Think. Laugh. Weep. Worship.

The Hardest Part

2012-01-31T15:37:00.004-05:00

Nothing seems to be going right these days. Behind every turn is another instance where I don't get to do what I want to do or even what I really need to do. But, you know the hardest part? The hardest part is accepting the fact that God is perfectly OK with this scenario. The God of Christianity--the God of the Crucified Messiah--doesn't guarantee my comfort, health, convenience, or success. In fact, God owes me nothing. I am loved: fully, deeply, completely, unconditionally loved--that is all. And, that has to be enough. That is the hardest part. With every trial, however miniscule, my deluded images of God--God as my therapist or God as my doting grandmother--are dealt severe blows. Every day my idols are dying a slow, painful death and leaving behind the stark realization that God doesn't answer to me. God loves me. That is all. And, that has to be enough--that is enough, if only I would believe. Christ, have mercy.

O God of peace, who has taught us that in returning and rest we will be saved, in quietness and confidence will be our strength: By the might of your Spirit lift us, we pray, to your presence, where we may be still and know that you are God; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. - Book of Common Prayer (1979)

Women are Not a "Secondary Issue": Revised Edition

2012-01-24T11:28:00.007-05:00

Is one's view of women's "proper place" a secondary issue?

I've written about this question before on this blog and that post was picked up by Ethics Daily here. But, the matter was raised for me again this week when I watched this book trailer for the new release, Unladylike: Resisting the Injustice of Inequality in the Church by Pam Hogeweide (Civitas Press, 2012). (You can read and learn more about the author here.) I have not read the book yet and I look forward to doing so. But, for this post, I want to comment on something that Hogeweide says in the book trailer.

In response to the common assertion that we shouldn't focus too much on non-essential issues like women in ministry, she says: "I think that women are not non-essential." My first response to this statement was a heartfelt and relieved, "Yes! Amen, sister!" And, indeed, she is absolutely right. Women are not non-essential. They are co-bearers of God's image, full recipients of the Holy Spirit, and full members of God's royal priesthood. Thus, the matters that pertain to them should be matters of import to the entire church. As I said recently in another post, "Women's issues are human issues."

Still, as I have mulled over her statement more, I can't resist the urge to nuance her point just a little bit. This doesn't mean I hesitate to support Pam Hogeweide's cause (or the cause of my others sisters working for the full equality of women in the church), but I think there is an important theological qualification that needs to be made. In what follows, I will make this qualification and then follow up with a couple more observations that (I hope) will fully explain my stance.

There is a sense in which one's view on the "proper place" of women (in the home, church, and world) is non-essential. This sense is when we are speaking of "essential" in such a way that it refers to the most central aspects of the apostolic faith, handed on to the Apostles and from the Apostles all the way to us. These central aspects of the faith are summarized briefly in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and then, later, in the Apostles' Creed (and, if you like, even later in the Nicene Creed). The things expressed in these creedal statements are the tenets one would be expected to profess upon one's baptism--the truths that one asserts as one identifies with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and is then accepted into the Christian community.

These tenets do not include the place of women and, I think, rightly so. If we're talking about the minimum standard for orthodox Christianity, women's "proper place" need not be included. Ultimately, whether you believe Christ is "the Word became flesh" is more important than whether you believe women should be ordained. In this way, you might say that I can agree that the view of women's place in the church is non-essential when we are standing by the baptismal font. As it pertains to one's entrance into the Kingdom of God and the church, Christ's bride, one's view of women is non-essential.

Now, on the other hand, there is a sense in which one's view of the "proper place" of women really is essential. This sense is when we are speaking of "essential" in such a way that it refers to the immediate outworking of the Gospel of the Kingdom by the church. The way the church lives as the people of God on earth, seeking to abide in Christ and make his Way known, is no small matter. And, the way women are instructed to live as the people of God, and exercise their gifts within the Body of Christ is not non-essential, either. The confession of faith one makes at baptism must immediately work itself out in the world, on the ground. Like it or not, where women stand in the home, church, and world is a major part of this outworking in Christian discipleship. In this way, I can agree that the view of women's place is essential when we leave the baptismal font and proceed into the work of being the Church.

So, with these qualifications in mind, I want to illustrate my second assertion--that one's view of women is, in fact, an essential issue--with two points.

But, first, a personal (and true) anecdote to help with my illustration. Ronnie and I have a very good friend who is a long-time pastor and scholar. He is one of the most faithful and godly Christian men that we know. (No exaggeration!) We look to him for counsel in making major decisions, follow his (and his wife's) example in raising our children, and enjoy spending time with him and his family whenever we can, sharing, praying, and discussing the Kingdom of God. But, he and I have different views on the matter of male headship and women's place in the home and the church. While I affirm mutual submission in marriage and women's full equality in the church, our friend affirms male headship in the home and male-only elder/pastor leadership in the church. Does this disagreement affect our friendship or fellowship as Christians? Not at all. Does this disagreement have major consequences for our corresponding theology and worldview? I think it does.

First, our views on women lead to divergent approaches to the narrative of redemption. The truth is, my friends who believe in hierarchy tell the story of redemption differently than I do. While I characterize the subordination of women in marriage and society as a destructive and deleterious result of the Fall, they will characterize it as an often abused, but no less divinely ordained plan for the relationship of men and women. For me, the restoration of all things in Christ leads to a "new creation" in which male-female hierarchy is abolished (under the sole lordship of Christ) and all are free to function in the power of the Holy Spirit. For them, the restoration of all things in Christ leads to a Spirit-inspired ability to live out the divine plan of male-female hierarchy in a way that is loving and God-honoring. For me, the examples of female leadership in the Old and New Testaments are shining examples of what God intended to do all along--restore women to their proper place alongside men in God's Kingdom. For them, the examples of female leadership in the Bible are either places where godly male leadership failed to emerge or they are glaring exceptions to the general rule. I could go on and on, but I think my point is clear. One's narrative of salvation history differs significantly depending upon one's view of women's "proper place."

Second, our views on women lead to divergent approaches to the Christian tradition. Going back to my good friend, it is clear from our numerous conversations about theology and ministry that he and I take very different stances in relation to the Christian tradition. For him, the proper posture in relation to almost 2,000 years of church teaching is one of humility and thoughtful deference. Although he certainly wouldn't say that simply because Augustine or Aquinas said it, it must be right, my observation is that he proceeds with great caution when presuming to take issue with hundreds of years of church teaching on a particular issue. In contrast, because I have taken the stand that the Christian tradition has, by and large, been wrong about the matter of women, I do not have the same level of deference to the tradition and the "great thinkers" of the tradition. Certainly, I am not flippant with regard to the theologians, mystics, and other teachers of the church that have gone before us. Yet, because I have accepted the fact that they were mostly wrong about women (not to mention slavery!), I have allowed into my approach the very real possibility that they are wrong about other things, as well.

And so, there are theological "moves" that I make in my work that will make our friend uncomfortable. He may think I'm playing "fast and loose" with the tradition. And, there are theological stances that he takes in his ministry that will make me uncomfortable. I may think that he's being "too rigid" with regard to contemporary applications of the tradition. All of this is because we take our stand within the Christian tradition with two different postures. One you might say is characterized first of all by trust, while the other, you might say, is characterized first of all by caution. In the end, I don't think these differences necessarily mean that we end up looking all that different in terms of our overall theological perspectives. But, the way we arrive at our conclusions, the voices we consider in our argumentation, and the certainty with which we affirm our points of view differ significantly.

So, getting back to the original question: "Is one's view of women's 'proper place' a secondary issue? " My (revised) answer is, in short, when we are standing at the baptismal font, one's view of women's "proper place" is, in fact, secondary; but, when we proceed from there into the church and the world, one's view of women's "proper place" is most certainly not secondary, but essential to the outworking of the Kingdom of God. Moreover, the position one takes on the matter of women's "proper place" will have a significant impact, both on the way one narrates the story of redemption in Christ and the stance one takes in relation to the Christian tradition. As someone working for the full equality of women in the church, I hope neither to maximize or minimize the real difference my perspective makes on the way I do the work of theology and church ministry.

On Doing "Tampon Theology"

2012-01-17T14:00:00.003-05:00

I recall vividly the most jarring and insulting comment I've ever received on this blog. It came from an anonymous commenter during a period of time in which we (Ronnie and I) were dealing with some contentious issues at our local church. I imagine, but don't know for sure, that the person was a disgruntled parishioner. He/she called what I had written, "nothing but tampon theology." At the time, the verbiage hit me like a punch in the stomach. Whoever the person was, they picked an incredibly creative and offensive metaphor, one with destructive force that, I'm sad to admit, did some damage. I didn't publish the comment, but the accusation stayed with me--has stayed with me--to this day. So, why did the accusation of doing "tampon theology" bother me so much? I think it might be helpful to deconstruct this a little bit...

First, and perhaps most obviously, the imagery of the tampon is culturally weighted with the concept of uncleanness. Despite the proliferation of bright and bouncy tampon commercials attempting to say otherwise, I think it's safe to say that there is a visceral reaction of disgust among many (most?) in our culture to the thought of menstruation. This is not a new thing, of course. Menstruating women have been the object of scorn and derision for a long, long time. The Old Testament has laws concerning menstruating women, specifying rules to follow for the duration of their uncleanness, as well as rituals for their "cleansing" and restoration to full fellowship with the covenant community. The message is loud and clear: menstruation = unholy. As progressive as Westerners think they are, this perspective continues today. So, a vivid way to denounce something as dirty and foul is to call upon the image of menstruation--and not just the physical experience of a woman "bleeding" uncontrollably, but the mechanism by which a woman catches that blood for disposal (a tampon).

(I won't take the time at this point to talk about why the perception of menstruating women as unclean is so very wrongheaded and unfortunate. I'll just have to point out that the OT perspective of menstruating women as ritually unclean was tied to a pre-scientific worldview that saw all bodily fluids and abnormalities as signs of unholiness. Moreover, the biblical point of view on this matter later wedded quite well to Greek notions of female bodily weakness and, a couple thousand years later, the notion that woman = body and body = evil, is alive and well.)

Now in the context of my blog, the commenter referenced above obviously chose his/her metaphor out of this cultural milieu. He/she lobbed it at me like a grenade because I was presuming to do theology intentionally from a feminine point of view. I had recently revealed the fact that I considered myself a "feminist" (with a number of qualifications I have since made here and here) and that I thought the pursuit of theological reflection out of womanly experience was a worthwhile endeavor. Needless to say, my commenter did not agree. Theology of/for/by women = unholy, unclean, dirty, and foul. Of course, I disagree strongly with this assessment. So, why did the comment bother me so much? Why do I still think about this comment today? I have a few ideas...

When I was an undergraduate biblical studies student considering a future in theology, one of my early mentors warned me ominously, "Just make sure you don't end up doing women's issues for the rest of your career. You should be doing real theology." At the time, this characterization of "women's issues" as not constituting "real theology" was powerful. It seemed self-evidently true. "Women's issues" are things like marriage, family, children, sexuality, women's ordination, and abuse. These issues only apply to women, right? So, they can't possibly be significant enough to merit a lifetime of theological work. "Real theology," on the other hand, includes meaty (=manly) theological issues like christology, eschatology, ecclesiology, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. These issues obviously apply to everyone, so they're of sufficient import for my extended study. The point (again) is clear: "women's issues" are weak, relatively unimportant, secondary and tertiary issues for theologians.

Always a quick learner, I imbibed this perspective rather quickly. I took a dive into a variety of "big" theological topics that included God's providence, apocalypticism, suffering, and more. I don't regret any of the work I did in these areas, but I did so while intentionally trying to steer clear of "women's issues." Or, at least, not to spend too much time on them.

Now, of course, I see the absurdity of my (sincerely) misguided mentor's advice. Women's issues aren't just women's issues. They're human issues. They're body of Christ issues. If women are imago Dei alongside men, co-laborers in the Kingdom of God, recipients of the one faith, one baptism, and one Spirit of God, then "their" issues are really our issues. To suggest that the matter of marriage and family, for example, is somehow only a "women's issue" is ignorant at best. Last time I checked, marriage and family involves men, too. Moreover, if the Kingdom of God encompasses all of human life, if God is making "all things new," then the Christian marriage and family (along with children, women's ordination, abuse, sexuality, etc.) are not marginal issues. If Jesus Christ is Lord of all, then all of life is included as the appropriate purview of our theological reflection. The drama of God's story of redemption is being played out in all of creation and the Church's theologians are right to reflect on all aspects of that story.

So, going back to my disgruntled commenter, it should be clear why the accusation that I was doing "nothing but tampon theology" was so very bothersome. Not only did it (wrongly) call to mind images of filth and uncleanness, but also struck at a deep-seated and long-held concern that "women's issues" don't constitute "real theology." He/she was taking aim at the core of who I am as a woman and as a theologian. And it hurt. A lot. But now, with a couple years of reflection between me and that offensive remark, I'm finally ready to put that anonymous commenter in his/her place.

First of all, tampons aren't dirty, my friend. Sure, the culture says that they are, but they are merely a tool by which women cope with a perfectly normal bodily process--a process, I might add, that allows for the propagation of the human race. "Be fruitful and multiply" would not be fulfilled without the womanly cycle of ovulation and menstruation. So, you can hurl "tampon" in my direction, but it doesn't hurt. (The only problem I have with tampons is that they probably aren't the safest or healthiest way for women to deal with their menstruation--not to mention the way the practice of using tampons contributes to women's understanding of their bodies. But, that's another post for another time...)

As for the matter of working with "women's issues," I don't have a problem with that either. In fact, I'm proud of the fact that I'm putting the concerns of women at the center of my theological reflection. Of course, as an evangelical theologian, I cannot make women's experience a normative criteria for doing theology. Scripture, tradition, and reason have to come first. But, I think holding the stories and voices of my sisters around the world close to me while I do theology is a very good thing. I think the issues of marriage, family, children, sexuality, and abuse are really human issues and that women concerned with such matters are calling attention to the fullness of what it means to be human. If the image of God is male and female, then the voice of our sisters is needed to fully understand ourselves as male and female in the drama of God.

So, there it is. A hateful epithet once intended for harm is the impetus for a revised vision of what theology entails. Whoever and wherever that angry commenter is now, I'd just like to say: Thank you. What you intended for evil, God intended for good. And, my vocation as a theologian is more clear to me as a result of your obnoxious and offensive choice of words.

"Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen" (Eph 3:20-21).

Holiness

2012-01-14T14:59:00.006-05:00

When I was a new Christian in my evangelical youth group, I vividly recall singing the praise song, "Holiness": "Holiness, holiness is what I long for / Holiness is what I need / Holiness, holiness is what You want from me." It is clear from the Bible and Christian tradition that this song (however lyrically uninspiring) is correct: holiness is what God wants from us and holiness is what we need. But, what does "holiness" really mean?

I think the predominant understanding of holiness is something like moral perfection or a substantial lack of sin. I know for sure that's what I thought of holiness in my teen years. Holiness was about what you're not doing: not having sex, not doing drugs, not drinking, not smoking, not cussing, not wearing immodest clothing, etc. In the youth group, a holy person was a person untainted by the "world" and its many sins (especially sexual sins).

If I'm really honest, I have to admit that as a married adult with two young children, my view of holiness hasn't really changed much. It is still about what you're not doing, though I've added more mature and socially conscious things to the list: not taking advantage of those who work for us, not consuming more than we need, not thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought, and more. There are also things that we do now, too: treat each other with kindness, intentionally instruct our children in the faith, participate in prayer and worship with God's people, pursue our individual vocations, and open up our lives and homes in hospitality.

I don't think any of the above is wrong. These are all good things, right? But, I wonder if that's really what holiness is all about. Is it really about what we're doing and not doing? This seems to fly in the face of the teaching of Jesus, who often emphasized who we are (i.e., the good tree vs. the bad tree) over what we do. In this way, I'm inclined to think that holiness is actually about who we are in Christ and not necessarily the sins of commission or omission that we battle on a daily basis. (Even though that battle is right and good.)

In his book on marriage, The Sacrament of Love, Paul Evdokimov has the following to say of holiness: "Holiness is nothing but an unquenchable thirst, the intensity of the desire for God." Later, he goes on to say, "[T]he saints are souls of longing." I really, really like this definition of holiness. Here, holiness is depicted as a state of being, rather than a list of things one is doing or not doing. A holy person carries within herself an all-encompassing desire for union with the Trinity. Though sin befalls us and our flesh fails us, the person who desires God above all else is a person of holiness. Certainly, citizens of the Kingdom of God, members of the New Covenant, will not fail to present good works as proof of the Spirit's work in their hearts and lives. But, it seems to me, even in the absence of moral perfection, a passionate desire for union with God is the mark of a holy life.

Doesn't this work better in light of the stories of our faith, too? How is it that David can be called "a man after God's own heart" when he performed and allowed so many heinous things? He was a man of violence and murder, adultery and neglect. How is it that he is a hero of the faith? How is he really any worse than Saul, who was rejected by God? I think the key is the posture of the heart toward God. The key is that he was a "soul of longing."

And, the same is true of so many people in the story of God: Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Samson, Ruth, Solomon, Peter, Paul, and more. We could speak of the countless saints beyond the pages of Scripture, as well. Again, sin is never winked at in the Bible or the tradition. The failings of women and men of faith are real and not to be applauded. But, it seems that these people were still people of holiness: they possessed a desire for God that transcended their daily failings--even when they were failings with enormous earthly consequences.

In this way, a holy person is not one who longs for holiness, as such. (What the old praise song from my youth claims.) We are not to desire holiness, as such. Instead, a holy person is one who responds to God's abiding love in Christ with a deep desire for union with God--a desire that is never quenched or abandoned, a desire that grows and grows until it fills every corner of one's existence, so that even when sin occurs, repentance is swift and reconciliation is as certain as it is sweet.

And so, in pursuit of holiness, I must desire God above all. In this regard, I find a prayer from Saint Teresa of Avila particularly helpful. I think these words echo the brutally honest sentiment of many Christian hearts who long for real holiness--an unquenchable desire for God: "Lord, I do not love you. I don't even want to love you. But, I want to want to love you."

Writing is Like Childbirth

2012-01-12T16:00:00.000-05:00

I've heard a number of male scholars make a comparison between writing and childbirth in the past. They always do so rather reticently, of course, since they're men and they've never given birth before. But, let me give my male colleagues permission to use the analogy. As someone who has has two natural, drug-free births, and experienced every difficult, excruciating, and joyful moment of labor and delivery, I want to tell you: writing is like childbirth. Here are a few of the ways, as I see it...

Preparation is always different from the real thing. No matter how much you prepare, no matter how much you read and study, no matter how many details you include in your "birth plan," the actual experience of labor and delivery is always different from your painstaking preparation. This is not to say that preparing for labor isn't good. It is! It is vitally important! But, the one guarantee, especially for first time moms, is that labor and delivery will not go as planned and will not feel like you expect it to. Surprises are a given.

Writing is similar, I think. You read and study and ponder your topic. You outline your ideas and design how the paper or book will be arranged. But then you sit down to write the darn thing and it just morphs into something else--something not entirely within your control. Like a flailing two year-old in the freezer aisle at Kroger, you just can't get your hands firmly around it. And so you wrestle endlessly with your project, staring wistfully at those neat little outlines and beautifully scribbled notes, wishing you could somehow cram what you've constructed back into that perfect package you had anticipated. It may end up being better than you expected or worse than you expected. But with writing, the real thing is always different from the preparation.

The work advances in discernible stages that increase in intensity until the finish. In general, labor can be divided into three stages: early, working, and pushing. Early labor is exactly what it sounds: the earliest part of labor, when the cervix is dilating from 1-4 cms. Usually (and there are always exceptions) a woman will find this stage quite manageable. She can talk through and between contractions. She may be nervous, but she is excited too for what is to come. Working labor is also exactly what it sounds: the part of labor when the real work gets underway, as the cervix is dilating from 4-10 cms. This part of labor gets much more serious for the woman. She can't talk through contractions and often won't talk between them either. She has to really concentrate to work with her body as it labors in earnest to birth her child. This is the part of labor when women often experience self-doubt because the work is so very hard and the pain (most of the time) is increasing in intensity. The reward for a woman making it through the working labor stage is the realization that it is time to push. The pushing stage is definitely the climax of childbirth--it is "all downhill" from here. With proper support and encouragement (and no complications, of course), a woman can easily sense her body's rhythm and work with it to joyfully push her baby into the world. Finally it's over! You're not in labor anymore!

Writing is like this, too. Though not every project works in the same way, I think the writing process has some discernible stages (at least in my experience). For me, things start off optimistic and promising. I enjoy the beginning stages when things look clear, the words flow easily, and the sentences are beautifully crafted. This is the early writing stage. But, in my experience, the early writing stage gives way to the working stage rather quickly. In the working stage of writing everything becomes muddled. Anxieties rise and threaten my clarity of thought. I obsess over words and feel the defenses of my ideas slipping away. I begin to wonder if the project has any real merit and whether I shouldn't just ditch the whole thing and start over. But, by this point, I'm too far along and I just don't have the time or energy to give up. So, I have to press on. When the working stage of writing turns to the pushing stage, though, the exhilaration of being almost done combines with a newfound optimism that "maybe this paper isn't so bad after all." It feels like it's all downhill as the premises and arguments so painstakingly laid out several pages before now lead naturally and easily to the conclusion. And, when the last key stroke is made, there is a wave of relief that washes over you. I'm not writing anymore!

There is always a period of self-doubt and fear, especially in the toughest part. As I alluded to already, the working stage of labor is where women will experience their darkest moments of doubt and fear. I went through this with both of my children. Your body is working so hard and the experience is so overwhelming (and not really within your control!) that you fear you'll be overcome. The concentration that it takes not to tense up, fight the contractions, and lose focus is immensely difficult and it is in these dark times that most women request interventions (either for pain killers, an epidural, or something to hurry the labor along). (This is not a judgment of women who do so. At all. I'm simply pointing out that this is when the majority of women decide they need medical intervention to help them along.) In my case, though, my husband (the best birth partner ever created!) encouraged me and spoke truth to me in such a way that I got back on track and did not lose myself in fear and despair.

Again, writing is filled with similar moments of fear and doubt. You wonder if you're completely out of your mind. You fear that you're nothing but a charlatan masquerading as a writer. You imagine that your argument is going to be shredded by your readers (a professor, colleagues, a conference, etc). You doubt that you'll ever finish. I face these times with every paper I write. Every. Single. One. And, every time I have to do something to shake the fears. Sometimes I talk through my ideas with a friend, trusting in their intellect to spot my weaknesses and assuring me that I'm not crazy. Sometimes I just need a few words of encouragement from my husband (the best scholarly partner every created!) that I will be able to finish and that I'm not a faker. Whatever the case may be, I have to find a way to push through this stage of fear and doubt in order to finish the project.

There comes a time when you're between a rock and a hard place. In childbirth education, midwives will talk about the critical time when the working labor reaches an end and it is time to push. Often, women experience this part of their labor as something like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, you want to push the baby out because you want to be finished. On the other hand, you're afraid of what will happen, how it will feel, and what it will do to your body. Women can dwell in this difficult situation for as long as their baby (waiting in the birth canal) will let them, but often they need to be coached beyond it. "OK, you're almost there. You've done a wonderful job. I'm so proud of you. Now, let's meet your baby. It won't be long now." For me, this was the time of birth when I had to stop thinking and let my inner mammalian instincts take over. No one consciously, thoughtfully wants to push a several pound, 20ish inch object through their private parts. It just defies logic! But, it has to happen. There's no escaping it. Thankfully, once the choice is made to proceed, to work with your body and push the baby out, you are rather quickly rewarded for your efforts with your brand new baby. And, there's no greater gift than that.

Once again, I think writing can be similar to this, especially toward the end of a project. On the one hand, you want to finish the paper so you can be done with it and move on to something else. On the other hand, if you finish it then you're, in a sense, putting your stamp of approval on it and offering it to the world (so to speak) for criticism. In this way, reaching a conclusion is a daunting and scary prospect. What if I've missed it? What if it doesn't make sense? What if someone sees the holes that I already see in it? Yet, despite these loud, clamoring concerns, if you are up against any sort of deadline (as I always am) you have no choice but to press on. You've got to finish, come hell or high water. You duck your head, grit your teeth, and push on through it. And, even if your doubts remain, once the final sentence of the conclusion is written, there is a momentous "high" of freedom and peace from being finished.

When you're done, you're so grateful not to be doing it anymore. The first thing I did after I pushed Emmelia Rose out and greeted her on my chest was to turn to my mom and say, "Oh thank God I'm not pregnant anymore!" Truly, the elation of that moment was overwhelming. An almost ten month process had been completed at last and the hard work of labor and delivery was over. Overall, I can honestly say that I enjoyed my two natural births. (Really--I'm not just blowing smoke.) No, of course the painful parts were not fun--and there were plenty of those. But, I truly enjoyed the control I had over the process, the work I did with my husband, the power I felt cooperating with my body, and the achievement I felt bringing the process to completion. Even so, I was soooooooo glad to be done. So very, very glad. For me, the best part of labor and delivery was the finish.

In my experience, the end of the writing process is very similar. Although there are parts of research and writing that I enjoy, often I find the overall process to be very tedious and difficult. It takes so much intensity and concentration, so much self-encouragement and self-promotion. Writing--at least the academic writing that I do every semester--is very hard work. And it drains you (and those around you!) of energy very quickly. So, when I finish a writing project, I am truly elated. I feel like throwing myself and my poor, long-suffering family a big party. Again, even though I like writing, I am always overjoyed when I'm finished with a project. The relief cannot be overstated.

You really should trust the process. I realize that my experiences of childbirth are not the norm. Most women don't choose natural labor and delivery. I affirm that, overall, Western medicine has made childbirth safer and ensured that the women and babies who have complicated labors will not die. Surely that's a good thing! Still, I think that many (most?) women are not taught to trust the process of childbirth. They are made to think that childbirth is a frightening pathology and pregnancy is some kind of sickness that needs to be cured. So, they approach the process of labor and delivery with fear and much apprehension--trusting in their doctor/midwife to rescue them from the scary process of labor and delivery (that, unfortunately, they don't know a lot about). Again, I am not passing judgment and this is obviously a very general statement. But, my real point is this: in childbirth, for the most part, you can trust the process. By and large, women's bodies will work as they are supposed to. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, complications take place (and that's what doctors and hospitals are for!). Overall, however, the majority of women, with the right support, can successfully give birth naturally, without medical interventions. The process can be trusted, because it is the result of thousands of years of human development (not to mention, in my point of view, divine design). Endurance is the key--persevering through the waves of contractions until it is time to push your baby into the daylight.

In writing, the process must be trusted, as well. Although problems come up and unexpected things happen, writers have to trust their process to carry them through. Whatever that looks like. Word after word, sentence after sentence, paragraph after excruciating paragraph, progress must be pursued with confidence that endurance will win the day. Writers write. And writers should write as often as possible. By slowly adding to the given document day-by-day, eventually the end will be reached. And thanks be to God when that happens!

----------------------------
You may or may not like my comparison between childbirth and writing. Maybe I'm a bit too hippy and granola about childbirth for your taste. Maybe there's something you think I've missed. Feel free to leave your comments and ideas below. I'd love to read them.

Book Review: Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics by Lisa Sowle Cahill

2011-11-27T17:43:00.002-05:00

Lisa Sowle Cahill earned an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago Divinity School, completing her dissertation under James Gustafson. She holds an endowed Professorship of Christian Ethics at Boston College, where she has taught since 1976, and she is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Cahill is a prominent Catholic feminist theologian and ethicist, having published over two hundred articles and worked on fifteen books that cover a variety of topics: just war and pacifism, sex and gender, marriage and family, bioethics, adoption, and even christology. Sex, Gender, & Christian Ethics was published in 1996.

Cahill is known for being a scholar of the middle ground. A January 2011 column about her in Commonweal is titled: “No Labels, Please: Lisa Sowle Cahill’s middle way.” As such, her work lacks polarizing language and dogmatic stances, preferring instead to highlight the ambiguity of social and political judgment, working for understanding and cooperation between opposite poles. This makes her typically moderate work unsatisfactory for those looking for ideological tools with which to beat the opposition into submission. As a bridge builder, Cahill is often shot at from both sides. This stance is clear in Sex, Gender, & Christian Ethics as Cahill both critiques and extends some feminist and postmodern arguments, while criticizing liberalism and retrieving resources from (and remaining within) the Christian tradition.

While Cahill’s methodology in Sex, Gender, & Christian Ethics is critical of modern liberalism and postmodernism, radical deconstructionism especially comes under critique for leading to a cultural relativism that undermines “real moral communication, intercultural critique, and cooperation in defining and building just conditions of life for men and women.” Ultimately, it seems, Cahill is arguing with feminists, whose deconstruction of moral foundations she sees as hindering political critique. Even though she asserts the importance of modern values, such as freedom and autonomy, she believes these values must be reintegrated with “human embodiedness.” She proposes a “critical realist” approach to moral knowledge that draws primarily on the Aristotelian-Thomistic ethical tradition to argue for the possibility of shared moral values. For Cahill, these shared moral values appear at the level of “broad areas of agreement about human needs, goods, and fulfillments which can be reached inductively and dialogically through human experience” (2).

The main claims of the book can be found in “An Interlude and a Proposal,” where Cahill outlines a particular view of sex and Christian sexual ethics. First, she offers that human flourishing as sexually embodied depends on the realization of the equality of the sexes, male and female. In their sexual union, male and female have, at least potentially, three main aspects: reproduction, pleasure, and intimacy. Although she admits that there are forms of sexual life in which one or more of these aspects are missing, Cahill argues that we should not look to those forms to for a full picture of what sex is. Ultimately, she concludes that the “the institutions of gender, marriage, and family should ethically and normatively be responsive to and should enhance these values” (110).

Although focusing primarily on what she calls the “cross-cultural sexual ‘center’: heterosexual, reproductive, and patriarchal marriage,” she is careful to say that she is not thereby condemning or “casting into the shadows” possible “non-conformists” (116). Rather, she emphasizes that the sexual subordination of women to men in marriage and parenthood is unjust and asserts that women’s equality needs a substantive, intercultural defense. Also, she observes that sex has been given a moral meaning in the West that is individualist and narcissist, disassociating sex from parental fulfillment and social responsibility, often allowing sexual privacy and free choice to serve as a front for “continuing oppressions of violence toward women (whose choices are in reality not always so free)” (116-117). In the end, she is not interested in demarcating “specific offenses against sexual virtue” (i.e., condemning homosexual sex as beyond the pale). Cahill says she is, instead, hoping to make a better “apologia for a humane and Christian approach to sex and gender” (117). When she does mark off sexual behavior as unacceptable, she wants to do so within the “center” institutions of Christianity (Catholicism?): marriage and religiously vowed celibacy.

