In a recent series of emails, an elder at the church my wife and I have been attending for three years challenged me to make a definitive commitment to a local church body. (It was refreshing that he was humble in his approach and challenging in his comments, but wasn't desperately trying to get me to commit to his church. It was a genuine demonstration of what a church elder should be.) I believe there are some legitimate reasons why I've not yet done so (that are outside the scope of this post), but I think this was a good and timely challenge. It got me thinking.
I want to keep things positive here. Rather than attacking other churches for where I perceive them to be failing (which is my natural tendency, quite honestly), I'm going to simply set this up as what I need in a local church. This isn't about church hopping and shopping, finding the elusive perfect church, or even (important but non-essential) doctrinal differences. It's about finding a church where my wife and I can spiritually grow and genuinely feel at home; a church where we can feel loved and accepted as an integral part of the local body. Having reflected on it throughout the day, here's the list of my 22 essential criteria. In no particular order, I will only commit to a local body that:
(* Note: Some of these points overlap and you may need to know me decently well to understand what is meant by a few of 'em.)
1) is Gospel-centered.
2) seriously believes that the Bible is the truthful, authoritative, inspired Word of God as communicated by human authors writing in precise historical contexts.
3) emphasizes the need for a personal relationship with God.
4) is unwavering in its simultaneous commitment to both orthopraxy (essential, right living) and historic orthodoxy (essential, right doctrine).
5) is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, Mainline nor Fundamentalist; that is, fits within the big tent that is generic evangelicalism.
6) is not Pentecostal. I'm not resentful or bitter toward the tradition I was raised in (at least not as much as I once was), but my wick for that form of Christianity has simply been burned into oblivion. I apologize if that sounds harsh, but for my own spiritual well-being I just can't take it anymore. To clarify, I'm not denigrating people within that tradition nor am I denying the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit. I might even be open to a moderately charismatic church, but I personally cannot cope with a full-fledged Pentecostal church anymore. They just tend to press all the wrong buttons for me.
7) has doctrinal convictions on adiaphora (secondary matters), but is not militant in the way in which they hold them; thus allowing its members the freedom to honestly pursue doctrinal truth.
8) encourages its members to worship God with the entirety of their beings, including heart, mind, soul, and strength.
9) implicitly or explicitly emphasizes a biblical worldview.
10) has strong leadership that will oversee the church's spiritual condition, theological direction, in-house disputes, personal moral failures, etc., and who will, always in love and with much prayer and discernment, exercise church discipline when appropriate.
11) demonstrates a commitment to genuine fellowship and discipleship.
12) at least strives to understand the New Testament in light the Old. Personal commentary: I really struggle to understand the Old Testament, but I at least principally recognize that grasping it is essential to understanding the New. I get frustrated when the overall view of the Old Testament being taught is, "God created everything. It was good. Then we screwed it up. Blah blah blah... proof-text for this, proof text for that... Then came John the Baptist paving the way!" Unfortunately, that is the way I'm already prone to think and I need to curb the pattern.
13) seeks to continually saturate the entire local body with the biblical text. For example, Scripture readings and exegetical sermons on Sunday morning, encouragement of personal studying, etc.
14) encourages a global (i.e. transnational, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, etc.) view of both the world and the Body of Christ. Included within this is a call for missions and humanitarian work as well as skepticism towards hard-core nationalism.
15) takes seriously Christ's desire that there be unity within the Church. That is, discerningly open to some elements of the ecumenical movement.
16) encourages a culture where, insofar as lies with them, the local body makes every effort to be at peace with those outside the Church.
17) does not get tossed to and fro by the faddish evangelical culture.
18) acknowledges and embraces the good, bad, and ugly in Church history.
19) asserts that truth exists, yet humbly posits that we're all on a spiritual journey. So much could be written on that...
20) does not seek to emotionally manipulate non-believers into "making a decision for Christ" and believers into existential experiences. Don't get me wrong, I'm down with giving the Spirit room to work. But I'm also quite skeptical of homiletics that involve shouting preachers who suddenly get quiet and tearful during a Gospel invitation or altar call. I've seen too many people who confuse that emotional tizzy for genuine faith experience, and who remain unchanged when the emotional high dissipates.
21) encourages, or is at least accepting of, a sort of relational intellectualism that implores a centripetal merger of heart, mind, and spirit.
And coming full circle back to the Gospel...
22) honestly teaches the consequences of the Gospel. Yes, it restores our relationship with God, atones for our sin, grounds us in a security that only God can promise, fosters eternal joy, provides eternal life, and many other endlessly wonderful things. Those are all true, but true Christianity is not a quick fix. Lived and believed correctly, Christianity is the "narrow way." Accordingly, it should make living in this world harder and more complex, not carefree and simple. I'm not advocating that the latter content be harped to the exclusion of the former, but I cannot commit to a Joel Osteen-type "church" that lies to people and tells them that they'll spend the rest of their lives magically prancing around in a real-life Candy Land if only they'll believe in Jesus. As far as I'm concerned, that's a false gospel.
Maybe this is a lot to ask. Maybe I'm being picky. Fair enough. But for both my own conscience's sake and my wife's and my spiritual well-being, I cannot compromise on these 20 items. Beyond these 20, let's not kid ourselves. I'm an opinionated guy. I have strong beliefs and opinions on just about everything, but I readily acknowledge that some matters are more serious than others. I'm not prepared to fight and die over matters bordering on trivial, but I think I would for these 20.
Oh, one more thing. I am not saying that each one of these 20 points should be absolute necessities for all people. Many of them? Yes. All of them? No. This list simply comprises my own prayerful reflection of what I think is my wife's and my personal needs are, so please don't take this as a personal affront if you disagree with, say, #6, #17, or #20. That having been said, I'd love to get your feedback. Constructive criticism is always appreciated.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Women as Pastors: Redefining the Pastorate
I was prompted to post this by a continued dialogue with Ethan McCarthy, the same fellow who prompted me to re-post "The Scandal of the Evangelical Woman's Mind." In some sense, these two works can be seen as Part I and Part II. "The Scandal..." was a deeply personal, informal work that was inspired by personal experiences and was written to encourage others. As I wrote it, I sought balance and neutrality. I went out of my way to avoid the whole women's role in ministry issue. I wanted the readers to address the essence of the cultural problem within conservative evangelicalism rather than the practical implications of that culture within local churches. As much as anything, I just didn't want people to be able to dismiss it off-hand because f their default conservativism or liberalism. It was simply meant to spur on further critical thought. This paper, on the other hand, is quite the opposite. It remains balanced, but it was written as a persuasive, technical work exploring the theological and historical issues of women in ministry, going right after the jugular by attempting to redefine the pastorate... In other words, it's a bit more fun :)
---------------------------------------
Women as Pastors:
Redefining the Pastorate
Redefining the Pastorate
Should women be ordained as pastors or elders? This question underscores a major debate within the evangelical movement regarding gender roles. On one side are those such as Wayne Grudem who affirm a complementarian view which holds that men and women are created with equal value, yet differ in God-ordained roles. In regards to church offices, they cite such passages as Genesis 2:18-25, Ephesians 5:22-33, 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 as clear evidence women should not be pastors or elders. On the other side is the egalitarian view which believes that men and women are completely equal, both in value and roles. Egalitarians hold that historic, patriarchal domination is an explicit consequence of the Fall that is to be redeemed and overcome, and they cite such passages as Genesis 1:26-28 and 3:16, John 4:7-42, and Galatians 3:28 and 5:1 as evidence of God’s intent for gender equality and the redemptive theme throughout Scripture. The debate rages with allegations being made on both sides. Egalitarians are accused of disregarding Scripture’s clear teaching. Complementarians are accused of ignoring the Bible’s historical and cultural contexts. What is missing from this argument, however, is a consideration of the historical and cultural contexts not only of Scripture, but also that of the contemporary context to which Scripture is being applied. By identifying and challenging the presuppositions that both camps bring to the biblical text, it is possible to find a middle ground that does not denigrate women, maintains a high view of Scripture, recognizes Scripture’s own historical contexts, applies the Bible’s teaching to the contemporary Church, and avoids many of the weaknesses of both complementarianism and egalitarianism. Only then can the question of women’s ordination as pastors and elders be addressed.
The current pastoral model has its roots in the Medieval Roman Catholic Church, but clearly began to emerge into its present expression during the Protestant Reformation. As the principle of the priesthood of the believer spread, the priests within former Roman Catholic communities were displaced. Yet within a societal context of widespread illiteracy and a dearth of theological training among the masses, there was a continued need for spiritual, theological, and ecclesiastical leadership. Coupled with Sola Scriptura and the sermon’s corresponding elevation, the foundation was laid for today’s modern-day pastor.
Within a couple centuries of the Reformation, the office of pastor was simply assumed. The local pastor was embraced as the authoritative spiritual leader of the local congregation. The office was further magnified within the American ecclesiastical structure during the First and Second Great Awakenings as preachers such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and Charles Finney became the faces of the national revivals. The office’s prominence was again elevated during the late 19th and into the 20th century with evangelists like D.L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and Billy Graham. Although not pastors themselves, these men reinforced the role of the sermon, which in turn fortified the role of the local preacher. The Protestant conception of the pastor had been cemented.
One can hardly imagine a greater fixture within American evangelicalism than the office of pastor. Pastors are the face of the local congregation. They are responsible for preaching the Gospel, guarding against doctrinal errors, teaching Sunday School, directing various programs, overseeing church finances, visiting the infirm, counseling, discipling, and numerous other tasks. Put in New Testament terminology, today’s pastor is an evangelist, elder, teacher, administrator, prophet, and deacon smelted into a single office. Within last 60 years, however, this office has undergone specialization. When an ongoing need arises, a frequent answer has been to apply the pastoral office to other situations, thereby creating pastors with unique fields of expertise. Whereas churches of the past had a sole pastor shepherding the congregation, contemporary churches have senior pastors, associate pastors, youth pastors, music pastors, counseling pastors, teaching pastors, children’s pastors, and so forth. For all the transformation this office has undergone, few have questioned its biblical justification or its ever-specializing application.
As the centerpiece of the evangelical church model, it would surprise most worshippers to learn that Ephesians 4:11 contains the sole usage of the term “pastor” within nearly all English Bible translations. The Greek ποιμένας from which “pastor” is translated does appear regularly throughout the New Testament, but not in conjunction with an ecclesiastical office. Yet even this passage does little to affirm the contemporary pastorate. Rather than unifying the church offices under a single spiritual shepherd, this passage distinguishes apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, and pastors as essential but differing parts of the body of Christ. Furthermore, the New Testament’s lists of spiritual gifts and church offices contain no justification for a single gifting or office that encompasses all the others. That is, the modern-day pastorate is not a biblical office. It is not unbiblical, but non-biblical. The evangelical movement has not questioned the fusion of various parts of the Body of Christ into a single pastoral office, nor has it recognized that it is reading a contemporary paradigm back into the biblical text.
