Sharing God With The Little Ones

I was reading the evening bible stories with my little guys in Mr. 6 yr old's room, when Mr. 4 yr old asked me, "Mama- if Jesus is right here with us, is he in this blanket? And if he is, why does it feel like a regular blanket? Is he so tiny that he fits between the threads so we can't feel him?" So I talked with him about what omnipresence means, and that while God isn't the blanket, and isn't part of the blanket, God is still here and we can see God in the blanket and let the blanket remind us of God and God's gentle presence and remind us to thank God for soft, warm, and gentle things. After I finished, Mr. 6 yr old said "Mama- how can we see God in a blankie and in pointy sticks? How can God be gentle and warm and also sharp and sticky?" So we talked about God's strength and protective power, and God's righteous anger and God's justice. I think their theology cup was officially full, because when I was done, they were back to giggling and joking and trying to read science books in their rooms without their parents noticing. I love those little guys, with all their mischievousness, their laughter, their frustrating antics, and their simple faith. Children are, truly, a blessing from God.

On Liturgy, and why I love it

The other day, I heard a dear friend say that they didn't like the idea of liturgy, that liturgy couldn't be life-filled or spirit-led, and that their non-denominational church was not at all liturgical. Well...

.I was raised exclusively in non-denominational/charismatic churches until college, when I first attended a methodist church. After I married, my husband and I attended and led worship at non-denominational churches until we joined our current UMC home. Suffice it to say, I have a good deal of experience in both "liturgical" and "non-liturgical" traditions. I think that there is liturgy, ritual, and tradition in every church, at least every one I've ever visited; I do not think that stereotypically liturgical churches are as rigid as some think they are, nor do I believe stereotypically "non-liturgical" churches are as flexible- I think the liturgies are simply different. Whether there is an official liturgy in the usual sense or not, the worship service usually follows a pattern and includes the same basic elements in the same order. The sermon is usually (hopefully :) ) thought out ahead of time, the music selected days before worship, and even the interludes of prayer and inspirational blurbs by the worship leader tend to be pre-selected. This is not to say that no impromptu changes ever occur- they do, especially in any music time/ministry time that may follow either the sermon or the main body of worship music- but that generally, things follow an order and are predetermined, even in the most charismatic of churches. This is not, in my opinion, a bad thing.


Take the music, for example- while "spirit-led worship" is an ideal for many charismatic churches, the fact is that very few church musicians are skilled enough to do it or have the time to dedicate to their team, and very few churches have the resources to hire and maintain a full-time commitment from a team of musicians. In fact, I have never seen a team that truly did "spirit led worship", if that means worship that was not planned and orchestrated ahead of time. Even the most apparently "spirit led" (musically acceptable) team in the world, in my experience, plans out the music, rehearses it, etc days ahead. One main instrument and a singer or two can go "off the cuff" more easily, but a whole team is unprecedented in my experience as both a congregant and a worship leader. Then, too, the scripture and prayer that the worship leader may offer during worship are often selected beforehand. Sometimes the worship leader may hear the pastor go a certain direction in the sermon, and may choose something which complements it at the end of the service. (this happens sometimes in more traditionally liturgical churches as well, as worship leaders generally strive to make the message of the music and the spoken word a cohesive whole) Regardless, it is rare, in my experience, for a worship leader to reject predictable, rehearsed music and pre-selected inspiration. Again- I do not see this as at all negative, but I am observing what is.


Then there is the preaching- the main sermon in any church is prepared beforehand. In our methodist church we also have the affirmation of faith, responsive reading, and written prayers we say together, whereas in the charismatic church we have usual greetings/invitations, "words" that some people share on a regular basis, etc. Both have patterns, but the patterns are different.


One of the reasons I love our church is its liturgy. Much of the liturgy has been refined over time and is beautifully and powerfully worded, and the prayers of the liturgists have been the subject of much thought and effort. I love having my children beside me, learning and saying with conviction the essential elements of faith. There is a sense of calm, community, and commonality with the Church past and present that I feel when I participate in our liturgies that I truly love. If we all have liturgy and ritual, why not embrace it and make it something beautiful and meaningful? If we accept that liturgy and ritual and tradition, while they should certainly be flexible and open to change when the Spirit leads so, are an inescapable part of our churches, then this frees us to think about the liturgy, what we are saying, how we are saying it, and what it calls to our minds. I think that intentional liturgy is better liturgy. This doesn't mean, of course, that every liturgy has to sound serious or formal, or that Methodist liturgy should fit in or be adopted by other churches- but I think that a bit of honest evaluation might reveal an area in the non-liturgical church that could be improved upon.

Book review: Dance of the Dissident Daughter

This book was recommended to me by a friend recently, and while I don't relate to/agree with everything in it, I think it's worth reading.

The author, Sue Monk Kidd, is a one-time christian inspirational writer-turned-novelist, and is also the author of The Secret Life of Bees.

The general subject of the book is the importance of the Sacred Feminine in the spiritual and physical lives of women and those who love them, and it is the story of the author's journey from a more traditional, patriarchy-based understanding of God and spirituality to an understanding that includes both Sacred Masculine and Sacred Feminine, among other things. One of the aspects of her journey to which I cannot really relate is her leaving of the church entirely, not just certain churches or denominations, and her elevation of her own experience past the the point I'd peg as healthy. Unlike Ms. Kidd, I believe that a woman can find a balanced understanding of a genderless God within the Christian Church, and that she can find the closest possible relationship with God through a focus on the gospel and the teachings of Christ and with a community of christians to support her.

First, the writing- the book is divided into four sections- Awakening, Initiation, Grounding, and Empowerment. The chronology jumps around- the story is told in many smaller stories, and there is no organizational structure such as thesis points, a chronological timeline, or really any division between the stories, except for her own four general categories. The story is a progression, but not a strictly linear one. For this reason the style doesn't appeal to me and made the book difficult to finish; that's more a statement of preference than an evaluative judgement. If you like to segue between stories more than you like following a concept down a linear progression, Ms. Kid's style will probably appeal to you.

Ms. Kidd writes that her process of "awakening to her feminine self" began with a vivid dream, in which she gave birth to a daughter who was also herself. She says "For years I had written down my dreams, believing, as I still do, that one of the purest sources of knowledge about our lives comes from the symbols and images deep within." This reverence for individual truth and personal feeling is a recurring theme throughout the book. While I think that being knowledgeable and aware of oneself and in tune with feelings and reactions is important, I tend to elevate Truth that exists outside of myself as a litmus test by which to evaluate and quantify personal feelings, so this is not a theme I particularly relate to. I do think that it could be an important point for a person who is not self-aware, or is accustomed to being dismissed, ignored, or minimized; we should not dismiss or ignore, except perhaps temporarily so that we deal with them on our terms, our feelings and reactions. What a person believes about themselves has an enormous impact on themselves and the people around them, and self-knowledge is always healthy and necessary; I do think that this can be taken too far when people blindly accept their feelings as true, as the opposite extreme to repression and self-depreciation.

Ms. Kidd speaks of a gradual awakening to things she had seen all her life but never noticed, and a gradual process of a distinctly feminine self-actualization. This brings me to my main issue with her perspective- she is far, far more of a gender essentialist than I am, and some of her statements seem oddly reminiscent of gender-based statements I have seen in fundamentalist literature from the opposite perspective. Part of her perspective I find beautiful and true- namely, the ideas that a woman experiences spirituality in a deeper way and/or accepts her life as female with more passion and contentment when all holiness and deity is not exclusively male, and that women need strength and autonomy. I don't make the same correlations between women's biological ability to nurture life and a unique feminine propensity for relational nurturing as does Ms. Kidd. But more on that later.

Ms Kidd, who loves the christian monastic and contemplative sides, describes the pivotal experiences she had in monastic retreats, experiences which propelled her into an understanding of God as both Father and Mother, and she describes the dissonance between her growing need to identify with the feminine aspect of God and her attendance at a traditional Southern Baptist church. She remembers the messages both she and her own daughter received as children, messages of male headship and a limitation of certain levels of spiritual service to males. These experiences, along with any harassment and dismissal she experienced, she labels part of something called the Feminine Wound. Ms. Kidd writes that for the first part of her life, she had been asleep as a woman, and unaware of the injustices which she experienced as a female. She had been operating, unbeknownst to herself, in a paradigm which placed a man at the center of woman's existence, and put any personal goals, desires, or development secondary to the wishes and needs of the man. As her awakening progressed, she found herself realizing and recognizing unhealthy patterns and inequalities in her most basic relationships. I relate to this part of her experience- being naturally aggressive and independent, I assume that I have succeeded in overcoming stereotypes and co-dependencies, only to find another root of harmful philosophy that I never knew was a part of me.