In “Sex, Gender, and Early Christianity,” Cahill considers what bearing the faith and practice of early Christianity had on sex and gender. Here, Cahill keeps front-and-center the thesis that Jesus’ preaching of the reign of God represents a new experience of the divine presence in history, “an experience which transforms human relationships by reordering relations of dominance and violence toward greater compassion, mercy, and peace, expressed in active solidarity with ‘the poor’” (121). She rejects the notion that the New Testament presents a comprehensive “sexual ethic,” as such, and warns against the assumption that the NT patterns of moral relationships can be equated with modern, liberal values.

In summary, she notes that in the NT heterosexual marriage is assumed as the proper context for sexual behavior, but the NT doesn’t particularly value procreation. The NT upholds the equal reciprocity of men and women in marriage; it forbids divorce, except in the interest of keeping Christian “peace”; and, above all, it offers an alternative to marriage: vocational celibacy (163). Cahill shows that NT has a tendency to loosen personal identification with the family, marriage, and parenthood, in order to better resist standard (oppressive) institutions of their day. But, what she sees as the contemporary challenge is to transform marriage and the family as institutions, so that they no longer represent structures of domination (165).

In “Sex, Marriage, and Family in Christian Tradition,” Cahill makes a quick survey of the development in Christian thought about sex, in reference to four topics: celibacy, indissolubility, contraception (including the matter of population control), and family as domestic church. Overall, she emphasizes the significance of Christian virginity, celibacy, and marriage as ways to combat social divisions and entrenched interests. Specifically, she criticizes what she sees as the Catholic Church’s limited focus on abortion and contraception with little regard for the Christian social message of reciprocity and inclusion, which calls for the transformation of the family, along with women’s sexual roles as mothers and wives (214). In other words, Cahill sees any contemporary change in the matters of abortion and contraception as hinging on the intercultural, Christian pursuit of the transformation of the family in ways that promote women’s equality (215).

The final chapter, “Birth Technologies and Moral Public Argument,” is the most forceful and pointed of the book. Here, Cahill takes on dominant notions of individualism and autonomy in modernist liberalism, in reference to donor insemination, in vitro fertilization (with donor gametes), and surrogacy. Her most fundamental critique is that public discourse on these issues is entirely focused on the primacy of choice, with no attention given to the social ramifications of new technologies or attention to the values of kinship and community (218). She presents adoption as a viable (albeit not uncomplicated) alternative to such technologies, with personal testimony from the adoption of three of her five children from Thailand. In the end, Cahill does not seek to condemn or control individual couples “desperate” for a child, but to “open public discussion to values of parenthood which extend beyond freedom to embodiment, and to see use of reproductive technologies in a larger context of technical reason operating toward unexamined ends, of gender hierarchy, and of economic inequality” (254).

In her conclusion, Cahill reasserts her aim to present what she thinks a Christian perspective on sex and gender can contribute to cultural debates about women’s equality and sexual meaning, all the while fortifying the kind of ethical foundations which best allow for moral criticism and consensus-building across moral and cultural traditions. In short, she is offering a Christian approach to sex and gender that can speak publicly and inter-culturally. Although some parts are more persuasive than others, I think Cahill’s work is commendable for its balance, restraint, and thoughtful nuance.

That said, I have two concerns about Sex, Gender, & Christian Ethics. First, Cahill assumes from the beginning that Christianity is “fundamentally egalitarian,” though always liable to perversion. This is something she doesn’t attempt to defend, even though many would quickly disagree with this assumption. If she intends her writing to contribute to public and inter-cultural conversations about sex and gender, I think this is a premise that needs bolstering. Also, Cahill’s treatment of homosexuality is disappointingly thin. I support her choice to focus on the “cross-cultural center” (heterosexual, procreative marriage), but I think that her American context demands a more thorough engagement with what has become a very contentious and challenging issue for most Christians.

Remix: Meditation on the Crucified Messiah

2011-11-20T14:15:00.003-05:00

I know it is Advent, but for a variety of reasons, what I wrote in this meditation during last year's Lent is coming back to me today. I thought I would publish it again. Maybe it is meant for someone else besides me.
--
We follow a crucified Messiah. We follow a crucified Messiah. I know we know this intellectually. I know we know and preach and teach this. Its basic Sunday School stuff, right? "Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again on the third day and if you believe in him, you'll have eternal life." But, do we really know this--is it a defining, framing, all-encompassing reality for the way we view life?

A crucified Messiah is well and good when we want our sins forgiven, but not so nice when we want our life to proceed comfortably... predictably... safely. A crucified Messiah is a wonderful thing when we want to escape eternal hellfire, but not so fabulous when our we're called to follow... take up our cross... obey... even when our present life is in shambles. Do you know what I mean?

Over the past couple years I have been gradually awakening to the fact that the crucified Messiah I trust in for salvation is the same one I follow in discipleship. That is to say, I don't simply affirm the reality of the death of Jesus as a fact of my salvation, but I embrace it as both a window into understanding God and a practical way of life--a path to follow after. Here's what I mean.

The reality of our crucified Messiah tells us that God is mysterious, unfathomable, and eternally dense. Who or what is this God who would unite with human flesh, walk the earth, suffer at the hands of sinful men, and experience a tortuous death? Who or what is this God who embraces his enemies and accepts humiliation? Surely not a God that I can understand.

And, this lack of understanding, this confusion about the workings of God, is a major aspect of the real Christian life, is it not? The truth is, things don't always happen for a reason. Not everything works out in the end. And, sometimes horrible things happen and nothing necessarily "good" comes from it. Mothers get pancreatic cancer. Children die. Jobs are lost (along with houses and families and hope). Good pastors suffer at the hands of carnivorous churches. What are we to do with the truth that the Christian life is not a life that's safe and easy and comfortable?

As I have dealt with this issue, I have often felt like Moses standing before Mount Sinai. The ground quakes beneath me as God descends and acrid smoke fills the air. Everyone on the ground below me cowers in terror. This God is fearsome, radically free, and furious with love and justice. What would it feel like to draw near to a God like this? I've also felt like the disciples traveling with Jesus on the road to Jerusalem. Slowly, it dawns on me that he really believes what he says about suffering and dying and that he actually intends to go through with it. This God is frightening, unpredictable, and dangerous. What does it mean for me to follow the way of a God like this?

It is contrary to everything in my comfortable, safe, Christian American upbringing to draw near to a God who is so intimidating and hazardous. I like to think that my God, my Jesus, is "safe and fun for the whole family." But, whatever this God is that I imagine--this God who guarantees a job, a house, a complacent way of life--it is not the God of Jesus Christ. It is not the crucified God.

And so, I'm back where I started. We follow a crucified Messiah. And, he requires us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him. Sometimes, the following leads us to mountaintops; often, the following leads us through valleys. In either case, my response is the same. I must follow. Through the fear, the confusion, the sadness, the struggle, the desperation, the loneliness, the uncertainty, the angst--I must follow. I have sold everything to buy the pearl of great price, the treasure hidden in a field. I have nothing left to lose. There's simply no other choice.

Book Review: God For Us: The Trinity and the Christian Life by Catherine Mowry LaCugna

2011-11-10T22:33:00.004-05:00

Here is another book review I wrote for a seminar this semester. The book is rather dated, but it is an important work for contemporary theology, especially theologies of the Trinity.

Catherine Mowry LaCugna (1952-1997) was a Catholic feminist theologian who taught systematic theology at the University of Notre Dame from 1981 until her death in 1997. She earned her Masters and Doctorate degrees at Fordham University. LaCugna’s only book-length works are God for Us (1991) (winner of the Catholic Press Association’s First Place Award for Theology) and Freeing Theology (1993), the latter being an edited collection of essays on feminist approaches to systematic theology. For those familiar with the landscape of contemporary theology, LaCugna’s God for Us will be somewhat dated. A number of the points she makes are taken for granted in today’s theological discourse. Moreover, God for Us is interesting in that it is not an explicitly feminist work (though she engages with feminist theology at points). Perhaps the fact that she is a feminist accounts for LaCugna’s concern for a Trinitarian theology “from below,” her willingness to embrace a theology of God’s passibility, and the apparent ease with which she calls into question much of Trinitarian theology since the Council of Nicaea.

In the Foreword, LaCugna says that her goal for the book is twofold: (1) that people will pause to think about the doctrine of the Trinity again, and (2) that they will think about it in a new way. Ultimately, she wants the reader to see that the doctrine of the Trinity is not simply an esoteric theory about the “internal self-relatedness” of God, but “an effort to articulate the basic faith of Christians.” Moreover, her contention is that the doctrine of the Trinity is infinitely practical for the Christian life. As she will say multiple times and in various ways throughout the book: “the divine life is our life.” The doctrine of the Trinity is “a teaching about God’s life with us and our life with each other” (1).

Undergirding LaCugna’s entire project is the theological principle (now something of an axiom in contemporary theology) that the “immanent Trinity” cannot be separated from the “economic Trinity.” LaCugna is following in the footsteps of Karl Rahner, who famously asserted that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity (and vice versa). Although LaCugna nuances Rahner’s position and moves beyond it in some respects, this is the fundamental assumption of the book and LaCugna’s “norming norm,” for evaluating the relative strengths and weaknesses of classical Trinitarian theology. God as God (immanent Trinity) is God for us (economic Trinity). Thus, any ontological distinction between God in se and God pro nobis is deemed to be inconsistent with biblical revelation, early Christian creeds, and Christian prayer and worship. In opposition to the countless theologians who have considered the Trinity “from above” (majoring on metaphysical and ontological discussions of divine persons, processions, etc), LaCugna is proposing a Trinitarian theology done “from below,” focused on the economy of salvation as the arena of God’s revelation as Triune.

To this end, God for Us is divided into two parts. Part One is titled, “The Emergence and Defeat of the Doctrine of the Trinity,” and Part Two is titled, “Re-Conceiving the Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Mystery of Salvation.” Despite these two parts, in terms of methodology, LaCugna’s project proceeds in three movements. First, she deconstructs a variety of ways the doctrine of the Trinity has been articulated in the past, arguing that all of them (post-Nicaea) sever the theology of God (theologia) from the economy of salvation in Christ (oikonomia). Second, she retrieves aspects of the ancient tradition and considers it in relation to the works of some contemporary theologians. Third, she reconstructs the theology of the Trinity, revealing the implications of the thesis that God’s being is inseparable from God’s action. In this way, Part One is the deconstruction of classical Trinitarian theology and Part Two is LaCugna’s retrieval and reconstruction of the same.

In Part One, LaCugna provides substantial engagement with the Trinitarian theology of a variety of figures and texts including the Cappadocians, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Gregory Palamas. In each discussion, she attempts to show how their theological projects ultimately fail to maintain the relationship between theologia and oikonomia--hence, they unwittingly represent the “defeat” of the doctrine of the Trinity. Central to Part One is the initial claim that when the Council of Nicaea opposed Arianism by theorizing about the being of Christ (as homoousios with the Father’s being) they were unwittingly dividing theology (considerations of God as God) from salvation history (God’s work in time and space). Before the challenge of Arius, the economy of salvation was central to Christian speculation about God; after Arius, speculation on God “in God’s self” was not only deemed possible but also distinct from reflection on God’s revelation in Christ. In her discussion of Nicene christology, LaCugna specifically indicates the question of God’s suffering as the turning point among the anti-Arian theologians. Because they would not allow that Christ’s real experience of suffering also applies to the Logos (and thereby to the being of the Godhead), they separated theologia from oikonomia.

Issues of space prevent me from detailing the specific ways in which LaCugna engages and evalutates the theologians in Part One. Needless to say, however, LaCugna’s narrative is ultimately a declension, digressing to the point that the theology of God has little to do with the economy of Christ and the Spirit, the themes of Incarnation and grace, let alone the daily Christian life. It is this theology gone awry that LaCugna blames for a contemporary situation in which most Christians are practical monotheists (quoting Rahner; 213). In response to this situation, in the first chapter of Part 2, LaCugna recalls the contributions of Karl Rahner to contemporary Trinitarian theology. She considers anew his assertion of the inseparability of the doctrine of Trinity and the doctrine of salvation and reaffirms his work with some qualifications. At this point, Rahner’s work serves as the fulcrum at which her project pivots away from deconstruction and into retrieval and reconstruction.

In Part Two, “Re-Conceiving the Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Mystery of Salvation,” LaCugna’s provides a theology of the Trinity that retrieves the union between the theology of God and the economy of salvation, so that soteriology becomes the starting point of theology. She explicitly denies reducing the Trinity to something that only exists in our experience, but instead wants to revise Trinitarian theology such that there is neither an economic nor an immanent Trinity, but only “the oikonomia that is the concrete realization of the mystery of theologia in time, space, history, and personality” (223). For LaCugna, this is not new, but a return to the biblical and pre-Nicene pattern of thought. She sums up her approach in Chapter 7, “The Self-Communication of God,” as follows: "Oikonomia is not the Trinity ad extra but the comprehensive plan of God reaching from creation to consummation, in which God and all creatures are destined to exist together in the mystery of love and communion. Similarly, theologia is not the Trinity in se, but, much more modestly and simply, the mystery of God. As we know from the experience of being redeemed by God through Jesus Christ, the mystery of God is the mystery of God with us (224).

Elaborating upon her own theological proposal, in Chapter 8, “Persons in Communion,” LaCugna then develops a thorough and detailed ontology of relation, explaining what it means to be a person and to exist as persons in communion. To this end, she engages with a host of theologians, philosophers, and ethicists, including the Cappadocians, Thomas Aquinas, Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, John MacMurray (a personalist philosopher), John Zizioulas, Patricia Wilson-Kastner (a feminist theologian), Leonardo Boff, Margaret Farley (Catholic moral theologian), and Stanley Harakas (Eastern Orthodox ethicist). LaCugna concludes from engagement with these thinkers what she calls five “notes” of personhood (288-292) and then measures the merits of these notes against “the revelation of divine personhood in the face of Christ and the activity of the Holy Spirit” (293).

From this engagement with contemporary reflections on personhood, LaCugna concludes, “When we affirm that the ‘economic’ Trinity is the ‘immanent’ Trinity and vice versa, or that God’s energies express the divine essence, we are saying that God’s way of being in relationship with us—which is God’s personhood--is a perfect expression of God’s being as God...God for us is who God is as God” (305). She qualifies this by saying that, in the end, the term “person” applied to God is not a description of God’s essence as it is in itself, but using a term that points beyond itself to God’s ineffability. The proper focus of theology is upon God’s personal reality revealed in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. What matters, ultimately, is holding onto the truth that God is personal and, as a result, “the proper subject matter of the doctrine of the Trinity is the encounter between divine and human persons in the economy of redemption” (305).

The final two chapters in Part Two consist of the practical outworking of her proposed reconstruction of the doctrine of the Trinity. (Doubtless, her emphasis upon the infinitely practical nature of the doctrine of the Trinity would mean her dissatisfaction that I am giving these final chapters such short shrift!) Chapter 9, “Trinity, Theology, and Doxology,” argues that the form of language that best serves and illumines God’s economy is “theology in the mode of doxology” (320). Here, she emphasizes the unity of a life of worship with a life of ethical practice, the entire creation as the fruit of divine love and freedom (she juxtaposes creation ex nihilo with creation ex amore or ex condilectione; 355), and the liturgy of the Church as the “originating context of theology” (such that systematic theology is second order reflection on the worship of the Church; 357). Chapter 10, “Living Trinitarian Faith,” expounds on the human life that enters into the life of God by entering into the life of Jesus Christ, the life of the Holy Spirit, and the life of others. She makes suggestions for “Trinitarian politics” (denouncing patriarchy and proposing “communion among equals”), as well as the ways the doctrine of the Trinity can be envisioned applying in ecclesial life, Christian ethics, sexual ethics, and the spiritual life. Above all, the last chapter advocates the union of orthodoxy and orthopraxis: “The doctrine of the Trinity is orthodoxy, right perception of the glory of God, and it calls for orthopraxis, right response to the glory of God” (410).

It seems that this book review is already exceeding reasonable bounds, so I will attempt to bring it to a close. In Part One, LaCugna shows herself a careful and capable interpreter of the classical Trinitarian tradition. Certainly, I imagine specialists will quibble with the ways she interprets this or that point. Still, I find her account of the post-Nicene division between theology and soteriology (theologia and oikonomia) convincing. Furthermore, I find her constructive work in Part Two to be both intelligent and compelling. Perhaps the fact that her ideas resonate in familiar ways suggests the influence of LaCugna’s work: twenty years later, perhaps many theologians are taking her conclusions for granted. As can be seen from the difficulty I have had condensing the material for this review, God for Us is a very dense and deep work. Yet, I think LaCugna shines in it as an exemplar of feminist theology that is deeply rooted in and engaged with the Christian tradition. Her early death robbed feminist theology, in particular, and Christian theology, in general, of a gifted and winsome scholar.

Book Review: To Serve God and Wal-Mart by Bethany Moreton

2011-11-05T16:11:00.003-04:00

I have been absent from the blogosphere for quite some time, consumed as I am with reading and writing for my doctoral seminars, preparation and teaching for my undergraduate classes (I'm teaching two section of Intro to Religion: Catholic Option this semester), and the frantic, frazzled life of caring for two toddlers with my ever-loving and long-suffering husband. Still, I thought I would pop in briefly to post this somewhat informal book review of one of my favorite books of the semester, by far: Bethany Moreton's To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise. I read it for my American Studies seminar a couple weeks about and lead the class discussion of the work. I highly recommend it to anyone with interests in evangelicalism, particularly evangelicalism and economics, politics, and/or gender.

About the Author
Bethany Moreton is a native of Mississippi and Assistant Professor of History and Women's Studies at the University of Georgia. She received her doctorate in history from Yale University in 2006 and was named the 2009 Emerging Scholar in the Humanities by the University of Michigan. To Serve God and Wal-Mart was her first book and it won the Frederick Jackson Turner Prize for best first book in U.S. history and the John Hope Franklin Award for the best book in American Studies.

Methodology
Even though Moreton weaves a narrative that spans a variety of topics and issues (from populism to gender to free enterprise to Christian service), Moreton’s work is fairly straightforward as a history. She draws from a dizzying number of sources: numerous libraries and special archives, including those of the colleges and universities she discusses, as well as Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE) and Food and Allied Services Trades, along with numerous personal interviews with Wal-Mart employees.

Thesis
To Serve God and Wal-Mart tells the story of Wal-Mart, the world’s largest company, and the ideological system that it cultivated. Her narrative shows that conservative evangelicalism fueled the ascendancy of neoliberal (free enterprise) economics in the late twentieth century. Far from an historical inevitability, Moreton’s narrative proves that this turn of events came to pass through the efforts of real historical actors and the implementation of significant corporate resources.

To be more specific, I think Moreton is, in a sense, answering the question that has plagued Leftists for some time: “What’s the matter with Kansas?” Or, why do so many middle class Americans prioritize social issues over government policies that are in their economic best interest? Moreton shows that “family values” voters (“Wal-Mart moms” and dads) forgo (and even denounce) economic gains like unionization out of commitment to a very different notion of moral market priorities. Their deep-rooted ideals about the centrality of the (nuclear) family, the virtue of self-sufficiency, and the faith in free enterprise undergird the willingness of “Kansas” to, in the end, submit the well-being of the individual to that of the multi-national corporation.

Chapter Summaries
Chapters 1-3
Moreton’s story begins in the Ozarks, historically one of the whitest regions of the country (95% white as late as 1996), where Wal-Mart’s success can be traced back to nineteenth-century Populism and the Populist critique of the new industrial economy. Populist activists sought the protection of the federal government against the rise of corporations, which threatened the financial independence of the small family farm (and the enduring myth of the yeoman farmer). Though the Populists ultimately lost, in many ways their broad economic and political legacy remained, allowing for the employment of federal intervention so that the yeoman farmer might come to compete with industrial corporations.

Wal-Mart was one of many corporations that benefited greatly from the federal redistribution of funds into the Sun Belt following World War II. Wal-Mart was able to take root in the Ozarks—a region formerly inhospitable to major corporations—because Sam Walton put to work for him a number of Ozark emphases: the value of “old-stock American whites,” the importance of independent proprietorship, and fierce Ozark localism. Moreover, in terms of business model, he blended the independent, small-scale family business with that of the cooperative-style voluntary chain, and issued stock for public sale to his own employees. In this way, “the white periphery could make its peace with joint-stock companies and banks as long as they were local stockholders, hometown financiers” (29).

Along with the Wal-Mart company’s innovations in finance and organization, they also consciously crafted a populist corporate image from the Ozarks and the person of Sam Walton. As Wal-Mart expanded from the 1970s and 80s, the company located stores in smaller cities, which benefited from heavy public support (i.e., universities, military installations, hospitals), anti-labor laws, and landlocked “small town” life. Wal-Mart nurtured an image as corporate protector of the “imagined homogenous yesterday” (40), adopting the old-stock folk heroes of the farmer, cowboy, pioneer, and hillbilly, while joining them to country-western music and a preference for rural people (over urban). Sam Walton’s personal story underwent a makeover, as well, rendering his tale one of meritorious hard work and thrift, making him into a “billionaire everyone can love” (45).

Chapters 4-7
The service industry that grew up in the Sun Belt in the midst of deindustrialization imperiled the masculine vision of the independent yeoman farmer. To grapple with the shift to more “feminized” work, Wal-Mart drew on rural Protestant family ideals to stabilize the masculinity of its (mostly male) management staff, reinscribing the sexual hierarchy of the family onto the work place. Conflating the family and the store helped to prevent the largely female waged labor force from viewing themselves as “workers” with skills meriting just compensation. With “work” conceived of as a family affair at home (women accepting wage labor as a means to contribute to the household and provide access to insurance, SS, and investment) and work imagined in family terms at the store, Wal-Mart ensured the loyalty and humble (non-unionized) service of both management and service staff.

This reconceived vision of work blended easily with the new popularity of “service leadership” in both evangelical and business publications. Within the ethic of servant leadership, formerly humble, feminine “reproductive” labor is elevated in ideological significance, with men called to serve both in the home (i.e., Promise Keepers) and at work (i.e., Lead Like Jesus). Meanwhile, in exchange for the emphasis on the value of their labor and the loyalty of men to the domestic sphere, women acknowledge “male headship,” even if only in a symbolic way. These “soft patriarchs” were a compromise of sorts, so that service leadership made patriarchy safe for the postindustrial service economy.

Chapters 8-11
In the 1970s and 80s, increasing numbers of Americans abandoned Keynesian economics and transferred their loyalty to privatization, deregulation, tax cuts, and proliferating financial speculation. Wal-Mart rode this wave of conversion to “free-market fundamentalism,” actively helping to shape both corporate and public opinion in such a way that it has become, in many parts of the country, simply “common sense.” First, they created symbiotic relationships with Christian colleges to recruit management from new business programs grounded in (faith) commitment to free enterprise. Then, they used independent student organizations (with sizeable corporate sponsors) to promote capitalism, the most important of which was Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE).

SIFE started at a Christian college in the Ozarks and spread to 1,500 campuses in 40 countries. They travelled the country and won converts to free-market capitalism through education, from the oldest to the youngest (including economics lessons for kindergarteners). The following banner sums up their message: “FREE ENTERPRISE WORKS, ALL IT TAKES IS GUTS” (173). Moreton argues that the Christian roots of SIFE allowed for a wedding of self-interest with the “loving” notion of the greatest good for the greatest number. Today, Wal-Mart management and its suppliers are filled with the former students of this major investment in free-market education.

Chapters 12-13
In the Reagan era, the spread of free enterprise went global, powered by Sun Belt Christian organizations like Wal-Mart and pre-existing conditions established by post-WWII Christian missionaries. Central America was of early concern to Reagan and Walton, but Walton met the threat of communism with four-year scholarships for Central American college students to study business and marketing at Christian colleges in Arkansas. The ideological training received in the Ozarks equipped these students with free market, free trade visions for the entire hemisphere. The result was very good for Wal-Mart: grateful graduates of their program working in Christian ministries, multinational corporations, government, and technology industries, providing a grass-roots network for the progress of globalization (one that runs parallel to the work of nation-states in globalization). In the pursuit of U.S.-led free trade worldwide, Wal-Mart capitalized on Christian missionary zeal and faith in free markets: “figuring free trade as service to humble Third World consumers,” with the Mexico City Wal-Mart serving as the most powerful symbol in the ideological fight (251). The biggest victory in Wal-Mart’s expansionist mission was the turnaround in public opinion on NAFTA, allowing for its passage in November of 1993.

Interesting Issues Raised by the Book
“Family Values” and Free Market Capitalism
I find very compelling the way Moreton draws together the rise of “family values,” focused on sexuality and reproduction, and the rise of the service economy, with a shift from production industries to “reproductive” ones. More specifically, I find intuitively valid the connection she makes between family-centered movements within evangelicalism, like Promise Keepers and “soft patriarchy,” and the intentional utilization of the family ethos in Wal-Mart culture. At the same time that Wal-Mart was capitalizing (literally) on the consensus that women’s work (=serving others) isn’t really work and women aren’t really workers, they were also utilizing the Christian service ideology of wives and mothers to cultivate employee loyalty and a family-friendly image.

I can’t help but see an ideological parallel between the “soft patriarchy” family ideals described above and those of free enterprise economics, both of which grow up together in Moreton’s narrative. Both “soft patriarchy” and free market capitalism entail a faith commitment of sorts. In the first, women and men accept on faith that their particular version of submission or service will result in honor and exaltation (whether in the home, the workplace, or even in the afterlife). In the second, women and men accept on faith that self-interested, deregulated business practices will result in prosperity and justice for all (or, at least most). The logic of both ideologies seems to require a “leap of faith” for adherents.

Frugality as a Common Sense Christian Virtue
Moreton’s narrative reveals how frugality became an unquestioned Christian virtue in “Wal-Mart Country” and beyond. Although conspicuous consumption is frowned upon by most evangelicals, penny-pinching consumption for the sake of serving the good of the family is encouraged. Wal-Mart is infinitely appealing, therefore, because their unpretentious, unornamented stores, with an emphasis on “rolled back” prices, welcome shoppers as sites of family-focused frugality. There is even a sense of gratitude to Wal-Mart among customers (featured in a number of their more recent TV commercials), that their low prices allow money to be spent on other things for the family. In this way, Wal-Mart has helped to solidify finding the “best deal” at the cheapest price as a Christian virtue: evidence of wisdom, self-control, and even love. Moreover, Moreton shows that it is no coincidence that the champions of frugality are champions of free enterprise capitalism--both of which put the good of the individual and his/her nuclear family at the center of concern.

It’s Religion, Stupid
Moreton’s book also raises for me a larger point about historical and cultural studies. Many historians and cultural scholars are wont to say of the human situation in any age that, in the end, “It’s the economy, stupid”--it is the ongoing battle between proletariats and capitalists that occupy the central narrative of history. But, in light of Moreton’s book (along with a number of others we have read), it seems that ground needs to be ceded to religion. Perhaps, we can say, “It’s religion, stupid.” This is a good sign for historians and theologians in training, for whom religion is central. There seems a great opportunity in the historical and cultural fields, and in American studies in particular, to highlight, explain, contest, and debate the role of religion in the outworking of history. Moreover, the reverse is also the case. In the work of the theologian, attention must be paid to the ways in which cultural institutions, even one as apparently banal as Wal-Mart, serve to shape and inform theology. Indeed, theology must always be engaged with the "lived" aspect of the Christian religion and it doesn't get more "lived" than the places where Christian families shop.

What I'm Reading This Semester

2011-08-27T17:01:00.006-04:00

I have had a few requests to post the books I will be reading this semester for my two doctoral seminars. Although we'll be reading additional articles as assigned by the professors, these are the primary books we'll be digging into. I'm pretty excited, as a theology geek should be.

The first seminar I'm taking is called American Studies for Theologians, led by Dr. Anthony Smith, author of The Look of Catholics, a study of portrayals of Catholics in popular culture from the Depression era to the Cold War. He's an important scholar in the field of American Studies, particularly as it pertains to religion in 20th Century America. This course is intended to equip theologians with an additional research skill in cultural studies. The following consists of our book list thus far. If you're interested, you can find all of them on Amazon.com. Many of the older works (toward the top of the list) are classics in the field of American studies.

- Alan Trachtenburg, The Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age.
- Warren Susman, Culture as History: The Transformation of American Society in the Twentieth Century.
- Michael Denning, The Cultural Front: The Laboring of Culture in the Twentieth Century.
- Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race.
- Lizbeth Cohen, A Consumers' Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America.
- Melani McAlister, Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East since 1945.
- Bethany Moreton, To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise.
- Kathryn Lofton, Oprah: The Gospel of an Icon.
- Daniel Rodgers, Age of Fracture

The second seminar I'll be taking is called Feminist Theology and Ethics, led by Dr. Jana Bennett. She is the author of Water is Thicker Than Blood: An Augustinian Theology of Marriage and Singleness and she is an important up-and-coming Catholic feminist moral theologian. This course is intended to survey the broad field of feminist theologies to enable future research that takes into account questions of gender. As with the above list, some of these books are considered "classics" in the field. If you have questions about any of them, feel free to ask.

- Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity
-Jean Bethke Ehlstain, Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought.
- Beth Moreton, To Serve God and Wal-Mart: The Making of Christian Free Enterprise.
- Michele Schumacher, Women in Christ: Toward a New Feminism.
- Mary Henold, Catholic and Feminist: The Surprising History of the American Catholic Feminist Movement.
- Kathryn Tanner, Christ the Key.
- Lisa Isherwood, The Power of Erotic Celibacy: Queering Heterosexuality
- Serene Jones, Feminist Theory and Christian Theology: Cartographies of Grace.
- Amy Laura Hall, Conceiving Parenthood: American Protestantism and the Spirit of Reproduction.
- Pope John Paul II, Mulieris Dignitatum.
- Lisa Sowell Cahill, Sex, Gender, and Christian Ethics.
- Margaret Farley, Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics.

The Proverbs 31 Woman: Part 2

2011-08-03T11:53:00.008-04:00

Now that I've provided what I think is a suitable background to the Proverbs 31 woman, considering historical and cultural issues, as well as matters of import within the book of Proverbs, its time to turn from background to interpretation and application.

I revealed at the end of the first post that I do not think this text was originally intended as a "job description" for housewives, as it tends to be used today. Instead, I think it is a picture of wisdom in the domestic sphere (although the use of the phrase "domestic sphere" is anachronistic here). In this way, the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 is an equally appropriate heroine for women as for men, who are seeking to live in the fear of the Lord.