While the modern-day pastorate is not unbiblical as such, it is also not without serious flaws. Chief among them is the consolidation of authority with the other functions within the Church. Today’s pastors are vested with the church’s authority and are also expected to be teachers, administrators, evangelists, and so forth. Yet this does not have to be the case. A different model is possible in which these roles are distinguished. In the book Two Views on Women in Ministry, Craig Blomberg, a moderate complementarian, does exactly this. He suggests that elders should have authority over the local church, but that this authority should not be synonymous with all other spiritual gifts and church offices. As a public school teacher is under the principal’s authority, so a person could teach within the church while being under the authority of the elders. Likewise, the person who teaches an adult Sunday School class or preaches from the pulpit would not necessarily have to possess elder authority, but could do so under the authority of the church’s elders. The pastoral label could even be retained while the local congregation’s ultimate authority would be in the church’s elders.
Untangling the consolidation within the pastorate has immediate implications regarding women in ministry. What should a woman who is clearly gifted as a teacher do within conservative, evangelical churches? Should she fulfill her spiritual gifting by pursuing the pastorate or let her spiritual gifting be wasted by humbly submitting to the principle of male-only church authority? The pastorate is seen as an all or nothing office in which women have to pursue both of the inseparably-linked roles of teacher and authority, or neither role. This does not have to be the case. From Blomberg’s moderate complementarian position, he recognizes that “the only restriction on women in ministry [in the Bible] is what we may call… the ‘highest office’ of authority and responsibility in the settled religious life of the community.” He acknowledges that women throughout the New Testament were exhorted for their vital role as teachers, deacons, and prophets. He applies this to the contemporary church and affirms that the only role women should not have was that of authority in the local congregation. He writes, “One could…be completely faithful to [the biblical text] by allowing a woman to preach, while at the same time insisting that the elders of the local congregation all be men, and that her authority to preach is a delegated one, with the elder board as the ultimate body of human leaders to whom the entire church (preachers included) is accountable.” Linda L. Belleville, a staunch egalitarian, agrees. She writes, “The question of whether there were women in the early church who publicly taught men is the primary point of contention… This is because traditionalists identify public teaching with authoritative, official activity.” According to both Blomberg and
While a strong case can be made that women could teach under the authority of male eldership, it needs to be asked whether women should do so. According to New Testament theologian Dr. Günther Juncker, the New Testament contains seven Greek words that translate as “explain,” “instruct,” “teach,” and “learn” in English. All seven of these words apply specifically to women or generically to all Christians, both male and female, throughout the New Testament. In fact, many of the examples, such as Romans 15:14, Hebrews 5:12, and Colossians 3:16, are explicit commands from the apostle Paul that all believers should do these things. Within the first century context in which women were seen as vastly inferior to men, it is remarkable that Paul would issue these commands. The application to today’s context is clear: women today should take an active role in all forms of teaching in the Church.
Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, as a relatively new textbook, is somewhat unique in that it addresses women’s roles in the Church. Like so much of the evangelical community, however, Grudem fails to challenge the cultural presuppositions that he bring to the biblical text, even after he identifies said presuppositions. He summarizes the whole matter as this: “may women as well as men be pastors?” He later writes, “My own conclusion on this issue is that the Bible does not permit women to function in the role of pastor or elder within the church.” Grudem does recognize the distinction between teachers and the “ruling function of elders” within New Testament polity, but this almost worsens the situation as he then proceeds to ignore that distinction while asking whether women should be pastors. As one who affirms Scripture’s absolute authority over the Church, his position should at least be nuanced by the fact that today’s pastorate bears little resemblance to the spiritual shepherd in Ephesians 4:11. Rather than an exegetical interpretation of the author’s original intent followed by application to his own contemporary context, Grudem knowingly reads his own modern-day cultural construct back into the text. Because he openly acknowledges that today’s pastorate combines the New Testament functions of teacher and elder, he simply should not ask the New Testament to answer whether women should be pastors. As a theologian, his inquiry should be far more precise. He should ask “should women as well as men teach within the church?” and “should women as well as men be elders?” By his own admission, these are markedly different issues. Nevertheless, Grudem does bring up a few key passages that must be addressed in any discussion of women’s roles in ministry.
In 1 Timothy 2:11-13, the apostle Paul wrote, “A woman must receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was created, and then Eve.” This is doubtlessly the most controversial passage of Scripture concerning gender roles, and it seems an impasse has been reached on its interpretation. Grudem states the strong complementarian interpretation when he writes, “These are the functions that are carried out by the elders of the church, and especially by what we know as a pastor in contemporary church situations. It is specifically these functions unique to elders that Paul prohibits for women in the church.” In other words, the complementarian position is that the interpreter ought to take a literal, straightforward reading of this passage—that its teaching transcends cultural and historical contexts. Egalitarians disagree.
Interpretations of the controversial gender passages are so difficult because of their immediate and often personal application. Most complementarians are sincerely trying to honor the Bible’s teaching and should be commended for doing so. Unfortunately, by imposing such restrictions upon women, they have implicitly encouraged a culture of female inferiority and theological ignorance. For example, in one conservative, evangelical book, the author gave this picture of what, in his view, true fellowship should look like on Sunday afternoons:
The meal is potluck… After a prayer of thanksgiving is offered, people line up, talking and laughing as they load their plates with food... The smaller kids are encouraged to occupy one of the few places at a table to eat. Chairs for adults are clustered in circles, mainly occupied by the women, who eat while discussing home schooling, child training, sewing, an upcoming church social…etc. Most of the men stand to eat, balancing their plates on top of their cups, grouped into small clusters and solving the world’s problems or pondering some interesting point of theology.
The author’s intent in this section was to say that contemporary churches need to bring back the first century church’s lovefeast, but it was the literary vehicle that was used that is so startling. The intellectual contrast between the genders could hardly have been painted in more vivid terms. His idyllic form of fellowship involves women talking about home schooling and sewing while men solve the world’s problems and discuss theology. Put candidly, the predominant evangelical culture values intellectually-orientated men while it simultaneously assails intellectually-orientated women. The complementarian view propagates this culture by putting such great limitations on women. Quite naturally, then, egalitarians want to defend women. As evangelicals now see it as a tragedy that conservative Christians were the staunchest supports of slavery during the American Civil War, so egalitarians see the continued domination of females within evangelicalism as a tragedy. In this way, egalitarians too should be commended for their efforts. But the situation is not black and white. The egalitarian position is not without faults. Namely, they find the very notion of gender distinctions within the church to be offensive. Consequently, they are prone to an uncritical embrace of the elimination of gender roles, causing egalitarians to seemingly do anything to get around a few of Scripture’s teaching. Just as Grudem did not take his cultural presuppositions into account regarding the pastorate, so egalitarians are not challenging their own modern, cultural presuppositions that men and women are equal in both value and role.
It also needs to be taken into account that today’s ordination is not a strictly biblical procedure. Like the modern pastorate, the ordination process is not unbiblical, but is instead non-biblical. Its emphasis upon a theological education at a seminary has connections dating back to the European Scholasticism of the 12th century. This is not to say that the process is innately wrong; rather, it simply needs to be recognized that today’s ordination process is a cultural adaptation. To ask whether women should be recognized as pastors through a seminary-orientated process is to take an already biblically-nebulous office and justify it using an equally unclear process.
Two other factors need require consideration. First, in the centuries following the close of the biblical canon, women made up a distinct majority in the church. Many of these women were known to be theologically trained and capable of holding their own with the best philosophers of the day. Ever-increasing restrictions were placed upon women throughout the Patristic period, but female Christians still served as elders, priests, scholars, ascetics, and philanthropists. These early church examples do little to explain or justify first century practices, but they certainly do not add credence the traditional complementarian view. Second, a favorite passage of egalitarians is Galatians 3:28, which says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This passage is regularly quoted as evidence for a redemptive theme in which the punishments for the Fall are progressively being overcome. While such a theme may exist, this passage does not provide the backing for it. This interpretation fails to take into account that Adam had headship over Eve prior to the Fall. Also, the context is about all believers being Abraham’s descendents as heirs of Christ. It is not about men’s relationship to women, and it is certainly not about women’s roles within the Church.
In conclusion, both complementarians and egalitarians make a sincere effort to rightly interpret Scripture and understand God’s intention for the genders within the Church. Unfortunately, both sides address this matter from the perspective of their own cultural presuppositions. Both read the contemporary pastorate back into the New Testament text, which leads both to miss a key issue in the question of whether women should be pastors. Should women teach within the church? According to various New Testament commands, the answer is yes. Should women be elders? According to 1 Timothy 3:2, the answer is no. Should women be ordained as pastors? If the office is redefined to allow a spiritual shepherd to teacher under the authority of the local elders’ authority, the answer is again yes. With this foundation established, women can and should have a far greater role within the contemporary evangelical church.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Yes, I Think About Ecclesiology. No, I Am Not Bored.
In my estimate, ecclesiology (the study of the Church) is one of the most important areas of christian theology. Maybe I've just missed it, but in my experience it's also one of the most overlooked. So many of the problems within the contemporary, American church scene derive from the structure of local churches, yet it's an area few people give much consideration to. Especially among my peers, I see a noble passion for changing the Church one person at a time. That's great and I support the vision, but in so far as it remains only that I think it's a little naive. I believe these folks underestimate, or are willfully trying to ignore, the degree to which organizational structures mold people. I cannot stress it enough that I really think this is an area that my peers need to spend some serious time considering and working through. As for me personally, I've spent a considerable amount of time studying and reflecting on ecclesiology. Through the process I've come to some fairly developed positions. I'm not militant about them, but I'm also pretty firm in these positions. Here's a quick survey:
2,000 years into Church history, there have been so many tragic schisms and divisions that I don't think a perfectly biblical ecclesiology can be implemented. It's far beyond anyone's ability to restore. Our goal now is simply the get as close as possible to the biblical ideal.
- Elders and deacons should be two clearly delineated offices. I think the Baptist and Pentecostal churches my wife and I grew up in got this wrong.
- Elders should meet the NT qualifications/prohibitions. Becoming an elder should take years of commitment to a single body during which the current elders assess the person's faith, character, theological beliefs, wisdom, lifestyle, family leadership, spiritual growth, etc.