Ms. Kidd describes something which she feels every woman should embrace- a uniquely feminine soul; a sense of the relational and interconnected, and the guiding force and power of women. Here I disagree with her, as I don't think souls are gendered, nor do I believe that every woman has a deep internal connection to a relational, earthy, nurturing, inner self. She goes on to say that women have been underrepresented in the historical naming and quantifying of spiritual truth- this I can believe, at least in the official sense. The basic orthodoxy we hold dear was, largely, codified by men, and I can certainly admit the plausibility of her assertion that this fact is responsible for the demise of the sacred feminine within Christianity. I agree with Ms. Kidd on the importance of the sacred feminine to women, in the sense that if God is both feminine and masculine, the idea of both genders as equally divine image bearers becomes more difficult to undermine.

Ms. Kidd describes our culture, even our faith culture, as anesthetizing the feminine spirit, and she quotes Clarissa Pinkola Estes, a quote which I loved:

When a woman is exhorted to be compliant, cooperative, and quiet, to not make upset or go against the old guard, she is pressed into living a most unnatural life- a life that is self-blinding.....without innovation. The world-wide issue for women is that under such conditions they are not only silenced, they are put to sleep. Their concerns, their viewpoints, their own truths are vaporized.

I'd like to think that in the years since Ms. Kidd was young, some of the ways in which she describes females being silenced, minimized, or objectified are no longer as prevalent, but I do think that such things still exist, whether in tempered form, in pockets of religious fundamentalism, or in other places around the world. The condition of women in other places ranges from equality or very near, in some western countries, to the most terrible slavery and oppression in places like the Middle East, parts of Asia, and parts of Africa. I wish I could say that my country was free from the oppressing and silencing of women, but there are echos of it here to varying degrees, more in certain sub-cultures than in others. Whenever I hear people blame a rape victim, or act as if a woman matters nothing if she is not beautiful, or deny higher education to a daughter because of her gender, or exclude women from equal participation in worship, I cringe, thinking of all the steps, all too few, between such polite oppression and the more serious forms of oppression in other parts of the world.

Ms. Kidd describes the course of her life prior to her feminine awakening as filled with attempts to fit external ideals of Christian Womanhood which she had internalized from church and society. She lists several archetypes which describe the good daughter of patriarchy she used to be- the Gracious Lady, that archetype of southern charm, sophistication, and reserve, the Favored Daughter, with all her compliance and man- pleasing and perfectionism, the Secondary Partner, with all her self-effacing and self-sacrificing, and the Silent Woman, with her repression and anger and desperation to be heard. I relate to this as well, knowing the pressure to conform to an ideal of feminine reality and the frustration of being deemed unfeminine because I cannot.

Throughout the book, Ms. Kidd describes various experiences in which she found the Sacred Feminine- dancing with her friends on the beach, experiences in nature, and study of and visiting sacred places of the Sacred Feminine. Many of her examples of the sacred feminine in early religions were new to me, and this aspect of the book was a catalyst for much enjoyable further study. She relates some of her experiences as a metaphor to the story of Ariadne, and the back-and-forth between this story and her own was interesting.

Ms. Kidd does not denigrate men, but respects and loves her husband, which I appreciate. All too often, I see the stereotype of the independent "feminist" woman inextricably linked in people's minds with a "bad wife", or a distant, disrespectful, or inattentive woman. Not so- I was never a better wife than I am now, in all my feminist glory. :) It's funny how a push for honesty, equality, and mutual love and respect actually doesn't ruin a relationship.....

Throughout this book, Ms. Kidd references many religions having to do with the Sacred Feminine, and seems to appreciate that aspect of their spirituality. In my own belief, while the only complete Truth is found in Christ, other religions can certainly have good mixed in with the not-so-good, and can be a source of revelation, as can many non-religious things. Ms. Kidd mentions the sacred feminine symbology of the serpent several times, which I find interesting considering its biblical symbology... which in turn simply reminds us of the fluid nature and limited empiricism of symbology. :) When drawing from many eras and cultures, it is wholly possible that multiple symbologies for the same object or idea can arise, and vice versa. It is also possible that multiple symbologies per the same object may exist within the Bible, and that other, later philosophies which were antithetical to feminine wisdom and equality may have tainted our perception of some of those passages.

I like Ms. Kidd's focus, too, on moving past anger and channeling emotion and energy into action. This is a concept which we'd all do well to imitate. She also acknowledges the importance of allowing for diversity and solidarity between women, and realizes that we are not all the same person with a different shell. All in all, I enjoyed the book and found value in it, though I do not agree with everything within it and though I relate more to the general concepts than to Ms. Kidd's specific experience.

Racism and Christian Compassion

I have heard an embarrassing amount of misinformation about the Trayvon/George case from fellow christians, but I think that one of the most frustrating things I've witnessed is the attempts at compassion, and the advocating of certain questionable varieties of such. Now- should this case merit our compassion, and is it our duty as christians to comfort and show compassion to those who are hurting? Of course. Always! But there is a way to do that without sacrificing truth and without disguising racism as compassion.


I hear comments like "christians should show compassion for and solidarity with Black America" and I think: Really? I was under the impression that there wasn't a Black America and a White America, but that there was just ... America. To label everyone subjectively identified as "black" as Black America (and, in this context, to assume that they view this case a certain way) is to say that all black people are part of a monolithic color group which defines them, their opinions, and their feelings. I know that I, as a white person, would be a little offended if someone made those assumptions about me, spoke about compassion and solidarity with white america as if there is such a thing, and assumed that because I am white I identify with the parties with lighter skin, regardless of the specifics of the case.


Equally frustrating is the assumption that in order to avoid the racist label, one must side with the black person, or that because a black person was killed by a hispanic person who sounded white, this is de facto a case of racism against black people. (There are plenty of examples of that without adding cases which do not apply to it, I'm sad to say.) I find the notion inconceivable that showing christian compassion equals eulogizing and misrepresenting and that siding against the closest thing to a white male in this case is automatically more compassionate. Perhaps everyone really believes in misinformation that paints the parties as a racist man and an innocent kid, (as opposed to two really, REALLY stupid men) but I find that hard to believe.


We should show compassion for the police chief (and his family) who lost his job for refusing to charge a man who he believed was innocent, and for George Zimmerman and his family- while George committed no crimes, he did not make the smart decision at a key point, and for this his life is in danger, his career wrecked, and his family in hiding. He truly deserves our compassion. The family of Trayvon deserves our compassion as well- losing a child is always horrible, no matter how old the child is, how troubled, or what the child has done. Even youths who abuse drugs and turn to crime should receive our compassion and our support, though this does not negate the consequences for their actions. We don't need to lie about who Trayvon was, or who Zimmerman is, to show them compassion. We should pray for the Zimmerman family in the shambles they are in, hope that painful but valuable lessons were learned, and help them where we can. We should pray for other young men and women who, like Trayvon, are running down a path which can only be destructive to them and their families. We need to make sure that young people who come from broken homes, who struggle with addictions, who are headed toward a life of crime, have a safe place in the Church where they may find counseling, support, and mentorship. Most of all, we should stop the racism, be it against whatever color, for it helps no one. We are all made in the image of God and equally valuable as part of God's human creation. Had the survivors been reversed, this case would have been just as tragic.


Our christian duty of compassion should extend to all, regardless of race, gender, orientation, ethnicity, location, socio-economic status, or whatever. This compassion is not incompatible with, and indeed is intimately connected to, shining truth on the situations in which we find ourselves. Divisive rhetoric from either side is not compatible with compassion, but honest evaluation of facts and issues is. Truth in love is not racism, and refusing to slow down, listen, and self-examine is not a sign of strength.

Modesty, Part 5: Biblical Modesty

Mat 6:28  And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 

Modesty is taught in scripture, and as it is taught there it is an important lesson for both men and women. The sort of modesty we find in the bible, however, has nothing to do with covering skin or sexuality of any sort. Rather, biblical modesty is synonymous with simplicity, humility, and having the right priorities.

(1Ti 2:8-10)  I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness--with good works. 

(1Pe 3:3-4)  Do not let your adorning be external--the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear-- but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.


I see this as an admonition to Christians to resist the temptation to be obsessed with the latest fashions and the temptation to put all our resources into maintaining a competitive appearance. It is natural to want to be beautiful, and admired, but the most important adornment for a Christian is our heart of love and service and the good works which flow from it.