With that said, I do not think it is wrong to apply Proverbs 31 in ways that speak to the lives and choices of Christian women today. Just because I've chosen to given prime place to cultural context, I am not thereby ruling out the passage's applicability to today's women. (Some of my more conservative friends will tend to assume that because I emphasize the culturally embedded nature of the biblical texts that I am going to rule out the application of the text to today's context. But, as a Christian, I accept the biblical canon as God's word for us today, with implications and applications for every generation. Just because I come to conclude different interpretations and applications of biblical texts than my conservative friends, that does not mean I'm not taking Scripture seriously.) Indeed, my hope is that the cultural context will provide needed guidance for the most appropriate ways (one might even say wise ways) to apply Proverbs 31.

The first step, I think, on the road to applying Proverbs 31 is to consider how this passage is situated within the entire biblical canon. That is to say, we should read Scripture in light of Scripture. I can't survey all the possible texts related to the issues raised in Proverbs 31, so I will point out two that I think are often overlooked in discussions, sermons, and lessons taught on this passage.

(The most often referenced passages in connection with Proverbs 31 include Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-25; and Titus 2:3-5. All of these passage include instruction to wives regarding how to live as Christians within the households of the first century and because of their language of submission, male headship, and working at home, can lend themselves to complementarian interpretations of gender roles. I'm not leaving these out because they aren't relevant. They are. But, I feel these have been treated over and over again. I would like to add a new dimension to the discussion. Both complementarian and egalitarian interpretations [and everything in-between] of these passages can be found easily on the Internet and elsewhere.)

The first relevant passage in reference to Proverbs 31 is found in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 11, verses 27-28. (I've written an extended post about this passage here.) In this vignette from the ministry of Jesus, following the healing of a demon-possessed man, a woman cries out from the crowd: "Blessed is the womb that bore you and the breasts at which you nursed!" Or, to put it another way, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you!" The reference to the womb and the breasts form a figure of speech called metonymy. In this case, the parts are used to represent the whole (i.e., when someone calls a businessman a "suit," or the Executive branch, "the White House"). Therefore, the meaning of the woman's exclamation is: “Blessed is your mother!”

As many know already, in the Judaism of Jesus' day, the value and honor of a woman were almost entirely wrapped up in childbearing and the accomplishments of her children in adulthood (see also Prov 10:1; 23:25; 29:15). If her children grew up to be lazy slobs, she would be shamed. But, if her children grew up to be successful and righteous, she would be honored. So, the woman in the crowd is pronouncing a blessing upon Mary, for producing a son as wise and powerful as Jesus. (Indirectly, of course, this is also a compliment to Jesus himself.)

Despite the fact that this blessing was culturally acceptable, Jesus corrects the woman's exclamation and offers a blessing of his own. He says in reply, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it!" If one surveys the Gospels, one realizes that this response is not an isolated occurrence, for Jesus very often trumps the cultural norms of family in favor of the new "norms" of the Kingdom of God. In effect, he relativizes traditional notions of family in light of discipleship to him. So, Jesus' response to the woman is in the same vein. While the tradition of Judaism for thousands of years had been that motherhood was the highest calling of woman, Jesus subverts this mindset and offers something different: Faithful discipleship, not biological motherhood, is the highest calling of women. And, in the Kingdom of God, the discipleship community of Jesus constitutes a new family, one in which there is only One Father.

I think this passage is particularly helpful in interpreting and applying Proverbs 31, especially the last few verses, which say: "Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband too, and he praises her: 'Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.' Charm is deceitful and beauty is in vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. Give her a share in the fruit of her hands, and let her work praise her in the city gates." Very often, I hear these verses used in a prescriptive way. Because the woman of Proverbs 31 is said to surpass all other women in her excellence, the reasoning goes, then all woman should aspire to her model of life. The thought is that the most excellent thing a woman can do is to bear and raise children, keep her home, and manage her husband's affairs.

While I most certainly do not deny that these things are good and praiseworthy (I'm doing them myself!), I think Luke 11:27-28, puts Proverbs 31 in its proper perspective. Yes, the life of God-fearing motherhood and homemaking is blessed. But, a woman's primary calling is to faithful Kingdom citizenship. Whether married or unmarried, mothering or childless, a woman can be a woman of excellence, virtue, and nobility. In ancient Israel, the way wise woman revealed her wisdom primarily through the life of motherhood and house-management as described in Proverbs 31 (that was essentially her only honorable choice). Today's wise woman has more options. No matter the life chosen by the wise woman, she is blessed if she is a disciple of Christ and citizen of God's Kingdom.

Another helpful text for "balancing" our application of Proverbs 31 is found in 1 Corinthians 7. This chapter contains some very pragmatic instruction from the Apostle Paul regarding marriage--so pragmatic, in fact, that I have never heard a sermon or Bible study lesson preached on it. Why? Because Paul speaks in terms that are not too friendly toward marriage and family. Indeed, his instruction is so surprisingly frank, I think its worth quoting at length.

First he says, "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am" (v. 8). He goes on to say that those who choose to marry certainly do not sin, but "those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that... I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband."

How interesting to read this instruction alongside of Proverbs 31! Certainly, Paul does not denigrate the duties of wife and mother. Elsewhere, he provides teaching on how Christian women may live within these stations in a God-honoring way. But, when given the choice between singleness and married life, Paul says he'd prefer that women remain unmarried so that they can be solely devoted to the Kingdom of God. He calls the affairs of family life "anxious," "world[ly]," and "distress[ing]." And, anyone with children and a household to manage can agree with these descriptors! This is why I think 1 Corinthians 7 is a good counterpoint to Proverbs 31. Read together they provide a balanced picture of the roles of wife and mother for the Christian woman. Moreover, they continue the theme begun in the teaching of Jesus mentioned above, that the calling of wife and motherhood is not the highest calling of woman, but that of being a disciple of Christ.

I think the above-mentioned Scripture passages provide a helpful complement to the picture of woman wisdom found Proverbs 31. They do not trivialize or rule out application of Proverbs 31 to Christian women today. That is not my intention at all. Instead, I think they provide a fuller, more complete picture of what Christian womanhood can be. If anything, it rules out the use of Proverbs 31 as "job description" of sorts for Christian women, the way I think many traditional interpreters tend to do.

So, what further applications would I make from Proverbs 31 to the Christian woman today? First of all, I think its important to hear from the text the simple principle that there are wise and unwise ways to manage your household. If, indeed, you do have a husband and children, then there are ways to approach your daily life that are wise and ways that are unwise. (Actually, this is true for all people in all stations of life. There are wise and unwise ways to live. Period.) It behooves Christian women (alongside of Christian men) to seek out the best way to carry out the tasks of family life. Moreover, it is essential that Christian women (married or unmarried) seek to cultivate the good character that gives rise to wise ways of living. Character traits of the Proverbs 31 woman include wisdom, industriousness, faith, generosity, hope, self-control (particularly of the tongue [v. 26]), and kindness. Women cannot choose to believe against all odds, work when sleep and rest are fleeting, or choose kind words in heated moments, if they have not been practicing these things and allowing God's grace to form them into these kinds of people.

Second, I think today's Christian women can draw from Proverbs 31 the truth that they can be a blessing or a curse to their husband and children. This sounds very traditional, I know. I tread lightly here. But, I think it is a truth for human beings, in general, not to mention women with husbands and children, that our words, manner, and choices can be a blessing or a curse to those around us (particularly those dependent upon us). In this way, Christian women, whether of complementarian or egalitarian persuasions, should learn to live wisely in light of the great impact they will have on their immediate family. This is a big part of the Christian life in the New Testament. As Paul says, "Be careful then how you live, not as unwise people but as wise, making the most of the time, because the days are evil" (Eph. 5:15-16). Among other things, I think this means living with intentionality, especially intentionally living in such a way to lead our children into the Kingdom of God.

Third, I think the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31 teaches today's Christian women (not to mention men!) that what is traditionally called "women's work" is valuable and significant. Think about it. God chose the ancient Israelite version of the "housewife" to serve as the ultimate illustration of wise living at the conclusion of the book of Proverbs. As this book was used to train and instruct young men in the wisdom of Israel, the picture of wise living was a housewife. If one thinks of Woman Wisdom in Proverbs 8-9, where the wisdom of God is depicted in feminine terms, then Proverbs 31 further shows that the "domestic" life of home and hearth is suitable for depicting the things of God, as well. The Wisdom (or Word) of God is found in the cosmic realm (Prov 8-9) and in the earthly, domestic realm (Prov 31). The very earthy, messy drudgery of family life is a fitting place to find the wisdom of God.

With these three "lessons" from Proverbs 31 in mind, I'd like to offer a couple warnings about applying the "woman of valor" today. It should clear by now that I am unwilling to take Provers 31 as a prescription for all Christian women to be stay-at-home moms. Certainly, for those with that vocation, this passage praises their work and honors the many things they do for house and home. Still, the tasks described in Proverbs 31 must not be taken as prescriptive for all women at all times. The New Testament scriptures referenced above (among other things), preclude such an interpretation. Moreover, Proverbs 31 simply does not support that premise. It is a description (in idealized terms from an ancient culture and the life of a wealthy woman) of the tasks associated with wise domestic living. Inasmuch as women have families, they will find the description rings true in a general way: life revolves around the home, where children play and the necessary tasks of cooking, cleaning, and laundry take place. But, to belabor the point, there is no prescription here for housewifry as the only God-fearing option for wise women.

Also, for my complementarian brothers and sisters who want to argue for the universal calling of all women to motherhood and the housewife vocation, I would like to caution against using Proverbs 31 as a literally interpreted standard for life. Doing so, I fear, turns this passage into an unattainable ideal, a grace-less standard against which all women will ultimately fail. For example, just thinking practically, a wife and mother rising "while it is still night" (v. 15) and then staying up so late to continue working that "her lamp doesn't go out" (v. 18), is headed for a breakdown. Particularly in the stage of life with young children, sleep is important. And sometimes, simply getting through the day with the children clothed and fed and free of injury is a victory. (Can I get a witness?!) It is significant, in my mind, that the Proverbs 31 woman had servant-girls. This is not the middle class American woman of today, who labors alone at home from dawn until dusk, with only her small children and their pets as company.

(And, don't even try to tell me that dishwashers, stoves, ovens, toasters, washing machines, dryers, irons, and other "labor saving devices" make things easier for women in the home. That's a load of poppycock. The onset of labor saving devices in the modern age has merely shifted the majority of the work needed to keep the homestead running onto the woman, whereas pre-industrial periods would have seen housework more evenly divided between the spouses. You can research and read more about this on your own. My thanks to my friend, Aimee Miller, for pointing this out to me.)

Finally, I could not complete a blog post on this topic without taking a friendly jab at a certain (in)famous hypermasculine evangelical preacher who makes much of women's responsibility to remain physically alluring and sexually "available" to their husbands (while also doing all of the household tasks and raising godly children to boot). If we were to choose to take Proverbs 31 literally, and if we were to understand it as a prescriptive text for today's stay-at-home mom, then we should also heed the words of verse 30: "Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised." Another translation of this verse says that "Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting."

As any woman knows, beauty (particularly as defined by modern standards on TV and in magazines) is most certainly fleeting. The passing of youthfulness takes with it the elasticity of our skin, the color of our cheeks, and the firmness of our [fill in the blank with your "problem" body part of choice]. (Do I even have to talk about the changes our bodies go through due to childbearing and childbirth?) If nothing else, Proverbs 31 tells us that physical beauty pales in importance to being a person of wisdom and virtue. It is far more important to be a thoughtful and kind teacher of wisdom to your children than it is to have... a sculpted rear end. If you are blessed to have the time to work on your physical features in such a way that "sculpted" is an adjective even remotely possible to describe your body, then praise God and good for you, my friend. But, if not, tell that macho preacher to buzz off and accept the blessing and security of knowing that your character is far more important than your dress size.

The Proverbs 31 Woman: Part 1

2011-08-01T12:30:00.002-04:00

A friend of mine has requested that I write something about the so-called Proverbs 31 woman, found in the Old Testament book of Proverbs, chapter 31, verses 10-31. She didn't quite say it this way, but I think my friend's basic question about the "woman of valor" is this: What am I supposed to do with her?

As someone who has known American evangelicalism as her cultural "home" for some time, it seems to me, there are (generally speaking) two types of women in evangelical churches today. There are those who find the Proverbs 31 woman an inspiring example of industrious, virtuous womanhood that they admire and seek to emulate daily. And, there are those who find the Proverbs 31 woman an overwhelmingly idealistic and romantic picture of domestic life so far removed from their reality that they cringe every time they hear her invoked. Ok, maybe this dichotomy is a little exaggerated! But, I think it speaks to the "mixed bag" that is the Proverbs 31 woman and the way she is used in evangelical churches today. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the woman of Proverbs 31, let me try to briefly explain the issue at hand, as I understand it.

Most evangelical churches give prime place to the Proverbs 31 woman in their teachings about "biblical womanhood" (or, "true womanhood" or what have you). There are Bible studies, countless books and pamphlets, not to mention plaques, paintings, carvings, embroidered pillows, and even T-shirts with Proverbs 31 as the focus. In the evangelical context, more often than not, the Proverbs 31 woman is used to reinforce a very specific view of gender roles, usually called complementarianism, but also aptly labeled traditional or patriarchal. In this model, male headship in the family is held up as a universal principle, which entails (among other things) that men are designed by God to work in the "public" realm, while women raise children and keep house in the "private" realm. Thus, women like my friend who find Proverbs 31 troubling, are usually having an issue with the way the scripture is being used--the model of gender roles that the passage is used to reinforce.

Since gender roles and biblical studies are common topics on this blog, it seems its long overdue that we talk about this passage. So, I'm going to do my best. I will divide this blog into two posts. In the first half, I'll address issues of historical and biblical context and in the second half, I'll address how I feel it is best to approach the passage as a source for instruction of today's Christian women.

I'd like to begin my little exploration of the Proverbs 31 woman with the reminder that the text is in need of contextualization. That is to say, we need to remember that this is a very old text from another time and culture. Besides the obvious fact that it is in the Hebrew Bible, what are the other indications that context is needed? Well, the text describes the "capable wife" or "woman of valor" as assigning tasks "for her servant-girls" and planting a "vineyard" (vv. 10, 15-16). She uses a "spindle" to make clothes for herself and her family and uses a "lamp" to work at night (vv. 18-19). Her husband is said to be known "in the city gates," taking his seat among "the elders of the land" (v. 23). All of these details indicate that this picture of the virtuous woman is drawn from a different time and place. Last time I checked, cities in the US did not have elders gathering at their fortified gates, nor do most women plant vineyards by hand or keep a staff of servant-girls!

What, then, is important to know about the context of the book of Proverbs? First of all, we should keep in mind that the gender roles of the Israelite people during the time period of the book's composition were different from the way complementarians like to depict them. In a pre-industrial, primarily agrarian culture, where the home (rather than the city or office) was the center of economic life, both men and women worked in the home. To put it another way, ancient Israel did not have the public/private distinction between men's and women's roles that patriarchy today (post-industrial revolution) has imagined. Thus, both the women and men of ancient Israel worked in and around the home, accompanied by their children and servants (or even slaves). Granted, men did more public tasks than the women, but women were by no means relegated to the home by an imagined divine design.

This is the major reason why the work being done by the "woman of valor" is so alien to today's woman and why the Proverbs 31 woman seems more appropriately identified as a household manager rather than simply a "homemaker" (although both terms are appropriate in their way).

Furthermore, it is also important to realize that the description of the Proverbs 31 woman includes elements that strongly suggest she is a woman of wealth and prosperity. That is to say, the "virtuous woman" is depicted in terms that reveal she is not the wife of a simple tanner, carpenter, or subsistence farmer. She is a woman of means. This is why she can dress her household in crimson and herself in fine linen and purple (vv. 21-22). This is why her husband has a prominent place among the city's elders and she is depicted as charitable to the poor and needy (vv. 20, 23)--she is not among their number. This is in keeping with the tendency of the Old Testament to associate wisdom with wealth. The Deuteronomic view of providence was such that those who are wise were thought to be rewarded with wealth and those who are fools were thought to have it taken from them. So, it is appropriate in terms of Israelite culture and the themes of the OT Scripture that the wise woman of Proverbs 31 would be a woman of wealth. Indeed, Proverbs 8:18 portrays Woman Wisdom (to be discussed in more detail below) as saying, "Riches and honor are with me, enduring wealth and prosperity."

Also, it is important to understand that within the book of Proverbs, the woman of chapter 31 is the second symbolic female figure depicting wisdom. The first feminine image for wisdom appears in chapters 8-9, where wisdom is depicted as a woman of cosmic proportions. Woman Wisdom is said to have been created by God "at the beginning of all His work" and she was present "when he established the heavens" (vv. 22, 27). This feminine image of Wisdom is said to have children who are invited to join her in her home, where they can find insight and instruction in righteousness (8:32; 9:1-9). Woman Wisdom is contrasted with the "foolish woman" who is enticing passers-by to turn-in and enjoy stolen goods with her in "Sheol" (9:13-18). In this way, the book of Proverbs uses women as metaphors for wisdom and foolishness (much as the rest of the OT uses women to depict the people of God and other groups in a metaphorical way).

Why does the book of Proverbs do this? Why are women used to portray wisdom and folly? There are many layers to an answer to this question, but I think the simplest explanation comes from what we know about the original composition and use for the book of Proverbs. Most scholars agree that the teachers of Israel finished compiling and editing the book of Proverbs in its present form during the Persian period of Israelite history. In this period of colonization by a pagan nation, the preservation of Israelite culture and religion was vitally important. As a result, the book of Proverbs was used as the primary way to instruct young men in the ways of Israelite wisdom. Indeed, just a cursory read of the book reveals that the original intended audience is definitely young men, referred to as "sons" of the fathers imparting wise instruction. So, if young men are the first audience for the book of Proverbs, then it makes sense culturally to portray wisdom and folly metaphorically as female figures. These young men would be as yet unmarried and the pursuit of a spouse would be of major interest to them. To think of wisdom as a woman to pursue, dine with, and learn from is a very vivid picture for young unmarried men.

So, we have established that women in the book of Proverbs are used to depict wisdom and folly, respectively. And, we have established that the book was originally intended for the instruction of young men. All this leads me to say that within the context of the book of Proverbs, the Proverbs 31 woman is not only a model for women and wives. Indeed, if Woman Wisdom in chapters 8 and 9 is a depiction of wisdom on a cosmic scale, then the virtuous woman of chapter 31 is a depiction of wisdom on a domestic scale. If Proverbs 8-9 is wisdom writ large, then Proverbs 31 is wisdom writ small (so to speak). This means that the wise woman of Proverbs 31 is an example intended for women and men of a God-fearing, industrious, and wise life. Despite the way she is used in evangelical churches today, the woman of valor was not intended to be a "job description" for the aspiring godly homemaker, but a compelling picture of wise living in the domestic sphere. This a is an important distinction, I think.

Moreover, thinking contextually (in light of what I've described above), if the Proverbs 31 woman was intended to be used as a "job description" at all, it was for young men to use in order to know what kind of wise woman they should take as a wife. That is, it was a lens by which to judge the women of their day. This is even more obvious when read in light of the whole chapter, which is said to be from "King Lemuel" and "an oracle that his mother taught him." Along with instruction about avoiding the perils of too much wine (v. 4) and (presumably) loose women (v. 3), King Lemuel's mother exhorted him to speak for the underprivileged and destitute, to judge righteously and defend the poor and needy (vv. 8-9). In light of these exhortations regarding wise ruling, the words regarding wise living in the home make good sense. In order to rule wisely, surely King Lemuel would want a wise women by his side, as well--as would any other young Israelite man receiving instruction from the book of Proverbs.

Stay tuned for Part 2 in the next few days...

Book Review: The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission by David E. Fitch

2011-05-30T11:30:00.001-04:00

David E. Fitch is B.R. Lindner Professor of Evangelical Theology at Northern Seminary in Lombard, IL and a pastor at Life on the Vine Christian Community in suburban Chicago. In 2005 he published The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies. He has a blog called Reclaiming the Mission. According to his blog, he considers himself an Anabaptist (or, Neo-anabaptist). His most recent book is the subject of this review: The End of Evangelicalism? Discerning a New Faithfulness for Mission.

Up front, I have to be honest. I didn't have any idea who David Fitch was when my friend, Todd Littleton, asked if I would be interested in reviewing his most recent book. I said "yes" mostly because of our friendship, with little to no real expectation for the book I would be reviewing. I was even more skeptical when I saw that the title references the "end of evangelicalism"--an issue that has been talked (almost) to death in the blogosphere.

With that in mind, let me just say that this book was a very pleasant surprise. To put it simply, Fitch's work is deeply insightful, carefully articulated, and charitably expressed. It is probably the most informed consideration of US evangelicalism I've ever read. (What more could you ask for, right?) I'm grateful for the opportunity to read it and provide a review (and endorsement!). I'm going to outline the book below, providing something of an overview of the material, as well as some relevant comments and critique that arise along the way.

In the "Introduction," Fitch presents the foundational problem for US evangelicalism as he sees it. In public perception and political influence, evangelicalism is in the midst of a great decline. He illustrates this decline in a number of ways and then poses the question: "Is our way of life failing to make the gospel compelling amidst the society in which we live?" His answer to this question is a resounding "yes." And, the crux of the issue is that evangelical beliefs and practices are no longer shaping our communal life in such a way that it embodies the Gospel (xiv, xv).

Fitch chooses to approach this crisis in evangelicalism using political theology, for the "politic" of evangelicalism is what is at issue. This is not primarily speaking of our various alliances within US national politics. Instead, this is speaking of "our way of life together unified and formed into an organic whole by our beliefs and practices of those beliefs" (xvi). This is our "politic" in a broad, holistic sense--what kinds of people we are in the world.

He goes on to explain that he is going to use the political theory of Slavoj Zizek to critique the corporate existence of evangelicals in order to show how we have devolved into an "empty politic." This empty politic, Fitch argues, has "shaped us as a people inhospitable to God's mission" (xvi). Then, he will propose what he calls a "politic of fullness," which he defines as one that "participates in the life of the Incarnate Christ as a work of the Father, extended through the Spirit into the world" (xvii). Despite the critical work that will be done (and there is a lot of it!), Fitch's aim is not to dismantle evangelicalism, but to "seek to provide an opening for evangelicalism to be renewed and to flourish into the missional calling that lies before us in the new post-Christendom West" (xvii).

In Chapter 1, Fitch describes what he believes to be the decline of evangelicalism in the US. Over a ten year period, he illustrates this decline by pointing to our diminishing national political influence, the proliferation of negative portrayals of evangelicals, the rise of leaders and movements to criticize evangelicalism (including Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, and others), and the very high numbers of defection from evangelicalism, especially among college students. Fitch goes on to characterize this decline as a "political ideology in crisis." By looking at evangelicalism as an ideology, Fitch intends to explore the ways our belief system, or doctrine, has shaped us into "a certain kind of people with certain ways of life" (8).

The focus of his critique will be three core theological beliefs which, he argues, now function as "ideological objects around which evangelicals rally" (11). He draws these three beliefs from the description of evangelicalism proposed by historians David Bebbington and Mark Noll, and they include: (1) a high view of the authority of the Bible; (2) a strong belief in personal conversion experience; and (3) an activist engagement with culture. It is important to note that when Fitch takes these doctrinal elements under consideration, he does not deny them or suggest that they are wrong. Instead, he approaches them as the "ideological objects" they have become.

One of the important points of this chapter is the frankly stated notion that, "Our social presence (or lack thereof) has impaired our witness for the gospel" (9). This statement resonates with me in a big way. It seems that this is the nagging hunch most of us--my evangelical friends and colleagues and I--have had at the back of our minds for some time, but none of us really wanted to put it into words. Fitch just says it. And, I think he's right. Our body politic, the emptiness that exists where our compelling Christian life should be, is harming our mission in North America.

The next chapter is probably the most dense of the book, in which Fitch outlines the political and cultural theories of Slavoj Zizek. At this point, I won't go into detail about the relevant terms and ideas. To do so would mean replicating large portions of the chapter! Suffice it to say, Fitch provides a careful and clear explanation of the earlier period of Zizek's work for those unfamiliar with his thought (just about everyone!). He will use Zizek's philosophy to critique evangelicalism as a political ideology. He compares the use of Zizek to sitting down with a good therapist. Using Zizek's understanding of the way "empty politics" work, Fitch will provides a "psychoanalysis" of evangelicalism, helping to diagnosis our pathologies and neuroses. Fitch is careful to say, though, that Zizek will only help locate the problems; ultimately, his atheistic, nihilistic philosophy cannot provide the remedy.

In the chapters that follow, Fitch turns his attention to the three central "Master-Signifiers" of evangelicalism: "the Inerrant Bible," "the Decision for Christ," and "the Christian Nation." Again, it is important to realize that Fitch is NOT denying these ideas, theologically or otherwise. Instead, he is critiquing the way these ideas have come to function within evangelicalism--as empty ideological symbols that serve as litmus tests for identity, rather than formative doctrines that make evangelicals into committed, fruit-producing disciples of Jesus. He reveals the emptiness of these ideological objects by examining events in recent evangelical history ("irruptions") that reveal in sometimes bizarre and embarrassing ways, the failure of the evangelical politic in the US context.

Although all three chapters make compelling arguments, I found that the chapter on "the Inerrant Bible" resonated the most from personal experience. Based upon many years within evangelical churches and institutions, I think Fitch's conclusions regarding the way the ideological object of "inerrancy" functions in evangelical life is spot-on. "Damning" is the word that comes to mind. Here's an excerpt of Fitch's argument:

"The assertion of 'inerrancy'...acts as an identifier used to assert the organization's, church's, or one's own personal evangelical orthodoxy. It serves to generate a certain ideological identification that we are conservative Bible-believing Christians who can be trusted. It serves to identify a group as 'not liberal.' The actual belief, however, in 'the Inerrant Bible' means little in terms of what each evangelical organization or church actually believes about biblical interpretation, the manuscripts, and/or internal contradictions as exposed by higher biblical critics. It instead functions purely as a symbol, an 'empty signifier,' that binds evangelicals together for certain political purposes" (56).

After Fitch applies Zizek to evangelicalism, critiquing and exposing the three "Master-Signifiers" that have emptied our politic of fullness, in Chapter 6 he turns his attention to "Recovering the Core of Our Politics for Mission." Here, he outlines what he considers to be the possibility for a redeemed politic ("politic of fullness") that will be "a participation of people together in the gift of God the Father that enters into the world in the incarnate Christ as the Sent One and is extended into the world via the Holy Spirit...Here, at the Incarnation, the gift is full, and we are invited as a people into participating in the fullness of God's love flowing forth within the endless plenitude of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" (126). In pursuit of this goal, Fitch suggests that what is needed is not a rejection of the three evangelical distinctives, previously critiqued, but an overcoming of their detachment from Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son, who is the center of our political existence.

Then, Fitch considers each of the three evangelical doctrinal commitments in conversation with important contemporary Christian theologians, imagining a revised version of these commitments firmly rooted in the Incarnate Christ. Again, space and time limitations mean that I can't address the details of these arguments. Fitch engages with a dizzying plethora of theologians and to consider each of the engagements in turn would take a long series of blog posts. Some of the important thinkers Fitch employs for his project include Karl Barth, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Kevin Vanhoozer, N.T. Wright, John Milbank, Dallas Willard, Henri de Lubac, William Cavanaugh, and John Howard Yoder.

When Fitch concludes Chapter 6, he has set forth a new direction for an evangelical theology and practice that will shape a people for God's mission. Though much more remains to be done (something he readily admits!), I think Fitch has gone a long way toward charting course of theological reflection for evangelicalism. Ultimately, he rightly calls on the work of Stanley Hauerwas to shore up his project, urging us "that if the character of our political existence does not emulate the gospel we preach, we should examine our belief and practice for the ways it has made such a social condition possible." Fitch's book is a call to do just that and a big contribution toward making this enterprise possible.

Finally, in the book's "Epilogue," Fitch considers three movements within evangelicalism over the past ten to fifteen years and critically considers them as "possibilities for new faithfulness." Charitable and careful in his criticism, Fitch suggests places of weakness and strength within the work of representative thinkers Peter Rollins, Brian McLaren, Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost (together). He concludes that "the emerging church movements, the missional church movements, as well as the neo-monastic and house church movements all show enormous promise for nurturing a new faithfulness" (200). Still, in his studied opinion, the outcome of their work for evangelicalism will depend upon their ability to avoid the "ideological traps" that Fitch points out.

Before addressing a few critical comments about Fitch's book, I should begin again by saying that I heartily recommend this volume. Fitch is a careful, deep thinker with an obvious love for Christ and the people of God. With The End of Evangelicalism?, he has made a very important contribution to evangelical theology and the endeavor of re-visioning the evangelical witness in North America.

With that in mind, I have three points of criticism and/or engagement with Fitch's work. The first has to do with his assertion that doctrines form people. This is the operative assumption when he says, "Evangelicals need to understand both how these doctrines have formed us as a people and to question whether indeed the resultant character of that community is congruent with the gospel we evangelicals have been called to proclaim to the nations" (12). I do not debate his overall point here. In fact, I completely agree. But, I think its important to point out that the formation of a people is a much more complicated process. We can't simply point to doctrines, for they are ideas--abstract notions that cannot actually "do" anything. What forms people is liturgy, ritual, behavior, and story (among other things). These things contain, communicate, and enact doctrine, but they aren't simply doctrine. For example, in reference to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, we could point to the AWANA children's program or expository preaching as things that form people based upon a particular doctrine. The doctrine itself didn't necessarily do the forming, but the practices did. I don't think Fitch would contest me on this point, but I think it is one that should be made.

Another question I have about this book relates to the basic categories of "fallen politic" versus "Christian politic" or "politic of fullness." I am very sympathetic with Fitch's conclusion that evangelicalism has, by and large, become a "fallen politic." The reified "ideological objects" he critiques have left us with an unredeeming cultural presence in the US. But, I have to wonder if the dualism of "fallen politic" versus "politic of fullness" ever really pans out. That is to say, isn't the church always-already-everywhere dealing with both? From early on, it seems the church, as a situated body of people struggling with the way Gospel interacts with culture, has always navigated the blurry edges between enculturation and syncretism--faithfulnss and "fallenness," if you will. Furthermore, because the church is the people of God, bearing the marks of Christ, can the church ever be completely fallen? And, because the church is full of sinful, broken human beings, can the church ever be completely "full"?

As careful as Fitch's analysis is, I wonder if it isn't even more complicated than he asserts. Christian compromise and cooperation with evil is nothing new, nor is it something we can completely avoid--especially in light of globalization and the proliferation of new technologies. There are always more and more people available to us to sin against! I am not a Niebuhrian realist, but I am incapable of an all-in dichotomy in the church-world relationship, either. Perfection is not possible for the body of Christ until the Lord's reign is inaugurated in full. In the mean time, I have to think that evangelicals will always deal with a mixture of "fallen" and "full" elements within our body politic. So, the question is, what do we do with that? What do we do with a body politic that is always-already-everywhere fallen and full?