- Elders should be in the authority position of overseeing the local church's spiritual condition, theological direction, disputes, moral failures, etc.
- Elders should, always in love and with much prayer and discernment, exercise church discipline.
- Deacons should be the elders' "hands and feet," performing many of the practical tasks that elders simply cannot do for lack of time.
- I don't believe that the office of "pastor" as we conceive of it today is biblical. To clarify, I don't hold that it is unbiblical, but non-biblical. Stemming out of the Protestant Reformation, there remained a need for a priest-like role of theologically trained leaders who preached the Word within the local congregation. Over time the office developed and came to encompass much more than was ever intended. Eventually, many roles were consolidated into this central office and people just assumed it to be "biblical." Then, over the past 50+ yrs, rather than questioning the biblical merit of this office, local churches have just been rubber stamping the pastorate to fill all sorts of needs: senior pastor, associate pastor, youth pastor, women's pastor, music pastor, counseling pastor, children's pastor, preaching pastor, etc. In the process, some important lines were obscured... I wish we'd spend some time rethinking this office. It'd help resolve a lot of big problems.
- Again, I dislike the title "pastor" because it consolidates too many NT offices into a single position. If we split it up so that the pastor wasn't both the preacher and the (perceived) ultimate authority in the local church, then I think that'd open up women to preach without putting them in a position of authority.
- Switching hats to the role of authority, I think the "pastor" should be a member of the elder board. Because of his theological training, I'd even courage the pastor to be the first among equals on the elder board. But the he should not be in a higher or lower place of authority than the other elders. He should neither be a king nor a puppet. He should be an equal.
- There is NT precedent for paying those who are ministering to the local congregation so long as there are reasonable funds available. For this reason, I'm fine with paying full or part-time vocational persons who are ministering to the congregation. Specifically, I have in mind "pastors" and potentially even other elders. Yet there is something to be said for Paul's model of tentmaking...
- Local churches are not businesses. They should not be treated as such. The elder board should not function as a corporate board complete with CEO. The prevailing business model has done great harm to the churches in this country.
- While I don't think the congregation should be in control of the church, I do think there should always be an open line of communication between the local members and the elders. There should be as much transparency as is reasonably possible.
- I think there should be "apostolic-like" oversight of local churches, and specifically the elders. (Yet I'm really not a big fan of denominations.) I've seen way too many independent local churches go off the deep end because they had no outside accountability...
- Christians need to understand their identity as a "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God." Only by understanding their role as the offspring of Abraham can Christians rightly understand their commitment to one another.
- Christians need to make a commitment not only to the universal Church, but also to a local church. A local church provides fellowship, encouragement, and accountability.
- There is a biblical tension between theological purity and ecclesiastical unity that should be observed in all local churches. I'm not saying, for example, that the Protestant Reformation was wrong, but I am saying that Protestantism has a tragic legacy of division that flies in the face of Christ's wishes for His Body.
- I'm against democracy within local congregations. Members of the congregations shouldn't be voting anyone into any church office. This includes pastors, elders, and deacons. In the first century, local churches were not mini-democracies. I see no reason to change this now. In my estimate, too many American churches have uncritically bought into their American cultural norms and have implemented church polity that is detrimental to the local congregation.
2,000 years into Church history, there have been so many tragic schisms and divisions that I don't think a perfectly biblical ecclesiology can be implemented. It's far beyond anyone's ability to restore. Our goal now is simply the get as close as possible to the biblical ideal.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Fun with Fundamentalists: So, I Got Charged with Having A "Low View of Scripture"...
Someone recently charged me with having a "low view of Scripture." Within the circles I've typically run in, that's akin to denying someone's salvation or calling them a heretic. It's a serious charge. Not only that, it's a deeply personal accusation--for what's really being said is, "You're abusing God's Word." They're fancying it up with some technical theological jargon and trying to make it sound less overtly combative, but I was essentially being accused of disrespecting God. As per usual, the assault came from a fundamentalist (i.e. militant, anti-intellectual conservative) who sees the world in black and white categories and has zero appreciation for tension, balance, or paradox...
Honestly, how is anyone supposed to respond to these folks? Lie? Just make crap up that will support the 'ol conservative party line so they'll think you're "good, safe, truthful, and conservative" and leave you alone? Ignore? Simply ignore the fact that a brother or sister in the Lord just deeply offended you and indirectly accused you of disrespecting God? Challenge? We all know there's little to no hope in changing a fundamentalist's mind on anything. If you try to explain the complexity of the situation, it'll reinforce their suspicions that you're one of those liberal academics insidiously trying to destroy Christianity. And if, by the grace of God, you actually get them to reconsider their position for even a minute, their fundamentalists friends and family with charge them of succumbing to doubt and compromising the truth. Soon enough they'll return to the fold. There's just no good response, which I'm convinced is exactly how they want it...
Well, when faced with a situation in which I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, I'd rather not take it passively. Goes against my passionate nature. So here's an edited and extended version of the email I wrote responding to the charge:
In his book Between Faith and Criticism, evangelical historian Mark Noll discusses conservative Protestants’ view of Scripture over the past 125 years. In direct response to the excesses of the Higher Criticisms in the late-19th century, namely the denial of Scripture’s divine inspiration, conservatives began to put great emphasis upon the Bible’s divine origins. That was a good thing. The problem is that they were so busy creating a simple position that conservatives could rally behind that they failed to nuance the position. By so emphasizing the Bible’s divine inspiration, they neglected its human authorship. That is, in response to the extreme view coming out of the Higher Criticisms that Scripture was merely another book--a book that was the product of human authors just like every other one--the conservative theologians swung the pendulum to the other extreme and effectively ignored the human element. It was simply an overreaction, but it established a precedent for conservative Protestants that has lasted for well over a century. (Time will tell how long it endures.)
In the light of the knee-jerk conservatism and heated rhetoric that I alluded to before, I'm always careful to be precise in describing my views here. I am fully convinced that the Bible is divinely-inspired Scripture, but I cannot in good conscience leave it at that. Rather, the Bible is the divinely-inspired Word of God as communicated by human authors who living in precise historical contexts. Like all written works, the Bible reflects the very real influence that the historical context had upon the authors. Therefore, in order to correctly interpret, understand, and apply the Bible's teachings, one must strive to understand the historical contexts in which the Bible was written.
I affirm Scripture’s absolute truthfulness in everything the authors intended, but I also recognize its limited scope. That is, the Bible contains absolute truth, but it does not convey exhaustive truth. I believe that it provides us with all the essential revelation that God intended and all that His people needed, but it simply does not answer all the questions we might have even on theological matters, let alone the entire realm of human existence.
I'm unwavering in my commitment to orthodox theology, including such miraculous doctrines as the virgin birth and Christ's literal death and resurrection. In my estimate, one rips out the Bible's heart and soul if he or she tries to affirm the its Bible's truthfulness while also denying its miraculous and prophetic claims. As Noll observes, the Bible is premised upon a presuppositional belief in an open universe--the idea that God can and does take an active role in the universe.
Many of you are probably reading this and thinking, 'Sooooo, where's the controversy?' In all honesty, I think that confused sentiment is right on the money. It doesn't seem like rocket scientist to conclude that Paul was thinking about real people living within a real culture who were living in a real geographical location and who experienced real problems when he wrote his epistles. Where people get uncomfortable is that they don't want Scripture to get too human, for humans are imperfect beings who make mistakes. Or as a fundamentalist acquaintance of mine once said, "When you get to the point where you must choose, I'm leaning toward Scripture's divine inspiration." My response to him was simple: why choose? He assumed that you will eventually get to a point where you'll have to side with either Scripture's divine inspiration or its human authorship; that you'll inevitably get to a point where you must pick between the two options if you just dig far enough. Frankly, I cannot disagree agree more with that philosophy.
Philip Yancey once wrote, "Truth is not found in one extreme or the other, but in both extremes together." As far as I'm concerned, God's holy Word is fully the product of divine inspiration and fully the product of human authorship. I commend fundamentalists for their passionate defense of what they perceive to be the truth, but I also see a great contradiction in their convictions on this issue: These people, who are so determined not to compromise their convictions, are the same folks who think it's inevitable that you must choose--that you must compromise--between divine inspiration and human authorship. That amuses me.
Ultimately, the problem as I see it is that fundamentalists are unknowingly being controlled by their culture; a culture built upon the legacy of late 19th and early 20th century conservative theologians; a culture that holds conservatism as a sort of implicit magisterium. These individuals regularly fail to recognize not only the influence of biblical-era cultures, but also the influence of their own culture in how they interpret the Bible. To borrow and adapt a term from the realm of statistics, it's like fundamentalists are double-blind interpreters. They've convinced themselves that they can interpret Scripture completely in a vacuum, devoid of both the text's original historical context and their own contemporary historical context. And if you point this out to them, you're a liberal academic out to destroy "the truth."
Sorry to end on a down note. It's honestly just where my heart is at.
Honestly, how is anyone supposed to respond to these folks? Lie? Just make crap up that will support the 'ol conservative party line so they'll think you're "good, safe, truthful, and conservative" and leave you alone? Ignore? Simply ignore the fact that a brother or sister in the Lord just deeply offended you and indirectly accused you of disrespecting God? Challenge? We all know there's little to no hope in changing a fundamentalist's mind on anything. If you try to explain the complexity of the situation, it'll reinforce their suspicions that you're one of those liberal academics insidiously trying to destroy Christianity. And if, by the grace of God, you actually get them to reconsider their position for even a minute, their fundamentalists friends and family with charge them of succumbing to doubt and compromising the truth. Soon enough they'll return to the fold. There's just no good response, which I'm convinced is exactly how they want it...
Well, when faced with a situation in which I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't, I'd rather not take it passively. Goes against my passionate nature. So here's an edited and extended version of the email I wrote responding to the charge:
In his book Between Faith and Criticism, evangelical historian Mark Noll discusses conservative Protestants’ view of Scripture over the past 125 years. In direct response to the excesses of the Higher Criticisms in the late-19th century, namely the denial of Scripture’s divine inspiration, conservatives began to put great emphasis upon the Bible’s divine origins. That was a good thing. The problem is that they were so busy creating a simple position that conservatives could rally behind that they failed to nuance the position. By so emphasizing the Bible’s divine inspiration, they neglected its human authorship. That is, in response to the extreme view coming out of the Higher Criticisms that Scripture was merely another book--a book that was the product of human authors just like every other one--the conservative theologians swung the pendulum to the other extreme and effectively ignored the human element. It was simply an overreaction, but it established a precedent for conservative Protestants that has lasted for well over a century. (Time will tell how long it endures.)