Matthew Henry says, "Those that profess godliness should, in their dress, as well as other things, act as becomes their profession; instead of laying out their money on fine clothes, they must lay it out in works of piety and charity, which are properly called good works." 

A practical example of this teaching would be the emphasis we Christians sometimes put on appearance in our worship services- do we require that worshipers dress expensively to fit in among us? Do we have a tacit dress code that cannot be met by those with limited resources? Do we care more about how nicely we are dressed for church, or how nicely others can see Christ in our actions when we're there? Do we accept all visitors to our fellowship as they are, endeavoring to see them as God sees them, as people with hearts, souls, minds, hopes, and pain of their own?

Barnes says, "The word here rendered “modest” (κόσμιος  kosmios), properly relates to ornament, or decoration, and means that which is “well-ordered, decorous, becoming.” It does not, properly, mean modest in the sense of being opposed to that which is immodest, or which tends to excite improper passions and desires, but that which is becoming or appropriate."

(Jas 2:2-4)  For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet,"  have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 

Also, dressing in such a way as to be situationally appropriate, simple, and pleasant without demanding a spotlight is an art form that we all, men and women, should attempt to practice. This has less to do with sexiness or coverage, and more to do with cultural context, practicality, and intentional simplicity, in my opinion. And, simple needn't be drab; it's more the antithesis of gaudy, extravagant, or garish. A two piece swimsuit can well fit into this paradigm at the beach, but the most covering, sexless swimsuit would not be the best choice for worship or school or a funeral, as the loveliest church dress would probably be inappropriate while working in the food bank or weeding the garden. 

Modesty, Part 1.- revealing our dignity?

"Modesty is about revealing our dignity."

~ Jessica Rey

The above video is of a talk given by Jessica Rey, a swimsuit designer (who does a fabulous job of promoting her business, by the way- I just wish she didn't use such poor logic to do it!) and modern proponent of "modest" swimwear for women. She basically argues that men objectify women who wear bikinis, as opposed to more "modest" (that term is never defined) swimwear, and that women showing skin is an invention of the modern fashion world. She says that "modesty" is about revealing dignity and being seen as people, rather than attractive bodies.



Normally, I think it is a mistake to judge an argument by its source. This time, I think the correlations between and origins of this argument and a very, very similar one are significant, simply because of the implications for the status of women in a society which adopts them.



"In the ’80′s, most of the religious rhetoric about hijab that I was exposed to stressed religious obligation, as well as women’s dignity. Supposedly, hijab would protect our dignity, by focusing (male) attention on us as believing women, rather than on us as female bodies."
(http://sobersecondlook.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/hijab-empowerment-and-choice-the-darker-side/)


Substitute modesty for the word hijab, and you have Ms. Rey's argument. The only difference is the definition of modesty. The only difference between requiring women to wear full-coverage, one piece swimsuits to "avoid objectification by males"  and requiring them to wear full hijab or even a burqa is one of degrees. The same logic that holds women accountable for rape, even in some cases punishing them as adulteresses if they file rape charges, the same logic that excuses honor crimes and forced marriages and domestic violence, is the same logic that the evangelical Christian world is using to regulate the dress and behavior of women. This should be a sobering thought to those Christians who in all other respects decry the mistreatment of and sidelining of women by Muslims.



Now, to unpack the other ideas here- Ms Rey cites a study, done at Princeton, as evidence for males' inherent tendency to objectify women who are wearing bikinis. For a more in-depth look at the study, try this post. Suffice it to say that this study was of a limited number of male college students. Also, the pictures they were shown were not only women in bikinis, but headless women in bikinis. The only thing the participants could see, unlike real life, was the woman's body. Even if the data from these students led to Ms. Rey's conclusions, (and I do not believe it does) this proves nothing about other demographics, other times, other cultures, or any person who has not been socialized into thinking that an attractive woman in a bikini is an object and fair game. She assumes that the reaction to the bikini is an inherent one in all males, rather than a socially conditioned one, and one which reflects ideas about women and their bodies which may not, in fact be universal. Not all men see a woman in a bikini and immediately turn her into an object. Some men see a woman who is beautiful and exposed in her beauty as the sacred living art of the Creator and as an actual person, with needs, goals, talents, and a mind.


Another thing- women can be, and are, ogled by pervs no matter what we wear. Even if all reasoning for modesty rules was legitimate- folks, it doesn't work. Whether or not I get leered at depends, not on what I wear, but on who I'm around. That's a fact. Those guys in the grocery store who were making catcalls? They would have done so no matter what I was wearing. (A loose tshirt and jeans at the time) The guys who treated me with respect and conversed with my face, not my boobs, or else ignored me altogether, when I was in a two piece swimsuit at my college gym, treated me as they did because they were decent humans, not because I was covered up. When I am objectified, it;s not my form that's at fault- it's the pervs who are viewing me as an object created for their pleasure.

What exactly is modesty, and who gets to define it? Modesty, being completely a function of cultural expectations and norms, is relative. What would be "modest" in Papua New Guinea and what would be "modest" in Norway and what would be "modest" in Lancaster county, PA are all totally different. Modesty varies from occasion to occasion, place to place, and time to time. Women showing skin is nothing new. Belly dancing costumes are little more than bikinis, and they have been around for longer than this country. In Japan, it's weird to wear anything when you go to the hot tub, no matter the company. I could name quite a few societies in which clothes were/are limited or optional for some or all normal occasions. Making the history of modern, western culture perennially normative when it comes to this or any other issue is a mistake- at best, we end up with a very limited perspective, and at worst, incorrect conclusions. I would contend that "appropriate modesty" is synonymous with practicality, a total lack of misplaced shame, and general social acceptability. The most stereotypically "modest" (covered) swimsuit won't be appropriate for a funeral, and long pants and a shirt will be horribly impractical at the beach. In a historical context, I think it's a mistake to glorify the fashion of days gone by- yes, in modern history, women were (a couple of hundred years ago) more covered in general. But- why is that automatically a good thing? Were women more respected, did we have more rights and freedoms, and was our equality more a given then? Did men objectify less, respect more, and treat us as holy sisters, or as valuable persons equal to themselves? Not exactly! I cannot think of another age since perhaps the Minoan or Natchez societies in which women have been as close (we're still not 100% there yet) to equality as in our own.

Good Post on Rational Belief

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2013/06/believing-for-no-reason/

"Christians need to go against the grain and explore fully all of the reasons for beliefs – our own and those of others, the good reasons and the bad reasons (and the important differences between the two). To float with the postmodern current and make “belief” an intransitive verb – something without an object – is a mistake. Reason is a basic kind of revealed knowledge, maybe the most basic of all. No beliefs can be sensible or of any value without it. John Wesley said that it is “a fundamental principle … that to renounce reason is to renounce religion,” and asserted further that “all irrational religion is false religion.”...........

.........Belief is not just a posture or disposition. Despite the popular media usage of the word, “faith” is not just a generic description (e.g., “I’m a person of faith,” which is just a colloquial way of saying, “I’m religious in some way.”). The noun “faith” and the verb “believe” are the same word in the language of the New Testament, and it is a word with a connotation we’ve lost in our common usage today.  The public, and especially that part that claims to be Christian, has to wise up to the political emasculation of language (as well as of thought itself).  “Believe” is primarily a transitive verb. Without an object, what meaning does the word really convey? Belief has content. Faith does not hang in the open air, but is directed toward and rests upon something or someone. It is the same with the word “trust.” In fact faith is a kind of trust.

So whatever you believe, you should consider the reason(s) for it. There are only a few exceptions, in the rare category of those most basic beliefs (i.e., basic axioms or principles that can’t be derived from any previous ones but must be presupposed at the outset). Any and every other belief you hold, about anything whatsoever, if it is to be taken seriously, if it is to be of any value or worth anyone’s consideration, it must have in its favor more than your emotions, personal history or external circumstantial factors. It must have reasons."


Good stuff...... I don't agree with every stance of this blog, (Reclaiming the Mind; they are hard-core complementarians, for one thing) but some of their stuff I really enjoy. 

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 5: Religion in Politics and Legislating Morality

There are three preliminary conclusions which influence everything else I believe on this subject, (the role of religious law and belief in civil government) and  without agreement on which I couldn't really debate it. They are:




 1. Involuntary acts mean nothing in terms of morality.


While actions may be good for us and good for society and generally a good idea, no action pleases God unless it is done with the right motive and is voluntary. If you treat people kindly because someone's going to hurt you if you don't, it's still treating people kindly,  which is an inherently positive thing, but it is very different than treating people kindly because you love God and you view that as part of your faith in action. In both cases you have done something good, but doing it because you choose to is different from doing it because you're forced to. God wants love and unbounded choice to do good, not just lip service and exterior forms of godliness.




