.

So are you an intellectual? Probably so. And if you are, be sure to join the FaceBook group Out of the Box: Fellowship of Intellectual Christian Women