Finally, in light of Fitch's criticism of evangelicalism's three major "ideological obejcts," I have to wonder about the way complementarian gender dualism functions in evangelicalism, too. Although not traditionally a part of the "fundamentals" from which twentieth century evangelicalism was birthed, a rigid sense of gender roles has become another hallmark of US evangelicalism today. (This, despite the work of such egalitarian evangelical organizations like Christians for Biblical Equality.) Ever since the 1920s, strong notions of masculinity and femininity, framed in patriarchal terms, has been a hallmark of fundamentalist evangelicalism from early on. Thanks to the likes of Al Mohler, John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Paige Patterson, et al, a hierarchical view of gender relations has become yet another litmus test for orthodoxy in recent decades. And, in my estimation, it could be argued that it too has become a "Master-Signifier"--an empty ideological object that contributes nothing of real practical (read: missional) effect in the lives of evangelical Christians. To put it in Fitch's terms, it could be argued that the complementarian model of gender dualism is not shaping our communal life in such a way that it embodies the Gospel.

I see this when so-called "traditional" wives and mothers speak in exalted language about the importance of submission to their "spiritual heads" (their husbands) and then turn around and giggle in private about the wife being the "neck" that turns the "head" where she pleases. I see this when evangelicals erupted in debate over the 2008 vice presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin--an accomplished politician and mother of five. Despite very clearly established norms of gender relations for "regular" women, evangelical leaders found themselves contorting themselves in theological gymnastics seeking a way to affirm the legitimacy of Palin's very public role, despite her calling as wife and mother. And, I see this in the absurdity of bans on women preachers being interpreted to prohibit women speaking from the pulpit, praying in public, and voicing opinions in church meetings. (These are examples of what Fitch calls examples of "overidentification," which display the emptiness and absurdity of the ideology at its core.) All of these things (and more) suggest to me that, perhaps, the hierarchical gender relations constantly spouted by the evangelical faithful are another "ideological object" worthy of deconstruction within evangelicalism today.

Before concluding this review, I should address a few practical points for potential readers of The End of Evangelicalism?. First, it is important to keep in mind that Fitch's work in this volume is not an easy read, even for educated laypersons. It is in an academic book series and engages with the work of a little known political and cultural theorist. The reader will need to be able to engage with a description of Zizek's political and cultural theory, as well as a number of important 20th Century theological figures. Personally, I think the mental workout one will receive is worth the effort, but this is something potential readers will want to keep in mind before dolling out the required cash.

Speaking of cash, if you look it up on Amazon, you'll see the book priced at a hefty $28, for a paperback (!). But, let me just say that if you are an evangelical seeking to think critically about your context, especially a minister, lay leader, professor, or other vocation within the evangelical milieu, this book is worth the price. And that's coming from a mother of two children with a youth minister husband, living on a graduate student stipend!

After reading David Fitch's The End of Evangelicalism, I have put his previous volume, The Great Giveaway on my Amazon Wish List. I will continue to think deeply about the issues he has raised while I pursue my own vocation as theological teacher in evangelicalism today. And, I look forward to reading more from him in the future.

What she said!

2011-05-12T09:48:00.000-04:00

When I wrote my little rant several days ago about not wanting to talk about women in ministry anymore, I was reacting to feelings that Laura Rector expresses very well in this ABP article: Don't try to "fix" women in ministry. All I can say is: What she said!

The Case Against Male Pastors

2011-05-11T14:42:00.000-04:00

This is a re-posted and slightly tweaked piece from the past. I found it particularly amusing recently in light of some things Ronnie and I are reading. Perhaps its a bad sign that I amuse myself with it, but hopefully my readers will share in the laughs, too. I find myself unable to write anything original at the moment as I finish up research papers for the semester. Enjoy!
----------------------------

The question of who can and should serve as pastors within Christ's church has been a subject of controversy and struggle for hundreds of years. While most of God's people have resolved this issue and conduct their churches in a manner pleasing to God, many have wandered into iniquity and promoted the idea that men--yes, men--can serve as pastors. I have been alarmed at the number of my fellow evangelicals who continue to insist upon this perspective, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a result, I provide the following post for my readers: The Case Against Male Pastors.

In the beginning, the first couple faced their first real test by the Serpent of Old. When Eve was offered the forbidden fruit and she succumbed to temptation, the Bible attests that Adam was alongside her: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it." In this, the first chance for a man to shepherd another in the direction of righteousness, Adam fails miserably and caused the downfall of the whole human race. Clearly, therefore, God is permanently displeased with male shepherds and they are an abomination in his sight.

Despite the fact that our sinful, perverted culture has promoted the dangerous idea that men should be nurturing, kind, emotionally mature, and sensitive, we must resist the cultural shift and insist that men remain in the role given to them by God. The nurturing, caring responsibilities of a pastor violate the God-given order, to which men must conform, no matter what "enlightened" minds say about it. Men should stick to the tasks that best suit them: shooting things, opening jars, beating people up, and hunting. With such responsibilities to fulfill, pastoring is not an option.

The Old Testament is clear that men belong in the workplace so that they can bring home the bacon. Over and over in the Hebrew history, we see the men going to the fields to work the land or raise animals, while the women stay home, nurture the children, and keep the household in order. Men have no business managing the household of God when it is clear that women are the ones who have been developing, over thousands of years, the gifts and skill-set needed to do so expertly.

Furthermore, the testimony of the New Testament is that the closest disciples of Jesus were all men. Sadly, not only did a man betray Jesus for a sack of money, but all of them abandoned Jesus upon his arrest. It was the women who steadfastly followed Jesus to the cross and then came to prepare his body after his death. And, it was a woman who first saw and spoke to Jesus after his resurrection, and the first one to be sent to inform others (the male disciples) of the Good News. Clearly, women make up the most loyal and faithful disciples of Jesus and they were originally entrusted with the full Gospel message. Therefore, women should be the ones entrusted with the shepherding of other disciples.

Also, men's bodies are an obvious stumbling block for female parishioners. Just as Potiphar's wife was lured by Joseph's good looks, and Delilah by Samson's rippling muscles, so also Christian women are constantly tempted by the good looks of male pastors. Although there is nothing in scripture that denotes the male form to be a problem for their ministry, common sense says that they simply cannot perform the duties of pastor without causing a major problem in the thought lives of impressionable women. In this sense, when men voluntarily submit to the leadership of women in church, they find the best way to protect the minds and hearts of their sisters in Christ.

Moreover, the Bible is clear that men are to be the spiritual leaders of their homes. The hierarchy of the home is clear: God first, husband second, wife third, and children last. Each answers to their superior for matters of spirituality and none have more responsibility than the husband, who must answer to God for the spiritual state of his wife and kids. If a husband is being obedient to the Word and takes this sacred trust seriously, then he will not have the time or energy necessary to shepherd others. With the eternal souls of his family on the line, a godly man would not want to distract himself with the spiritual concerns of others. Therefore, since the wife is not responsible for her own spirituality, she is the one best suited for caring for the lives of fellow Christians as their pastor.

Finally, the advances of psychology and neurology have shown that men and women are very different in their minds and emotions. While women are adept at multi-tasking, managing relationships, and seeing the connectedness of all things, men tend to compartmentalize, blunder through relationships, and disregard the symbiosis of all things. Also, men are generally out of touch with their feelings, struggle to empathize, and do not naturally show mercy. This means that, through no fault of their own, men are ill-equipped to be pastors, for their mind and emotions are not set up that way. Rather than bemoan this limitation, however, we should rejoice in the profound differences between men and women and thank God for the clarity we have received through the sciences in recent years.

All of these arguments do not mean, however, that men are not equal to women. Of course not! Men and women are equal in essence, but different in function. Men and women are equal in their place before God, but different in their place in the church. It is not because of any defect or malformation in men that makes them unsuitable for the pastorate. It is just the way God intends it to be.

Men are still capable of having a vibrant and meaningful place in the ministry of God's church. Among other things, men can mow the church grounds, count the money, pick up heavy furniture, and eat at the potlucks. Men can be recognized on Father's Day, saluted on Memorial Day and Veteran's Day, and acknowledged by the church on their birthday. With so many blessed ways to serve God's people, why would men desire to usurp God's order and pursue anything else?

Being a man is a high calling and it deserves our utmost respect. Let women support men in their endeavor to pursue God's best, honoring their service to the church, even if they cannot serve as the church's pastor.

The Birth of William Hunter McGowin, May 5, 2009

2011-05-05T09:59:00.008-04:00

In honor of William's second birthday today, I've finally finished the story of his birth, which I've been meaning to complete since his first week of life. That tells you how busy we've been in the past two years! Warning to my readers, though. Although I have tried not to be too graphic, there are some very "earthy" details in the below account (it is about childbirth after all!). I know not everyone who frequents my blog is interested in such things, so feel free to skip this post if you're squeamish.

I should say by way of background that I have had both of my children naturally, with a midwife, using the Bradley Method of Natural Childbirth (more information about that is available here. Although William's birth had some difficulties (as you'll read below), I wouldn't do it any other way (nor will I with any future children we may be blessed with). I found both experiences empowering in a profound way and they were incredibly unifying events for Ronnie and me, as we birthed our children together.

Happy birthday to my little boy! He was my joyful and anxious entry into motherhood and its been a journey of endless rewards ever since!

----------------------
I woke up around 4 AM on May 5, 2009 with what I thought were stomach cramps. I got up and attempted to use the bathroom, to no effect. I lied back down next to Ronnie and tried to go back to sleep, but my stomach was growling and the cramps were still there periodically. So, I went downstairs and made myself a bowl of cereal.

After finishing my cereal, it was around 4:45 and I realized that I was still feeling the cramps, but now they were coming in waves. The sensation would start on my left side and tighten all across the lower part of my abdomen, then spread to my lower back as a dull ache. They seemed to last about 30 seconds each and then fade away. At this point, it occurred to me that I could be starting the early part of labor. So, I sat in the big armchair and timed a few of the contractions myself. When I couldn’t go back to sleep, I went back upstairs and crawled into bed with Ronnie. He was due to wake up around 5:30 to go to work.

When his alarm went off, I told him, “Honey, I think I might be having contractions.” I explained to him what had happened and he agreed that he should time them with his phone’s stopwatch and see where I really was. After several contractions, we observed that I was having contractions every six to seven minutes for about 45-50 seconds. We discussed whether or not Ronnie should go to work, but I told him that I wanted him at home with me. At that point, it became very real to me that the baby was on the way and I needed to put into practice all that we had learned from the Bradley Method.

We spent about an hour in bed together, timing the contractions, talking, and practicing the relaxation techniques. The ache in my lower back was getting worse and I had Ronnie begin putting pressure on it when the contraction started. Around 7 AM I decided to call the midwife because the contractions were maintaining their length and repetition. I spoke with Cyndi and she told me that it sounded like I was in early labor and I should wait to come into the hospital until the contractions were 60-90 seconds long and three to five minutes apart or my water broke, whatever came first.

At that point, we decided I would take a shower and then we would head downstairs so that Ronnie could get breakfast and do laundry to prepare our hospital bag. I sat in the big armchair again and we watched recorded TV shows while he did his work. We stopped timing the contractions for a few hours and I just concentrated on full relaxation with every contraction. They were increasing in intensity, although not at a regular pace. We finally re-started timing them around 11 AM. It was around that time that I went to the bathroom and saw that I was losing my mucous plug. The contractions were still around 60 seconds long and about 5 minutes apart.

The contractions were very uncomfortable at this point, so I lay down on the couch. But, the lack of support for my hips did nothing to help the ache in my lower back, so I asked Ronnie if we could go back upstairs. He got out the twin size mattress from his study and put it on the floor in our room. He put sheets on it and arranged pillows for me. I lay down there and he gave me the stopwatch to use while he showered and packed. I was very self-absorbed by this point because the contractions had reached a strong intensity and my lower back, especially, ached tremendously.

By the time Ronnie was done showering and getting ready, I was thinking it was time to go to the hospital. But, knowing what the Bradley Method says about delaying your time at the hospital, Ronnie wanted to wait more. I did another hour or so of contractions while he finished packing and then, finally, I said I wanted to go to the hospital. The contractions were around 60 seconds long and four to five minutes apart. Also, I was getting to a place where I didn’t want to be moved and I was concerned we wouldn’t make it to the hospital if we didn’t go then. We called the midwife again and informed them we were going to be leaving soon.

Relaxing for the contractions while I was standing was very difficult. All the movement involved with getting ready to leave made the contractions come closer together, which made our preparations very slow. And, I needed Ronnie to do constant counter-pressure on my lower back to counteract the strong ache I was feeling with each contraction. When Ronnie went to start the car and put everything in it, I lied down on the couch again. My anxiety level was getting very high and I was very worried at the pain I might experience in the car ride to the hospital. I wasn’t sure I could make it and I wasn’t sure I’d be able to maintain my concentration once we got to the hospital. When Ronnie sat down next to me to encourage me, I threw up. Thankfully, it was all cranberry juice and water!

[Two years later, I finally finished the birth story!]

Ronnie says we left for the hospital around 3 PM. The ride to the hospital was hard. I inclined the front seat and did my best to relax through every contraction, breathing slowly and steadily. The seats felt so uncomfortable and my lower back ached fiercely, but without Ronnie’s help, I couldn’t have the counter-pressure that would alleviate some of the hurt. While Ronnie drove (slowly and carefully, at my insistence!), he made phone calls to some family and friends, letting them know I was in labor.

When we arrived at Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati, we were able to get valet service, so that Ronnie wouldn’t have to leave me. I was given a wheelchair ride while Ronnie carried the bags. All the while, I’m trying to relax through contractions, despite the fact that all the moving and stress was making it more difficult to do so. I remember being afraid that I wouldn’t be able to “get back on track” mentally once we got settled. But, I was too involved in relaxing my body to talk anymore.

We arrived at the nurse’s station on the maternity floor where a blonde happy-go-lucky nurse greeted us. Despite the fact that Ronnie told her I was in active labor, she continued to talk to me. I remember being very annoyed that she wanted to talk to me despite my obvious unwillingness to do so, but I didn’t have the energy to do anything about it. I simply waited for contractions to pass, breathing through them, before answering her questions. The nurse seemed to have no idea the urgency I was feeling and took her sweet time. It seems like we sat at that desk for a long time, but I’m sure it was only a few minutes. I know that while I was breathing and relaxing through a particularly hard contraction, someone was wheeling another wheelchair by me and crashed into the corner of my chair. It was very painful at the moment—but again, I couldn’t interrupt my relaxation to get angry. I couldn’t spare the energy!

They finally moved me into the triage room, where they wanted to monitor my contractions, “to be sure you’re really in labor.” When they said this I wanted to scream, but I didn’t—I was relaxing! When we got into the triage room, Ronnie helped me change into the nightgown I wanted to wear for the labor. And, the nurse hooked me up to the electronic fetal monitor. The bed they laid me on was horribly uncomfortable for my back aches and no matter which way I turned, I couldn’t relax fully. Our time in the triage room was extended much longer than it should have been because the belt for the monitor kept falling off. And, I remember that an aid had to come in at least twice because the machine wasn’t working properly and wasn’t recording anything! At one point, she actually had the gall to say, “Are you even having contractions?” I think she was quite lucky that I WAS having contractions, otherwise I might have hurt her!

At this point, Ronnie went into the hall and asked a nurse when we were going to get a room. She replied that they were very busy at the moment and would not be able to get us a “good room" right away. I was horrified at the thought of staying in that triage room anymore, so I told Ronnie I didn’t care where they put us. Just get us someplace permanent so I could get back to focusing on my labor.

Meanwhile, my midwife finally arrived—to my relief. The first thing she did was check my dilation. We were still on the super-uncomfortable triage bed and it was quite painful when she did the examination, but when she announced that I was 6.5 cm dilated, it was worth it. I was almost there! And, somehow, as soon as they knew I was so far along, a “good room” magically opened for me. Go figure.

(After the birth, my mom told me that the blonde nurse from the nurse’s station came up to her and told her to apologize to me because she didn’t think I was really in labor. She said she can typically tell when a woman is really in labor and I was too “quiet and calm.” I wanted to go back to her and say, “That’s precisely the point!”)

I had the choice to walk to the room myself or take the wheelchair. I knew the walk would probably be good for the advancement of my labor, but I just couldn’t imagine having to relax through all the contractions on the way to the room. So, I opted for the chair. And, we arrived at the room speedily. Ronnie thinks it was around 4:30 when we got there.

Honestly, what happened from that point on is now something of a blur. The change from 7 to 10 cms was quite overwhelming in terms of what my body was doing. I had to work very, very hard to remain as relaxed as possible, to allow the contractions to advance without my body getting in the way. And, looking back, I’m not sure how well I did that. The back pain I was experiencing was overwhelming--far worse than the contractions. And, try as we might, no matter what position I got into, we couldn’t get William to turn around (from posterior to anterior). All the while, Ronnie never left my side. He talked me through every contraction, applying very hard counter-pressure on my back, and providing me with ice water when I needed it. He was so helpful and attentive, the midwife had very little to do. She sat in the corner in a rocking chair waiting for the “action” to begin.

I remember that the midwife had a woman with her who was in training as a midwife. And, a number of nurses kept coming in and out to see what was going on. I felt a bit like an exhibit, but I was too busy trying to concentrate to care. As requested, they never once offered me pain medication and I never once asked for it. Ronnie had succeeded in making sure I was confident in my ability to birth our baby. He was all the help I needed! At some point, the midwife did offer to break my water to speed along the transition phase, but I said no.

Eventually, I was feeling overwhelmed with the sensation of William descending and I began having the urge to push. I asked the midwife to check me again and she announced I was at 9.5 cms. She said that if I wanted to, she thought I could push when I felt the urge and see what happens. At that point, I realized I wanted my mom to be with us when William arrived. Though we had discussed no one else being in the room until it was all over, I asked the nurse to get my mom. I think Ronnie was surprised, but he was so focused on helping me, he didn’t object.

I began to push around 7 PM. They put up a mirror so that I could see the progress, but I was too focused on pushing to pay much attention, really. I was so glad to be at the end, I didn’t really care about anything else. I just wanted to be done. My water broke finally as I was pushing. When William’s head finally emerged, there was rejoicing. There was a flurry of activity because he came out with his cord wrapped very tightly around his neck. The midwife had to cut the cord and instructed me to push the rest of him out. I did, but nothing happened. She said loudly, “Emily, you need to push now!” And, I said, “I am!” Nothing was happening. At that point, they realized that William’s shoulders were stuck. The midwife called for help and nurses came running in.

Again, the rest is a blur, but I remember a nurse pushing down hard on my abdomen and the midwife maneuvering William’s body out. It only took 60 seconds total to get William out, but it felt like an eternity. It was a very scary few minutes, full of all kinds of emotions. At first, I was frightened by the pain of William’s emerging and the tearing I could feel happening. But then, I was overcome with fear at the fact that William was stuck. And when they finally got him out, I was desperate to know that he was all right.

They took him immediately to check his vital signs and all I could do was watch as they worked with him across the room. I remember his cry finally and the nurse assuring me that he was OK. And, although everything else is a blur, I distinctly remember seeing his big blue eyes staring at me across the room, blinking slowly and watching everything. He didn’t cry much at all. We just looked at each other for what felt like hours.

I had wanted to nurse William right away after birth, but they were concerned about his lack of oxygen during the period he was stuck. They told me his stats, 9 lbs 2 oz, and that they were going to transfer him to the NICU for observation. Ronnie, as we had agreed beforehand, went with him. He told me after the fact that he was very torn about leaving me. He knew he was supposed to go with William, but he didn’t want to leave me behind. I was still very emotional following the birth—the joy of giving birth followed by the fear of something being wrong, followed by relief that all was OK. Thankfully, my mom was there and she held my hand and talked to me while I pushed out the placenta and had a few stitches put in. (It was a blessing that the tearing wasn’t nearly as bad as it felt. There’s no doubt that I did not need to be cut—even with a 9 lb. baby! The midwife definitely made sure the tearing wasn’t as bad as it could have been, applying counter-pressure and applying warm oil as I was pushing William out.)

William was in the NICU for about an hour before they finally brought him to me. We were very grateful that he suffered no harm from the delay in getting him out and his body was unharmed, despite the forceful efforts made to to remove him. The time I spent waiting on William was a very strange experience. I had done this wonderful thing—birthed a baby naturally with my husband by my side—but I didn’t have my child! My arms felt empty without him.

When he finally arrived, he was asleep, with his two middle fingers stuck into his mouth. We took pictures as a family and then I held him as they wheeled us to our overnight room and we got settled there. It was only then that I was able to nurse him for the first time. William was a ferocious eater from his first day. I think he must have nursed all night long!

Wife Abuse Theologically Understood

2011-04-30T07:29:00.009-04:00

Stanley Hauerwas has an essay called, "Abortion Theologically Understood." I don't presume to be at the level of scholarship that Hauerwas is. Not even a little bit. But, I've been pondering lately the tragedy of wife abuse and what Christian theology has to say about it. In this discussion, my thoughts are applied to Christian marriages, in particular. Much of what I say might apply to non-Christian marriages, as well, but the following thoughts are based upon what the Scriptures have to say about Christian marriage, in particular.

The first chapter of the Bible tells us that God created humankind male and female, in God's image. Past understandings of the imago Dei have focused upon the intelligence and reasoning capacity of human beings. The idea has been that humans bear the image of God because they are capable of reason, something that separates them from animals.

Without denying the uniqueness of humanity's reasoning capacity, many contemporary theologians have suggested that the image of God is better seen in the male and female character of humankind. That is to say, perhaps the imago Dei is in the relational character of humanity--human beings bear God's image precisely as male and female, together, in harmony. This is based on the idea that God is in God's own self, a relational being. The Trinity is a union of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit co-exist in loving unity. Because God is an eternal being of loving relationality, God made humankind to reflect this relationality. Men and women together bear this image. (And, I'm not just talking about married people here. Men and women in general bear God's image as they govern God's good earth in harmony.)

As we all know, the third chapter of Genesis speaks to the dissolution of the original harmony of humankind. Men and women are now at enmity with God and each other. From my theological perspective, this is most apparent in the reality of patriarchy, a system of male rule that has dominated human history and almost always resulted in the subjugation of women and all "others" to ruling males (by "others," I'm thinking of immigrants, conquered peoples, the disabled, the weak, and children--all of whom are typically subordinated within patriarchal societies, too).

One way in which this reality is practically obvious is within the marriage relationship, where, as many of us know, conflict and strife are often prevalent. As the original couple experienced perfect vulnerability and unity in the garden, so now couples living after the Fall experience struggle in those very areas. Sin has marred God's creation.

And yet, the message of the Gospel is that Christ is making all things new. His death and resurrection have signaled the defeat of death and sin and the turning back of the effects of the Fall. So, among many other things, there is hope within the Christian marriage to see the image of God restored beautifully in the harmony of married life. I believe that, among other things, that is God's intention for the Christian marriage: to be a living sign of God's restoration of harmony between men and women and an indication of the new found fruitfulness of humanity in the reign of God.

This is the first reason why wife abuse is so tragic and evil. If part of God's work in marriage is to signify the restoration of God's image in humankind, then abuse is an evil perversion of that sign. It runs contrary to the will of God and extends the effects of sin in an even more diabolical direction. Beyond the disharmony brought about by the Fall, abuse brings violence and the willful destruction of another's body and soul into the relationship. This is a grave sin.

Although I am inclined to agree with contemporary theologians that men and women together bear the image of God, I am still unwilling to give up the notion that human beings individually bear the image of God, as well. As a result, every individual is a creature of God and a reflection of God's intelligence, creativity, and relationality. Applied to wife abuse, this concept again yields the conclusion that the violence done by a husband to a wife is a work of great evil. Kicks, punches, slaps, insults, and curses all serve to deny the image of God in the woman and subject her to a level below her God-given status. More than even the isolated instances of abuse, however, the abusive relationship itself--filled with cycles of abuse, remorse, and fear--creates a life for the woman that is truly subhuman. Once again, this is a gross perversion of God's good order.

Another element to the theological consideration of wife is abuse is also found in first chapters of Genesis. There, we are told that the relationship of the first couple illustrates the truth that in marriage, the man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, so that the two become "one flesh." This language of "one flesh," indicates both the physical and spiritual reality of the married relationship: the "one flesh" displayed through sexual intercourse indicates the "one flesh" nature of the couple's souls (not ontologically, of course, but spiritually, emotionally, and mentally). (This is one major reason the Hebrew Bible considers sex to be what makes a marriage. For them, one flesh = sex = marriage.)

The fact that marriage involves the joining of two persons in "one flesh" highlights once again the perversity of wife abuse. Violence against one's partner is violence against one's self. It is destructive of another human being and destructive of one's self. It involves the diabolical preying on the human being with whom one is the most intimate and vulnerable.

A further element to the theological consideration of wife abuse is the fact that the New Testament and Christian tradition testify that the marriage relationship is, mysteriously, a picture of Christ's relationship to the Church. This is found in Ephesians 5, where Paul says that when he speaks of marriage he is also speaking in a mysterious way of Christ's union with his bride, the Church. The dynamics of this relationship are clear from the preaching of the Gospel. Jesus Christ loved his people, his bride, and gave himself up to death in order to redeem her. This love was self-giving and sacrificial. Furthermore, Christ continues to show his love for his Bride by gifting her the Holy Spirit and caring for her despite his physical absence.

If the marriage relationship mirrors the love of Christ for his Church, then this means a specific way of life for both husband and wife. And, it should be clear what wife abuse does to this great mystery. Violence done by a husband to a wife is an evil reversal of the sign intended for marriage. It is unthinkable that Christ would mar the body of his beloved, mistreat her, use her, curse her, or otherwise bring her harm. An abusive husband presents Christ as a sadistic enemy, rather than a self-giving lover. An abused and victimized wife presents the Church as a brutalized prisoner, rather than an adored and cherished bride. For a husband to abuse his wife, especially within a Christian marriage, is an egregious sin and distortion of the mysterious symbolism God intends for marriage.

If all of the above points are legitimate ways to understand wife abuse from a theological point of view, then it should be clear that the Church of Christ cannot take such behavior lightly. Sadly, in the past, the Church has not been the friend or protector of abused women. I've seen firsthand how pastors, deacons, parishioners, and others who should know better either turn a blind eye to instances of abuse or gloss over them as if they are insignificant.

I've even heard stories of women being told to return to the punches and kicks of their husbands because in so doing, they might "win" the men's souls to Christ. Such counsel is as theologically unsound as it is morally outrageous. Jesus Christ was the God-man and the only person capable of freely giving his body up to death as a sacrifice for others. In fact, one might say that he did this so that others would not have to. Advising victims to accept their oppression as a means of saving their oppressors is a perversion of the salvific message of Christ.

Today, wife abuse remains a serious problem in the United States and around the world. Although evangelical marriages are less likely to be abusive overall, they are more likely to be abusive when they are explicitly patriarchal. (You can read other statistics about wife abuse in a previous post.) I urge my fellow evangelicals not to shrug off this issue and I urge pastors to make it a subject of their preaching and teaching. We need to make victims of wife abuse a part of our collective concern, along with the unborn, the sick, the orphan, the widow, and the disabled. The reality of wife abuse is a despicable perversion of the Gospel and it is vital that we make that very clear.

Epilogue: I should add that I think the principle of "one flesh" provides sufficient foundation for divorce in the case of wife abuse. In the Gospels, when Jesus allows for divorce in the case of sexual immorality, I think he does so on the same principle. The person who commits adultery has become "one flesh" with someone other than their spouse and violated the union of the marriage. I would take the spirit of Jesus' teaching here and apply it to the situation of abused women. Victims of abuse have had the one flesh nature of their marriage violated and, in my mind, effectively dissolved. By having their literal flesh violated by their partner, women are thereby released from obligation to the "one flesh" of their marriage partnership. But, this is my own opinion and not the focus of this post.

I'm Not Having That Conversation Anymore

2011-04-28T08:32:00.007-04:00

I'm a big fan of dialogue. I think its the best way for us to learn from each other and have our characters formed in such a way that we become more like Christ. (This is predicated upon the idea that both side are really listening, of course.) Not to mention the fact that I'm in the academic realm, a sphere of life that, at its best, is organized around discussion, dialogue, and learning from one another. For this reason, I'm happy and eager to dialogue about a lot of issues--just about everything, in fact. But, lately, I've decided that there's one issue I'm fed up with--one topic of debate that I'm done weighing in on: women in ministry.

For those of you not in the evangelical world, its probably a surprise that this is still an issue. But, it is. Its a very big issue. And, a resurgence in traditional views of gender roles (in the SBC and elsewhere) has kept the pot boiling rapidly.

I don't come down on the "traditional" side on this debate. As I have written elsewhere, I contend that the good news of the Kingdom of God tells us that human beings are the unique and beloved climax of God’s creative work. God formed human beings in the Triune image, as male and female, to reflect God’s relationality, love, creativity, spirituality, freedom, and intelligence. Spirit of God created in humans a capacity to know and respond to God’s loving initiative and to participate in the rule of God in the created order. God's intention for humanity as male and female was for mutual, equal, and interdependent communion, but sin has marred God's original creation and perpetuated subordination and misogyny in human societies. Part of the renewal of all things in the Christ's new creation is that men and women are reconciled to one another in Christ. Through Holy Spirit's power, men and women are able to reclaim their loving, peaceful, and mutually submissive place together in the reign of God. This means that men and women both image Christ and, therefore, serve in all aspects of ministry, depending upon their gifting and qualifications for service.

In the past, I've weighed in on this matter with my perspective more times than I can count--in almost every context having to defend myself and my views to those who would say that I'm "out of place" in the pulpit and in the classroom. In these ways, I've always been on the defensive: defending why women are indeed equal in both essence and function in the body of Christ. I've answered the biblical questions time and time again. I've written on interpretations of Genesis 1-3. I've argued about interpretations of Ephesians 5, 1 Timothy 2, Titus 2, and more. I've written my own blogs on these issues and posted things on other blogs. I've interacted by email, over coffee, in churches, in classrooms, and even on instant message. I've defended myself and the women I feel I represent over and over and over again. And, slowly, I've grown tired of doing it. (Just to get an idea how much time I've spent writing on this issue, you can search "gender" or "women" on this blog and see what comes up.)

It dawned on me this week just how much time and energy I've spent justifying myself. And, I'm not alone. Women in just about every academic field (but especially theology and ministry) spend countless hours explaining to detractors and critics why they should even be doing what they're doing. In fact, even women whose fields of study don't include gender issues or feminism or anything of the sort find themselves expected to be conversant in such matters in order to defend their right to practice in their field! (You can read a post here with a lengthy explanation from women's historian Gerda Lerner of how the advancement of women in education and academic fields has been retarded, among other things, by this constant demand that they justify themselves).