2. We cannot, and we should not, try to coerce conversion or religious belief.

To do so would be morally wrong. We are to witness with service, example, and sharing/teaching, but we are not to bully or shame. Ever.




3. It is not the government's job to legislate morality or to shepherd the faith of its people

.
It is the government's job to protect the freedoms and general of its people, to enforce the rule of law, and to facilitate infrastructure in as local as way as is feasible.


That said, I absolutely think Christians have a responsibility to be involved in our government at all levels, in the arts, and/or in whatever ways we have been gifted and enabled to charge our world for the better. Part of our mandate as Christians is to release the captives, comfort the mourning, and bring justice to the oppressed. We can do this through politics, and as it is my belief that a free society is most conducive to this, working for a just and free community can be a big part of fulfilling that mandate. We may also have opportunities to share our faith with those who ask and who we would not have met otherwise, and to witness by our example of service to our communities. Working in politics to make our home free, prosperous, and friendly to the free exercise of our religion is a great and noble work. However, this does not mean that our laws should conform to any specific set of religious dictums. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are many problems inherent in an ecclesiocracy/theocracy, such as lack of agreement within faiths, a substitution of rule books for divine relationship, etc. As a Christian, I believe I have a responsibility to foster a political environment that is friendly to my faith and does not prohibit it, but also does not mandate it or interfere with it unless it harms others or endangers their basic freedoms. I view separation of the state from any one church as an inherently good thing. Of course, the state will be influenced by the faiths and churches of the people who comprise it; after all, what is government but the people to we elect to do the jobs we cannot or do not wish to do? But- to call ourselves a "Christian Nation" can be a bit problematic. What does that mean, exactly? With which flavor of Christianity would we be identifying? Southern Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite? If by Christian Nation we mean a place where Christians and other can freely practice their religions with a few caveats, or a place where the basic values taught by Christ in the beatitudes are a fundamental part of the legal foundation, then I think we can proudly own the term. But if that means that being an American is synonymous with being a member of the Christian faith then I think I'd rather call it (and I can't at this time, not completely) a nation of Religious Freedom, and a nation whose people take responsibility for it. 


 All that said- what should be our foundation for law? Our constitution is based on a value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality. I cannot think of a better starting point. Those things are also part of the Christian faith, but are not necessarily unique to it; many atheists would hold them as a positive foundation for a legal system as well. To hold up such a standard does not interfere with religious freedom, as our constitution is not part of any religion. It contains theistic statements, but I think it is generally understood that theism is not required for citizenship or to uphold the values set out in our founding documents. There are some things required of certain religions which violate our basic legal framework, and that is where religious freedom should end- take honor killings, forced marriages, or state punishment of consensual adult sexual behaviors such as adultery, premarital sex, or homosexuality, for example. We could always privilege the Christian faith, but that would be almost impossible due to the diversity within it. I firmly believe that the basic values of our constitution are thus a better framework for our government, and will more likely create a state of religious freedom, than any strictly religious law (Levitical, or Sharia, et c) or religiously mandated form of government.


The fact that our faith requires a position or behavior from us is not sufficient to legislate it for those who do not share that faith. Most of the dictates of the Christian faith are within the "value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality" category, and thus are law not because they are in the bible, but because they reflect our basic legal ideas. Everything from insurance fraud to murder to the abortion debate can be traced back to those basic things. There are, of course, some things that many Christians believe to be morally wrong that do not fall within the confines of proper governmental jurisdiction. Adultery and Homosexuality come to mind- we do not throw people in jail for either one, nor should we. The state is not our parent, and we are not its child; consensual behavior between adults does not negatively affect the general population in a way that merits government interference, and all moral and religious implications are the purview of the parties involved, their church, and their God. There may be consequences- in the name of justice, a spouse may seek a divorce when adultery comes to light, and because marriage involves a contract which in such a case was broken, the offended party may be entitled to a distribution of assets that reflects this. This is very different from jailing the offending parties for their moral sin, however.



There is no reason for the state to discriminate based upon a religious rule that is not necessary under the ideals of the constitution. For example- many Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Still, the state recognizes heterosexual spouses and parents regardless of qualification, and does not (and should not) require that homosexual couples should have to prove their fitness to acquire children any more than should heterosexual couples.

(Also, as a matter of consistency- it makes no sense, biblically, to limit homosexual marriage any more than we limit adulterous marriage. Let's be consistent- if LGBT folk can't really be married, then neither can people in polyamorous relationships or people who cheat on each other. Not the government's business, you say? Mmmm..... exactly.)


If we wish to make a law prohibiting marriage between gay couples, it is then inconsistent to use religious or biblical grounds to do so. If we desire such a law, we should first determine whether same sex marriage violates the principles of liberty, respect for life, justice, and equality. If same sex marriage is not counterintuitive to those things, then we ought to ask whether or not it does quantifiable harm to people outside the relationship and infringes on the rights of others. If it does not, then, irrespective and regardless of its morality, I question the legal justification for such a law.


Because involuntary morality does not count towards true holiness, we are doing our society and the people in it no favors when we legislate religious observance. Making laws which render our home freer and safer is wonderful, but legislating religious morality or observance of biblical law which falls outside of our constitutional purview simply puts our people in a place of observing law from fear of punishment, rather than because they are attempting to love God more fully. (I am in no way saying that I believe Christians are bound by the Levitical law, by the way. I'm just using it here as an example of an extra-constitutional morality code that we could, but should not, adopt.) I can see no end to such a course but useless bondage.


Some may argue that allowing same sex marriage necessitates a fundamental redefinition of marriage. To that, I'd say- 1, that depends upon your definition of marriage, and 2, the definition of marriage is not specified and hallowed in our constitution as are other issues.   Marriage, while it has historically been heterosexual, has not historically been a Christ-honoring, mutual, monogamous relationship, even within the church. There are exceptions, of course, but unless we're going back to the garden of Eden before misogyny reared its ugly head, then we're dealing with a mixed bag that includes a healthy dose of polygamy and a heaping cup of gender inequality. I really see no problem with clarifying its legal definition to include committed monogamous relationships between any two humans.


Then, of course, there is the issue of civil vs. religious marriage- I would support a state-recognized civil union between any two people, and the idea of leaving the religious end of marriage the purview of individuals and churches. That's a rabbit trail for another time, though.

Christian Egalitarianism

I assumed until recently that most of my acquaintance were familiar with egalitarianism/complementarianism, (which descriptors I don't care for, since they are not defined in common usage as their linguistic parts suggest they should be, but I digress) but recent conversations have led me to believe otherwise. I think it would be helpful for me to elaborate on what Egalitarianism means to me and why I embrace it; an understanding of my views on this issue is really foundational to interpreting my statements on many things.



Another way to phrase egalitarianism is biblical or moral equality. The christian egalitarian position maintains that all humans were made in the image of our Creator God, and are equal in intrinsic worth, dignity, and personhood. God did not make "seconds" or "mistakes," but fearfully and wonderfully made each of us as unique and creative expressions of the Imago Dei. Egalitarians believe that God does not dole out gifts in different "levels" based on characteristics such as race or gender.



One misconception I have encountered is the idea that egalitarians believe, not just in moral equality, but in the sameness of all people. This, of course, is ridiculous; God gave us different and unique gifts, and yes, some people have far greater capacity in various areas than do others. We are not all Michael Jordans, or Bachs, or Einsteins. Since egalitarians emphasize the uniqueness of the individual, rather than the individual as a representation of a group such as men, women, hetersexuals, caucasians, et c. we actually have more respect, not less, for the differing ways in which God has gifted and called us. I believe that God gives gifts of talents, capacity, et c. without regard to unchangeables such as race or gender, and so I believe that "roles" or "positions" in the church, home, and secular community should be based on ability and inclination, not arbitrary and unchangeable characteristics.



No, we are not all gifted alike. But to bind people to little boxes that we deem appropriately representative of their demographic does not enable them to exercise their God-given gifts; quite the reverse. It squelches the natural strengths of those who don't fit the "box", and instills false confidence in those who do naturally fall within the "box" and may hinder their future growth.