In the light of the knee-jerk conservatism and heated rhetoric that I alluded to before, I'm always careful to be precise in describing my views here. I am fully convinced that the Bible is divinely-inspired Scripture, but I cannot in good conscience leave it at that. Rather, the Bible is the divinely-inspired Word of God as communicated by human authors who living in precise historical contexts. Like all written works, the Bible reflects the very real influence that the historical context had upon the authors. Therefore, in order to correctly interpret, understand, and apply the Bible's teachings, one must strive to understand the historical contexts in which the Bible was written.
I affirm Scripture’s absolute truthfulness in everything the authors intended, but I also recognize its limited scope. That is, the Bible contains absolute truth, but it does not convey exhaustive truth. I believe that it provides us with all the essential revelation that God intended and all that His people needed, but it simply does not answer all the questions we might have even on theological matters, let alone the entire realm of human existence.
I'm unwavering in my commitment to orthodox theology, including such miraculous doctrines as the virgin birth and Christ's literal death and resurrection. In my estimate, one rips out the Bible's heart and soul if he or she tries to affirm the its Bible's truthfulness while also denying its miraculous and prophetic claims. As Noll observes, the Bible is premised upon a presuppositional belief in an open universe--the idea that God can and does take an active role in the universe.
Many of you are probably reading this and thinking, 'Sooooo, where's the controversy?' In all honesty, I think that confused sentiment is right on the money. It doesn't seem like rocket scientist to conclude that Paul was thinking about real people living within a real culture who were living in a real geographical location and who experienced real problems when he wrote his epistles. Where people get uncomfortable is that they don't want Scripture to get too human, for humans are imperfect beings who make mistakes. Or as a fundamentalist acquaintance of mine once said, "When you get to the point where you must choose, I'm leaning toward Scripture's divine inspiration." My response to him was simple: why choose? He assumed that you will eventually get to a point where you'll have to side with either Scripture's divine inspiration or its human authorship; that you'll inevitably get to a point where you must pick between the two options if you just dig far enough. Frankly, I cannot disagree agree more with that philosophy.
Philip Yancey once wrote, "Truth is not found in one extreme or the other, but in both extremes together." As far as I'm concerned, God's holy Word is fully the product of divine inspiration and fully the product of human authorship. I commend fundamentalists for their passionate defense of what they perceive to be the truth, but I also see a great contradiction in their convictions on this issue: These people, who are so determined not to compromise their convictions, are the same folks who think it's inevitable that you must choose--that you must compromise--between divine inspiration and human authorship. That amuses me.
Ultimately, the problem as I see it is that fundamentalists are unknowingly being controlled by their culture; a culture built upon the legacy of late 19th and early 20th century conservative theologians; a culture that holds conservatism as a sort of implicit magisterium. These individuals regularly fail to recognize not only the influence of biblical-era cultures, but also the influence of their own culture in how they interpret the Bible. To borrow and adapt a term from the realm of statistics, it's like fundamentalists are double-blind interpreters. They've convinced themselves that they can interpret Scripture completely in a vacuum, devoid of both the text's original historical context and their own contemporary historical context. And if you point this out to them, you're a liberal academic out to destroy "the truth."
Sorry to end on a down note. It's honestly just where my heart is at.
14 Major Flaws in Transformers 2
Preface: The film didn't suck, it just wasn't good, either...
14 Major Flaws in Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen
14. Kind of like Jar Jar, Megan Fox's character was completely unnecessary for the plot.
13. The CGI was great, but there was an over-reliance on it. CGI should supplement a plot, not create it. For examples on how to do this right, see: Batman Begins, Dark Knight, (original) Matrix.
12. They tried to do too much in one film. See: Spiderman 3.
11. The plot was too convoluted and difficult to follow. I'm something of a Transformer junky and even I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on.
10. I'm no prude (some movies honestly need swearing to realistically tell the story) but I thought they relied too much on swearing and sex for cheap laughs. Same with the illiterate, gangsta robots.
9. In the last movie, the Autobots and military could barely hold their own against the Decepticons. In this movie their roles inexplicably reversed.
8. I love Jet Fire--have since Generation 1--but his whole back story made zero sense. If he was that old and wasn't alive anymore, how'd he get to be a Black Bird? Seriously.
7. The human Decepticon was stupid. Yes, I realize it was in the comics, but it was still stupid.
6. The quality of the secondary actors noticeably decreased from the first film. Jon Voight was believable. The new government guy was simply cheesey.
5. I'm not averse to there being attractive women in films, but this movie crossed the line into just plain piggishness. There was not a single girl on that Ivy League campus that was not a supermodel. Seriously, Michael Bay, was your aim to make a movie that would appeal to the broadest number of people possible, then go back to develop a plot?
4. Can we please cut the random spirituality with the long deceased Transformers, please?
3. There really was no plot climax (like there ought to be in any good movie). It was just continual action and then it was done. I genuinely felt sad when Optimus died, but the film's hyperactivity over the next hour completely diluted any emotional investment, making his resurrection completely non-impactful. It was kind of like The Passion in that way.
2. Matrix rip-off. Blatant stolen scene with Trinity relieving Nero.
1. What the Megazord? After seeing the new and improved Optimus, I was waiting for Rita to throw her magic wand down from the moon.
14 Major Flaws in Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen
14. Kind of like Jar Jar, Megan Fox's character was completely unnecessary for the plot.
13. The CGI was great, but there was an over-reliance on it. CGI should supplement a plot, not create it. For examples on how to do this right, see: Batman Begins, Dark Knight, (original) Matrix.
12. They tried to do too much in one film. See: Spiderman 3.
11. The plot was too convoluted and difficult to follow. I'm something of a Transformer junky and even I couldn't figure out what the heck was going on.
10. I'm no prude (some movies honestly need swearing to realistically tell the story) but I thought they relied too much on swearing and sex for cheap laughs. Same with the illiterate, gangsta robots.
9. In the last movie, the Autobots and military could barely hold their own against the Decepticons. In this movie their roles inexplicably reversed.
8. I love Jet Fire--have since Generation 1--but his whole back story made zero sense. If he was that old and wasn't alive anymore, how'd he get to be a Black Bird? Seriously.
7. The human Decepticon was stupid. Yes, I realize it was in the comics, but it was still stupid.
6. The quality of the secondary actors noticeably decreased from the first film. Jon Voight was believable. The new government guy was simply cheesey.
5. I'm not averse to there being attractive women in films, but this movie crossed the line into just plain piggishness. There was not a single girl on that Ivy League campus that was not a supermodel. Seriously, Michael Bay, was your aim to make a movie that would appeal to the broadest number of people possible, then go back to develop a plot?
4. Can we please cut the random spirituality with the long deceased Transformers, please?
3. There really was no plot climax (like there ought to be in any good movie). It was just continual action and then it was done. I genuinely felt sad when Optimus died, but the film's hyperactivity over the next hour completely diluted any emotional investment, making his resurrection completely non-impactful. It was kind of like The Passion in that way.
2. Matrix rip-off. Blatant stolen scene with Trinity relieving Nero.
1. What the Megazord? After seeing the new and improved Optimus, I was waiting for Rita to throw her magic wand down from the moon.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
An Alternative Solution to the Health Care Crisis (reposted)
Most of the content of this blog post was originally posted as a facebook note during Jan. of '08. However, in light of the recent ideological and political war being waged regarding health care, I thought this might be a good time to re-post it for those who didn't read my stuff back then.
-----------------------------
The foundation of our country is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Note: Life is the prerequisite for the rest. Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are simply impossible. This is the reason why I support health care for everyone. It's not right that a child born to a poor family dies of cancer while a child born to a rich family gets the treatment he or she needs to live. It goes against the fundamental principles this country was founded on and it is wrong. Moreover, it's not right that a person born with a genetic condition cannot get coverage because it's a preexisting condition. It's simply not right that people are treated like cars, that our health care system is run like auto insurance, and that the insurers try to drop people as soon as they get in an accident (i.e. get sick). These problems show fundamental flaws with our health care system that must be addressed.
All that being said, conservatives have some absolutely valid critiques of socialized medicine. First, the service offered is inferior. The waiting time for treatment in countries with socialized medicine is terrible and the quality of treatment is definitely lower. Second, tons of money is wasted because the government is the most inefficient institution possible. It's a simple principle: the larger the organization and the bigger the budget, the less scrupulous the money usage will be. Just as a multi-billion dollar corporation cannot be as careful with its money as a local small business, so the government's use of money will not match that of profit seeking corporations. It's simply the reality of the situation that the more the government is involved in the health care industry, the less efficiency there will be. Again, these are both completely legitimate gripes by the conservatives. Yet I must ask them a difficult question that none of them seems interested in addresses: Is mediocre health coverage for all is better than great coverage for a few and none for most? Because that is where we're going.
I've done some research and have looked into the history of health care in this country. I had no idea where our current system of corporate paid for health care came from. I found out that it dates back to WWII. The government gave tax breaks to businesses that provided health care for their employees in order to help the domestic work force. Until the early '90s, it was financially beneficial for these companies to do this. But now, with the prices of health care shooting through the roof, it's become a financial burden upon the business sector that it cannot continue to support, especially in today's economy.
Interestingly, both Democrats and Republicans agree that this expense must be moved away from the businesses. Where they differ is who that expense should be shifted to. Democrats think that it should be socialized and the government should take control. Republicans think that that tax break that was previously given to businesses should be shifted to individuals, so that they can afford to buy their own coverage. Frankly, I see huge problems with both positions, which is why I am proposing a moderate alternative.
My alternative openly recognizes and works with the financial realities as they exist. The wealthy upper-class can afford to pay for their own coverage. Even if they gripe about having to spend more money, they certainly have the wherewithal to provide their own coverage. Most states already have plans in place that would cover the poor lower-class (if they'd just sign up). So with both ends of the spectrum covered, my attention moves to the middle class. Like the upper-class, the upper middle-class can afford their own coverage. The key problem is the lower middle-class, which is the heart and soul of America. They're the ones who are losing their insurance when their places of employment drop their policies and they're the ones who can't afford to buy their own. They're the ones who are being shafted.
Ok, so here's my theory:
1. The government should require all people to have health insurance, thereby increasing the total number of people paying into the system.