After thinking about this for a while, I've decided that this situation is absurd. Women should not have to reinvent the wheel every time they want to exercise their gifts in the body of Christ. I should not have to preface every publication, every lecture, every sermon with an explanation as to why I should be able to do what I'm doing (and even, as I've actually been asked many, many times, whether my husband is "OK" with what I'm doing).

There comes a time when dialogue ends. There comes a time when conversations should cease. I don't hold my brothers and sisters who disagree with me in contempt. By no means. I don't contend that they're anathema for disagreeing with me (and I hope that they would say the same for me). I do not deny that the matter of women in ministry remains a major issue for evangelicals and I do not suggest that anyone take the issue lightly. But, for me, I've made my decision. I've put my stake in the ground, so to speak. I'm no longer "searching the Scriptures"; I've come to a conclusion. And, to proceed otherwise is disingenuous.

I'm convinced that the Scriptures, the person and work of Christ, and the practice of the early church supports the view that women are equal heirs with men and equal servants in God's Kingdom. I'm convinced that this is not a secondary issue, at least not for the women it concerns. I'm convinced that patriarchy results in systemic evil and that androcentrism and misogyny are grave sins against God's good design for humankind.

And so, I've decided I'm not having that conversation anymore. I'm happy to talk about gender, sexuality, and the church, feminism and Christianity, and more. I'm happy to discuss the challenges women face in ministry, the dual roles of motherhood and academia (or motherhood and ministry), and the dynamics of marriage and family in an "egalitarian" model. I may even find times when I feel convinced that rehearsing the same old arguments about women in ministry is beneficial for the person with whom I speak. Of course, in that case, I hope I'll be obedient to the leading of God's Spirit. But, I'm not defending myself anymore.

Enough is enough.

The time is too short. The Gospel is too precious. The mission is too urgent.

For those who are certain I'm wrong, my arguments from Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience will more than likely fail to convince you. And, the reverse is also true. We are at a theological impasse. And so, rather than waste time, energy, and resources rehashing the same arguments that neither of us are going to be convinced by, let's move on and leave the conclusion of the problem up to our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

I'll find a communion in which women are free to function as Spirit of God equips them. You'll find something in keeping with your own convictions. And, as it has been throughout history, the Kingdom of God will advance despite our differences.

The Beyaz Commercial, Part 2: Making Myself Clear

2011-04-17T17:00:00.002-04:00

I've learned recently that, amazingly, I'm the top Google search result for "Beyaz commercial." I'm really not sure how this happened. But, I now have 19 comments on my previous post regarding the new commercial for Beyaz. And, based on some of the feedback I've received, I feel that I need to make myself clear in a few important ways.

My main objective with the post about the Beyaz commercial was twofold. First, to interrogate the common and almost universally accepted narrative that artificial birth control, especially "the Pill," means liberation for women. Second, to point out the often overlooked but just as widely accepted narrative that children are a commodity. Let me expand a little bit on these points...

(1) I have nothing against artificial birth control, in theory. I do not take the official Roman Catholic position on ABC and do not (necessarily) oppose its use. I do question the idea that ABC means liberation and "choice" for women, particularly women in the West. It is important to understand that I'm not talking about women in developing countries around the world for whom access to ABC may very well make a significant difference in their quality of life (and the quality of life for their family).

What I am saying is that, by and large, the Pill has not delivered what it promised and Beyaz (presented by its commercial) is just another version of this empty promise.

Moreover, I question the presumption that "choice" and family planning are not possible without ABC of some kind (be it Beyaz, condoms, intrauterine devices, and more). Many, many people plan their families without such interventions, for a variety of reasons. There are religious and ideological reasons, yes. But also, environmental and health reasons (health reasons especially for the women taking hormonal forms of birth control). These people limit the number of births in their relationship through natural means. It is possible and it does happen.

(2) As I said above, I have no problem with women and men planning their families and choosing to space children, with or without artificial birth control. But, I do have a problem with the American consumerist notion that children are a commodity, an accessory. This is something that rings loud and clear in the Beyaz commercial: children are an accessory, a valuable, an investment--a commodity to be "bought" and "sold" like everything else in this country. This narrative presumes that the value of something is dependent upon what it does for us--what it does for me, myself, and my life.

Furthermore, this narrative feeds the conception that children are something to be added to life only when the setting is just right. First, one must become financially comfortable, fully educated, settled in one's job, with a good house in a good neighborhood--then, add children and stir. Repeat if desired.

I think the notion that one needs such things to be able to provide a loving home for a child is preposterous. Ideal? Maybe. But, not necessary. If that were the case, then we should be chastising all of the poor women of the developing world for continuing to reproduce despite their sometimes dire circumstances. Life is good. And, children can be loved and nurtured in a variety of circumstances. Not all of them are as easy as others. But, that doesn't mean that having children in difficult situations is somehow irresponsible or wrong. (I might qualify this statement somewhat in cases of women dealing with abusive scenarios, but that's another post for another time.)

Finally, I'm bothered by the modern notion (brought on by advances in ABC) that children really are "choices" rather than the natural product of a sexual relationship. We seem to have forgotten that procreation is what sex does. Its not all it does or all that its for. But, sex makes babies. And, to treat our bodies and live as though that isn't the case is foolish. I'm afraid that the birth control mentality advances this notion that sex and children can be separated. And, again, this is something the Beyaz commercial further advances.

Beyond these two main points, I have one more that I'll add based upon many of the comments that I've received. I strongly contest the notion that you can't have children and have a life. I am a married mother of two with two university degrees under my belt (a BA and MDiv) and working on a terminal degree now (PhD in theology). Is it easy? Absolutely not. Is it possible? Yes.

This is not to say that everyone has it so easy. Single motherhood is the outstanding example here, where being a mom and having a life is very, very difficult. But, I am the product of a single mother, as is my husband, and we've seen them achieve some (though certainly not all) of their dreams while raising their children. Again, is this ideal? Of course not. But, it happens more than people realize. And, I'm certain the notion that a child means the bitter end of one's life is one of the many things contributing to the high rate of abortion in this country.

I hope this has cleared a few things up for my readers. I'm surprised at how much attention that Beyaz post has received. But, thanks for stopping by and offering your comments. I'm happy to continue the conversation, as time permits.
-----------------------
Epilogue:

After posting Part 2 of my coverage of the Beyaz TV commercial, I thought of one more beef that I have with it that I only mentioned in passing in my original post: their portrayal of men and their involvement (or lack thereof) in the "choice" of procreation.

First, it is objectionable that the ad features men as objects to be shopped for and acquired. A man is not an accessory to be added to one's life any more than a child is. If women do not want to be objectified by men, then we should protest when men are objectified--especially when it is done is such a blatantly obvious way!

Second, it is highly problematic that the conversation about the "choice" in childbearing is focused completely on the woman in this ad. Because the men are located in plastic cases, added to the shoppers' carts on a whim, they are not involved in the decision-making about children. Notice that the woman waving away the stork is without a companion--a partner with whom she would presumably need to have sex (at the very least!) to make a child. (Last time I checked, that was still the way procreation worked.)

Quietly and unselfconsciously, the Beyaz ad continues the prevalent Western narrative that fertility and childbirth are the primary responsibility of the woman--something she must get "control" over, with all of the perceived positive and negative consequences of her choices being born solely by her. Moreover, the fact that the woman shopper waves away the stork in pursuit of the "Trip to Paris," at least implies that she should (probably) also do the same if she's going to acquire the man of her dreams (previously displayed).

The Beyaz commercial, with or without the intention, suggests not only that women are alone in their responsibility for planning children, but also that a child (whether planned or unplanned), would mean the man she's "shopping" for is out of the question, too.

There you have it. One more reason why I detest the new TV commercial for Beyaz!

Understanding Pro-Choice: A Woman's Control of Her Body

2011-04-14T10:10:00.001-04:00

I've titled this blog post "Understanding Pro-Choice," for a reason. I am not in pursuit of a "solution," whatever that might be, to the theological and ideological impasse that exists between pro-choice and anti-abortion groups (or, pro-abortion and pro-life groups, whatever "label" you prefer). As an evangelical believer in Jesus Christ (who also happens to be a feminist), I approach this matter from a very particular point of view. I believe that the life formed at conception is precious to God and inherently valuable to humankind. Of course, this does not necessarily mean I am forced to conclude certain things about public policy or law, but it does mean that at the most basic level, I find both the act of abortion and the society that normalizes abortion deeply tragic and wrong on multiple levels.

So then, although I am not in pursuit of a solution to the impasse, I am in pursuit of understanding--that is to say, a meeting of the minds, even if for only a brief period of time, over a few select issues. I am writing, therefore, with the hope that my readers can appreciate the value of understanding each other, and (especially in the case of my evangelical friends) exercise discernment enough to realize that when I seek to better understand the point-of-view represented by abortion rights advocates, I am not seeking to promote the point-of-view.

The place most people begin in discussions of abortion rights is the infamous US Supreme Court decision called "Roe v. Wade," decided in 1973. In this ruling, with a seven to two majority vote, the Court concluded that most laws against abortion in the US violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since that time, anti-abortion groups of various persuasions have taken issue with this "right to privacy," because, in the words of dissenting Judge Byron White, they believe the court "simply fashion[ed] and announce[d] a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers."

At this point, I will leave the legal discussion to the legal minds. Although the Roe v. Wade decision is the starting point for most in the abortion rights discussion, I think it is vital for the sake of understanding to realize that the average defender of abortion rights does so not on the basis of a Court decision (although they will fervently defend the decision, for sure), but on something much more basic and, frankly, much more significant: the right to control one's person, that is, the inherent human entitlement to have primary say over what happens to one's body, mind, and soul.

Now, I know there are lots of directions we could go in the discussion of this presumed basic human right. Persons from Jewish, Christian, and Islamic perspectives would rightly bring up the rulership of God over all things, which certainly has an impact on the way one may exercise one's individual right to control one's person. As a Christian, I affirm that my body is not my own and I do not have absolute say over what happens to it. Also, there is the discussion of one's obligation to the community and the consideration of the perceived impact a person's "rights" have on the broader society (a topic I addressed in my post Thoughts on Feminism and Abortion. These matters are significant. But, I have a feeling my readers are familiar with these ideas and I'm headed someplace else.

Although I cannot speak for abortion rights advocacy groups, nor can I presume to speak for individual women who seek to protect their access to abortion, I am quite convinced that abortion is not an act they relish or find inherently good. (I'm sure there are some who do feel this way, but they are in no sense the majority, even among the most fervent pro-choice advocates.) Indeed, if you listen closely, the matter of the right to control one's person comes up over and over again.

As I seek to better understand the abortion rights position, I have pondered this issue for some time. For those who advocate for abortion rights, why is the right to control one's person such an important matter to defend? And, why would any limitations on such rights be so abhorrent and objectionable (when, at the same time, in the view of pro-life advocates, such "rights" lead to equally abhorrent practices)? There's insufficient space at this point to address this matter fully, but let me unpack just a small portion of the baggage wrapped up in this debate.

Although Western democracies have made significant advances in the protection of women and women's rights, for most women in the US, it remains a fact of life that she will have her physical (not to mention mental and spiritual) person violated on a number of occasions. By way of personal example, when I worked in a restaurant as a teenager, I had to contend with male employees and customers who violated by bodily space (through a variety of means I won't mention), simply because I was female. I'm sure the men in question weren't thinking deeply about their actions, but clearly the fact of my female body clearly suggested to them I had no right over my body--the right to not be touched, harassed, etc. It would not have occurred to the same men to treat the bodies of other men in a similar manner.

Admittedly, this is a rather mild example, compared to what other women have experienced. The truth is, fear of harassment, rape, abuse, etc, is something women in the US face on a daily basis and most of that is closely tied to the fact that men don't believe women have "rights" simply because they are women. The female body, even in the Western world, is constantly seen as vulnerable and open to misuse by men. (I could also talk here about the rampant problems in the maternity care system in the US, in which women constantly have their bodies violated without or against their consent in the name of "medical care.")

Moreover, in the rest of the world, women are generally and systematically deprived of the right to control their own person. In some countries, there aren't even laws to appeal to in order to right these wrongs. I could illustrate this problem with a vast number of examples, but here are a few.

Women abuse. A quarter of the world's women will experience sexual assault by a man in their lifetime. And, every ten seconds in the US, a woman is physically assaulted by an intimate male partner. I've detailed additional statistics about this evil pandemic in a previous post. This is a major problem.

Rape. Women are raped by their boyfriends, acquaintances, husbands, fathers, brothers, cousins, and neighbors. Women in the developing world often experience rape as a tactic of warfare, where soldiers will kill the men of a particular region and then systematically rape the women.

I don't have the time to go into the other horrific things that women experience all over the world. Sexual trafficking. Enslavement. Honor killing. Sati. Bride burning. Female circumcision or excisement. Targeted abortion of female babies. Forced prostitution. Feel free to Google or Wikipedia these things for more information.

Unfortunately, the ways women are subjugated and controlled do not end with this brief discussion. But, I think this description is sufficient to make my point. With so many women worldwide, unable to exercise even the slightest control over their bodies, it is understandable that abortion rights advocates fervently defend against anything that would provide further restriction. The above practices are not limited to "undeveloped" or "under-developed" countries and, in a sense, women everywhere are at a fairly constant risk of being exploited or mistreated. This is not an exaggeration. This is a statistical and experiential fact.

So, what am I getting at? Although we do not have to go from this observation to the defense of abortion as a practice or abortion rights as a public policy (because I don't and many others don't), I do believe evangelicals (and all those who call themselves Christians) need to soberly consider how the Christian faith informs the way we approach the defense of women and women's right to control their own person.

Tragically, in the past, Christian theologians and leaders have done more to contribute to the plight of female subjugation than they have contributed to its alleviation. Indeed, a frank survey of the Early Church Fathers, Reformation leaders, and others, reveals a sad history of misogynism and androcentrism. I don't want to repeat this problem in the present day but I fear that many unwittingly do so.

Women's bodies should be protected and their persons defended. Their right to control their person should be upheld. And, women's babies should be welcomed as the natural good that they are. In my humble opinion, somehow, Christians need to find a way to affirm both. Is that possible? I definitely hope so.

The Body of Christ

2011-04-07T11:56:00.006-04:00

This semester, I'm taking a seminar on the sacramental theology of the Western Church. The bulk of the course has been spent on the theology of the Eucharist, particularly as it developed in the Medieval period in the thought of Peter Lombard and Thomas Aquinas. This class has been quite an eye-opener for a Baptist with very limited understanding of Catholic sacramental theology. Indeed, there is a major difference between what we think we know about it and what it really is. (I hope to write a series of posts soon about the many common evangelical misunderstandings of Catholic theology that I have uncovered since arriving at UD.)

I remain in disagreement with Catholic sacramentalism in a number of respects. But, there are also a number of ways in which their sacramental theology has appeal for me. I appreciate the emphasis upon real participation in the Triune God. An essential aspect of the sacramental system is the vision of a way by which Christians individually and collectively participate in the Godhead. In various ways, Catholics believe, the grace of God uses the sacraments to incorporate the believer into the life of the Godhead--conforming the person ever more to Christ's character and bringing them into harmony with the work of God's Spirit. This participation is facilitated through physical, practical means: words, actions, and things--water, wine, bread, oil, touch, prayer.

This makes sense in some way because God has made humans to be bodily creatures. We experience the world in a bodily, sensual way. And, God revealed himself to humans in a physical way: the man Jesus of Nazareth. Since it is not against the nature of our God to reveal himself through the earthly and physical in Jesus Christ, why wouldn't it be fitting for God to continue to do so through earthly, physical means such as baptism and the Eucharist? Indeed, it has been the pattern of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob throughout history to use the earthly to communicate and mediate the supernatural: the pillar of cloud and fire, the Ark of the Covenant, the Paschal lamb of Passover.

All this is not to say that I'm "sold." As I said, I remain in disagreement with Catholic sacramental theology in a number of respects (that I won't go into here). Still, I have a new found appreciation for the very natural, human desire to encounter God in a real, tangible way. Faith remains key here. I'm not suggesting Christians should walk by sight, not by faith. But, it is understandable that bodily creatures would desire a bodily means by which to worship and commune with their Creator. I can sense this desire within myself and it pushes me toward a reconsideration of the Church's sacraments in a way that takes this into consideration.

With all this in mind, I share the following reflection with you. I'm not a poet, but it seemed best to write this particular train of thought in a poetic form.

Corpus Christi
My daughter gropes for my face
in the dark
She nurses
Plump fingers
stroking cheek
nose
neck
lips
Body becoming assurance
in the black

My fingers grasp the wooden pew
lips moving
with hushed recitations
I pray
Mouth taking, eating
bread
wine
Savoring the taste
Understanding better now
kisses
for the crucifix--
fumbling
adoring
gestures
for the body of Christ

My daughter gropes for my face in the dark
I search the world for the texture of God

On the Benefits of Being a Theologian Mom

2011-03-13T11:00:00.007-04:00

There is much to say about the challenges of being a mom and a theologian (or, theologian-in-training, in my case). Being a graduate student in religious studies is hard enough on its own. Completing your required course work, teaching freshman religion courses, preparing for and taking general examinations, assembling your dissertation committee, learning your required research languages, preparing for and taking your comprehensive examination, and much, much more. Then, add to that the responsibilities of being a wife and mother (of small children, no less) and you have an exceedingly difficult situation. I am further challenged by the fact that I am the only woman in my program who is married with children. There is some loneliness in this regard, to say the least.

But, this isn't a post about all that. Although there is plenty to discuss as far as the difficulties in being a theologian and a mom, I'm not going to write about them here. Plenty of others, I'm sure, have already done so. Instead, I'd like to offer a few ways in which I observe that being a mom and a theologian is beneficial. These benefits are not only for me as a person, but for my theology and teaching, too. I share these with you after almost two years in a doctoral program with two children under the age of two (Enough "twos" in that sentence for you?). (Although, to be fair, I was pregnant with the second child during the first year--though that doesn't mean I wasn't very aware of her presence throughout that time!)

First, being a mom and a theologian provides a daily, even hourly, reminder of my humanly limitations. The truth of my finitude is ever-present as I reckon each day with the limited number of hours in which I can work. My husband keeps our two children three days a week while I teach class and have "office hours." During this 5-7 hour window of time, I have to get done most of what needs to get done. The truth is, many things that I want to do and some things even that I need to do, just won't happen. Now, one might argue that if they fall by the way side then they probably weren't that important to begin with. But, as a recovering perfectionist, this reality has been difficult to accept. Still, I've found it remarkably freeing to know that my role as a mom trumps everything else and the guilt is considerably less when other tasks and priorities remain incomplete. I can't read my son Goodnight Moon and read Peter Lombard on the sacraments for my seminar. So, choices must be made and I'm learning to be OK with that.

Second, there is a considerable amount of occupational humility to be found in being a theologian mom. Many would consider theology to be one of those “ivory tower” academic fields. That’s all well and good; as long as you understand that my ivory tower is covered in snot, milk stains, Cheerios, and dirty diapers. In light of the constant and immediate needs of my children, it is crystal clear that what I do is not the most important thing. I will leave the office early simply to pick up bananas and blueberries for my son (whose aversion to vegetables means that we eat a lot of fresh fruit at our house). I will forgo grading papers in order to cuddle and coo at my daughter, who delights in (and desperately needs) my interaction. I will spend Saturday morning sitting on the floor watching cartoons with my kids rather than work on that research project that comes due in a few weeks. Why? Because what I do is not the most important thing. And, it will never be the most important thing. I’m not a slacker. I work my rear end off to complete assignments on time. But, when it comes to my babies, theology can wait.

Finally, being a theologian mom, particularly a breastfeeding mom, provides me with a constant appreciation for the fact that I am embodied being. I know this sounds weird, but the truth is that in academic life there is a temptation to treat oneself as a being made up of mind and soul. The body and attention to the body’s needs (and the body’s connection to others) sometimes fall away. But, because my daughter is breastfeeding, every day that I am away from her I have to stop what I’m doing and pump milk for her. Moreover, even before I cease my activity to pump, I am very aware of my body’s response to being without her presence. My breasts fill up with milk and I can feel my bodiliness, while I teach and read and write. This theologian is no disembodied mind. Also, she requires me to be on a very restricted diet due to her tummy troubles. As a result, I’m avoiding dairy and wheat at every meal—24 hours a day, seven days a week (no “cheating”). This has made me very aware of what goes into my body and its effect, not just on me, but also on the little life that’s dependent upon me. As a theologian mom, I know that I am a person with a body and this body is good. It sustains another person’s life and it requires my attention to maintain its health.

These are not the only things I could say about the benefits of being a theologian mom. There are many more, I’m sure. But, this is all I have time for (remember the time limitation thing?). I should close by saying that I am not unaware of the fact that these truths can apply to moms of any stripe, really. Even moms who don’t “work outside the home” are doing very hard work inside the home. Further, dads who work or dads who are in academia may share in these observations too (though not the breastfeeding one, I’d imagine). Still, I wanted to put into words the way being a mom and a theologian in an academic life is a positive experience (albeit a serious challenge, too). Feel free to share what you think from your own experiences.

Consuming Babies

2011-02-01T10:16:00.005-05:00

Last week, when I ranted about the problems inherent in the Beyaz advertisement, one of the issues I raised was the popular feminist conception of the baby as a product to be consumed--an accessory to be added to one's life like one adds a fashionable condo or a Gucci handbag. Then, yesterday I received the following print advertisement in the mail. The well-chosen name of this new store in our area announces the problem in another way:

I see three ideas being proclaimed in this advertisement, all of which are symptomatic of a culture with very warped ideas of what children and motherhood entail.

First, as stated above, the view is reinforced that the baby is a product for consumption. I think this is an unavoidable implication when the name of the store can easily be read to say, "Buy [a] baby!"

Second, the baby is seen as an excuse for consumption. And, if we're honest, conspicuous consumption. Stores like this one can stay in business because lots of people having babies (and the families and friends connected to them) will spend lots of money on products for their baby over and over and over again.

Third, the mother is being encouraged to consume because motherhood without consumption is a pitiable condition. (I say "mother" here and not "parents" because I think its self-evident that advertising of this sort is targeting women more than parents in general. But, even if that's not the case, I think the point stands.) This idea is a little more subtle, but I think we can read the name of the store as addressing the mother, as well: "Buy, buy baby!" (as in, you've come a long way, baby, so buy from us!) If you're having a baby, then you need the products this store is selling. And, if you can't buy a brand new bedroom set, that special kind of bouncer and swing, and all the other fashionable products that babies "require," then you might not be a good mother. At the very least, you're a poor mother--someone to be pitied. Because in American society, babies = consumption. If you can't keep up with that, then perhaps you shouldn't be having babies at all.

That's all for now. Feel free to set me straight if you think I'm reading this wrong.

The Kiddos...

2011-01-24T19:54:00.006-05:00

Here are some recent photos of the kids. Emmelia is six months and William is almost 21 months. They're such a challenging joy to raise!

Beyaz: The Popular Feminism of Mass Media and Mad Men

2011-01-21T14:10:00.017-05:00

I have emerged from a (very) extended blogging hiatus to vent some outrage over a commercial I encountered this week while spending time at home with my daughter (who is now six months-old, by the way). Is this the most timely and vitally important blog post to be written after several months of silence? Probably not. But, its what I'm feeling passionate about at the moment. The following thoughts may be somewhat disorganized since I'm writing on the fly (in-between grading, reading, cooking dinner, and nursing Emmelia). But, hopefully they'll make enough sense for a good conversation.

The commercial in question is for a new form of artificial birth control (ABC) called Beyaz, produced by Bayer Corp. You may be familiar with a former version of this known as Yaz, which became famous when the FDA forced Bayer to air commercials correcting false and misleading information about their product from previous advertising. Eventually, Bayer pulled Yaz from the market and reformulated it into the new and improved Beyaz. I'm not going to go into what this new version contains or why it would be appealing to young women. I'm more interested in the advertising being used by Bayer Corp to market this new product.

(I should specify that the following description is based on my memory of the commercial after viewing it three or four times. I have been unable to find an online version of the commercial for the purposes of verifying my description, but I am confident that what follows is very close to the actual content of the commercial.)*

The Beyaz commercial features a number of young, beautiful (and thin), twenty and thirty-something women, who are clearly from the middle to upper classes. They are shown shopping in what appears to be a very high-end department store. It reminded me of The Galleria of Dallas shopping mall or the specialty shops of Highland Park (an affluent part of Dallas). While a voice-over trumpets the benefits of the "choice" available through ABC and the special ingredients and benefits of Beyaz, the women are shown "shopping" for a variety of things.

One woman pushing a shopping cart approaches a display of good-looking male dolls in glass cases (think Ken dolls in a variety of colors and dress), with a sign that says "Life Partner" (or something to that effect) in front of it. As she reaches for one, another women swoops in and steals the "man" she was selecting. She looks shocked for a moment, but then turns to consider her choices again.

Another woman peruses a display of homes in a variety of forms: a condominium in a sunny beach setting, a cottage in a mountainous landscape, and more. She gets to the end of the line to see a pink-colored home with manicured lawn. The sign in front of the display reads, "Buy a home." With a look on her face that says, "Ah, yes, that's what I was looking for!" the woman claims the box with this home inside it and places it into her shopping cart.

Another woman is breezing through the displays down a center aisle, only to be approached by a stork carrying a "bundle" in purple cloth. Although the bundle is never identified for what it is--a child!--the woman waves the stork away and continues on her merry way. When she reaches the end of the aisle she claims the prize she was apparently shopping for all along: a large model of the Eiffel Tower, with a sign on it that reads "Trip to Paris."

The commercial draws to a close with the voice-over describing the potential side effects of Beyaz and the kinds of women who shouldn't use it. The on-screen women exit the shopping mall and pile into a nice car with their respective choices. The last woman's "Eiffel Tower" is tied to the top of her car and they drive away--apparently happy and fulfilled with their loot.

Upon first viewing this ad, I was outraged, but I couldn't put my finger on exactly why. After taking a few days to reflect, I've concluded that the content and implications of this commercial represent elements of what I call "popular feminism." In saying this, I am distinguishing popular feminism from other feminisms (secular, Marxist, Christian, and others). (See my clarification of the distinctions here.) I see popular feminism as a vacuous and morally disastrous ideology propagated mainly by American mass media--especially magazines, television, and movies--in partnership with the advertising industry (not to mention all of the women who unwittingly parrot the ideals). I am convinced that popular feminism is a bastardization of most of the uniting tenets of substantive feminisms, especially the form of Christian feminism to which I'm committed, and I join others in denouncing this cultural phenomenon as a backward move for women. (Read more about my concerns about popular feminism and abortion here.)

Just as important to me, however, is that the ideas of popular feminism present in this commercial are offensive to the convictions of Christians, too. I'll attempt to explain some of the reasoning for my outrage below.

I should begin by framing my rant with the fact that the marketers for Beyaz chose a shopping mall as the setting and overarching metaphor for their advertisement. This betrays two things. First, the marketing firm that produced this ad is convinced that American women are best appealed to through the avenue of material consumption. That is to say, they've bought into the stereotype that women love to shop and, therefore, will relate easily to this metaphor as they make their choice for birth control. This isn't surprising, I suppose. I think what bothers me more, however, is the second issue: that the appeal of this shopping metaphor will likely go unchallenged by the women who watch the ad.

By and large, I think middle-class American (white) women have accepted the idea that they are primarily consumers and that they reveal the extent to which they've achieved success and liberation by their ability to consume. In the words of Susan J. Douglas, "[F]antasies of power also insist that purchasing power and sexual power are much more gratifying than political or economic power. Buying stuff -- the right stuff, a lot of stuff -- emerged as the dominant way to enact being an empowered female." For most women, I don't think it will seem inappropriate to compare matters of sexuality, maternity, and children to shopping in a mall.

So, what exactly is wrong with using a shopping trip to talk about artificial birth control? Where do I begin?!

First, the ad assumes that the "liberated woman" is the woman on artificial birth control. I know that it is not popular for feminists to question the use of artificial birth control. Indeed, birth control was one of the driving issues of the feminist movement from early on. But, some women (including myself) have begun to question whether the "magic pill" offered by the pharmaceutical industry really delivered the "freedom" and "choice" that was promised.

Broadly speaking, since the distribution of the Pill began, unplanned pregnancy and unwed motherhood has skyrocketed. By and large, men have been released from their obligations to the women they impregnate ("Weren't you on the Pill?!") and unwed mothers and their children now make up the poorest households of the American population.

Certainly, women were having sex outside of marriage and getting pregnant unexpectedly long before the Pill. But, what happened with the Pill was the creation of an illusion of control over one's reproductive processes. Women were promised the ability to have sex willy-nilly like men (whether that's an ability worth having is a major problem of its own!) without the consequences of pregnancy that are, let's face it, entirely natural for sexually active women. The Pill promised the divorce of sex from procreation, but it was a promise that it couldn't keep. It is a natural function of (most) women's bodies to conceive a child after intercourse (during a certain window of time). And, in normal usage, many, many women on the Pill do so, despite the pharmacological intervention.

When it is expected that a woman can control her ability to reproduce, two things happen. First, she is (often) unprepared for the incidence of pregnancy and, if unmarried, (often) in an unstable economic and social position to bear and raise a child. Second, her male partner is even more unprepared for the incidence of pregnancy and has recourse to blame the woman for foolishly "getting pregnant" even while using the Pill. (I am generalizing here, of course. I know this isn't always the case in all instances of unplanned pregnancy.) Both of these results are based on the foolish presumption that the Pill can separate sex from procreation. Yes, pharmacology can go some of the way to doing so, but in the end, it just can't beat nature.

What is my point with all this? The Beyaz commercial is selling the untruth that hormonal birth control can offer women liberation. From a feminist perspective, I say this is false. The liberated woman is not the woman on birth control (at least, not necessarily). First of all, you can't reduce female liberation to the Pill. Second of all, one could argue that the truly liberated woman is the woman who is living in harmony with her body's natural processes and making responsible sexual choices based upon this knowledge. Moreover, the truly liberated women may be the woman who partners with her mate in determining when is the right and wrong time for sexual intercourse based upon their readiness to procreate. This way, the couple shares the responsibility for reproduction (it does "take two to tango," after all).

From a Christian perspective, the Beyaz marketing is false, as well. True liberation--or women's flourishing--is only offered to women through discipleship to Jesus Christ and obedience to the Way of Christ. A Pill is not going to provide the kind of choices that will make for "life abundant." (This is not to say that I think Christian women can't use the Pill. I'm just saying that the equation of artificial birth control with liberation is highly problematic from a Christian point of view.)