As to gender roles: instead of seeing men and women as typifications of a gender, into whose stereotypes they may or may not fit, I prefer to see them as unique people. The world is not Battlestar Gallactica, with synthetic humans of only a few types and which are all alike within their types. The world is full of unique individuals, and they are as unique from those within their gender as they are from those outside it. Egalitarianism does not suppose any functional, non-physical inequalities between the sexes, nor does it assume that any giftings or roles are based on gender. If a woman and a man have the same abilities and inclinations, they will be fitted for the same "role." In reality, I dislike the term "role" as it brings to my mind a picture of an actor playing a part, not an authentic follower of Christ who follows the Holy Spirit and the gifts God has placed within them to serve and do and be whatever and whenever they are needed and called. We should not be actors in a play; we should be real, living people, not bound to live out a certain symbology but rather following Christ as ourselves in an exhilarating, never-ending quest for Truth and deeper Dive Relationship. Every believer, of any tribe, nation or language or gender or orientation, is a child of God whose first priority should be knowing Christ, doing justice, loving mercy, walking humbly, and sharing the glorious gospel of a risen Savior in whatever way we are fitted, be that in preaching, art, business, or whatever.

Femininity, Part 2

A reader of the first post on this subject this evening, and trusted friend of mine, brought to my attention that my definition of femininity could use some expanding and clarifying. :) Hence, the following:

Femininity can be defined one of three ways. In the first, it is equated with femaleness, eg. the sacred feminine. In the second, for example in secular circles, it is defined as a set of qualities, behaviors, or external features that comprise the current cultural picture of ideal womanhood, and/or the stereotypical picture of culturally based female behavior, appearance, et c. The third definition, synonymous with the picture of the "godly christian woman" is defined as adherence to a set of predetermined criteria and the exhibition of traits which are necessary to the "godly woman" label, and which, though sometimes considered inherently and intrinsically female, are not.

The first, physical femaleness, cannot be an issue of degrees. The second is very much an issue of degrees, is neither universal nor prescriptive, and is more a picture of the culture and currently acceptable socialized behavior than a timeless ideal of what a Christian female should look like. I would contend that much of the third, while masquerading as absolute and intrinsic, is actually not, but is as relative as the second. I would contend that the only version which is absolute and intrinsic is the physical femaleness.

Women's personalities, looks, mannerisms, social traits, gifts, et c vary widely and overlap those of men far more than they differ from them; their chromosomes and physical makeup are generally consistent within the gender. So, any time we define femininity as something other than femaleness, we are, according to the the preliminary conclusions upon which my ideas here are based, defining it as NOT universal, NOT intrinsic, and NOT limited to females. If it is based on traits that can also be found in males, traits that are not naturally present in every female across times and cultures, and traits that can be developed or repressed and exist naturally in varying degrees, then it must not be exclusive and intrinsic to females. My primary assertion in the first post was that to tell women that a certain picture of "godly womanhood" is intrinsic to their gender when in fact it is relative and not at all universal is a negative thing. For instance- some believe that a love of children over a love of a competitive workplace is an intrinsic part of christian femaleness. Thus, if a woman does not adore every baby she sees, and express a desire to be a mom instead of have a busy career, she must be an either a defective or an incomplete woman. She must not be feminine. (I realize that's an incomplete example; a woman may of course like both, as do I, and have both, though not perhaps at the same time.) In reality, a desire for motherhood is not present in every woman, and thus cannot be intrinsic to femaleness. Of course a desire for parenthood is perfectly natural in both genders, but it is not universally represented in or exclusive to females.




This idea, the idea that a female already has every intrinsic quality which makes her truly female and is not in need of any external standards conformation to which is indicative of Godly Femininity, is based on the idea that God did not make females who are not real, true, genuine, authentic females, and that the created nature of every female is as God intended; there are no "seconds" or "mistakes." (Of course we are flawed by sin, but I'm speaking of our unique personalities, gifts, et c) While there are women who are abused and brutalized to the point of being a mere shadow of themselves, women who have deep psychological issues, or women who have various mental disorders, a simple deviation from accepted norms of expected behavior (not talking about sin here- that would be an unacceptable deviation and is not gender-related) does not constitute an abnormal or defective female. It should be the reality of the natures and qualities of real females who define what is feminine. (which ends up not appreciably different from the expression of maleness, except in a physical sense, because of the great diversity within the group Actual Females) not an external standard of what is feminine into which females must fit themselves to be considered properly feminine females. This also assumes (as a preliminary conclusion upon which other ideas are based) that there are not separate qualities (different from those for males) that a christian female must exhibit in order to be a proper christian female. A christian female is simply a female who is her authentic self, under the lordship of and in divine relationship with Christ; the same would be true for males. A female need not be overly emotional, nurturing, empathetic, soft, responsive, want a family, want leadership from her husband, et c. to be a proper christian female, though she may be/want any or all of those things.
Instead of focusing on telling women to be feminine in a subjective sense, i.e. exhibit certain traits, we should be telling them to be Christlike. If a any person is following Christ, and doing what they are uniquely gifted and called to do, I fail to see how trying to squeeze them into a gender role would ever be a good thing. If they are following Christ, and doing what they are uniquely gifted and called to do, they will be doing exactly what they should be doing and they will be impacting the lives of those around them in glorious, Christ-honoring ways.

Arbitrary Divinity

This probably isn't exactly surprising, but I don't believe God is arbitrary, and I don't believe God makes arbitrary or unreasonable designations, assignations, or demands. My view of God includes an omnipotent, omniscient, triune Creator who created the universe, math, physics, science, music, logic, reason, and the perfection of every study and discipline. I also believe that, creating these things, (and many others) God delights to work within them. This is not to say that I'm denying the miraculous, or limiting God to my own limited understanding. I simply believe that if God created reason as well as faith, a generally consistent universe, and gave mankind an unquenchable thirst for knowledge of ourselves and of our world, it would make no sense for God to decry our using these gifts to understand God, the Bible, our faith, or ourselves. It would also make no sense for God to create a system in which understanding and knowing why was impossible. As Galileo said: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." I believe that God sometimes has reasons which we cannot always grasp, but that God always has reasons and plans behind what God does or commands.


The way we view God spills over into our exegesis of scripture as well. If I believed that God was arbitrary, I could reduce my biblical study to "God made it that way. I don't know why; He just did. Enough said." This would be tragic; not only would I miss much of the nature and character of God through neglecting the study of history and context, but this would lead me to inaccurate scripture interpretations as well. For example: take the issue of women and their roles in the church and home. If you take a strictly literal (ignoring quotations, context, audience, et c) view of certain passages, you'd be led to believe that God intended women for a submissive role in life to men. There could be only two reasons for this: 1. This is the best fit for the created nature and natural capabilities of women, (I think we've debunked that enough- it's BS, plain and simple) or 2. God, knowing women to be capable of and inclined to equality and sharing of leadership in the home, church, and professional world, chose arbitrarily to limit their sphere. If I believed that God dealt in the purely arbitrary, it would make sense that God made me, gave me brains and administrative skills, and then decided that I could serve God best by ignoring my created nature and following arbitrary role designations to prove my devotion. Needless to say, that sounds ridiculous to me. I fully believe that God from the beginning of creation intended me as a woman to have all of the imago dei that my husband has, and that God intends for me to use the gifts and skills God has given me without regard to gender. I believe that God has a reason for everything that made it into our canon, and for every divine action. One of my favorite bible verses is Proverbs 25:2, which says:  It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter. God created me with a thirst to know creation and to know God, and being content with the arbitrary would destroy that for me. I believe in the unknown, in the imperfection of my human reason compared to the divine, and the necessity of holding in faith things I do not yet know. I do not believe in resigning things, important things, to the sphere of the unknowable and incomprehensible. The God I know and love is in favor of quests to find out, to know, and to understand. This God deals in master plans, grand schemes, and magnificent symphonies of perfectly working things, not arbitrary rules, puppet strings, impossible requirements, or pettily keeping wisdom from my grasp.

Theocracy/Ecclesiocracy

I've heard some people say, people dear to my heart and who I respect to a degree that makes me sad to hear them say it, that what we need in the US is a good old-fashioned Theocracy. I've seen this idea run the gamut from those who want to implement the Judaic law found in the Torah to those who want American law to reflect "conservative, traditional biblical family values." To the first I'll not even give the credence of a rebuttal; the very idea that implementing a law, designed for an ancient nomadic people, to which we are not morally bound as Christians, and which Christ himself declared moot is beyond ridiculous. I'd like to address, instead, the more mainstream and slightly-less-offensive idea that American law should reflect and legislate those"conservative, traditional biblical family values."