2. The upper middle-class and upper-class pay for their own coverage but are given that tax break that Republicans are advocating. (This accomplishes a number of things. First, this keeps private insurance companies in business. Second, people who can afford it continue to get the world's best health care. Third, the only way to keep our health care treatments improving is to provide incentive for drug companies and others to make money. Like it or not, capitalism channels humankind's greedy sinful nature into productive means that will help people... I'm telling you, if you want to find a cure for cancer the best way is to make it financially beneficial for someone to find that cure! Money has a funny way of bringing out both the best and worst in people. )
3. The lower-class continue to have their coverage provided through state programs.
4. The lower middle-class get their medical coverage provided through a new government program.
5. The federal government would not have direct control of this new program. As previously stated, the bigger the program the less the efficiency. Instead, the fed should subsidize state plans in the same way they do with road construction. The federal government would lay out general guidelines that all states much adhere to, and then the federal government would pay the state governments to cover those plans. Yes, there would still be the inevitable inefficiency, but this would at least reduce it.
6. There should not be a law that requires health care companies to cover all preexisting conditions, for that is financial suicide for companies who are trying to make a profit. (I do not fault corporations for seeking to make a profit. That is exactly what they exist to do.) However, there should be a back-up, government plan for people who cannot get coverage because of preexisting conditions.
This theory has many strengths that I can see. First and foremost, everyone would have health coverage. Second, the rich who can afford it would still be able to buy top-notch coverage (avoiding the pitfalls of socialized medicine in such places as the UK, Canada, and Australia). Yeah, the rich will still have better health care access than the poor, but welcome to the realities of planet earth. Third, it wouldn't devastate our economy even further by bankrupting the health care industry and eliminating thousands of people's jobs because private health care would still exist.
Is this proposal perfect? Of course not. But I think it might be just crazy enough to work.
-----------------------------
The foundation of our country is "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Note: Life is the prerequisite for the rest. Without life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are simply impossible. This is the reason why I support health care for everyone. It's not right that a child born to a poor family dies of cancer while a child born to a rich family gets the treatment he or she needs to live. It goes against the fundamental principles this country was founded on and it is wrong. Moreover, it's not right that a person born with a genetic condition cannot get coverage because it's a preexisting condition. It's simply not right that people are treated like cars, that our health care system is run like auto insurance, and that the insurers try to drop people as soon as they get in an accident (i.e. get sick). These problems show fundamental flaws with our health care system that must be addressed.
All that being said, conservatives have some absolutely valid critiques of socialized medicine. First, the service offered is inferior. The waiting time for treatment in countries with socialized medicine is terrible and the quality of treatment is definitely lower. Second, tons of money is wasted because the government is the most inefficient institution possible. It's a simple principle: the larger the organization and the bigger the budget, the less scrupulous the money usage will be. Just as a multi-billion dollar corporation cannot be as careful with its money as a local small business, so the government's use of money will not match that of profit seeking corporations. It's simply the reality of the situation that the more the government is involved in the health care industry, the less efficiency there will be. Again, these are both completely legitimate gripes by the conservatives. Yet I must ask them a difficult question that none of them seems interested in addresses: Is mediocre health coverage for all is better than great coverage for a few and none for most? Because that is where we're going.
I've done some research and have looked into the history of health care in this country. I had no idea where our current system of corporate paid for health care came from. I found out that it dates back to WWII. The government gave tax breaks to businesses that provided health care for their employees in order to help the domestic work force. Until the early '90s, it was financially beneficial for these companies to do this. But now, with the prices of health care shooting through the roof, it's become a financial burden upon the business sector that it cannot continue to support, especially in today's economy.
Interestingly, both Democrats and Republicans agree that this expense must be moved away from the businesses. Where they differ is who that expense should be shifted to. Democrats think that it should be socialized and the government should take control. Republicans think that that tax break that was previously given to businesses should be shifted to individuals, so that they can afford to buy their own coverage. Frankly, I see huge problems with both positions, which is why I am proposing a moderate alternative.
My alternative openly recognizes and works with the financial realities as they exist. The wealthy upper-class can afford to pay for their own coverage. Even if they gripe about having to spend more money, they certainly have the wherewithal to provide their own coverage. Most states already have plans in place that would cover the poor lower-class (if they'd just sign up). So with both ends of the spectrum covered, my attention moves to the middle class. Like the upper-class, the upper middle-class can afford their own coverage. The key problem is the lower middle-class, which is the heart and soul of America. They're the ones who are losing their insurance when their places of employment drop their policies and they're the ones who can't afford to buy their own. They're the ones who are being shafted.
Ok, so here's my theory:
1. The government should require all people to have health insurance, thereby increasing the total number of people paying into the system.
2. The upper middle-class and upper-class pay for their own coverage but are given that tax break that Republicans are advocating. (This accomplishes a number of things. First, this keeps private insurance companies in business. Second, people who can afford it continue to get the world's best health care. Third, the only way to keep our health care treatments improving is to provide incentive for drug companies and others to make money. Like it or not, capitalism channels humankind's greedy sinful nature into productive means that will help people... I'm telling you, if you want to find a cure for cancer the best way is to make it financially beneficial for someone to find that cure! Money has a funny way of bringing out both the best and worst in people. )
3. The lower-class continue to have their coverage provided through state programs.
4. The lower middle-class get their medical coverage provided through a new government program.
5. The federal government would not have direct control of this new program. As previously stated, the bigger the program the less the efficiency. Instead, the fed should subsidize state plans in the same way they do with road construction. The federal government would lay out general guidelines that all states much adhere to, and then the federal government would pay the state governments to cover those plans. Yes, there would still be the inevitable inefficiency, but this would at least reduce it.
6. There should not be a law that requires health care companies to cover all preexisting conditions, for that is financial suicide for companies who are trying to make a profit. (I do not fault corporations for seeking to make a profit. That is exactly what they exist to do.) However, there should be a back-up, government plan for people who cannot get coverage because of preexisting conditions.
This theory has many strengths that I can see. First and foremost, everyone would have health coverage. Second, the rich who can afford it would still be able to buy top-notch coverage (avoiding the pitfalls of socialized medicine in such places as the UK, Canada, and Australia). Yeah, the rich will still have better health care access than the poor, but welcome to the realities of planet earth. Third, it wouldn't devastate our economy even further by bankrupting the health care industry and eliminating thousands of people's jobs because private health care would still exist.
Is this proposal perfect? Of course not. But I think it might be just crazy enough to work.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Musings on Baseball
This year has as seen some of the worst first pitches in recent memory: Mike Golic, Adam Carolla, Marky Mark.
Tim Wakefield got shafted. You don't make your first All-Star game at 42, then not get in the game. That ain't right.
The fact that Nomar has less than 1,800 hits and Chipper has less 2,400 surprises me and makes me really appreciate the 3,000 milestone.
Hard to cheer against the Big Unit at 45. That's how long the Ryan Express ran. Wonder how many more years Johnson has left in the ol' tank.
I like this story.
Cheering against the Yankees isn't fun anymore. The AL East is like choosing between the Emperor and Vader.
I might buy some form of TV just to watch baseball games if Mauer approaches .400 with a month to go.
My dad's and my father-son trip to Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park last summer saddened me. When people said Yankee Stadium was built in like 6 months, they weren't kidding. The place was a hole. As for Fenway, it was amazing. With much inner-turmoil, I conceded defeat and replaced Wrigley as my #1. Dang it.
People talk a lot of crap about NBA players, but what about the MLBPA? I love both sports, but give me rap music over a league full of cheaters anyday.
I tried so hard as a kid to like Little Big League. Just couldn't do it... Even when I was 9 I knew the Vikings owned the stupid stadium. Pssssh. Just ridiculous.
Anyone else sense that the Cubs' "Lovable Losers" tag is simply becoming the losers?
I still regret leaving the Turtles/Cowboys to play for the Cougars. Stupid.
I doubt the next 300 game winner is in the majors.
Growing up in a family of ballpark enthusiasts, I feel like I've dishonored the family name or something by having the Twins be my favorite team.
It amuses me that McDonald's and the Cardinals have imported Big Mac Land into the new Busch Stadium, as though it were the last remaining glorification of the Steroid Era. It's like a relic or something.
You've not lived until you've attended a Braves game with David Purser.
I'd like to see some team sign Julio Franco to a 10-day contract. Even if it were a stunt, the dude played till he was 48! He's earned the gimme... Here's his rookie card. It's 3 years older than me.
The Blue Jays are at 44-46. For the sake of my ongoing wager with B-Song, I'm glad they're in the best division in baseball.
Unlike most of the sports pundits in the country, I don't want the steroid hunt to be finished nor do I mind those names coming off the infamous positive list one at a time. I'd like to see as many of those cheaters get busted as possible, even if it takes another 10 years.
My hiatus from baseball lasted from the '94 strike till the 2002 season. Yeah, the '02 Twins saved baseball but Chris Nelson had more to do with rekindling my love than anything. Miss ya, Nelson.
The commentators seemed surprised that this year's home run derby wasn't as spectacular as usual. Somehow these guys still don't get it. Extraordinary.
Recently went to a Braves game at Turner Field and the crowd did the tomahawk chop. While I enjoyed myself, I smugly thought to myself, 'Didn't the Homer Hanky win 18 years ago? I thought it was the unspoken rule that the loser would go into retirement.'
Kirby Puckett remains my favorite player for two reasons: 1, 2.
Imagine if the Giants had one more bat on that team...
I liked back when they were the California Angels. Like the Spaniards claiming all of North American, the Angels were ignoring LA, SF, Oakland, and San Diego... Ballsy.
I recently hung up my childhood "Family Business" poster with Ken Griffey father and son. I also just watched The Godfather for the first time. (I know, I know... Forgive me) It all suddenly makes sense.
I'm delighted by the Wind Tunnel that A-Rod built. Here's to hoping that the stadium lives up to his postseason legacy.
Someone needs to a start a facebook petition that the hot dogs at Target Field still be called "Dome Dogs" and the right field wall be called "The Baggy," even if it's brick.
Can someone explain why the Braves went from a rich team in a large market to a poor team in large market when Ted Turner sold the team? And don't tell me it's 'cuz the owner is spending less, I'm well aware of that fact. I want to know the economic reasons behind it. There's got to be a good reason but no one seems to know it.
Heard a rumor the Twins are listening to trade offers for Morneau. Doubt everything will pan out while while they're still in the race this season, but man--Hunter, Santanta, Morneau... Mauer? Being a Twins fan can hurt.
How did I not know about "Sweet Caroline" at Red Sox games? Stellar tradition.
Not a big fan of what Atlanta did to Glavine.
Listened to a BS Report with Colin Cowherd recently. He's got two theories that intrigue me about the shifting demographics of baseball's fan base. First, baseball's refusal to cater to younger fans will reduce baseball to more a niche sport in the next generation. Second, the trend toward centralization will continue and baseball will continue its trend toward being a really popular sport only in New York and Boston.
I'd like to encourage fans to bring photoshopped posters of a pregnant Manny to Dodgers games with a caption that reads: "Hall of Famer, Mother of 3."