Another problem with the commercial is that it is selling the idea that the liberated woman is a consumer of "things"--men, homes, trips, etc. The liberated woman is a woman with choices. And, choices means choices in consumption. The woman with choices is able to pick out her man. (Do I even need to point out how degrading it is for men to be pictured as Ken dolls in glass cases? If a commercial for men showed women in the same position, there would be a public outcry!) She can do whatever she wants: buy a house, get a promotion, go on a fancy trip. And, the implication is, THAT is what life is all about! I won't both to belabor how wrong this is from a feminist and Christian point of view. Surely, we can all nod our heads in agreement on this one.

This leads me to the last major issue I have with this commercial: it includes a child in the same category as a man, a home, a promotion, and a vacation. It makes a child just one more thing for a woman to add to her "shopping cart" of life. In this ad, a child is like an accessory a woman can choose to purchase, provided it matches her outfit and choice of outing. And, by portraying the child as a faceless bundle being delivered by a stork, Beyaz perpetuates the idea that a child is alien to a woman's person--alien to her body and her life--something that must be incorporated when the time, money, job, life is just right.

The truth is, children are (for most women) the natural product of a sexual relationship. As a Christian, I believe the appropriate sexual relationship takes place in a marriage. Our bodies are designed to procreate and no Pill on the planet can change that. Furthermore, just because there are pharmacological means of altering a woman's ability to conceive, that does not make a child an accessory to a woman's life--something to be consumed like one consumes a fancy trip to Paris. Children are both a natural outworking of two people becoming "one flesh" and a unqualified blessing from our Creator. The Beyaz ad betrays these truths, fueled by American consumerism and popular feminism. In my estimation, it is a horrific product of mass media and "mad men" and I found it ugly and offensive.

Obviously, much of what I have said above is partial and remains only partially explored. But, I hope it provides good food for thought. Feel free to respond with your objections and qualifications.
----------------------
*YouTube now has a version of the offending commercial on its website. My description isn't entirely correct in its sequence, but I think its close enough. Enjoy!

Emmelia Rose @ 11 Weeks

2010-10-09T20:44:00.003-04:00

Emme and me having a little chat before a shopping trip with my mom. She's quite a chatterbox.

Whip 'Em Out

2010-09-23T14:20:00.002-04:00

During Breastfeeding Awareness Month I was learning to breastfeed Emmelia, barely sleeping, and preparing to go back to school. Needless to say, I missed it. But, I found this great PSA this week and I thought I'd share, even if it is after-the-fact. Have a giggle, enjoy, and support breastfeeding moms!

Life is Crazy

2010-09-21T10:47:00.008-04:00

I regret that I haven't been able to post anything recently. But, as you can see from the photos below, life is crazy. William is now 16 months-old and Emmelia is eight weeks. We have our hands full, to say the least. Can you complete a doctoral program while raising two small children and being married to a minister? I guess we'll find out!

Seeking Families for our Pets

2010-09-02T17:08:00.009-04:00

We need to find good homes for a few of our pets. Our lifestyle, which now includes two part-time jobs (with full-time workloads) and two small children, no longer provides the money, time, or energy to provide the kind of care that they need. We love these animals dearly, but we can't take care of them anymore. So, I present them to you, my readers, hoping that maybe you or someone you know will be interested in providing a good home for them.

Jonah is a four year-old small gray cat with a big personality. He's our little Napoleon, standing up for himself and putting everyone in their place (below him, of course). He's very affectionate and particularly fond of ladies. (He's been a momma's boy from day one.)

Elijah is a five year-old large orange tabby cat. He's very laid back and easy going. He's shy with strangers at first, but loving and social once he knows you're a friend. He and Jonah are buddies, but we think they will adjust if they end up going to separate homes.

Cooper is a beautiful, four year-old, faun boxer. He's truly a joyful pet, loving, eager to please, and great with kids. Like most boxers, who are known for exuberance and clowning, he needs firm, consistent direction (and responds very well to it). We are the most brokenhearted about parting with Cooper, but he really needs a family that can provide lots of attention, play time, and intentional exercise.

All of our pets have been kept up-to-date on their vaccinations (we have some of the records) and regularly groomed (until recently).

If you or someone you know are interested in providing a good, safe, loving home to one of these animals, please let me know. We live in Dayton, OH and would be happy to absorb some travel expenses to be sure they are in a good family.

Emmelia @ 4 Weeks

2010-08-24T10:02:00.001-04:00

Reflections on Life with Emmelia (I)

2010-08-15T10:56:00.005-04:00

I'm not sure how often I'll be able to do this (I'm getting ready to start year two of my doctoral program), but I have had many thoughts on the first few weeks of Emmelia's new life with us and I'd like to share some of them with my readers. Most of what I write about on my blog is academic in nature--theology, biblical studies, ethics, etc. But, these are gritty, fleshly thoughts on babies, mothering, and family life. Hopefully they'll be worth reading, even if they're few and far between.

On Breastfeeding
Breastfeeding is hard. Its supposed to be natural, which you would think means "easy," but it doesn't. Perhaps its because we're a society that has all but abandoned breastfeeding our children, but I find that even the second time around, its not an intuitive act for mother or child. Where to put your arms and hands, and how to get this little crying creature to cooperate. It takes learning!--long, grueling, difficult, even painful lessons at all hours of the day and night. And, learning something so challenging and all-consuming (it is your child's one source of survival, after all!) is exhausting when you've just given birth. Its like you've reached the end of a marathon and someone hands you a paddle and says, "Great job! Now, row across this lake!"

Breastfeeding is hard also because its being in a constant state of self-giving. Over and over again you give your body to nourish another. Your arms to hold her, your breasts to feed her, your time to love her, your voice to soothe her. Over and over again you forgo sleep and food and many other comforts to care for another. (Another who doesn't yet give back, I should add.) And, all this when you're on the brink of a mental and emotional breakdown from the fact that your entire life has been turned up-side-down. You don't know which side is "up" anymore, what day it is, when you last ate something, or whether you washed your hair yesterday, but you know you have to feed her. That you always know.

Don't get me wrong. Even as I say all this, I also believe that its a beautiful thing, too. I'm so convinced of it that I've kept going, even when I'm so tired I feel like cracking glass that's about to collapse into a millions pieces. The truth is, when I'm nursing Emmelia, all seems right with the world because my baby girl is being soothed and fed. I'm a week and a half away from starting school again. I'm a week and a half away from teaching my first class of 35 freshmen Introduction to Religion. I'm totally unprepared for either reality and have no earthly idea how I'm doing to get prepared. But, when I'm nursing Emme, life is good. That's quite a miracle. And there are too few miraculous things about daily life with a newborn and a toddler.

So, we persevere with the breastfeeding. Its hard and messy and exhausting and beautiful and miraculous. Kind of like life.

Miss Emmelia Rose

2010-08-03T10:25:00.007-04:00

Here are a few more photos of Emmelia...

Welcome, Emmelia Rose McGowin!

2010-07-31T11:22:00.007-04:00

Sunday, July 25 at 9:27 PM, the world welcomed the arrival of Emmelia Rose McGowin at the Family Beginnings Birthing Center in Dayton, OH. She weighed an amazing 9 lbs 9 oz and measured 21 inches long.

Her name is pronounced like "Amelia" and we'll probably call her "Emme" (pronounced "Emmy") or "Emme Rose" for short. Her namesakes are her mommy (smile) and St. Emmelia of Caesarea, a daughter of martyrs, wife of St. Basil the Elder and mother of St. Basil the Great, St. Macrina the Younger, and St. Gregory of Nyssa. She mothered ten children, all of whom were faithful disciples of Jesus, and founded a monastery in her old age with her daughter, Macrina.

Here are a few photos of Emmelia's first couple days. I hope to post something in the next couple weeks telling the story of her birth, which was natural and coached by her father. We are truly blessed to welcome this new life! Please keep our family in your prayers.

Preaching and Me

2010-07-12T09:20:00.004-04:00

Although I have chosen a path in academia, which tends to be thought of as a very abstract, unpractical field, I love the art of preaching--an assuredly practical matter. I have loved preaching for some time. Even when I was "just a girl" at a conservative Southern Baptist Bible college, I willingly endured the patronizing pats on the head in my preaching classes because I loved it. (And, maybe because it was something "off limits" to me, I treasured the time I got to study it even more.)

For me, communicating Scripture to the gathered people of God is one of the most challenging and rewarding tasks to be performed within the Church. I know that for others, acts of service or mercy or leading congregational prayer provides the same fulfillment. But, for me, nothing compares to preaching.

It was a joy for me, then, when I attended Truett Theological Seminary and discovered that they took seriously the task of training all their M.Div. students to preach the Word--male and female. I was privileged to study preaching for three semesters under Dr. Joel Gregory. Through his tutelage, I realized that preaching, when done well, is a dynamic combination of several fields I love: biblical studies, theology, pastoral care, and communication.

At the end of my time at Truett, I was shocked and dismayed to be chosen for an award in preaching. And, when I say I was shocked, I'm not being falsely humble or disingenuous. I was truly shocked. Although I enjoyed preaching, I had always looked upon it as a sort of "guilty pleasure"--something I might enjoy, but certainly couldn't admit to enjoying and certainly couldn't do in public, in front of real people. Even though by this time I had left my conservative views on women in ministry, in my heart and mind, preaching was still off-limits to me because I was "just a girl."

Imagine my anxiety, therefore, when I discovered that the award came with the honor and responsibility of preaching to a special chapel service at the seminary! Dr. Gregory graciously did his best to assuage my anxiety and I prepared and delivered a message that I felt suitable for our students. (If you're interested, you can actually read a copy of the manuscript for that sermon here).

During the four years I spent at Truett, I was blessed to have a number of articles published, both in journals and book-length works. This was a tremendous privilege for someone at my stage of education and overall academic experience. Also, you just can't underestimate how important such early publishing experience is to future academic life. (And, to be completely frank, it was a great thrill to see my name in print!) Even so, now that I have almost three years of hindsight, I can honestly say that preaching the chapel service at Truett was, without a doubt, the highlight of my time in seminary. It was the "mountaintop experience" of my graduate studies and something I'll treasure always.

Still, as I reflect on that experience, I can't help but feel a bit melancholy. Preaching for Truett Seminary was the first time I preached in a public forum to a gathering of God's people and it was the last time I did so, as well. And, as far as things go for now, it seems as though it is going to remain this way for some time to come.

Recently, I've wondered to my husband whether or not I ended up choosing a life in academia, at least in part, because I couldn't find a place for myself as a woman within the Church. Actually, we've had the conversation several times. I don't know for sure if this is so, but its definitely possible. From an early age--about 15 years-old, if I remember correctly--I wanted to be a pastor/preacher. But, slowly, I let go of this aspiration and turned my attention to something else I was good at: research, writing, and teaching. And, that is my chosen path for now.

I don't believe that God has a "perfect plan" for my life. I believe I'm given a certain amount of freedom, within my calling to love Him and embody His Kingdom, to do what I want with the gifts and skills I've been given. So, I take full responsibility for the choices I've made and the direction I've chosen for my life's work.

Still, there's a constant (albeit, small) niggling sadness within me, especially on Sundays, that I'm not participating in the proclamation of God's Word on a consistent basis. Call it ingratitude. Call it wishful thinking. Call it immaturity. Call it female "rebellion." Call it whatever you want. All I know is, its there. I want to preach. I love to preach. But, for now, I wait on the Lord.

Introducing... Pampered Bed and Bath

2010-06-22T10:01:00.007-04:00

It is a significant understatement to say that life is busy. Life is busy, complicated, hectic, worrisome, and full of unexpected challenges. As I grow older (more and more rapidly, it seems, as years go by!), I've begun to realize that the times of peace are few and far between--mere pockets of quiet in the midst of a din of noise.

I think this reality forces us to appreciate the little things in life. This is sort of a cliche, but I think it happens to be true. When life seems to be endless cycles of meals, chores, errands, appointments, deadlines, car repairs, and more, the small pleasures of life become very important for cultivating genuine joy in the midst of everything.

Small pleasures, like... A bunch of ruby red gladiolas you bought on sale... A gourmet brie enjoyed with fresh baked bread... A fresh cup of French-pressed espresso (even if you're drinking it with your Cheerios)... Or, a longer-than-usual shower with a bar of homemade organic soap... These little things may seem trivial, but I think they're important. After all, God has reconciled all of creation in Christ and that creation is good and meant to be enjoyed.

So, what's my point? Well, I think this is this little reflection is the best way to introduce a wonderful new business to you, launched recently by a friend, Sonya Duren. She is the dreamer, founder, and owner behind Pampered Bed and Bath, a small online business that provides an assortment of organic and natural products for the home. If you peruse her website, you'll find a lovely selection of linens, towels, baby items, soaps, candles, and much more.

I recommend Pampered Bed and Bath to you not only because Sonya is a friend and a good person, but also because she is offering quality products. And, who doesn't like the idea of buying from a good person who makes good stuff? I have personally been enjoying a couple bars of the PB&B Essentials Soaps and, in case you're wondering, my personal favorite is Cinnamon Honey.

So, my blogger friends, take a look when you have the time. Let Sonya help you to enjoy some of the little pleasures in life. You won't regret it.

Addressing My Faithlessness: I am Not God

2010-06-01T21:18:00.004-04:00

Well, friends, we have eight more weeks until the next member of the McGowin family is expected to make her appearance. In real life, this means we have anywhere from six to ten more weeks to go--because babies are finicky about when they choose to enter the world and rarely arrive "on time." This means that I'm going through my share of anxiety and trepidation about... well... everything. There's so much to worry about with a new baby, you know? Money. Time. Space. Work. Physical recovery. Sibling rivalry. Etc. Etc. Etc.

My worries are only multiplied by the fact that within a few weeks of her birth, I'm going to be back in the classroom at the University of Dayton--both as a student and a teacher. I'll be taking a doctoral seminar of my own and beginning my first year teaching the freshman level, Introduction to Religion course. In this class, I'll be teaching about 25-35 18 year-olds about Christianity and religion from the perspective of the Catholic intellectual tradition (literally, Bible to 21st Century in one semester). I'm excited about all of this, of course. I love what I do and am blessed beyond measure to get paid to do it. But, the thought of adding a new baby to the mix is more than a little daunting.

To be honest, my recent response to the anticipation has been anything but ideal. As I have attempted to imagine what the fall schedule will look like and how we'll manage to get everything done and still be a family, I have been quite fearful, actually. Fearful, anxious, and... frankly... faithless.

All of this came to head for me this past Sunday as I worshiped with our church. Despite the dark, menacing clouds of fear that I have created around me, somehow a bright ray of light managed to break through and remind me of God's faithfulness. Sitting in the pew on Sunday, I had a illuminated slideshow taking place in my mind's eye, showing me scenes from the past year (and years) where God has provided even when I doubted. Here are just a few highlights that bounced through my head from the past year:

- Ronnie left a well-paying position last February out of firm conviction, without any back-up job or other source of income. In the few months that he looked for work, we never missed a bill. Also, we managed to hold onto our house, despite the fact that we could no longer afford it, while watching a number of our neighbors go through foreclosure and/or eviction. And, the church continued to provide health insurance for us until William's birth, despite the fact that they had no obligation to do so.

- William was born May 5 into our newly uncertain life. Even though it was a rough first few months adjusting to life with a baby, Ronnie and I made it through stronger than ever (as cliche as that sounds). Now, over a year later, we still love each other, still like each other, and still play on the "same team." And, William is healthy, happy, and growing like a weed.

- In August, I started my first year as a doctoral student at the University of Dayton. Just a week prior to starting, I was still debating whether or not to go through with it. Ronnie still didn't have a stable job and the pay for my graduate assistantship was going to be one-third of what I was making in a full-time job. But, mostly at Ronnie's insistence, I took the plunge. Somehow, we had the money for books, a parking permit, and all the necessaries. William survived the adjustment and Ronnie began his new adventure as a part-time stay-at-home dad.

- In October, in the middle of the school year, when Will was six months-old, we sold our house--a feat in itself in Ohio!--and bought a house in Dayton. We downsized just about everything about our life and moved within walking distance of UD. And, in the transition, I never missed an assignment and (more importantly) William never missed a meal.

- Now, as of June 1, I have finished my first year in the doctoral program. All told, I have read approximately 2-3 books a week since August, written four research papers, taken and passed an oral and written exam in biblical studies, and managed not to go insane. Meanwhile, Ronnie has grown into a wonderful full-time father and gotten a perfectly suited part-time youth ministry position at a church nearby.

I know that in the scheme of things, these events are quite paltry. Certainly, there's nothing especially "miraculous" about anything mentioned above. And, in light of what others have come through, my little examples of God's provision are pretty unimportant. Moreover, I should point out that there are countless people for whom the money wasn't there when they needed it, the house didn't sell, the work didn't come, and the kid didn't stay healthy. I realize that, too. And God is still God even in those situations.

But, at the end of the day, I view the following excerpts from our past year as the manifestations of God's grace. It certainly can't be credited to me. For most of this journey, I have been a self-absorbed, fretful, whiner, looking for the easy way out. And yet, God has been good to us. For this I am grateful and must give thanks.

On Sunday, as I marveled over what we've come through this year and reflected on my current state of anxiety and faithlessness, I realized that to worry and fret about the coming weeks and months as though I have control over any of it is tantamount to asserting that I am responsible for what's come to pass over the past year. That is to say, if I am responsible for tomorrow, then I am responsible for yesterday, too. And that, my friends, is not the case.

So, even though the point I have to make is very basic--so much so that we "experienced" Christians should have it mastered by now, right?--it seems important to my discipleship to Jesus right now to make it anyway. I am not God. God is God. God has provided for me in the past. God will provide for me in the future. Neither is my responsibility and neither is to my credit. Soli deo gloria.

Contemporvant!

2010-05-12T20:46:00.008-04:00

A friend of ours who is a young evangelical worship leader sent this gem of a video along to Ronnie and me. Its good for us to laugh at ourselves. Enjoy!

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

Of Panhandlers and Personal Transformation

2010-05-08T21:29:00.007-04:00

This is a re-post of something I wrote a couple years ago. For some reason, it has come to mind a few times this week and I thought that maybe this means I should offer it up again to my readers. Or, maybe I've just been in need of the reminder. Whether its for my benefit only or for someone else too, I hope you find it worth your time.

"I used to think...that Christ might have been exaggerating when he warned about the dangers of wealth. Today I know better. I know how very hard it is to be rich and still keep the milk of human kindness. Money has a dangerous way of putting scales on one's eyes, a dangerous way of freezing people's hands, eyes, lips, and hearts." - Dom Helder Camara

I give to panhandlers. I give to anyone who asks. I have chosen to make it my personal practice.

Sometimes I give food, when and if I have brought my lunch with me, or I have just happened to purchase something, or I am near a restaurant or grocery store. Sometimes I give gift certificates, if I have them and if the restaurant from which the certificate comes is nearby. And, sometimes I give cash. Yes, cash: $3, $5, $10--whatever I happen to have on me at the time.

I know what you're thinking. Silly girl. Doesn't she know that its better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish? Yes, my friends, I do. But, I have recognized that this attitude is typically used as an excuse not to teach a man to fish, but to do nothing at all. We say, "It is better to teach a man to fish, but since I do not teach fishing, I will not give a fish either." But, I am getting ahead of myself. Allow me to explain.

For some time, I struggled with giving to those who asked for money or food or something of the sort. On the one hand, I wanted to help those in need and be a generous person. On the other hand, the specter of scam artists and professional panhandlers loomed large in my mind. The truth is, over time, the reality of a few liars and cheats crowded out my impetus to give to the many in genuine need. It dulled over time and went away.

Then, I began reading through the Gospels and I discovered that Jesus has quite a bit to say about giving and money in general. These are the ones that step all over your toes:

"Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." - Matt 5:42

"Jesus looked at him and loved him. 'One thing you lack,' he said. 'Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" - Mark 10:21

"Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back...And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back." - Luke 6:30, 33-35

"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." - Luke 12:32-33

"In the same way, any of you who does not give up all of his possessions cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:33

I do not offer these verses as proof-texts for giving to panhandlers--by no means. I offer these verses so that we can look at some of the words of Jesus about giving. I find it very unsettling that in almost eight years of being a follower of Jesus, I have yet to hear these passages of scripture preached or taught as a way of life. As one country preacher has said, "We will worship the hind legs off of Jesus, we just won't do a thing he says."

But, my point is not to prove that giving to strangers who ask for money is good and right for everyone. Here's what I want to address: Why does Jesus instruct us to give to those who ask of us? What is the purpose? Surely Jesus, the all-wise teacher and preacher, knows that job training, drug treatment, counseling, and other forms of social help are more appropriate means of help for the beggar. Surely, he doesn't really mean that we are supposed to give to anyone who asks. Surely not!

The way that we normally get out doing what Jesus says is by making the excuses that I alluded to earlier. "I don't know what she will do with my money." "I don't know if he is an alcoholic or drug addict." "I don't want to waste my money on someone who doesn't need it." These are all reasonable concerns. These are all reasonable excuses for not giving. Yet, don't you think Jesus knows about these concerns? And yet, he still says to give.

Again, the question: Why does Jesus instruct us to give to those who ask, without holding back?

Here's what I think: We think that we are supposed to give in order to help the poor person. This is why we can justify not giving in most situations, because we can reason to ourselves that our money will not really help the person in need. It might just make the matter worse. But, I do not think that we are told to give primarily to help the poor person. We give to help ourselves. The poor person is not the one in need of help--you are.

"Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort." - Luke 6:24

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matt 19:23-24

"Jesus looked at his disciples and said, 'How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!'" - Mark 10:23

Don't look around to find someone else richer than you. We are the rich man. We are the wealthy. Jesus instructs us to give to those who ask, without holding back, because we need to cultivate a life of giving in order to escape the trappings of wealth that will choke and kill our discipleship in the kingdom of God. If it is true that where your treasure is, there your heart will be also, then we must be giving away our treasure in order not to be a slave to "Mammon" instead of God.

Do you believe Jesus when he says that it is "hard" for the rich to enter the kingdom of God? Do you believe Jesus when he implies that wealth is dangerous? If so, then we should quake in fear and trembling.

I have determined that, for me, I must give to anyone who asks, even panhandlers, in order to become the kind of person who is not attached to my things, my possessions. I must give in order to be spiritually formed as a disciple of Jesus.

And, as I do so, I am made and more aware of just how much I hoard what I have, carressing my "precious" things, like Golum with the "ring of power." This is a bondage that saps the energy out of me, makes me into a person obsessed with me, myself, and all that belongs to me. I need to be delivered from this trap. I need to be saved from materialism. And, for my liberation, I need the poor. I think Jesus understood this and taught his disciples accordingly.

Now, I know what your questions are. What if they are scamming you? What if they are using your money for drugs or alcohol or something else? What if they keep coming back because you've given them money once?

I haven't figured all this out yet, but here's what I'm thinking right now: If they are scamming me, it is not my concern. So what if I lose $5 to someone who doesn't need it? How much do I have that I don't need? My money is not really my money. If God wants to shuffle my $5 to someone else who doesn't need it, what concern is that to me? If God owns everything, then that includes my $5, whether it's in my pocket or the pocket of a scam artist.

I can't tell for sure if someone will use what I give for drugs or alcohol. They could do so. Or, they could not. The same is true of the mission agencies, or the high school graduates, or other worthy causes to which I give. Again, what the recipient of my gift does with what I give is not something over which I have control and it is not something that Jesus gives as a condition of giving. He does not say, "Give to those whom you are certain will use your money for wise and industrious ends." And, if my act of giving is less about the person and more about my spiritual formation, then this question isn't as important.

Yes, it is possible that a person I give money to will continue to come to me for money in the future. And, why is this bad again? If the poor are "blessed," because to them belongs the kingdom of God, then I should be ecstatic that they will return to me. But, that's now how we are trained, is it? The poor, the needy, the outcast, are to be avoided. We give our money to shelters and mission agencies so that we don't have to spend time with them or see them on a personal level. I am the chief of sinners in this regard.

The truth is, I am blessed if the one in need continues to come back to me. In fact, in so doing, we can cultivate a relationship and maybe, just maybe, I will be able to address the root causes of the person's poverty, not just the symptoms. That's where job training and social services and other things enter the picture. But, I can't do this without a relationship and I can't cultivate a relationship unless I have shown mercy and love to him or her.

So, there you have it. Panhandlers and the poor are a part of my personal transformation. I give to those who ask of me because I am a greedy, covetous, materialistic, rich pig of a sinner who needs to be transformed.

I share this with you not because I think all people should act as I have chosen to act, but because I believe the words of Frederick Huntington are true: "It is not scientific doubt, not atheism, not pantheism, not agnosticism, that in our day and in this land is likely to quench the light of the gospel. It is a proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, church-going, hollow-hearted prosperity."

God help us all.

Happy Birthday, William!

2010-05-05T20:06:00.005-04:00

Our son, William Hunter McGowin, turns one year-old today. I hope to post something soon that reflects on the past year of our new life together. But, for now, here is a picture from his second day in the world, along with two recent pictures. The first of the recent ones is from Easter Sunday and the second is from today. We love this boy and look forward to getting to know the man God made him to be.

Feminism Today: Some Necessary Clarifications

2010-04-30T09:49:00.015-04:00

This week, I've been finishing up a research paper for school about the so-called "Quiverfull" movement in conservative American evangelicalism. For most Quiverfull adherents, feminism is a great evil, if not the great evil of contemporary Western society. This is not without good reason. There is much about feminism, especially in its First and Second Wave forms, that is threatening or even outright antithetical to some of Christianity's most basic beliefs.

This is why it can be so hazardous for a woman (or a man, for that matter) within evangelicalism to self-identify as a "feminist"--there is simply so much baggage that comes along with the label. Although I have explained elsewhere that I do, in fact, embrace the term feminism and some of my reasons for doing so, from the beginning I have accepted it with many qualifications (one important qualification is explained here). Unfortunately, the nature of the Internet and my busy schedule is such that I cannot always express these qualifications or do so adequately.

In reading over a good portion of the Quiverfull literature, I found what I believe to be some unfortunate misunderstandings about feminism in its complex contemporary form. This realization was most acute for me when I found myself reading a Quiverfull writer and agreeing with her critique of feminism, even as I am myself a feminist! I thought to myself: "Why is it that I'm a feminist and she is firmly patriarchal and we actually agree about this issue?" The answer, I think, is that some in the Quiverfull movement--and many within evangelicalism, at large--have some misunderstandings about feminism that I would like to try a hand at clearing up.

Before I begin, though, its important to recognize that there is not one system of thought or way of life that can be labeled "feminism." Actually, it is far more accurate to speak of feminisms, because there is a vast spectrum of perspectives associated with the larger, more general feminist movement to promote the well-being of women worldwide. There are Catholic, Pentecostal, and Presbyterian feminists. There are Jewish feminists and Muslim feminists, black feminists and Latina feminists. There are Marxist feminists, atheist feminists, and, yes, even evangelical feminists. And, all of these different versions of feminism have their own unique perspective and emphases. This is not to say there aren't some unifying elements. I have detailed five major ones here. But, this variety of feminisms should make us realize the extent to which there are differences of opinion--even very strong ones--within the movement at large. (Just as there are major differences of opinion within the broad spectrum of Christian traditions.)

Now, without any further ado, here is my attempt at six clarifications about contemporary feminism. In most cases, these statements and explanations apply to feminism as it is in an explicitly Christian form, but I will indicate those places where secular and Christian feminists concur. Also, these clarifications apply mainly to American feminists, since I am too unfamiliar with other forms of feminism to speak adequately to their views on these matters.

1. Many feminists believe men and women are essentially different and think that's a very good thing. In feminist theology today, it is actually somewhat passe to hold the opinion that women and men are essentially the same except for biology, as though reproductive parts are the only things that distinguish us from each other. Instead, many feminist theologians now hold to some combination of essentialism and constructivism.

In this perspective, generally speaking, it is believed that there are aspects of men and women that are essential (read: created that way by God) to their natures as men and women (besides just biology), as well as aspects of men and women that are constructed by society and culture. So, for example, women in general may be affirmed to be naturally more inclined to be nurturing due to their biological capacity to bear and nurse children. But, they're not necessarily naturally more fond of dolls than trucks, because that is something that may very well be a socially constructed preference.

Many of the feminists who hold to this view would affirm that men and women are complementary in their natures, together bearing God's image. There are even some feminists who would go so far as to suggest that the complementary nature of men and women means that it is not necessarily a problem to see men and women as properly suited for different roles in family, church, and society (although, you are still not going to see any of these women affirm anything close to patriarchy and/or "complementarianism"). One example of a Christian feminist theologian who affirms a version of this perspective is Roman Catholic theologian, Mary Aquin O'Neill.

2. Some feminists are decidedly pro-life. I know this one is hard to believe, because for so long feminism has been closely associated with abortion rights. But, a large number of feminists in recent decades have come out against abortion for a variety of reasons, both feminist ones and reasons of faith. They even have their own organization, Feminists for Life, that I would encourage you to take a look at. I have written my own defense of the pro-life position from a Christian feminist perspective here. Other pro-life feminists include Roman Catholic moral theologian, Jana Bennett, and Methodist pastor and ethicist, Amy Laura Hall.

3. Some feminists are against the use of contraception. This is another tough one, I know, because feminism has long been associated with birth control, especially the Pill, and "sexual freedom" (whatever that really means). But, there are a growing number of feminists who are examining the moral, ethical, and social ramifications of artificial birth control and finding that they do not line up with feminist convictions. Instead, many would advocate that natural family planning (NFP) methods are more affirming of the reproductive capacity of women's bodies, more empowering for women generally, and more equalizing in the marriage relationship (since NFP requires both husband and wife to be involved). Also, feminists with these views would say that children should be welcomed as a gift, not looked upon as a "mistake" or hindrance to a woman's life. And, as an added bonus, NFP methods do not pose any potential environmental harm because it does not utilize artificial hormones, which inevitably make their way into our water supply. For more about this perspective, you can take a look at this online article.

4. Some feminists are against sexual promiscuity and even defend a traditional Christian view that sexual expression is intended for the marriage relationship. Many feminists, particularly Christian feminists, have concluded that the "sexual freedom" women gained through the Pill and the 1960s resulted in very little real freedom for women. In fact, it really resulted in more freedom for men--freedom to sex without consequences and freedom from their children--the many, many children who have been born out of wedlock since the sexual revolution.

Many feminists have surveyed the social and economic landscape over the past fifty years and realized that "sexual freedom" for women has, by and large, led to rising teen pregnancy, very high abortion rates, an exploding number of single moms, and the "feminization" of poverty (meaning, the majority of those living in poverty in America are women with their dependent children). So, many of these feminists now advocate for "sexual freedom" as freedom to wise decision-making about sexuality. And, among Christian feminists, this usually means affirming that sexual expression is best suited for the marriage relationship, not only because it is in keeping with the Christian moral tradition, but also because it is really better for women and children in the long run.