First of all- who, exactly, gets to define what those values are? Not even conservative evangelical Christians have a uniform moral ethic, a uniform theology, or even a uniform or consistent biblical hermeneutic. If any one facet of Christianity were to make the rules, other, equally "conservative" facets would be bound to a framework with which they would not agree. Take, for example, the abortion issue: I personally know conservative, evangelical Christians who believe that no abortion is ever right, not even to save the mother when the alternative is the death of both mother and child. (I find this position personally abhorrent and dehumanizing, by the way) Others are passionately in favor of allowing for it only to save a mother's life from being sacrificed unnecessarily; still others think that in the case of rape or incest a woman should have the right to abort. In a theocracy, the "right" view is generally inseparable from the "legal" view, and once a "right" position is codified by those in power, the dissenters are expected to acquiesce. Thus, one of the problems with theocracy from the beginning would be its limiting of religious freedom, even among the "conservative, traditional American Christian" subset.




Secondly- what is the benefit to legislating extra-biblical morality? Make no mistake; the "conservative traditional values" mores often encompass far more than is required of New Testament believers. Some examples include rigid gender roles, male leadership, "purity" that goes beyond abstaining from sex with those to whom you're not married into the realms of "emotional purity" and that ilk, arbitrary standards of appropriateness in language, demonizing divorce, maintaining a "Sunday" list of do's and don'ts in an attempt to return to a concept of sabath keeping, and many more. From from being beneficial, I seem to recall Jesus having some rather harsh things to say to those Jews who imposed restrictions on others far in excess of that which the Torah mandated. What if you're gay? Divorced? What if you're a woman with leadership, apologetic, or pastoral skills? In this sort of society, if you don't meet the traditional nuclear familial ideal and fit well into your gender role you are on the fringes at best.



Most troubling, though, is the fundamentally flawed theology/philosophy which allows for Theocracy/Ecclesiocracy as a valid and morally superior option. In more libertarian forms of government, the focus is on either protecting the rights and freedoms of all citizens and by default punishing those who harm their neighbors, protecting the good of the society at large, etc. In an Ecclesiocracy or Theocracy, however, church law and civil law are inextricably linked and religious prohibitions are made law whether or not they make sense in the secular world, are generally beneficial, or meet the same standards of good and harm that laws in a non-religious, libertarian legal framework would need to meet. Proponents of a theocracy generally believe that there is good to be attained by legislating religious morality beyond the protection of basic freedoms and those who cannot protect themselves. In other words, this view hinges on religious observance, which is executed because the law says it must be so, being of personal and social benefit. This view I disagree with wholeheartedly. Social benefit comes from laws which protect the innocent, basic rights, etc to be sure; I see no social benefit to be derived from dictating observances that do not harm others but rather encroach on my personal and religious freedom. Here's the worst part- this view implies that doing right things, or following right laws, makes you right with God. That is false. All the right things, done because the law says we have to, mean nothing to Jesus. Depending upon the item in question, doing it may make us a "better person", and may make our society more pleasant; but I am convinced that obeying God means nothing if it is not voluntary.  We are commanded to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly. We are never told to look to the government to tell us what that means.





Also, I think that the very protection of innocence and freedom is better served by a more unbiased, libertarian form of government than by a theocratic one, because it operates with less prejudice and far more objectively. Another flaw in theocratic government is that, if religious leaders are also civil leaders, then to question civil leaders is to question religious leaders and sometimes questioning religious leaders is equated with questioning God. Absolute power corrupts, and any leader who is above questioning and accountability can be tempted to abuse their power.
Really, any system that conflates questioning civil things with questioning Christianity and God's will is a very dangerous thing.

Mother's Prayer

This is beautiful, and it reminds me of my own Mama. It also echoes my own prayers for my three Little Men. I thought it worth sharing. :)

Trust and Independent Thought

What is trust? Trust, to me, is inseparable from knowledge. Part of trust is a confidence that a person will behave as they have behaved before. Trust can also be choosing to have faith that a person will behave as they have promised or as they ought.


When I speak of trust in a speaker or author, I mean a belief that they would not knowingly mislead me, and are honest with themselves and others. The closer our paradigms for evaluating information and making decisions are, the more likely that we will generally come to the same conclusions and the less imperative I feel it to fact-check and substantiate every word.


On the other hand, questioning, testing, independent thought and study, and gracious dissent are not negative. If truth cannot stand up to questions, it deserves to be questioned all the more. Much good has come from questioning taught dogmas, setting out to substantiate or disprove what we believe, and pushing back against long-held traditions that are contrary to reason and scripture.


No person, seminary professor, no teacher, pastor, counselor, or mentor should be above questioning or disagreement. Professors and teachers may have more technical knowledge than we do, particularly about a specialized subject, but this does not necessarily make them more capable of discerning truth, understanding theology, or knowing the heart of God than we are. Our spiritual selves are our own responsibility, and guarding against error is important, no matter what the influence in question is.


Being able to trust those we look up to and learn from is a good and beautiful thing; however, trusting to the point of blind acceptance or even extreme prejudice is not healthy. I sometimes see Christians who identify as progressive, emergent, post-evangelical, et c. doing a great job at questioning and digging into their more conservative influences but neglecting to do the same diligence with the work and message of liberal, progressive Christian influences. Admittedly, they may have more in common with these influences, and thus may be far more willing to take what they say at face value. This is a dangerous proposition, however, because error and fallibility are ever-present with all of us. No degree, credentials, or history should make a person or idea impossible to expose to questioning and dissent. Any person or system which opposes gracious questioning or dissent should be of particular concern- when I encounter such people and systems, red flags raise immediately in my mind. I may end up agreeing with the core idea presented (it generally doesn't happen, but it's possible- I've seen very good ideas defended very badly) or I may not, but I always wonder, when I see a reluctance to be questioned, what fear underlies such reluctance and why, if the ideas in question are accurate and healthy, such a fear would be present. Don't let anyone tell you that questioning a doctrine, teacher, or message is a sign of a weak faith. It isn't. In fact, you may have a weak faith if you treat it like a sugar sculpture which breaks apart at the slightest touch. Strong faith isn't afraid of new opinions, old opinions, or information of any sort, because it truly believes. Weak faith depends on a hothouse to survive, and is worth little. The Bible teaches us to be discerning; "wise as serpents but gentle as doves." Discernment, in my opinion, is predicated on the ability and volition to think for ourselves.


I also wonder, when teachers resolutely refuse to disseminate a concrete, evaluative judgement, whether they are really desiring to encourage independent study or simply giving themselves an out from possible debate of a weak position. To be fair, I've seen both, or at least a genuine intent (as far as I can tell) for the first and the overt implementation of the second. While I would not write off a teacher who thus eschewed objective positions, such tactics do make me want to substantiate the claims and assumptions surrounding the teaching.

Let's do our best to thoroughly vet and inspect any doctrine, dogma, or system of belief or practice that we allow into our lives, no matter where it comes from. A deliberate, robust, personally familiar foundation of thoroughly vetted ideas cannot fail to be a positive force. We are responsible before God for our own beliefs, thoughts, and actions, and trusting others to the point of abdicating that responsibility is both wrong and dangerous. Trust is good; absolute, unquestioning trust is absolutely bad. Independent thought is not evil, and knowing God, God's will, God's nature, and God's story for ourselves is a beautiful thing. So- let's take responsibility for our beliefs, and refuse to be so many sheep led around by anyone who is approved by the church, or sounds edgy and fresh, or is all the rage in our doctrinal tradition.  Popular theologies and teachers come and go, but our relationship with God and our spiritual health is here for the rest of our lives. No one can tend that garden but we ourselves. Let's not neglect it.

Biblical Hermeneutics

How should we study and interpret scripture?

This is a question that has been on my mind recently. With all the talk of inerrancy, literality, metaphor, literary criticism, and the constant accusations of self-serving exegesis, confirmation bias, blind literalism, or feminist pseudo-theology from various quarters, I find it helpful to establish a few ground rules for the study and interpretation of scripture. I don't want to fit scripture to my desires, reading into it whatever I like, but I also don't want to be so bound by church tradition in interpretation that I miss real truth or insight or freedom from an unnecessary, oppressive ideology.

First, I like to have some resources on hand. A bible and concordance are necessary, at the very least, and I prefer to have lexicons, thesauruses, dictionaries, and multiple versions/translations to compare. Because all this can be quite cumbersome, I generally use the E-sword software. I heartily recommend it.


 The first rule of bible interpretation is consistency. If this is not consistent with the rest of scripture, I'm probably getting it wrong. Scripture can, itself, interpret scripture.


 Secondly, the difference between prescriptive and descriptive is key. Just because it happened in the bible doesn't mean it should happen, though if a thing is praised and specifically commended but not commanded that line blurs a bit.