I'm a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens. Who is the greater d-bag?
The first time I ever questioned the innate virtue of laissez-faire capitalism was because of small market teams in baseball.
Moving the Expos to Washington D.C. shafted two franchises and got rid of one of the coolest logos in pro sports.
I believe it was Bill Simmons who wrote, "35 is the new 40, or the old 35."
I'm going to miss the Metrodome troffs. (Speaking of which, there are no results when ya do a google image search. Scale of 1-10: How awkward would it be if I took one?)
When I was a kid, my brother's favorite player was Will Clark and mine was Kirby Puckett. We used to debate about who'd make the Hall of Fame. Both my dad and my brother took Will, saying he had the whole package--talent, drive, the body--while Kirby would be, and I quote, "lucky to still be in the league by 30." To them I would like to say, "Neener, neener, neener."
Who's gonna fill Peter Gammons shoes' someday? Best I can come up with is Steve Phillips.
If Pujols hits 62+, will he be remembered as the REAL home run champion?
Tim Wakefield got shafted. You don't make your first All-Star game at 42, then not get in the game. That ain't right.
The fact that Nomar has less than 1,800 hits and Chipper has less 2,400 surprises me and makes me really appreciate the 3,000 milestone.
Hard to cheer against the Big Unit at 45. That's how long the Ryan Express ran. Wonder how many more years Johnson has left in the ol' tank.
I like this story.
Cheering against the Yankees isn't fun anymore. The AL East is like choosing between the Emperor and Vader.
I might buy some form of TV just to watch baseball games if Mauer approaches .400 with a month to go.
My dad's and my father-son trip to Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park last summer saddened me. When people said Yankee Stadium was built in like 6 months, they weren't kidding. The place was a hole. As for Fenway, it was amazing. With much inner-turmoil, I conceded defeat and replaced Wrigley as my #1. Dang it.
People talk a lot of crap about NBA players, but what about the MLBPA? I love both sports, but give me rap music over a league full of cheaters anyday.
I tried so hard as a kid to like Little Big League. Just couldn't do it... Even when I was 9 I knew the Vikings owned the stupid stadium. Pssssh. Just ridiculous.
Anyone else sense that the Cubs' "Lovable Losers" tag is simply becoming the losers?
I still regret leaving the Turtles/Cowboys to play for the Cougars. Stupid.
I doubt the next 300 game winner is in the majors.
Growing up in a family of ballpark enthusiasts, I feel like I've dishonored the family name or something by having the Twins be my favorite team.
It amuses me that McDonald's and the Cardinals have imported Big Mac Land into the new Busch Stadium, as though it were the last remaining glorification of the Steroid Era. It's like a relic or something.
You've not lived until you've attended a Braves game with David Purser.
I'd like to see some team sign Julio Franco to a 10-day contract. Even if it were a stunt, the dude played till he was 48! He's earned the gimme... Here's his rookie card. It's 3 years older than me.
The Blue Jays are at 44-46. For the sake of my ongoing wager with B-Song, I'm glad they're in the best division in baseball.
Unlike most of the sports pundits in the country, I don't want the steroid hunt to be finished nor do I mind those names coming off the infamous positive list one at a time. I'd like to see as many of those cheaters get busted as possible, even if it takes another 10 years.
My hiatus from baseball lasted from the '94 strike till the 2002 season. Yeah, the '02 Twins saved baseball but Chris Nelson had more to do with rekindling my love than anything. Miss ya, Nelson.
The commentators seemed surprised that this year's home run derby wasn't as spectacular as usual. Somehow these guys still don't get it. Extraordinary.
Recently went to a Braves game at Turner Field and the crowd did the tomahawk chop. While I enjoyed myself, I smugly thought to myself, 'Didn't the Homer Hanky win 18 years ago? I thought it was the unspoken rule that the loser would go into retirement.'
Kirby Puckett remains my favorite player for two reasons: 1, 2.
Imagine if the Giants had one more bat on that team...
I liked back when they were the California Angels. Like the Spaniards claiming all of North American, the Angels were ignoring LA, SF, Oakland, and San Diego... Ballsy.
I recently hung up my childhood "Family Business" poster with Ken Griffey father and son. I also just watched The Godfather for the first time. (I know, I know... Forgive me) It all suddenly makes sense.
I'm delighted by the Wind Tunnel that A-Rod built. Here's to hoping that the stadium lives up to his postseason legacy.
Someone needs to a start a facebook petition that the hot dogs at Target Field still be called "Dome Dogs" and the right field wall be called "The Baggy," even if it's brick.
Can someone explain why the Braves went from a rich team in a large market to a poor team in large market when Ted Turner sold the team? And don't tell me it's 'cuz the owner is spending less, I'm well aware of that fact. I want to know the economic reasons behind it. There's got to be a good reason but no one seems to know it.
Heard a rumor the Twins are listening to trade offers for Morneau. Doubt everything will pan out while while they're still in the race this season, but man--Hunter, Santanta, Morneau... Mauer? Being a Twins fan can hurt.
How did I not know about "Sweet Caroline" at Red Sox games? Stellar tradition.
Not a big fan of what Atlanta did to Glavine.
Listened to a BS Report with Colin Cowherd recently. He's got two theories that intrigue me about the shifting demographics of baseball's fan base. First, baseball's refusal to cater to younger fans will reduce baseball to more a niche sport in the next generation. Second, the trend toward centralization will continue and baseball will continue its trend toward being a really popular sport only in New York and Boston.
I'd like to encourage fans to bring photoshopped posters of a pregnant Manny to Dodgers games with a caption that reads: "Hall of Famer, Mother of 3."
I'm a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic. Barry Bonds. Roger Clemens. Who is the greater d-bag?
The first time I ever questioned the innate virtue of laissez-faire capitalism was because of small market teams in baseball.
Moving the Expos to Washington D.C. shafted two franchises and got rid of one of the coolest logos in pro sports.
I believe it was Bill Simmons who wrote, "35 is the new 40, or the old 35."
I'm going to miss the Metrodome troffs. (Speaking of which, there are no results when ya do a google image search. Scale of 1-10: How awkward would it be if I took one?)
When I was a kid, my brother's favorite player was Will Clark and mine was Kirby Puckett. We used to debate about who'd make the Hall of Fame. Both my dad and my brother took Will, saying he had the whole package--talent, drive, the body--while Kirby would be, and I quote, "lucky to still be in the league by 30." To them I would like to say, "Neener, neener, neener."
Who's gonna fill Peter Gammons shoes' someday? Best I can come up with is Steve Phillips.
If Pujols hits 62+, will he be remembered as the REAL home run champion?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Part I (Don't Forget About Palestinian Christians)
The content below was originally the description of a facebook group I created entitled "Don't Forget About Palestinian Christians." At the time, I'd never had any interaction with a Palestinian Christian nor did I really know anything about them. The reason I started the group was because I had deeply internalized the exhortation of my history professor to place my eternal identity before my temporal identity, thinking first as a Christian rather than as an American. He challenged the class with a specific example of how many American Christians uncritically support the nation of Israel and, in doing do, fail to support their Palestinian brothers and sisters in the Lord. All of it was completely new to me, but it was inspirational so I just went ahead and started a facebook group about the cause. The group members consisted almost exclusively of friends and family. Yet in the past week or so, a few Palestinian Christians have actually joined the group. They've been writing on its wall and contacting me, thanking me for creating the group. It's really made my previously theoretical views quite tangible. So much so that I decided to start a small blog series sharing my contemplations on the matter. Before I get into that, however, I thought it would be appropriate to start by posting the group's description:
-------------------------------
There's a lot of pro-Israeli propaganda spouted by conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians on facebook. Type "Christian Israel" in a facebook search sometime. You'll get plenty of groups like "Christian supporters and lovers of Israel and the Jewish people," "I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I SUPPORT ISRAEL!," "Christian Zionism (Christians for Israel)," and so forth. What is more, much of the content of such groups is not only pro-Israeli, it's anti-Palestinian. Palestinians are seen as an evil scourge upon God's chosen people who need to be eliminated. People talk all about how Jews needed a home, especially after the Holocaust. More than understandable. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that the re-creation of this homeland displaced an entire people group. What is more, most American Christians have no idea that Palestinian Christians even exist. In our unbalanced, uncritical, unconditional support of Israel, we have utterly forgotten about them.
This group is a reminder. According to 1 Peter 2, Christians are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation." We are "aliens and strangers in the world." As Christians, our bottom line allegiance is not to the United States, Israel, or any other country. The Body of Christ transcends nationalities, people groups, cultures, and languages. Whatever your theological convictions concerning Israel, let us never implicitly tell our brothers and sister in the Lord to "Go to hell!" through our political beliefs. Let us never forget that Christ died for and loves the Palestinians just as much as the Israelis. Palestinian Christians are already persecuted by Palestinian Muslims and are subject to attack by the Israelis. Let us not add to their suffering, but pray for and support them.
-------------------------------
There's a lot of pro-Israeli propaganda spouted by conservative evangelical and fundamentalist Christians on facebook. Type "Christian Israel" in a facebook search sometime. You'll get plenty of groups like "Christian supporters and lovers of Israel and the Jewish people," "I AM A CHRISTIAN AND I SUPPORT ISRAEL!," "Christian Zionism (Christians for Israel)," and so forth. What is more, much of the content of such groups is not only pro-Israeli, it's anti-Palestinian. Palestinians are seen as an evil scourge upon God's chosen people who need to be eliminated. People talk all about how Jews needed a home, especially after the Holocaust. More than understandable. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that the re-creation of this homeland displaced an entire people group. What is more, most American Christians have no idea that Palestinian Christians even exist. In our unbalanced, uncritical, unconditional support of Israel, we have utterly forgotten about them.
This group is a reminder. According to 1 Peter 2, Christians are "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation." We are "aliens and strangers in the world." As Christians, our bottom line allegiance is not to the United States, Israel, or any other country. The Body of Christ transcends nationalities, people groups, cultures, and languages. Whatever your theological convictions concerning Israel, let us never implicitly tell our brothers and sister in the Lord to "Go to hell!" through our political beliefs. Let us never forget that Christ died for and loves the Palestinians just as much as the Israelis. Palestinian Christians are already persecuted by Palestinian Muslims and are subject to attack by the Israelis. Let us not add to their suffering, but pray for and support them.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Scandal of the Evangelical Woman's Mind (reposted)
Preface to the Second Edition:
This material was originally written and posted about 15 months ago. I was inspired to write it by the struggles I had witnessed my wife go through. She had been deeply hurt by conservative evangelicalism. She felt psychologically suppressed and completely without worth because all the things that she had to offer a local church, they did not want to come from a woman. She felt as though God had played a cruel prank on her, gifting her with certain abilities but not allowing her to exercise them because of her gender. I am delighted to say that a year and some change later, she has taken great strides forward in finding her identity as a thinking evangelical woman. I have been and shall continue to be fully supportive of her through the journey.