5. Some feminists are very much pro-motherhood and pro-homemaking. I know there is a strong sense among non-feminists that feminists, in general, despise family, motherhood, and homemaking (especially homemaking). Although this may have been true in the past, the truth is that there are a growing number of feminists, secular and Christian and otherwise, who are decidedly for family, mothering, and homemaking. In fact, feminists have produced some of the best scholarly literature on these topics in recent years, including histories and sociological studies of homemaking worldwide. They may re-conceive these concepts and practices in ways that differ from non-feminists. For example, they're not going to advocate that God has ordained in creation that a woman's "place" is in the home. But there is no doubt that many feminists today have embraced motherhood and family as an inherent good. See some good books on the topic of homemaking, nurturing, and "women's work" here, here, and here.

6. Some feminists are stay-at-home moms. Yes, believe it or not, some feminists have chosen to be mothers at home. They do so for a variety of reasons and in a variety of situations, but there are plenty of women who reject patriarchy and divinely ordained gender roles, but have chosen the life of a homemaker (and are blessed to be able to swing it financially). You can read blog posts by a couple of such feminist moms-at-home here and here.

And, just as a side note, it may surprise some of my readers to learn that even though I'm a self-described Christian feminist and even though I'm pursuing a Ph.D. in theology, I have not ruled out the possibility that when I'm all done and I have "Dr." in front of my name, I may just decide to remain at home with my children to be their primary caregiver (and maybe even teacher) for several years. Who knows? And, were I to do so, I would not cease to be a believer in the basic equality of the sexes before God, as well as the Spirit's gifting and calling of all types of people to all types of service, regardless of their gender.

The Passion of the Loving Soul: Another Poem from Mechthild of Magdeburg

2010-04-15T16:27:00.004-04:00

I'd like to introduce my readers to a longer poem from Mechthild of Magdeburg's mystical book The Flowing Light of the Godhead. First, though, I need to offer some theological "framing" to help us understand it.

One of the strange things about Mechthild's mysticism is that even as she uses romantic and erotic language to speak of her intimacy with God, she also embraces experiences of pain, suffering, and even estrangement from God as part and parcel of that intimacy. For Mechthild, in the mystical relationship between the Godhead and the soul, the pain and suffering that comes through bodiliness is a vital intermediary between the earthly and the divine. That is to say, Mechthild understands that fallen humanity is brought into intimate union with God through the mediating work of pain and suffering.

Some might suggest this exaltation of suffering is nothing more than veiled female masochism. But, I would say that this is seriously oversimplified. In my opinion, the reason for Mechthild's mystical perspective on pain is to be found in the centrality of the Passion of Christ for her theology, in which the crucifixion of the Son of God is the means by which the Godhead is reconciled with the world. In the framework of the Incarnation, pain is, literally, the crux of the matter--the center of God’s identification with humankind. And so, the soul in love with God eventually comes to embrace suffering and estrangement as a welcomed form of intimacy with God, for it was Christ’s own experience of both that brought about redemption.

One scholar of medieval mysticism, Barbara Newman, applies this to Mechthild’s mysticism in the following way: "Since a lover can take no joy except in her Beloved, the supreme sacrifice [to be made as an expression of love for the Beloved] must lie in the willed choice of absence over presence...God’s very absence, once bitterly lamented, now becomes a sign of union with the abandoned Christ...For Mechthild, the abjectly loving soul no longer seeks her Beloved because she is identified with him, imitating Christ’s passion so perfectly that she becomes herself a womanChrist."

Now, I know the "womanChrist" language might seem bizarre to some of my readers. But, I would like you to read the following poem and think about it a bit more. I think what you'll see is that Mechthild envisions the soul's identification with Christ in such an intimate fashion that she experiences the pains of his sufferings and, eventually, the joys of his triumphs in a tangible way. This may seem odd for us, because we're not used to speaking of women, especially women's bodies, as being identified with Christ this explicitly. But, for me, this puts Paul's conception of being crucified with Christ in a whole new light--one that is especially meaningful for women disciples of Jesus who read Mechthild of Magdeburg today. I'd love to read your thoughts, if you have any.

(Note: The poem is exceptionally long, so I have taken the liberty of abbreviating it for us. Also, notice how often she references the language of Christ's Passion week narratives from the New Testament Gospels. I think this is tremendously creative, even if a little strange for many of us.)

The Flowing Light of the Godhead
Book III, Chapter 10
The loving soul betrays her true love in sighing for God.
She is sold in holy grief for his love.
She is sought with the host of many tears for her dear Lord,
Whom she likes so well.
She is captured in the first experience
When God kisses her in sweet union.
She is assailed with many a holy thought
That she not waver when she mortifies her flesh.
She is bound by the power of the Holy Spirit,
And her bliss is indeed manifold.
She is slapped with the great powerlessness
Of not being able to enjoy without interruption eternal light.
She is brought to judgment trembling with shame
Because God so often avoids her
Because of the stains of her sins.
She responds to all things in a holy manner
And cannot bear to treat anyone shamefully.
She is beaten at her trial
When the devils try her spiritually...

She is stripped of all things
When God clothes her with the silk of fair love.
She is delightfully crowned with manifold faithfulness
When she desire that God no longer reward her for all her woes,
Except to promote in the highest God's honor.
She is ridiculed in holy simplicity
When she is completely dissolved into God
That she forgets all earthly wisdom.
One kneels before her in great shame
When in delicate humility she puts herself under the feet of all creatures...

She carries her cross on a sweet path
When she truly surrenders herself to God in all sufferings.
Her head is struck with a reed
When one compares her great holiness to a fool.
With the hammer of the chase of love she is nailed so fast to the cross
That all creatures are not able to call her back again.
She suffers terrible thirst on the cross of love as well...

Her body is killed in living love
When her spirit is raised aloft above all human senses...

She hangs on the cross of sublime love,
High in the air of the Holy Spirit,
Facing the eternal sun of the living Godhead,
So that she becomes completely dry and bare of all earthly things.
Then in a holy ending she is taken from the cross
And speaks: "Father, receive my spirit; now everything is perfect."
She is interred in a sealed grave of deep humility,
When becomes ever aware of being the most unworthy of all creatures.
She also rises joyfully on an Easter Day
After she has enjoyed a lament of love
With her Lover on the narrow bridal bed.
Then she consoles her disciples and Mary early in the morning
When she receives from God true assurance
That God has blotted out all her sins...

She also ascends into heaven
When God takes from her all earthly things in holy transformation.
She is received in a white cloud of holy protection
When she ascends in love and joyfully comes back again, free of all trouble.
Then the angels return and console the men of Galilee
When we call to mind God's chosen friends and their holy example.

This passion is suffered by every soul that in holy moderation of all her activity is truly permeated by genuine love of God.

(The above photo is of The Ecstasy of St. Teresa by Lorenzo Bernini, located in the Cornaro Chapel, Santa Maria della Vittoria, Rome.)

To Mommies Who Don't Work Outside the Home: A Confession

2010-04-08T12:52:00.010-04:00

Can I confess something to you? You intimidate me. A lot. I know that sounds crazy, but its true. When we talk, I'm usually feeling insecure and uncertain about me, my life, and my mothering. Let me explain.

I am a "working mom" (I put that in quotes, fully aware that the label doesn't work because all moms work their tails off). Although I'm not in a typical "job," per se, I am enrolled full-time in a doctoral program that requires me to be away from home five days a week, for anywhere from two to eight hours a day. The great thing about being in an academic environment is that there's a lot more flexibility when it comes to my hours, but at the end of the day, I have responsibilities to fulfill (if I want to pass and pick up my stipend check, anyway).

Thankfully, my husband has a job that allows him a lot of flexibility too. He could get another part-time job to supplement our income and give us more "creature comforts," but instead, he takes care of our son when I'm at school. This means that Ronnie is William's primary caregiver most mornings and afternoons. This is a really wonderful thing! I'm grateful that they have such a close relationship, as a result of their time together. And, I'm thrilled that William's dad, rather than someone outside our family, gets to be so involved.

Yet, often, I wonder. And these "wonderings" happen about every couple of weeks. That's where the insecurity and intimidation comes in. I wonder if I'm making the right choice. I wonder if its all going to be worth it. I wonder if I'm scarring my kid (soon to be "kids") for life. I love what I do. I love reading, studying, writing, and teaching. On the days when I am the most clear-headed and at peace with God, I know this is what God made me to do. When I am teaching or writing, I can feel God's pleasure. But... And, that's the kicker. The "but"...

I look at you, my non-working mommy friends and acquaintances, and I'm jealous of you. Really, I am. I long for an even semi-clean house (I can hear you laughing at this, even now), or to experience some point in time where there's not laundry piled up, or, even more importantly, to know what its like to walk William to the park and not be thinking about my next paper, presentation, reading assignment, whatever. Often, I see you with your kiddos and I wish I were living a less complicated life. That's not to say being a full-time mom at home isn't complicated in its own right. I know it is! But, it would be much less complicated than mothering and studying at the same time.

And so, on my really down days, the days when William is whiny and needy, and I have to leave him with Ronnie because I simply must write, I cry and feel terribly sorry for myself. This is silly, I know. I'm blessed beyond measure to be able to do what I do and get paid to do it! But, on those down days, I struggle to see the point. I feel like all the books and papers and teaching isn't worth it, after all. And, I doubt.

Even as I write this, though, the insecurity is coming back. You see, my fellow moms, I'm afraid of what you're going to say in response to this confession. I fear, especially from my fellow Christian mommies, that you're going to use my struggles as fodder to try to convince me that I'm not doing the right thing by being in school. Its happened to me a lot, actually.

In fact, I don't share these feelings with stay-at-home moms anymore because so many have responded with something like this: "Well, maybe this is God's way of telling you that you're making the wrong choice." And, the really tough responses are those that sound something like this: "Well, Emily, I think your struggle is just proof that it is God's intention for women to stay home with their kids. You should stop fighting that and accept God's best for you."

I respect my fellow Christian moms who think this way. But, at the end of the day, I'm convinced that this isn't the case for all women. In fact, I think its realistically unworkable for most women the world over. (But, that's another blog for another time.) And, maybe more importantly, when I'm in my "right mind," I'm convinced that its not the case for me. At least, not right now.

Yes, I struggle to keep up with my husband, my son, and my "domestic" life (for lack of a better term), and to keep up with my academic studies, too. But, I'm truly afraid to be honest about it, because I'm afraid that you'll discourage me, without meaning to. Often, I feel like I have to pretend to be super-woman, undaunted by stress and unfazed by a tough work schedule. Because if I show weakness, if I cry, if I say I miss my kid when I'm in class, you will think that means I'm wrong and should quit. And, if I'm really honest with you, I'm afraid that if you tell me that enough times, I might just do it--and I know that's a mistake.

So, all this is to say, when it comes to mothering and studying, I'm new at this whole thing and I still feel quite fragile. Some of you may find this silly and I guess that's OK. But, I wanted to be honest. I wanted my fellow moms who don't work outside the home to know how I really feel--what's really going on inside my head and heart. Thanks for listening.

And now I have to ask, even though it kills my pride, and even though I feel silly and stupid and weak doing so: Please be gentle with me. Please don't use my struggle against me. Thanks in advance.

A Poem from Mechthild of Magdeburg

2010-04-07T16:57:00.006-04:00

The following poem was written by a medieval woman mystic, Mechthild of Magdeburg (c. 1208-c. 1282). I am in the middle of a research paper on her book, The Flowing Light of the Godhead for my historical theology seminar. I hope to post something more substantive in the future about her and her mystical theology. For now, its helpful to know that Mechthild (pronounced Meck-tild) was a German woman from a noble background who was a member of a lay community of women called beguines, who lived together to pursue the holy life outside of formal ecclesiastical structures (like convents).

Her book was in the vernacular German of her day, but translated into Latin by Dominican priests soon after her death. Apparently, despite Mechthild's status as a laywoman, The Flowing Light of the Godhead was revered as sacred theology for some time. Scholars have only recently re-discovered her text and begun to do extensive research on her life and work.

Mechthild's mystical writings are strange to most contemporary readers because she uses blatantly romantic and erotic language to describe her relationship to God (the following poem is very, very mild--I plan to share more interesting pieces later). She draws on the language of courtly love from her day to describe the soul as the bride and lover of the Godhead. Readers will recognize in her work the language of the Song of Solomon, as well, which was interpreted almost universally in Mechthild's day as an allegorical poem depicting God's love for the Church.

I would be interested to hear your reflections, if you have any, on the way this dialogue depicts the soul and God as lovers.

The Flowing Light of the Godhead
Book V, Chapters 17 & 18

Greetings to you, living God.
You are mine before all things.
I am endlessly glad
That I can speak to you without guile.
When my enemies pursue me,
I flee to your arms
Where I can complain about my suffering
While you incline yourself to me.
You well know how you can pluck
The strings of my soul.
Ah, begin at once
That you may be ever blessed.
I am a low-born bride;
And yet you are my lawful husband.
I shall ever rejoice about this.
Remember how well you can caress
The pure soul on your lap
And do it, Lord, to me now,
Even though I am not worthy of you.
Ah, Lord, draw me up to you.
Then I shall be pure and radiant.
If you abandon me to myself,
I shall remain dark and sluggish.

Thus does God answer:

I respond to your greeting with such a heavenly flood:
Were I to give myself to you in all my power,
You would not preserve your human life.
You well know I must hold back my might
And hide my splendor
To let you remain in earthly misery
Until all my sweetness rises up
To the heights of eternal glory,
And my strings shall play sweetly for you
In tune with the true value of your patient love.
Still, before I begin,
I want to tune my heavenly strings in your soul,
So that you might persevere even longer.
For well-born brides and noble knights
Must undergo a long and intensive preparation at great cost.

Saying Goodbye to Michael Spencer (1956-2010)

2010-04-06T17:00:00.003-04:00

We said goodbye yesterday to an obedient disciple of Jesus, deep Christian thinker, faithful teacher, and prolific blogger. I never knew Michael Spencer, but his writing has meant a lot to me over the years. We pray with and for his family and friends as they journey through this tragic loss.

A Reflection on the American Church and the Abortion Debate

2010-03-26T09:47:00.008-04:00

Something's been troubling me recently about the way American Christians have participated in the abortion debate. Then, I read an essay by Stanley Hauerwas on abortion (referenced below) and my troubled thoughts were confirmed. It concerns what I think is a fundamental problem with the American Church's stance on abortion, one that is not only theological problematic, but also standing in the way of the Church making any cultural inroads on the matter in the US. (Notice I said "cultural inroads"--that is, making a transformational impact in our culture. I'm not talking about laws and legal policy in this post, although that is another important matter.)

I think it is wrong for the Church to frame the debate about abortion in terms of the woman's "rights" versus the child's "rights." It is wrong from a rhetorical perspective and an ethical perspective. Let me explain.

First of all, the language of "rights" arises from Enlightenment liberalism, which does not take into consideration the Judeo-Christian view of the human person in relation to the Creator God. Christians don't believe in "inalienable rights" (Thank you, Stanley Hauerwas!). Christians believe that everything about our lives matters to God and God has told us how we can and cannot live. The same goes for our bodies. Christians have no rights over their bodies. Those baptized into Christ have given their bodies over to God's reign. In this way, debating about rights is entirely unnatural for Christians, because we don't believe we have rights over anything!

Secondly, pitting the "rights" of the woman against the "rights" of the child is also ethically problematic, because it forces us to choose between defending the one or the other, but not both. This too is entirely un-Christian. Women and children are made in God's image. They bear the mark of their Creator and have been designed by him with love and purpose. When Jesus taught his disciples that their ministry unto "the least of these" would be ministry unto him, I think he most certainly included women and children.

It should be obvious why children are among "the least of these." They possess nothing that our society finds valuable: money, power, or influence. And, yet, Jesus says the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. For this reason, children must be embraced by the Church and protected, for in their weakness, we see the face of our Lord.

It may not be quite so obvious why women are among "the least of these." Unfortunately, what secular feminism and liberalism have often failed to do is reveal just how vulnerable women still are in the US. There are two reasons for this. First, we tend to assume "women" equals white women. Compared to their brown, black, and tan skinned sisters, white women are doing pretty well. But, the plight of women of color in the States is an entirely different story, often one of poverty and struggle (which I don't have the time to document here). Second, the media's coverage of "women's stories" tends to focus on preferential hiring for women, women's rights, women advancing in higher education, etc, and its easy to get the impression that women (=white women) are doing quite well. But, in a broad view, that's just not the case. And, I'm not talking about "equal pay for equal work," either.

Let's consider one vital area where women are not prospering: violence against women. In the US, the evidence indicates that women are being abused every day, in every socioeconomic class, in every religious group, in every ethnic category, all over the country. Recent statistics tell us that every 15 seconds a woman is abused. Abuse is the single largest cause of injury to women in the US, greater than the number of injuries sustained from car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined. (Read that sentence one more time.) Thirty-five percent of women who seek treatment at a hospital emergency room are there for symptoms of ongoing abuse. Thirty to forty percent of female homicide victims are killed by their male partners. Every day, ten women are murdered by their male partners. And, every five years, more women are murdered by their intimate male partners than the number of all American lives lost in the Vietnam War.

We could take this picture global, too. Research has shown that a woman, whether living in the so-called First World or the developing world, is more likely to be injured, raped, or physically threatened by a current or former intimate male partner than by a stranger or any other person. On every continent, at least one in ten women report being physically abused by an intimate male partner. One in four women are sexually assaulted in their lifetime. This means that, of the approximately 4.5 billion women around the world, about 450 million have suffered physical abuse by an intimate male partner, and about 1.1 billion have been sexually assaulted. Indeed, if violence against women was swine flu, it would be considered a pandemic.

OK, so what's my point? Weren't we talking about abortion? Whether liberal media elites portray it this way or not, women are among "the least of these" in this country. They continue to possess a subordinate status in most situations, especially when it relates to their physical person and sexuality. For this reason, women and children are to be embraced by the Church as those in need of nurturing, care, and protection. I'm not trying to turn all women into helpless victims here, nor am I suggesting that all men are abusing women (of course not!). But, I think that the framing of the abortion debate in terms of women vs. child has made many Christians view women as "the problem"--and that is a problem!

It is my firm conviction that until the American Church begins to be as supportive of women's issues as they are against abortion, especially voicing continuous and loud opposition to violence against women, there will be no cultural progress made. The Church must be a champion of women. And, the Church must be champion of children. Both are welcomed into the open arms of Christ and both must know that they are wanted and loved by his Church.

Despite our preconceived (and often ill-informed) notions, a woman who gets an abortion rarely (if ever) does so because she's vehemently protecting her "right to choose." More often, she does so because she believes she has no choice. She has no reason to hope and she turns to what has been presented to her as an easy medical procedure to fix things. Typically, women are convinced that they do not have the means or capability to care for the new life they're carrying. Or, women are convinced that they will lose important relationships if they go through with the pregnancy (whether with family or men, or both). In both cases, the woman is made to believe that she is solely responsible for the life she carries--and that's simply not true.

Women facing poverty, abandonment, abuse, or other difficulties because of pregnancy should not believe they are alone. Its not enough to wave picket signs and confront women with pictures of aborted babies--to give her the choice between murder and hopelessness. The Church must become the defender of women. This can take place on a practical one-one-one level or at a structural level.

How many of us would have a young woman come live with us throughout her pregnancy and then offer her child a home, if she so desires? Are we prepared for the real inconvenience and sacrifice that would entail? How many of us would accept teenage mothers into the church, help pay their bills, and provide them with loving guidance for parenting? How many of us would adopt the Downs syndrome child that a young mother of three feels she can't provide for?

Or, getting beyond the personal, what about good, affordable healthcare for a mother and her child (even if *gasp* government funded)? What about supporting sufficient child allowances and ample federal standards for maternity leave (and I don't mean the paltry 6 weeks that most companies provide)? What about real protection for women in blue collar jobs who will, despite the legality, lose their jobs when they give birth? What shall we say about those things?

Christians must no longer pit the "rights" of the woman against the "rights" of the child. Not only does the Church not believe in "rights," because we have given up our rights to follow after Christ, also we care deeply about the lives of both women and children. And, when it comes to pregnancy and motherhood, we believe that they rise and fall together. Supporting a woman financially, emotionally, and physically during a pregnancy and after delivery means supporting the child, too. Offering a loving home to a pregnant young woman abandoned by her boyfriend means offering a home to the young woman's child. And, standing up to abusive men, male promiscuity, and deadbeat fathers means standing up for women and children, as well.

Again, I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about the Church's ability to influence and transform cultural views of abortion. The Church of the resurrected Christ always greets new life as a joy and a miracle of God. In this world of violence, death, and destruction, it is the most absurd and the most profound thing that we continue to welcome children and believe that God's reign is salvation for them. In order to do so, however, we must change the way we speak about the abortion issue and the way we view women and children within the debate. It is imperative we turn this corner if we're ever going to approach creating a true culture life within a lost and dying world.

------------------------------
Abuse statistics come from a study cited in Betty Coble Lawther and Jenny Potzler, “The Church’s Role in the Healing Process of Abused Women,” Review and Expositor 98 (2001): 228-230.

Also, the above commentary was inspired by Stanley Hauerwas, "Abortion, Theologically Understood," in The Hauerwas Reader (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2001). You can find the text of this essay online in a number of places. One is here.

Learning to Confess and Repent

2010-03-12T15:07:00.004-05:00

The following is the Litany of Penance from the Book of Common Prayer. I encountered it first when Chaplain Mike posted it on February 18 over at Internet Monk. Frankly, we contemporary Baptists (in general) don't do well with public confession or formal prayers. We eschew the former by tossing out platitudes about answering to Jesus alone and we dismiss the latter by supposing there's something particularly holy about spontaneous prayers. Among other things, I find Lent a challenging time for setting those prejudices aside and learning from the thoughtful worship of our "high church" sisters and brothers. And so, I encourage you to meditate upon the following prayer. It is meant for public reading, in "call and response" form. But, I think it remains deeply meaningful in private prayer, as well.

Litany of Penitence

Most holy and merciful Father:
We confess to you and to one another,
and to the whole communion of saints  in heaven and on earth,
that we have sinned by our own fault  in thought, word, and deed;
by what we have done, and by what we have left undone.

We have not loved you with our whole heart, and mind, and  strength.
We have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We  have not forgiven others, as we have been forgiven.
Have mercy on us, Lord.

We have been deaf to your call to serve, as Christ served us.
We have not been true to the mind of Christ.
We have grieved  your Holy Spirit.
Have mercy on us, Lord.

We confess to you, Lord, all our past unfaithfulness:
the  pride, hypocrisy, and impatience of our lives,
We confess to you, Lord.

Our self-indulgent appetites and ways,
and our exploitation  of other people,
We confess to you, Lord.

Our anger at our own frustration,
and our envy of those  more fortunate than ourselves,
We confess to you, Lord.

Our intemperate love of worldly goods and comforts,
and  our dishonesty in daily life and work,
We confess to you, Lord.

Our negligence in prayer and worship,
and our failure to  commend the faith that is in us,
We confess to you, Lord.

Accept our repentance, Lord, for the wrongs we have done:
for our blindness to human need and suffering,
and our  indifference to injustice and cruelty,
Accept our repentance, Lord.

For all false judgments,
for uncharitable thoughts toward our neighbors,
and for our prejudice and contempt toward those  who differ from us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.

For our waste and pollution of your creation,
and our lack of  concern for those who come after us,
Accept our repentance, Lord.

Restore us, good Lord, and let your anger depart from us;
Favorably hear us, for your mercy is great.

Accomplish in us the work of your salvation,
That we may show forth your glory in the world.

By the cross and passion of your Son our Lord,
Bring us with all your saints to the joy of his resurrection.

Glenn Beck's Errors

2010-03-10T07:49:00.006-05:00

Along with most Americans who own either a TV or a computer with internet capability, or both, I'm sure you've heard by now that Glenn Beck of Fox News fame made some rather serious claims on his show last week regarding the association of Christian "social justice" with socialism and Nazism. Here's a full quote of the most offending portion of his comments (available to read for yourself here):

"I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them... are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"

There is so much ignorance and error present in Beck's remarks that its difficult for me to know where to begin. I will focus my efforts here on the two issues most relevant to my area of interest: theology and ethics.

The first major error is ethical in nature and, in my opinion, glaringly obvious. Social justice is a fundamental Christian commitment, arising directly from the teaching and example of Jesus Christ, the theological reality of the present reign of God, and the ethical pattern set before us by the early church. Although not without some controversy in how exactly Christians believe social justice is best sought (this is where debates about government involvement come in), there is almost uniform agreement from the "far left" to the "far right" that justice and mercy are essential manifestations of the Gospel's power in our world.

All this is to say: Glenn Beck is wrong. "Social justice" is not a code word for "socialism" or "Nazism." "Social justice" is a traditional Christian word for "faithfulness to the Gospel." And, in this case, I'm not the only one who says so. He's got a 2,000 year-old, trans-denominational and trans-cultural tradition to argue with.

Beck's second major error is ecclesiological in nature. And, while I think Beck's error on the above point is egregious enough, for some reason it doesn't bother me nearly as much as this one. Perhaps it is because I think that this TV personality has unwittingly voiced a perspective on the Church that is shared by many in American Christianity, even those who should know better.

What is Beck's ecclesiological mistake? Beck presumes a character to the church that is fundamentally flawed. Even if we were to grant him the point that "social justice" could be code for a liberal political agenda, in his plea for people to leave their churches because of differences of opinion on this matter, he wrongly assumes that church is simply a matter of voluntary association--a club to be joined and abandoned depending upon one's personal whims. And, sadly, this is how many American Christians view their own church "membership."

Church is not a club, a volunteer organization, a study group, or a business. Church is not something that Christians are meant to treat as a merely personal choice, capable of being chosen and un-chosen based upon political differences or other such disagreements. Church is the body of Christ, the community of saints, the temple of God. Church is the gathering of God's people for worship, for formation in Christian character, for service to each other, and for sacrifice for the world. Church is the initiation into God's Kingdom through baptism, the Eucharist, the reading of Scripture, the confession of sins, mutual edification, and healing. Church is a supernatural sign of the rule of Jesus Christ, put on display for the whole world to see that this is what God's Kingdom is like.

Beck completely misses the mark by suggesting that the people of God should demand uniformity of belief in the church on complex matters like social justice. There is plenty of room in the body of Christ for brothers and sisters to disagree about how best to enact faithful discipleship in reference to the healing of social ills. In fact, some theologians have suggested that one of the primary characteristics of the church is that it is a "community of argument."* Certainly, we are united in conformity around basic practices of the faith and basic beliefs about God, Jesus, etc, but we are united, as well, in our diversity about matters of praxis like social justice.

It is a deep ecclesiological error to suggest that people just pick up and leave the body of Christ, to which they have pledged their lives, because they find they have a difference of opinion with the pastor, elders, or even the majority of their brothers and sisters. This is American buffet-style, consumer Christianity at its worst and I, for one, am not willing to abide it. Once again, Glenn Beck is wrong.

----------------------------
*Kathryn Tanner, Theories of Culture (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997).

Let us Pray for Michael Spencer and Family

2010-03-10T07:02:00.002-05:00

I just saw this tragic news from Chaplain Mike at Internet Monk on behalf of Debbie and Michael Spencer. I am deeply saddened by the news and I ask you to pray for this brother and his family.

Meditation on the Crucified Messiah

2010-03-07T20:10:00.006-05:00

We follow a crucified Messiah. We follow a crucified Messiah. I know we know this intellectually. I know we know and preach and teach this. Its basic Sunday School stuff, right? "Jesus Christ is the Son of God who died for our sins and rose again on the third day and if you believe in him, you'll have eternal life." But, do we really know this--is it a defining, framing, all-encompassing reality for the way we view life?

A crucified Messiah is well and good when we want our sins forgiven, but not so nice when we want our life to proceed comfortably... predictably... safely. A crucified Messiah is a wonderful thing when we want to escape eternal hellfire, but not so fabulous when our we're called to follow... take up our cross... obey... even when our present life is in shambles. Do you know what I mean?

Over the past couple years I have been gradually awakening to the fact that the crucified Messiah I trust in for salvation is the same one I follow in discipleship. That is to say, I don't simply affirm the reality of the death of Jesus as a fact of my salvation, but I embrace it as both a window into understanding God and a practical way of life--a path to follow after. Here's what I mean.

The reality of our crucified Messiah tells us that God is mysterious, unfathomable, and eternally dense. Who or what is this God who would unite with human flesh, walk the earth, suffer at the hands of sinful men, and experience a tortuous death? Who or what is this God who embraces his enemies and accepts humiliation? Surely not a God that I can understand.

And, this lack of understanding, this confusion about the workings of God, is a major aspect of the real Christian life, is it not? The truth is, things don't always happen for a reason. Not everything works out in the end. And, sometimes horrible things happen and nothing necessarily "good" comes from it. Mothers get pancreatic cancer. Children die. Jobs are lost (along with houses and families and hope). Good pastors suffer at the hands of carnivorous churches. What are we to do with the truth that the Christian life is not a life that's safe and easy and comfortable?

As I have dealt with this issue, I have often felt like Moses standing before Mount Sinai. The ground quakes beneath me as God descends and acrid smoke fills the air. Everyone on the ground below me cowers in terror. This God is fearsome, radically free, and furious with love and justice. What would it feel like to draw near to a God like this? I've also felt like the disciples traveling with Jesus on the road to Jerusalem. Slowly, it dawns on me that he really believes what he says about suffering and dying and that he actually intends to go through with it. This God is frightening, unpredictable, and dangerous. What does it mean for me to follow the way of a God like this?

It is contrary to everything in my comfortable, safe, Christian American upbringing to draw near to a God who is so intimidating and hazardous. I like to think that my God, my Jesus, is "safe and fun for the whole family." But, whatever this God is that I imagine--this God who guarantees a job, a house, a complacent way of life--it is not the God of Jesus Christ. It is not the crucified God.

And so, I'm back where I started. We follow a crucified Messiah. And, he requires us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him. Sometimes, the following leads us to mountaintops; often, the following leads us through valleys. In either case, my response is the same. I must follow. Through the fear, the confusion, the sadness, the struggle, the desperation, the loneliness, the uncertainty, the angst--I must follow. I have sold everything to buy the pearl of great price, the treasure hidden in a field. I have nothing left to lose. There's simply no other choice.