 The closer to the original languages/text we can get, the greater our chance of accuracy. If an interpretation works with the English KJV or other version, but not with the Greek or Hebrew text, there's probably a kink somewhere. This is why a concordance, (I like Strongs) is important.




 Application and interpretation are not the same thing. Interpretation is what the passage means; application is a subjective applying of personal revelation to our lives based on scripture the meaning of which may or may not actually be relevant to our situation. Interpretation trumps application, and application should be vetted through the rest of scripture for rightness. There's nothing wrong with a personal application that has little to do with the meaning of the text- we are, after all, to listen for the Holy Spirit's voice guiding us in truth and this sometimes comes through personal application of scripture. But- the application should only be disseminated as application, and if the application contradicts other scripture, we can bet that our wires got crossed somewhere.


 Asking good questions is also important.

 What type of literature is it? Is it a letter? Narrative? Prophesy? Proverb? Poetry?

 Who wrote it? Where? When? What was the audience? Is there any history that bears on this situation significantly? Context is everything. When in doubt, the history and setting can yield a great deal of wisdom if we have them. This is difficult for some parts of the Old Testament.



 Is it written as a prescription to all believers? If so, how can I apply it to my life? If not, what lessons can I draw from it? What is the overarching theme of scripture? Of this book? Of this passage? If my interpretation is discordant with this theme, some reexamination is in order.


 If I have no evidence to the contrary, sometimes the traditional interpretation is the best place to start. There is nothing wrong with giving prejudice to precedent as long as that does not trump other considerations.


 Is the interpretation consistent within the passage? Am I switching directions in the middle of a passage where it's not indicated?



 When in doubt, three things:

Context

 Simplicity

 Continuity


(Also, Occam's Razor is very helpful with hermeneutics of this, and any, sort.)


 The less mental gymnastics required, the better. Does this interpretation require logic jumps that I wouldn't normally make? What would happen if I interpreted all scripture this way? I try never to make a doctrine out of one verse. In fact, I think it's best to reserve the universal/prescriptive label for those things which are both actively taught (precept) and specifically demonstrated. (precedent)

 A search for Truth will always have stumbles and errors along the way, but I try to the best of my ability to be impartial and eager in my study of scripture. I end up tweaking things, changing things, and refining things quite often. I am blessed to have some very dear friends who I bounce my thoughts off of, and who sharpen my proverbial iron- which is another practice I'd recommend. No man is on a mountaintop alone, and it was a wise man who once said that he'd not teach a new revelation from the pulpit until he'd heard it confirmed elsewhere. Being open to the input of those we trust is important, though of course the final decisions in our walk with our Lord are our own.

The Timothy Verses

One of the most commonly misinterpreted passages about women in the church is 1 Timothy 2: 9-15

So many, many times I have seen this verse read as ” woman should not have authority over men. Period. Except when the men let them because it's really more convenient.” In contrast, here is the gist of an article that I think does a fabulous job with these passages- (click the link to read the whole thing)

"If anybody ever tells you that women should never teach men, or that women should never be in leadership over men, or that women should be silent around men, then you should mutter under your breath, "Stupid, stupid, stupid." These people, well intentioned as they may be, are committing spiritual suicide by acting on words of Scripture without looking at their meaning. The system they seek to impose is opposite to the overall tenor and teachings of Scripture on the subject of women (see above). Here are the words some commit spiritual suicide over:
"In like manner also, see that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."( I Timothy 2:9-15)



I recently had a Christian man paraphrase for me I Timothy 2:9-15 and then tell me, "I will never have a woman lead me, teach me, or allow myself to be in a position where women usurp my authority over them because I believe the Bible!" My friend has the problem of reading words of Scripture and acting on them without taking time to understand their meaning.
Until you understand the problem Timothy faced (the man to whom the words in I Timothy 2:9-15 are written), and until you are familiar with Ephesus (the place where Timothy lived), and until you have a working knowledge of the Amazons (the warrior women that the ancient Greeks believed founded Ephesus), and until you comprehend the influence of the cult of Artemis and the Temple of Artemis which was in Ephesus, the meaning of the Apostle Paul's words will never be rightly understood. F. F. Bruce once wrote, "Subjugation of a woman is a system of man's fallen nature. If the work of Christ involves... breaking the fall, then the implication of His work for the liberation of women is plain." Jesus Christ came to liberate subjugated women. The cultism in evangelicalism regarding women's behaviors will only be broken when people lay aside stupid, false obedience to I Timothy 2:9-14 and realize the meaning of Paul's words to Timothy.


Ephesus and The Temple of Artemis


Rachelle and I will be with a group of friends in ancient Ephesus (located in southwest Turkey) next month. One of the reasons I am excited to be there is because Ephesus is the location of the most magnificent of the Seven Wonders of the World--The Temple of Artemis.
This is the first temple in the world made completely of marble. The richest man in the world in his day, King Croesus (595-547 B.C.) of Lydia (modern Turkey), ordered the Temple of Artemis be constructed in honor of the Greek goddess Artemis. Work on the Temple of Artemis began in 550 B.C. and took over a century to complete. King Croesus lived long enough to stuff the foundation of the Temple of Artemis with tens of thousands of gold coins to serve as talismans, ensuring the Temple's protection from destruction. Generations of people, even in America, have used the phrase "Rich as Croesus" to describe wealthy people in their day. King Croesus is given credit by many historians as the inventor of cold and silver coinage. His wealth is legendary, and he gave his riches to fund the building of the Temple in Artemis. Croesus was a contemporary of Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire. Cyrus was the king who defeated the Babylonians, freeing the Jews from their Babylonian captivity, enabling them to return to Jerusalem to rebuild Solomon's Temple. Therefore, the Temple of Artemis and the Second Temple in Jerusalem were built during the same time period (the 6th century B.C.).
However, it was only the Temple of Artemis that became one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World because of its stunning beauty. The Temple of Artemis was a temple dedicated to the power, beauty and strength of women. Marble artesians from all over the world carved Amazon women into the base of the 120 columns. Amazons were "warrior women" from an area north of Ephesus and the Black Sea (modern Ukraine). These Amazon women were known for their fierce fighting ability and had been made famous by the Greek poet Homer in his portrayal of them in The Iliad.


Homer (c. 750 B.C.) also gave tribute in The Iliad to Artemis, the Greek goddess of women and of war. Artemis is called by Homer "Artemis the Hunter, Queen of the Wild Beasts" (Iliad 21.470). Artemis is also presented as the goddess Phosphorous or Light (Strabo, Geo. 1.9.). If worshipped properly and prayed to during childbirth, Artemis promised to deliver women from death while giving birth. For this reason, women in the ancient world revered and worshipped Artemis. Likewise, men worshipped Artemis during times of battle and war. Since the ancient world was always at war, Artemis was often on the lips of men during times of battle. The Greek men (and later the Romans) prayed to Artemis (the Romans called her Diana), not Apollo in time of battle. In Greek mythology, Zeus fathered the twins Artemis and Apollo through the Titaness Leto. The Artemus cult taught that Artemis was superior to Apollo because she came (was born) born first.
When men and women entered the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, the women would wear fancy hair braids, bedeck themselves with jewelry and ornate clothes as they prayed to Artemis. Heliodorus said, "Their locks of hairs carry their prayers." There were no sacrifices in this Temple. The women worshipped Artemis with their clothing, jewelry, and their words. Artemis, in turn, gave them their sexual prowess over men and their deliverance during childbirth. Likewise, men came to Artemis, acknowledging their need of her strength during time of war. The men would hold up hands, palms up, just above their waist as they prayed for victory in battle. Not surprisingly Ephesus, above all other places in the ancient world, celebrated the power, strength and beauty of women and their ability to use their sexual prowess to manipulate and dominate men. The Temple operations, which included prostitution and craftsmen who sold gold and silver idols of Artemis, drove the economy of Ephesus. Hundreds of thousands of people visited the city annually.