When I first wrote this, I had two key demographics in mind. First, open-minded evangelical men who simply didn't understand what all the fuss was about with gender issues, feminism, etc. Second, evangelical women who, like my wife, had been deeply hurt by conservative evangelical culture. There was a tremendous reception the first time around, so I thought that it may be valuable to re-post it now for people who didn't read my stuff a year ago. Then as with now, I hope and pray that they will see value in their identity as thinking, christian women and that they will see themselves (for perhaps the first time) as in integral part of the Body of Christ.
-------------------------------
Evangelical historian Mark Noll wrote, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Noll’s purpose was not to cynically lambast evangelicalism. Rather, he describes himself as a wounded lover—one who is both an evangelical and a lover of the mind. He goes on to suggest that part of loving the Lord with all of our being is to love Him with the cultivation of our minds through the study of both revelations—Scripture and creation. The problem, however, is that the evangelical movement’s historical development has unfolded in such a way as to produced a culture that devalues and assails the “life of the mind.” Noll offers this quote by N.K. Clifford:
“The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an over-simplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and serious reflection.”
The book changed my life. When I finished reading it, I got down on my knees and prayed. I told God that if He would allow it, I wanted to spend the rest of my life inspiring Christians to worship God through the cultivation of their minds and then teaching them how to do it. Now, I need to immediately throw out a caveat: I am not suggesting that all Christians should be primarily focused on worshiping God with their minds. My aim is not to swing the pendulum from its present anti-intellectual extreme to the opposite polarity of suggesting that all Christians ought to be scholars. I strongly believe in the idea of different parts and functions of the body of Christ. There are those who are supposed to live among and feed the poor. There are others who are supposed to be pragmatically-oriented administrators. Others are to be artists. Still others are to simply be salt and light in their respective work places. None of these other roles and professions, however, negates the role for brilliant Christian figures in the academic world. The Body of Christ needs them all. Furthermore, a great many Christians are illiterate. It’s not as if these people cannot worship God or that their worship is somehow inferior. All I am attempting to do is combat the anti-intellectual culture that runs rampant within evangelicalism. That is, I mean to legitimize the mind’s role as a valid means of worshiping God, as well as the very existences of those Christian who are gifted for this. That is my broad vision prefacing this post’s specific application.
Some months ago, I read a book that a former youth pastor recommended. It was very conservative and evangelical. Of everything that the book said, the one section struck me most was when the author gave a picture of what, in his view, true fellowship should look like on a Sunday afternoon after the church service:
“The meal is potluck… After a prayer of thanksgiving is offered, people line up, talking and laughing as they load their plates with food... The smaller kids are encouraged to occupy one of the few places at a table to eat. Chairs for adults are clustered in circles, mainly occupied by the women, who eat while discussing home schooling, child training, sewing, an upcoming church social…etc. Most of the men stand to eat, balancing their plates on top of their cups, grouped into small clusters and solving the world’s problems or pondering some interesting point of theology.”
The author’s intent in this section was to say that contemporary churches need to bring back the first century church’s lovefeast, but it was the literary vehicle he used in making this point that really caught my attention. The intellectual contrast between the genders could hardly have been painted in more vivid terms. His idyllic form of fellowship involved the women talking about home schooling and sewing while the men solve the world’s problems and discuss theology. Put another way, the predominant evangelical culture that this author propagates involves intellectually-oriented men and practically-orientated women. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the scandal of the evangelical woman’s mind.
As a male writing about this subject, this is a good time for precise words and clarifications. I am not saying that all women should be intellectual, nor am I devaluing the intrinsic worth of mothers who home school their kids and want to talk about sewing and church socials. I firmly believe that these women serve a great role within the Body of Christ in raising godly sons and daughters. In that, these women are to be commended. My question is this: Is this the ideal role for all women? That is, should this be the cookie cutter image for what a “good, Christian woman” will look like? Mark 12:30 says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” In avoiding a thorough exegetical interpretation of this passage, I think it’s fair to simply affirm that the point of this verse is that believers are to be totally committed to worshiping God with every part of their being. That includes men and women worshiping God with their minds. Christian women can and should think, especially those whom God has gifted for this purpose. They are not called to be dumb, ignorant, naïve, gullible, uneducated, or uncritical. I say again, Christian women should think!
Most evangelical Christians today have a simplistic view of the Body of Christ that fails to do justice to principle the apostle Paul had in mind. When we think of the Body today, what do we think about? Almost everyone immediately talks about church offices and professions. We think about people being called to be pastors, missionaries, elders, businessmen, teachers, etc. Yes, it does include those thing, but should the scope of the Body be limited to only this? What if the Body is also supposed to contain wide-ranging personalities and temperaments, too? The reason I bring this up is that there is this conservative idea floating around that the ideal godly woman is be quiet, submissive, non-thinking, and just plain precious. Basically, think of them as being like a little mouse. But what about those Christian women who God made with critical minds? Those women who like satire, who have opinions, who worship God through the cultivation of their minds, who find Christian romance novels to be cheesy and/or trite. What role do those women have within the Body? Are they supposed to suppress their God-given talents and personality so as to fit the traditional mold? Should they not, instead, use those things as a means of glorifying God?
Another issue to consider is how the fruits of the Spirit fit into this equation. Galatians 5:22-23a says, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” The automatic assumption within most evangelical circles is that Christian women who are quiet, submissive, and precious mostly fully manifest the fruits. I must ask, though, is this the fruits of the Spirit or is this simply the manifestation of one’s “mouse personality”? There’s this idea that the quiet and submissive women are more sanctified, are more mature, and are closer to God. Are they, though? I’ve known Christian women whose personality made them quiet but who were constant gossips. On the other hand, I’ve known outspoken Christian women with critical minds who rarely gossip. Between the two, who demonstrates more self-control? It seems to me that we in the evangelical community have confused personality with the fruits of the Spirit.
In conclusion, I would make seven suggestions that are meant as an explicit challenge to the scandal of the evangelical woman’s mind:
1) The evangelical community needs to readily acknowledge that the Body of Christ should contain brilliant minds. This is not limited to "sanctified" Christian professions like theologians and pastors, but instead includes all disciplines. If Christians alone rightly understand the beautiful reflection of the God found in all of creation, should not Christians more than anyone else strive to be at the forefront of studying that creation as a means of better understanding/worshiping the Creator?
2) Contrary to popular opinion in many conservative circles, intellectualism does not inevitably result in intellectual pride. That's certainly a legitimate danger, but it's not an inevitable consequence. Rather, the cultivation of the life can be used as a valid form of worship.
3) Christian women, especially those whom God has gifted with good minds, should seek to worship God through the cultivation of their minds. The evangelical cultural norm that exhorts female stupidity needs to be eradicated.
4) There is no uniform model for what all sanctified Christians’ (whether male or female) personality should look like. Specifically in regards to women, growing in godliness and the fruits of the Spirit does not mean that all women will turn into the mouse. Rather, what that means is that each woman’s individual personality will be sanctified.
5) Because of different personalities within the Body of Christ, all sanctified personalities will not produce equivalent actions. The key issue is whether their actions are motivated by love.
6) Critically-minded Christian women who openly express their thoughts and loud, divisive Femi-Nazis are not one in the same. Just as there is a difference within the ranks of opinionated males, so there are differences among females. There are men who have a passion for life, like to think, possess wisdom, and who have strong opinions who I could listen to all day. Contrastingly, there are men whose very presence saps my soul’s strength. They tend to be opinionated, ignorant fools who don’t know when to shut up. I cannot stand these guys and I’m quick to distinguish them from the others. A clear distinction can be made between the two groups. For some reason, however, evangelicals want to lump all opinionated women into the same category.
7) Arguments will abound about the role of women in the Church, but let us be clear on this much: Women are not called to be theologically ignorant, the New Testament contains example of female deacons, and the apostles used the women for very important tasks, such as Phoebe delivering Paul's epistle to the Romans. The point is, regardless of where one stands on particular issues of women's role in ministry, all can affirm that women should play a vital role within the Church that goes beyond childbearing and meal preparation.
This material was originally written and posted about 15 months ago. I was inspired to write it by the struggles I had witnessed my wife go through. She had been deeply hurt by conservative evangelicalism. She felt psychologically suppressed and completely without worth because all the things that she had to offer a local church, they did not want to come from a woman. She felt as though God had played a cruel prank on her, gifting her with certain abilities but not allowing her to exercise them because of her gender. I am delighted to say that a year and some change later, she has taken great strides forward in finding her identity as a thinking evangelical woman. I have been and shall continue to be fully supportive of her through the journey.
When I first wrote this, I had two key demographics in mind. First, open-minded evangelical men who simply didn't understand what all the fuss was about with gender issues, feminism, etc. Second, evangelical women who, like my wife, had been deeply hurt by conservative evangelical culture. There was a tremendous reception the first time around, so I thought that it may be valuable to re-post it now for people who didn't read my stuff a year ago. Then as with now, I hope and pray that they will see value in their identity as thinking, christian women and that they will see themselves (for perhaps the first time) as in integral part of the Body of Christ.
-------------------------------
Evangelical historian Mark Noll wrote, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.” Noll’s purpose was not to cynically lambast evangelicalism. Rather, he describes himself as a wounded lover—one who is both an evangelical and a lover of the mind. He goes on to suggest that part of loving the Lord with all of our being is to love Him with the cultivation of our minds through the study of both revelations—Scripture and creation. The problem, however, is that the evangelical movement’s historical development has unfolded in such a way as to produced a culture that devalues and assails the “life of the mind.” Noll offers this quote by N.K. Clifford:
“The Evangelical Protestant mind has never relished complexity. Indeed its crusading genius, whether in religion or politics, has always tended toward an over-simplification of issues and the substitution of inspiration and zeal for critical analysis and serious reflection.”
The book changed my life. When I finished reading it, I got down on my knees and prayed. I told God that if He would allow it, I wanted to spend the rest of my life inspiring Christians to worship God through the cultivation of their minds and then teaching them how to do it. Now, I need to immediately throw out a caveat: I am not suggesting that all Christians should be primarily focused on worshiping God with their minds. My aim is not to swing the pendulum from its present anti-intellectual extreme to the opposite polarity of suggesting that all Christians ought to be scholars. I strongly believe in the idea of different parts and functions of the body of Christ. There are those who are supposed to live among and feed the poor. There are others who are supposed to be pragmatically-oriented administrators. Others are to be artists. Still others are to simply be salt and light in their respective work places. None of these other roles and professions, however, negates the role for brilliant Christian figures in the academic world. The Body of Christ needs them all. Furthermore, a great many Christians are illiterate. It’s not as if these people cannot worship God or that their worship is somehow inferior. All I am attempting to do is combat the anti-intellectual culture that runs rampant within evangelicalism. That is, I mean to legitimize the mind’s role as a valid means of worshiping God, as well as the very existences of those Christian who are gifted for this. That is my broad vision prefacing this post’s specific application.
Some months ago, I read a book that a former youth pastor recommended. It was very conservative and evangelical. Of everything that the book said, the one section struck me most was when the author gave a picture of what, in his view, true fellowship should look like on a Sunday afternoon after the church service:
“The meal is potluck… After a prayer of thanksgiving is offered, people line up, talking and laughing as they load their plates with food... The smaller kids are encouraged to occupy one of the few places at a table to eat. Chairs for adults are clustered in circles, mainly occupied by the women, who eat while discussing home schooling, child training, sewing, an upcoming church social…etc. Most of the men stand to eat, balancing their plates on top of their cups, grouped into small clusters and solving the world’s problems or pondering some interesting point of theology.”
The author’s intent in this section was to say that contemporary churches need to bring back the first century church’s lovefeast, but it was the literary vehicle he used in making this point that really caught my attention. The intellectual contrast between the genders could hardly have been painted in more vivid terms. His idyllic form of fellowship involved the women talking about home schooling and sewing while the men solve the world’s problems and discuss theology. Put another way, the predominant evangelical culture that this author propagates involves intellectually-oriented men and practically-orientated women. Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the scandal of the evangelical woman’s mind.
As a male writing about this subject, this is a good time for precise words and clarifications. I am not saying that all women should be intellectual, nor am I devaluing the intrinsic worth of mothers who home school their kids and want to talk about sewing and church socials. I firmly believe that these women serve a great role within the Body of Christ in raising godly sons and daughters. In that, these women are to be commended. My question is this: Is this the ideal role for all women? That is, should this be the cookie cutter image for what a “good, Christian woman” will look like? Mark 12:30 says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.” In avoiding a thorough exegetical interpretation of this passage, I think it’s fair to simply affirm that the point of this verse is that believers are to be totally committed to worshiping God with every part of their being. That includes men and women worshiping God with their minds. Christian women can and should think, especially those whom God has gifted for this purpose. They are not called to be dumb, ignorant, naïve, gullible, uneducated, or uncritical. I say again, Christian women should think!
Most evangelical Christians today have a simplistic view of the Body of Christ that fails to do justice to principle the apostle Paul had in mind. When we think of the Body today, what do we think about? Almost everyone immediately talks about church offices and professions. We think about people being called to be pastors, missionaries, elders, businessmen, teachers, etc. Yes, it does include those thing, but should the scope of the Body be limited to only this? What if the Body is also supposed to contain wide-ranging personalities and temperaments, too? The reason I bring this up is that there is this conservative idea floating around that the ideal godly woman is be quiet, submissive, non-thinking, and just plain precious. Basically, think of them as being like a little mouse. But what about those Christian women who God made with critical minds? Those women who like satire, who have opinions, who worship God through the cultivation of their minds, who find Christian romance novels to be cheesy and/or trite. What role do those women have within the Body? Are they supposed to suppress their God-given talents and personality so as to fit the traditional mold? Should they not, instead, use those things as a means of glorifying God?
Another issue to consider is how the fruits of the Spirit fit into this equation. Galatians 5:22-23a says, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” The automatic assumption within most evangelical circles is that Christian women who are quiet, submissive, and precious mostly fully manifest the fruits. I must ask, though, is this the fruits of the Spirit or is this simply the manifestation of one’s “mouse personality”? There’s this idea that the quiet and submissive women are more sanctified, are more mature, and are closer to God. Are they, though? I’ve known Christian women whose personality made them quiet but who were constant gossips. On the other hand, I’ve known outspoken Christian women with critical minds who rarely gossip. Between the two, who demonstrates more self-control? It seems to me that we in the evangelical community have confused personality with the fruits of the Spirit.
In conclusion, I would make seven suggestions that are meant as an explicit challenge to the scandal of the evangelical woman’s mind:
1) The evangelical community needs to readily acknowledge that the Body of Christ should contain brilliant minds. This is not limited to "sanctified" Christian professions like theologians and pastors, but instead includes all disciplines. If Christians alone rightly understand the beautiful reflection of the God found in all of creation, should not Christians more than anyone else strive to be at the forefront of studying that creation as a means of better understanding/worshiping the Creator?
2) Contrary to popular opinion in many conservative circles, intellectualism does not inevitably result in intellectual pride. That's certainly a legitimate danger, but it's not an inevitable consequence. Rather, the cultivation of the life can be used as a valid form of worship.
3) Christian women, especially those whom God has gifted with good minds, should seek to worship God through the cultivation of their minds. The evangelical cultural norm that exhorts female stupidity needs to be eradicated.
4) There is no uniform model for what all sanctified Christians’ (whether male or female) personality should look like. Specifically in regards to women, growing in godliness and the fruits of the Spirit does not mean that all women will turn into the mouse. Rather, what that means is that each woman’s individual personality will be sanctified.
5) Because of different personalities within the Body of Christ, all sanctified personalities will not produce equivalent actions. The key issue is whether their actions are motivated by love.
6) Critically-minded Christian women who openly express their thoughts and loud, divisive Femi-Nazis are not one in the same. Just as there is a difference within the ranks of opinionated males, so there are differences among females. There are men who have a passion for life, like to think, possess wisdom, and who have strong opinions who I could listen to all day. Contrastingly, there are men whose very presence saps my soul’s strength. They tend to be opinionated, ignorant fools who don’t know when to shut up. I cannot stand these guys and I’m quick to distinguish them from the others. A clear distinction can be made between the two groups. For some reason, however, evangelicals want to lump all opinionated women into the same category.
7) Arguments will abound about the role of women in the Church, but let us be clear on this much: Women are not called to be theologically ignorant, the New Testament contains example of female deacons, and the apostles used the women for very important tasks, such as Phoebe delivering Paul's epistle to the Romans. The point is, regardless of where one stands on particular issues of women's role in ministry, all can affirm that women should play a vital role within the Church that goes beyond childbearing and meal preparation.
Monday, July 6, 2009
The Godfather Provokes Questions about Loyalty
* No spoilers.Last week I watched The Godfather for the first time (I know, I know... forgive me) and enjoyed many elements within the movie, including its slow pace (a welcome break from most of today's hyperactive films), classic score, plot complexity, and emphasis upon character development. In terms of its cinematic quality, I recognize the film's beauty and can see why many consider it one of the greatest movies ever made. Where I struggled, however, is with the film's underlying philosophy: loyalty is the highest of virtues. It didn't matter if the protagonists lied, cheated, stole, or murdered. The only thing that mattered is that they were loyal to the Corleone family. It's a philosophy that I think much of our country has bought into, and one that I frankly cannot stomach.
When the film concluded, I began to think about loyalty as a concept. It appears that most people in our society assume that it is a virtue, but is it? I began thinking about my own personal experiences with loyalty, including people I've known who emphasized it and situations where it's come up. Here are the examples that immediately came to mind: loyalty to a friend was used as an excuse not to turn in a car thief; loyalty to a family member drove two families apart that had been close for decades; loyalty to an opinion caused to best friends to end their friendship; loyalty to a theological system caused someone to halt his pursuit of truth. Then I began to think about situations I've heard about on the radio or in the news. Here's what I came up with: loyalty to teammates caused a professional athlete not to turn in cheating steroid users; loyalty to a political party caused a politicians to vote for things he believed were wrong; loyalty to military commanders caused soldiers to override their conscience and murder innocent civilians. As I thought through all these experiences in which I've heard the loyalty card played, a disturbing trend became obvious: in our society, it appears that loyalty is used for all the wrong reasons. Loyalty is used to hide crimes, suppress the truth, and protect the guilty. The next logical question was clear: Is loyalty, in fact, a virtue like we all seem to assume?
When I've shared these sorts of thoughts with people in the past, the typical looks I've gotten are disbelief and annoyance. The facial expressions scream, "How dare you question loyalty?!?" and "Why you little nark!" Some may wonder if I even see the value in loyalty at all. My response is four-fold, with each point building upon one another. First, yes I believe in loyalty, but only to that which is good. My perception is imperfect just like everyone else's, but you'll never see me knowingly stand for that which I perceive to be evil. Second, if loyalty is defined as "unswerving in allegiance," then my utmost loyalty is solely to God, His Kingdom, and His precepts. Third, I have loyalty to other groups such as my family and friends, but only in so far as God's Word endorses them. Fourth, I think we must clearly delineate between love and loyalty.
It seems to me that there is a widely accepted falsehood in most people's thinking that unconditional love demands unconditional loyalty, or that the two are simply one in the same. The idea is that if you love someone, you'll have their back through thick and thin no matter what. That whole mentality is garbage. For example, let's say a good friend of mine was a known drug dealer. Would I turn him in if the police came to my house and started asking questions? Yes, in a heartbeat. But would I still consider that person my friend? Yes, because my love in unconditional, but not my loyalty. (Rabbit trail: I wonder if this confusion between love and loyalty is why so many people today struggle w/ the idea that a loving God would send people to hell...)
Where I've come is to appreciate loyalty's complex nature. Loyalty is neither a virtue nor a vice. There is no innate value one way or the other. It is neutral, depending completely upon the circumstances. When a husband refuses to give up on his marriage because of his loyalty to the covenant made before God, loyalty is a virtue. When that same man lies to the police to protect his drug dealing son from going to prison, loyalty is a vice. Both of those examples are straightforward situations, but not all are so clear cut. Say that man was an influential deacon on a church board. If he stuck with his local church, refusing to leave in order to protect the local pastor from the swine that made up the rest of the board, that loyalty may be virtuous. If, however, his decision meant the spiritual devastation of the whole family, then that same loyalty may be a vice. Perhaps it is even the case that it is simultaneously a virtue and a vice. I simply don't know. But I do know three things. First, loyalty to God, His Kingdom, and His precepts is a virtue. Second, our pragmatic society has oversimplified yet another complex issue, and the result has been the glorification of unrighteousness. Third, don't dare disagree with either of the first two conclusions or you'll be swimming with the fishes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)