Paul and Timothy's Presence in Ephesus in the Midst of the Artemis Cult


Acts 18:24 through Acts 20:1 records for us that Paul and Timothy spent three years in Ephesus (c. A.D. 55-58), by far the longest time Paul spent in any one city during his three missionary journeys. Paul almost lost his life during a riot in the city because silversmiths who made little statues of the goddess Artemis were upset that Paul and Timothy were cutting into their business by winning converts to Christianity. Paul would later write in I Corinthians 15:32 that he "fought wild beasts at Ephesus." Did he fight lions, tigers and bears? No, the wild beasts were the people of Ephesus who were devoted to Artemis, "The Queen of the Wild Beasts." When Paul left Ephesus in A.D. 58, he traveled south for about 30 miles to the island of Miletus and then called for wise leaders of the church in Ephesus to join him at Miletus where he said to them, "After I leave, savage wolves will come among you and will not spare the flock. Even some among you will arise and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them" (cf. Acts 20:29-30).
Sure enough, less than five years later (A.D. 63) the Christians in Ephesus were in trouble. There were some women or maybe even a single woman, most likely a new convert out of the Artemis cult, who had begun to teach false truth in the assembly at Ephesus. Timothy is sent to Ephesus to help the church and give some correction. Timothy sends to Paul a letter from Ephesus, giving Paul an update on what is happening and asking some specific questions about how he should proceed (a letter that is not extant). The Apostle Paul sends a response to Timothy, a letter we now call I Timothy. It's important to remember (as we have seen) that nowhere in Scripture does Jesus, Paul or any other apostle restrict women in the assembly. In fact, when a false teacher nicknamed Jezebel begins to have influence among believers in the city of Thyatira, Jesus does not reprimand the church for having a female teacher, but rather He upraids the church for not doing anything about her false teaching (cf. Revelation 2:24).


The Meaning of I Timothy 2:9-15


Now, let's put up I Timothy 2:9-15 again in order to discover the meaning of the words in light of what we know about the Artemis cult in Ephesus:
"In like manner also, see that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."( I Timothy 2:9-15)


(1). "Let the woman adorn themselves in modest apparel" (v. 9).


Obviously, there were women coming to the assembly of Christ in Ephesus similar to the way they used to go to the Temple of Artemis, dressed to kill, with braided hair, gold, pearls and fine clothing. Paul is letting Timothy know that this mode of dress, particularly in the city of Ephesus, was not conducive to the worship of Christ. What Christ desires is the beauty of goodness toward others, not the drawing attention to oneself in public.


(2). "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection" (v. 11).


The reason I believe the problem in Ephesus is a particular woman who is in a teaching position within the assembly of Christ is because the noun "woman" is in the singular, not the plural. In verses 9 and 10, women is in the plural, but in verse 11, Paul switches to "the woman" or possibly that woman about whom Timothy has written Paul. It can't be a universal prohibition for all time against all women ever teaching men in the assembly because (a). That would violate the tenor and teaching of the rest of Scripture where women frequently taught men, and (b). Paul has elsewhere encouraged men and women to teach, to pray and to fully participate in the assembly as they are gifted (cf. I Corinthians 11:4-5 and I Corinthians 14:23-24).
Further, the word translated silence is hesuchia (quietness). It is used in I Timothy 2:2 to describe what the character of every believer should be, both males and females. It never means "don't speak," but addresses the character of humility. This woman in Ephesus, coming out of a society saturated with the power, strength, abilities and even domination of women through the Artemis cult, needed to realize that she had a great deal to learn about Christ and His kingdom.


(3). "I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (v. 12).


This is the key phrase. First, the phrase translated "I suffer not a woman to teach" is literally in the tense of "I am not now permitting a woman to teach." Again, the woman not now permitted to teach is in the singular. It is the same woman of verse 11. This woman needs to learn in quiet humility before she ever presumes to teach, because she is still too influenced by Artemis cultic beliefs. This verse can NEVER be used as a proof text for women never teaching men or having "authority" over men.
(a). Deborah gave counsel and taught men and women about the Law of God (cf. Judges 2:16-19; 4:1-5:31). Huldah prophesied to Israel the word of the Lord and led the men of Israel (2 Kings 22:14-20). Priscilla and Aquila explained more perfectly to Apollos the way of God in Ephesus (cf. Acts 18:19-26). Most importantly, when Jezebel was teaching error to the church in Thyatira, Jesus never once told the church they were wrong for having a woman teach or lead them; He simply said they were wrong for not rejecting her false teaching (Revelation 2:18-29).
(b). "I suffer not a woman .... to usurp authority over the man" (v. 13).
This phrase "usurp authority" translates one Greek word authentein. This word is used only one time in all of Scripture--let me repeat that again--this word authentein is used only once in the entire Bible, right here in I Timothy 2:12. This word was used, however, in classical Greek literature and it meant "to murder someone." Paul could have chosen nearly fifty Greek words to speak of the ordinary exercise of authority, but he chose a word that more represents someone "dominating, controlling, or subjecting one to harm." Of course, this is precisely what the Artemis cult taught women to do. Artemis was the female goddess of fertility and war. Women in Ephesus were taught to use their voices, their charm, their sexuality and their beauty to dominate, control and subjugate men. It seems that this woman in Ephesus was causing trouble in the church by behavior in the assembly of Christ that was way too similar to the ways of the Artemis cult from whence she came.


(4). "For Adam was formed first, then Eve."


Timothy, tell the woman causing problems that her notion she should always have the floor and directing the assembly because she believes women are superior to men--since Artemis came first and Apollo came second--is a misguided belief. The truth is God created man first then He formed Eve from Adam, so it is very appropriate for her, a woman who considers herself a descendent of the Amazons, to sit quietly and learn from those who are older and wiser, even if they are males! Artemis taught the power of women to dominate men through sexual prowess, but Christ teaches that men are equal to women and there's nothing wrong with a woman learning from others (even men) before she begins to teach men.


(5). "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (v. 14).


And Timothy, remind her that the Scriptures teach that Eve was deceived. Contrary to what she learned in the Temple of Artemis, males are not always her problem. To be deceived and in need of correction is just as much a possibility for her as it was for Eve. She must move away from her belief in female superiority, a belief reinforced by the Artemis cult.


(6). "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (v. 15).


Timothy, tell this woman that she will be okay during childbirth, even if she totally and fully renounces her trust in Artemis. Yes, she lives in a culture that teaches Artemis alone saves a woman from death during childbirth, but the truth is Christ holds the keys of life and death. When women continue in faith, hope and love--avoiding the sexual immodesty and looseness on display in the Temple of Artemis and the worship of the goddess of fertility and war--it will be the one true God who delivers them from death during childbirth, not Artemis."


Is it just me, or does this interpretation fit a bit better with the tenor of the rest of scripture, Christ's dealings with women, and the precedent of the women in the early church than does an interpretation that wishes women, all women, to keep silent, keep "in their place," and put themselves under men?

Respecting my Husband

As a girl, growing up in a conservative Christian home, I was always told that my future husband would want, and need, my respect. Books on marriage and wifehood that I've read by conservative evangelical authors echo that sentiment- "wives, respect your husbands." "Husbands need respect like wives need love." Even the Bible commands me, a woman, wife, and feminist, to respect my husband. (It commands mutual love and respect, from both of us to the other. I reject the gendering of love and respect and the assertion that men and women have different levels of these needs as patently false. I am focusing on wifely respect here, but respect of husbands for wives is just as important.) What does this mean? Or first, what doesn't this mean?

It does not mean treating my husband as a sex-crazed beast, who needs women to "dress modestly" so that he can control his lust.

It does not mean treating my husband like a child with a fragile ego who cannot abide criticism, censure, or disagreement.

It does not mean treating my husband like a potential abuser who will grow irate if his wishes are not acceded to in every particular.

 It does not mean treating my husband as if he were mentally inferior, regarding ineptitude in housekeeping and fatherhood with a knowing smile and an "Ah, well, men!"

It does not mean assuming that because he is male he is less complicated, less emotionally developed, less capable, or less sensitive than I am.

It does mean treating him like an adult and a partner.

It does mean refusing to belittle, manipulate, or indulge in other unhealthy forms of communication.

It does mean expecting him to be capable of the same self-control, self-sacrifice, openness, frankness, reason, and logic which I myself display.

It means supporting him when he needs it, confronting him when he's wrong, putting my foot down when he's about to make a big mistake, and loving him without condition or apology.

It means not allowing him to dominate, control or manipulate me. This disrespects both of us and destroys a marriage.

It means treating his opinion as valuable, but not infallible. It means being gracious, but not a pushover. It means seeing him as a worthwhile, valuable child of God and brother in Christ who deserves my serious consideration, my vulnerable communication, and my tender affection, but not my worship or my flippant disregard.

My husband tells me that he feels much more respected, not less, in an egalitarian framework. He feels more truly valued when my treatment of him stems from love and merit and not a command I'm obeying. I find it easier to respect him when he is not trying to mold us both into boxes which don't fit us.

It is my opinion that a headship/submission model for marital relationships actually destroys respect in favor of manipulation, hierarchy, and stunting personal and collective potential. Hierarchy also destroys oneness and openness, two things which have been instrumental in making my marriage as sweet and uplifting as it is. A true partnership with someone you respect and trust is a glorious thing.