Offering Prayers for Secular Events

2010-02-26T20:56:00.003-05:00

Coming from Texas, the number of prayers I've witnessed offered at public, non-church related events is more than I can count. I have seen football games, ribbon cutting ceremonies, fairs, dances, graduation ceremonies, PTA meetings, fund-raising dinners, political rallies, and the like, all preceded by prayers of invocation. I must say that every time I participated in such prayers, I did so with some serious reservations. In the following blog, Prof. John Stackhouse of Regent College offers a concise explanation of why such generic invocations for secular events are ill-advised for Christians. I know this is going to be a point of contention for some of my readers, but I agree with him fully and I would encourage you to give his reasoning some serious thought.

Making Choices: A Personal Update

2010-02-08T13:34:00.005-05:00

Most of my readers know that I am currently enrolled in a doctoral program at the University of Dayton. I am studying theology, with the hopes of one day having a career in teaching and writing theology. But, honestly, I'm trusting the results of my endeavor to God. All I know for now is that Ronnie and I are convinced this is the next step in the journey for me (us). We'll see how it all plays out when the five year academic gauntlet has passed.

What my readers may not know is that Ronnie has recently taken a church position. He is the new Director of Youth Ministries at Aley Church, a United Methodist congregation in Beavercreek, OH. Aley Church is a relatively small congregation, averaging about 315 in worship attendance on Sunday morning. (Actually, this isn't really small by northern standards, but for a transplanted Texan from the land of Preston-world Baptist Church, this is quite tiny.)

Some of you may be surprised at this cross-demoninational ministry choice. But, to be honest, it was a pretty easy decision for us. Ronnie needed a job in this area, within decent driving distance. He would prefer to be employed by a church or non-profit organization of some kind, where he can be compensated for doing, in some measure, Kingdom work. And, as far as non-Baptist denominations go, Methodism isn't too far a jump. They have a commitment to personal conversion, spiritual transformation, the centrality of Scripture, and the mainly symbolic nature of the Eucharist. (Thankfully, since he's not a Methodist pastor--hence the title, "Director"--Ronnie doesn't have to worry about the question of baptism by immersion.) And, you can add to that the benefit of a history of commitment to social justice and activism.

Also, during our interview process, it became clear to us that the pastor of Aley Church is a relatively conservative Methodist pastor, coming out of the Wesleyan tradition (and it appears that most of the church is like-minded). He doesn't refrain from preaching about all the uncomfortable things that Southern Baptist laypersons probably view as litmus tests of orthodoxy: the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation, the reality of hell, the necessity of personal conversion, the priority of the Bible for faith and practice, etc. And yet, he doesn't make these things the only important issues either. Just recently, he's been instructing us on establishing right thinking and behavior in the areas of our possessions, relationships, hobbies, and other aspects of life that often go unexamined.

All this is to say, we've found Aley Church, under the pastor's leadership, to be a hospitable and charitable church home. And, I have to say, there's a palpable feeling of personal freedom at the church that I never experienced in our previous Southern Baptist churches. Women serve communion, take up the offering, lead in worship, read Scripture, and lead in prayer (*gasp*). Also, the minister's wives are not viewed as appendages to their spouses. Frankly, I'm not expected to do anything, besides love my husband and child and worship with the community. If I choose to teach Bible study or sing in the choir (which would be bad for all involved, I promise), that's my business.

Speaking of new choices, Ronnie and I have also made what you might call a "lifestyle choice" recently. For a few months, while Ronnie worked in an office environment and I acclimated to a rigorous academic environment, William was enrolled in a childcare program that operated out of a church. Despite the guilt and tortuous questioning about the decision (and believe me, there was lots of it), we found the situation to be truly nurturing for William. He was one of two infants in a home environment, cared for by a very experienced and loving lady. She was a wonderful caregiver for William and he grew to adore her (and vice versa, of course). He also benefited from the interaction with an older infant, who became his best bud.

But, with Ronnie taking this new ministry position, our financial situation has drastically changed. Beginning January 3--Ronnie's first day at Aley--both of us are now, essentially, doing full-time work for part-time pay (literally, bringing home half of what we did last year). So, we had a choice to make. At first, we thought that Ronnie would get another part-time job, working nights and weekends, in order to make up the difference in our income. This would allow us to keep William in daycare and be sure we don't lose some "creature comforts": satellite TV, date money, extra food money, etc. But, the more we thought about it, the more we realized there was something better that God was inviting us to.

Rather than view our two part-time jobs as a burden to bear, a financial difficulty to be remedied with more work, we've decided that we're to see our new situation as an opportunity. Rather than work hard for more money, which takes time away from us as a family, we've decided that we're going to be content with what we have. Ronnie and I have two relatively flexible jobs, which allow us quite a bit of freedom in making our schedules. What parent wouldn't give anything to have a more flexible work schedule so they can spend more time with their kids? Why should we not take advantage of this liberty while we can?

So, after some calculating (and, to be honest, just a little bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth) we're stripping our budget to the bare minimum and taking William out of daycare. We will be sharing the responsibility for taking care of William, with Ronnie doing most mornings (when I'm in class or the office) and me doing most afternoons (when he needs office time). Its going to be hectic, messy, and we'll be eating a lot more turkey dogs than we were before. But we'll have a simpler life together and a lot more time with our son. We've decided this choice is a good one and we're excited to see how this changes us in the long run.

In Memory of Mary Daly (1928-2010)

2010-01-28T15:44:00.006-05:00

A theological and philosophical giant died on January 3 with little more than a responding murmur. In a way, this may be appropriate. Mary Daly didn't make many friends in her long academic career. Her early books, The Church and the Second Sex (1968) and Beyond God the Father (1973) were veritable feminist bombs on an androcentric theological landscape. And, her later volumes, which include Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (1978), Pure Lust: Elemental Feminist Philosophy (1984), and Webster’s First New Intergalactic Wickedary of the English Language (1987) further undermined the "religion" of patriarchy (her term) by playfully altering language, thought-patterns, and practices in such a way that women and women's flourishing are prioritized and empowered.

As you can imagine, Daly was no friend of men. In an interview with What is Enlightenment? magazine, she said, "I don't think about men. I really don't care about them. I'm concerned with women's capacities, which have been infinitely diminished under patriarchy. Not that they've disappeared, but they've been made subliminal. I'm concerned with women enlarging our capacities, actualizing them. So that takes all my energy." Needless to say, her brand of radical lesbian feminism turned many away, even sympathetic feminist theologians who see her as an important influence. Eventually, she was forced to resign from Boston College, the Catholic Jesuit school where she taught for 32 years, when she refused to allow men in her upper level women's studies classes.

Despite the controversy and despite the many, many ways in which I am at odds with Mary Daly's theology, philosophy, and methodology, I think its important to acknowledge the passing of a great thinker and exceedingly important feminist scholar. Indeed, Beyond God the Father remains a foundational work in feminist theology. And, even though Daly would have a serious problem with my aspiration to be a Christian feminist theologian (like my conservative evangelical friends, she would reject the premise that one can be a feminist and a Christian), I am grateful for her trailblazing in the field. So, this short blog is my inadequate offering in memory of Mary Daly. She passed on alone and left behind no children. But, I trust the truth that can be mined from her work will continue to influence thoughtful women and men for years to come.

(You can listen to an NPR broadcast remembering Mary Daly here, a Boston Globe article remembering her here and view her official website here.)

My Little Darling

2010-01-24T16:51:00.004-05:00

We took this picture this morning with Ronnie's iPhone before heading for church. I just love this little boy.

Wondrously Unplanned

2010-01-22T14:40:00.001-05:00

In life, there are surprises and then there are SURPRISES. Over Christmas, we had a SURPRISE. Ronnie and I found out on December 22 that we will be having another baby. William is eight months-old and, needless to say, this was unexpected. In fact, we were taking measures we thought were appropriate in order to delay pregnancy until a later time--a time when we thought we'd be more ready, a time that we could "plan." Nonetheless, we will be welcoming another child toward the end of July.

The experience of finding out about this pregnancy was quite different than that of finding out about William. At first, I was shocked and dismayed. I'm in the middle of a Ph.D. program that is quite high stress and involves a lot of reading, writing, and studying. It makes life busy and tricky as I seek to be a good wife, mom, and student all at once. The thought of adding to this life another little person to care for was overwhelming at first.

After the shock wore off though, if I'm honest, I have to say that the next emotion I experienced was embarrassment. What a strange thing to feel, right? (I almost feel embarrassed admitting this in writing!) Why was I embarrassed?

This reaction bothered me. A lot. And, I've thought about it for the whole first trimester. Why was I embarrassed? Why did I feel the need to explain myself to people when I told them the news? I think it all comes down to the concept of an "unplanned pregnancy." I know that for me, the fact that we were pregnant unexpectedly carried with it a small sense that we had failed somehow, or done something socially inappropriate. (Am I the only one who has had this experience? I don't know, but I doubt it.) Somehow, I felt a measure of shame over the fact that we are educated people with a very busy life, who managed to stumble into an (dun dun dun dun...) unplanned pregnancy.

All this leads me to ask: What is it, exactly, about an "unplanned pregnancy" that seems so distasteful to me and to others in our culture? For whatever reason, I think there's a stigma attached to unplanned pregnancy, that's not altogether healthy or appropriate (or Christian!). I may be over-analyzing this, but I don't think so. Here are my initial thoughts.

What is it about "unplanned pregnancies" that seems so wrong? Well, in our culture, especially middle-class Anglo-American culture, we put a lot of stock into rationality, reason, responsibility, and control. Anything unplanned challenges such goods and puts them in jeopardy. And, specifically in regard to children, there is an unstated expectation (especially for white, middle-class Americans), that we have a responsibility to plan and bring to pass a certain standard of family. If that standard is not attained, we have failed as Americans and even as Christians.

Here's what I mean. In America, we know that educated people plan their children out. They have a certain number of them (usually no more than three) within a certain window of time. They make sure they are in all the right pre-school activities, can read by an early age, and have an appreciation for music, art, sports, whatever, before they're four. And, hidden within this sense of familial perfectionism is the classist (and at times racist) notion that only the poor and uneducated reproduce without planning. Only the inferior classes are irresponsible enough to have lots of children without planning.

The funny thing about these perceived goods--control, perfection, ideal family life--is that they are unattainable. The truth is, we are not in control. We do not ultimately have control over our bodies. God has designed us in such a way that when two people have sex, they will very often procreate. Its the way we've been made. I've heard someone say before, "If you're not using birth control (i.e., the Pill), you're planning to get pregnant." I say, if you're having sex, you're planning to get pregnant! As much as we like to think with our pharmacological and technological advances that we have mastered the reproductive potential of human beings, we're wrong. In the end, God really does open and close the womb. Its the way God planned us.

Not only are we not in control, but we're not perfect. And the ideal of family life that we've bought into--the one with two white parents, a boy and girl, a dog, and a white picket fence--is simply unrealistic and wrong. We do not have a responsibility to breed baby Mozarts and Picassos. They do not need to master two instruments and become an accomplished gymnast by the time they're ten. Yes, we have a responsibility to educate our children, to rear them into adulthood, to model the good life of a disciple, and teach them how to cultivate Christian virtues. But, that does not necessarily include the "Baby Harvard" pre-school or the often insane elite soccer schedules that disrupt family and church life. The truth is, there is no perfect family or perfect kids. God's will for us is not perfection.

What am I getting at exactly? Certainly, I'm not saying there is no place for trying to plan out your children. And, I'm not saying that spacing them is wrong or trying to find the best pre-school or after school activities is wrong. But, I am saying that there is something wrong with a society that views "unplanned pregnancies" as a problem, a mistake, an embarrassing thing that needs to be apologized for. Life is messy. God's Kingdom is messy. As long as God is God and we are not, that means we aren't in control and we can't plan our lives. Not really.

So, I think we should let go of our un-Christian expectations of control and perfection and accept the beautiful mess that is our life in God. I think there's a place for embracing the unplanned parts of life. Indeed, most of our life together--Ronnie and me--has been unplanned and yet blessed beyond measure. This new life growing inside of me is wondrously unplanned and I can't wait to meet him or her.

What I'm Reading this Semester

2010-01-05T14:21:00.004-05:00

Well, my patient readers, my second semester as a UD doctoral student has begun. I'm pleased as punch to report that I managed to get through last semester with two As--something that was a confidence booster, to say the least.

But, I have my work cut out for me this time around. Not only am I taking two classes and working 20 hours a week as a graduate assistant, but I'm also preparing for my first General Examination on the Bible, which will take place in May. This exam will cover the content of 15 or so books, not to mention the biblical text itself, and take both written and oral form. Passing is absolutely essential for progressing in the program.

Nevertheless, as I did last time, I thought you might appreciate seeing the books I will be reading in my courses.

For a foundational course called Theological Research Methods: The Tradition, we were required to purchase the following:

- Anselm of Canterbury, The Major Works. Ed. Brian Davis, Oxford World's Classics.

- Augustine. City of God. Trans. Henry Bettenson, Penguin Classics.

- Bernard of Clairvaux. On the Song of Songs IV. Cistercian Publications.

- Denis R. Janz (Ed.). A Reformation Reader: Primary Texts with Introduction. Fortress Press: 1999.

- Mechthild of Magdeburg. The Flowing Light of the Godhead. Trans. Frank Tobin. Paulist Press, 1997.

- Margaret Porette. The Mirror of Simple Souls. Trans. J.C. Marler and Judith Grant. Notre Dame, 1999.

We will also be reading portions of the following works, which can be found on the internet or in electronic form through our library:

- Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

- Aristotle's Physics 4.3

- Augustine's Confessions, Book 8

- Bonaventure's Commentary on the Sentences of Peter the Lombard

- John Duns Scotus, Ordinatio Prologue. Parts 1 and 2.

- Peter the Lombard, Sentences.

- Plato, Phaedo

- Plotinus, Ennead IV

- Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Sentences of Peter the Lombard

- Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Excerpts

- Jean Leclercq, Love of Learning and the Desire for God

- Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality. Trans. Allan Wolter. Catholic University of America Press, 1986.

- John Duns Scotus. God and Creatures: The Quodlibetal Questions. Trans. Felix Alluntis & Allan Wolter. Catholic University of America Press, 1975.

- John Duns Scotus. The Examined Report of the Paris Lecture: Reportatio I-A. Trans. Allan Wolter & Oleg Bychkov. The Franciscan Institute, 2004.

- Meister Eckhart: Sermons & Treatises. Vol. 2. Trans. by M.O’C. Walshe. Element Books, 1979, Sermon 87, pp. 269-277.

- Arthur Hyman & James Walsh. Philosophy in the Middle Ages. 2nd ed. Hackett, 1973

- William of Ockham. Ockham: Philosophical Writings. Trans. Philotheus Boehner. Library of Liberal Arts, 1964.

- William of Ockham. Quodlibetal Questions. 2 vols. Trans. Alfred Freddoso & Francis Kelley. Yale, 1991

For a course called Theological Engagements with Culture, we have been required to purchase the following:

- H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture

- Mary McClintock Fulkerson, Places of Redemption: Theology for a Worldly Church

- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions

- Gordon Lynch, Understanding Theology and Popular Culture

- Kathryn Tanner, Theories of Culture: A New Agenda for Theology

- Kwok Pui-lan, Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology

- Terry Eagleton, The Idea of Culture

- Nicholas M. Healy, Church, World, and the Christian Life: Practical-Prophetic Ecclesiology

- Graham Ward, Cultural Transformation and Religious Practice

Happy Christmas to all!

2009-12-21T15:57:00.003-05:00

Here's a recent photo of William in his obligatory Christmas outfit. I'm sure he's going to get more presents than is morally conscionable from his Mimi, but I suppose that goes along with being absolutely adorable and her only grandchild (for now). Meanwhile, we're hoping for at least a few days without schoolwork over the Christmas break. But, my first General Exam is fast-approaching in May, so I will have to make time for some studying. Nevertheless, we're going to make time to love and enjoy one another and I hope you and yours do the same. Happy Christmas to all!

Abby Johnson: A Journey to Pro-Life

2009-12-18T08:30:00.004-05:00

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the newspaper for the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, the Southern Baptist Texan. The editor, Gary Ledbetter, and I have exchanged emails on a number of occasions and I've written official letters to the editor more times than I can count (mostly protesting their narrow-minded, politically conservative agenda). But, they are carrying a story this month that is very important, I think. And, it is regretfully being ignored by the majority of major news networks, except for Fox News (which, I have to say, I don't really consider a news network).

And so, I encourage you to read this story. Although I'm sure Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter will make Abby Johnson their latest "Joe the Plumber," I think it is obvious she is not a ideologue, nor is she being insincere in the story of her journey out of the abortion rights "camp." Indeed, she seems like someone who is thoughtful, intelligent, and decidedly pro-woman. So, take a look when you have the time and consider the power of Abby's story. I, for one, am grateful for her witness.

Discerning the "We" in America's Wars

2009-12-15T13:17:00.005-05:00

This Sunday, the minister of the church we were visiting began his sermon with a disturbing story from the Pacific War: an invasion by US Marines to re-take one of many, tiny islands from the Japanese in the Allies’ “island hopping” campaign. He described in some detail the US tactics in battle, including the use of flamethrowers, which the Marines employed en masse to clear Japanese trenches and bunker complexes. Such brutal measures, combined with the sheer number of US forces, contributed to their victory, but at great cost to both sides. The minister reported that the bodies of thousands of dead men lay rotting on the island for many days after the battle’s end.

By using this illustration, the minister certainly was not glorifying warfare or the resulting carnage. In fact, he compared the island battle to the judgment of God upon the nations in Isaiah 34:2-3: “The LORD is angry with all nations; his wrath is upon all their armies. He will totally destroy them, he will give them over to slaughter. Their slain will be thrown out, their dead bodies will send up a stench; the mountains will be soaked with their blood.” And certainly the minister is not unique in his use of a war narrative in his sermon, for the annals of US warfare have been popular sources for preaching in America for some time.

Even so, there was something about the way the minister told the story that was troubling to me. When he described the reasons for the Marines’ invasion and the goals of the island hopping strategy, he used the pronoun “we”: “We needed to take back strategic islands from the Japanese.” As he portrayed in detail the methods US troops used to kill Japanese soldiers, again he used “we”: “We used flamethrowers to clear out Japanese bunkers.” And, when he detailed the carnage that followed the Marines’ victory, he used “we”: “We suffered tremendous losses, but we re-captured the island.” This may seem like a non-issue to most readers. I’m sure none of the worshipers this morning thought anything of this matter. But, I think his use of a first-person, collective pronoun to tell a bloody war story while preaching to the Church is seriously problematic.

In what follows, I will briefly discuss why I respectfully disagree with the minister’s use of “we-language.” I will organize my thoughts on this matter by addressing the following three questions: (1) Where are we? (2) Who are we? (3) What are we to do about America’s wars? For most readers, this will be more of a “first word” than a “last word.” Honestly, in a short reflection paper, it is impossible to answer all the questions or fill in all the possible gaps. But my ultimate hope is to begin to re-frame the way we—followers of Jesus in American churches—perceive ourselves in relation to the United States and its many wars.

Where Are We?
I don’t think we can really address the central question “Who are we?” without first answering the question, “Where are we?” For the sake of our discussion, the simple answer is the United States of America. This is the country in which we dwell—me, most of my readers, not to mention the minister and the church setting described above. I would like to “unpack” this answer at more depth, however, realizing that the USA as a location for living life is not a neutral concept, especially for Christians. This will be a difficult task, for it is a bit like examining the water we are swimming in. But, with critical reflection and open minds, I think we can approach at least a quasi-objective perspective. So, what can we say about the United States of America? Where exactly are we?

The first thing we can say is that the USA is a nation-state. This means that it derives its political legitimacy by serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. Typically, a nation is understood to be a cultural and/or ethnic entity and a state is understood to be a political and geopolitical entity. So, the term “nation-state” implies that these two geographically coincide, which makes it different from pre-national states. Some distinguishing marks of a modern nation are a united economy and a centralized government and public administration—both of which are evident in the US. But, the most important aspect of the nation-state for our present discussion is the creation of a uniform national culture through state policy.

This is especially true in the US, where the population does not necessarily have a common ethnicity, common language, or shared culture. One way (but not the only way) of dealing with this is through the creation of national systems of compulsory primary education with a relatively uniform curriculum. This ensures that the national language is spread and the national history taught, in such a way as to promote and hold up an idealized picture of the nation-state. In the US, this national history has taken on mythological status, so that stories of the “Founding Fathers,” the Revolutionary War, and most major wars since, rival even the biblical narratives in their power, romance, and ability to captivate the imagination.

This leads me, and many others, to the conclusion that America is more than just a modern nation-state. Based upon its historical mythology, the US has become the embodiment of numerous powerful ideals, which have a charismatic hold on its citizens and those aspiring to be citizens: freedom, equality, justice, and happiness, just to name a few. But, these ideals are markedly undefined, so that they can be reinterpreted and re-imagined to suit every potential interpreter. This allows for America the nation-state to make all the various religious traditions subordinate to its own purposes and ideals. Each tradition learns to tell its own version of the American story, writing themselves into America’s history and allowing themselves to be devoted to the American project in a way that works with their tradition.

So, Roman Catholics can see themselves as the rightful heirs and protectors of the American project even as Southern Baptists see themselves in a similar light. In this way, the various religious stories represented by the citizens of the US, including the Christian story, becomes subordinate to and enmeshed with the winsome, romantic story of the American nation-state. This synthesis of the Christian religion and American ideology has created a civil religion of sorts, which is at times indistinguishable from the religion of Jesus Christ practiced and preached by the Church.

This is seriously problematic when we recall our initial assertion that the United States is, above all, a nation-state. And, like all nation-states, its main focus is self-preservation and self-promotion. There is no way around this. It is what nations and nation-states do. Without any agreement on what constitutes the Good or the good life, nation-states promote their way of life, seek their own success, and advance their own causes. (Or, more accurately, the life, success, and causes of the majority.) Certainly, the American government has involved American tax dollars in humanitarian assistance and other forms of aid worldwide, and that this is a good thing. But, it does not change the fact that America is like every other nation-state on the planet: it prioritizes its own. Trade deals are negotiated for this reason, immigration laws are created for this reason, and yes, wars are fought for this reason.

Getting back to the idea of American mythology, some have argued (I think, rightly) that war making is a necessity to maintain American ideals. Indeed, the American story is impossible to tell without the wars that have occupied its population since its inception. Wars bring unity to an otherwise divided people and provide a common enemy—a “them” for “us” to hate. Wars perpetuate the myth of invincibility and the unique blessing of God. And, the blood sacrifices of young lives are deemed essential for the preservation of the American ideals mentioned above. Furthermore, with every sacrifice of American life in war, another, future sacrifice is justified, so that the past dead are honored and it is assured that they have not died in vain. In this way, warfare is essential to the American nation-state and buttressed by the powerful American ideals and common mythology, to which all its citizens ascribe.

Now, we cannot leave the subject of “Where are we?” without thinking about this issue at a deeper theological level. Even though the New Testament speaks affirmatively, at times, of earthly governments (Rom 13), there is no doubt that it is equally critical of the kind of all-encompassing and all-subsuming power wielded by nation-states like the US (Rev 13). Indeed, in light of the way we have described the American mythology above, I think it is justified to suggest, with many others, that the US is one of many “principalities and powers,” which ultimately seek to rival the Kingdom of God (Rom 8:38; Eph 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:15). This is evident in the fact that the American story has often co-opted and absorbed the story of Christ, so much so that Christians think nothing of the demand to kill in order to advance American purposes and for the sake of American ideals. In this way, the American nation-state becomes a rival to Jesus Christ and his Kingdom.

Who Are We?
Based on the above description of the United States, I hope it is clear why the question, “Who are we?” is not a simple one. Being a citizen of the US is a complicated matter in and of itself, but being Christian citizens of the US—being the Church in the US—is a matter that can border on the indecipherable. Even so, we cannot allow the “where” to determine the “who”—we cannot allow the American story to be the defining reality for the Church. The source from which we must determine who we are is the word of God, which testifies to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. God’s story, not the American story, is the determining reality for Christians. And, even though the Church may claim to know the story well, I think that perhaps a little reminder is in order.

When Jesus of Nazareth emerged on the stage of world history he announced that the healing power of God’s reign had decisively broken into creation. His proclamation of this good news came at the climactic moment of the story of God’s redemptive work as told in the Hebrew scriptures, a story extending back to God’s original promise in Adam and Eve, and arising from God’s intention in his covenant with Israel. The gospel announced that in Jesus, by the Holy Spirit, the power of God to renew the entire creation was now present.

Jesus explained this liberating, nonviolent power by his teaching and demonstrated it in his life and deeds. He battled the powers of sin and evil through his sacrificial death on the cross and gained the ultimate victory. In his resurrection Jesus entered as “the firstborn among many” into the resurrection life of the new creation. Before his ascension he commissioned his followers to continue his mission until he returned, making the Gospel known and initiating people from all nations into the reign of God. With the power of Jesus’ presence, the initiation into the reign of God takes place by submerging disciples in the Trinitarian reality and teaching them to obey everything Jesus taught.

Jesus now reigns in power at the right hand of God over all creation and by his Spirit, is revealing his restorative and comprehensive rule through his people as they embody and proclaim the good news. One day God’s reign will be fully realized through the new heavens and new earth. At that time, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Creator, Redeemer, and Lord. Until then the church is called to participate in the Spirit’s work of making known the good news as a witness to, and sign of the reign of God.

So then, what does this story mean for us? Jesus Christ has called us to be his disciples, or apprentices, in the Kingdom of God, out of every tribe, language, people, and nation. He has established the Church to be the witnessing community to signify and embody the new creation. And, because Jesus Christ is Lord over all, Christians have no claim on the progress of history, nor can they allow themselves to be defined by their nation-state. This means that the “we” of the Church is significantly different from the “we” of the US. The stories are different. The heroes are different. The calling is different. The practices are different. This gets to the heart of the why the “we” in the minister’s war story bothered me so much. It presumes that these differences don’t exist and subsumes the Church’s “we” into the nation-state’s “we.” But, if we derive our identity from God’s story rather than the mythology of America, we realize that we—the Church of Jesus Christ—transcends nationalism and the earthly priorities of the nation-state.

What Should We Do About America’s Wars?
So what? President Barack Obama just announced that he is sending 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, a war that the US has been engaged in for eight years. This is in addition to the 36,000 troops already there, not to mention the 130,000 troops presently in Iraq, with who knows how many paid military “contractors” in both countries. Now that we know where we are and who we are, what are we to do about that? While I will refrain from making absolute statements about what Christians in America must or must not do, I think a path of critical questioning is important to help us to re-think the role of Christians in the American nation-state and re-frame the way Christians view themselves in relation to America’s wars.

First, we should begin by recognizing who the rightful “we” is when the wars of the US are addressed and refuse to allow ourselves to be included in the religion of American nationalism. There is no doubt that Christian citizenship is a complicated matter, which I do not have the space to explore in any depth now. But, if nothing else, Christians must take seriously that the Church is a reality that transcends the boundaries of nation-state, even the most powerful and winsome nation-state on earth. And, the task of the Church is to be a community of witnesses to the reality of God’s reconciliation of the world. So, any practice, any agenda, any mission, anything, that co-opts this task or threatens its efficacy must be rebuked for what it is—a rival to the Kingdom of God—and set aside.

We can begin extracting ourselves from the “we” of America by critically examining the many ways in which the priorities and ideals of the American nation-state conflict with the practices and beliefs of the Church. This means asking counter-cultural questions and acting upon our answers. Is patriotism a Christian virtue? Are constructs like capitalism, democracy, and federalism compatible with Christianity? In what way does America set up an opposing “church” to the Church of Jesus Christ? Are the enemies of America the enemies of the Christian? And, perhaps most controversially, should Christians kill for the American nation-state?

People who claim the label “realists” will say that to question the use of warfare and the Christian’s participation in it is unrealistic and irresponsible. War is a tragic reality of our sinful world and Christians must accept this and do their best to live within it. But, my response is that war is not the reality of our world—the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ is. His death, resurrection, and ascension are the defining reality for the world, not the violent and brutal methods that nation-states use to defend their borders, their economies, and their positions of power. The real realists are those who see war for what it is: the violent disfigurement of the image of God and the bloody dismemberment of the body of Christ. Jesus Christ has proven that nonviolent love is the way of God in the world and the real realists are those who seek to live faithfully in light of this truth.

Once, a long time ago, before the state church of Constantine, the age of the Enlightenment, or the “American dream,” the belief in Jesus made the Christian sect a target for persecution and social ostracism because they refused the compelling voice of Caesar who demanded, “Worship me! Kill for me!” Certainly, in his escalation of troop levels, President Obama is not making such a blatantly anti-Christian demand. Even so, I urge my readers not to be drawn in to the trap of reading the Christian “we” into the nation-state’s “we.” For this move has served in years past to wrench from the hands of the Church its God-given power to witness to the Kingdom of God in this present evil age. We are the Church in the midst of the American nation-state and no matter the complexities and difficulties of this situation, we answer to one King and one Kingdom, neither of which fly the red, white, and blue.

Sources and References for Further Reading
Baxter, Michael J. “Dispelling the ‘We’ Fallacy from the Body of Christ: The Task of Catholics in a Time of War.” Dissent from the Homeland: Essays after September 11. Eds. Stanley Hauerwas and Frank Lentricchia. Durham, NC: Duke Unviersity Press, 2003. pp. 107-120.

Hauerwas, Stanley. “Why War is a Moral Necessity for America or How Realistic is Realism?” Criswell Theological Review, N.S. 6/1 (Fall 2008): 57-70.

Hauerwas, Stanley. “Sacrificing the Sacrifices of War.” Criswell Theological Review, N.S. 4 (Spring 2007): 77-95.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. “Is Patriotism a Virtue?” Theorizing Citizenship. Ed. Ronald Beiner. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995. pp. 209-228.

Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Yoder, John Howard. Christians Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution. Eds. Theodore J. Koontz and Andy Alexis-Baker. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2009.

Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Thank God for "Happy Holidays"

2009-12-14T11:58:00.003-05:00

I know that I haven't posted anything new in a month and I'm deeply regretful. But, I've been expending all my energy to stay afloat in my first semester in the UD Ph.D. program. So, in lieu of something new, I thought I'd offer a favorite post from December 24, 2007. Merry Christmas to you and yours!
------------------------------------

Thank God for "Happy Holidays"

Around this time of year, there's lots of talk among Christians and non-Christians alike about two little words: "Merry Christmas." The controversy, of course, is over who says it, who doesn't say it, and why.

Headlines over the past few years have accused and defended a number of corporations because of their use or disuse of the phrase. Wal-Mart, Macy's, Target, Sear's and many more have suffered the wrath of self-appointed Christmas warriors, determined to put the "Christ" back in Christmas through boycotts, news coverage, angry phone calls, and innumerable petitions.

I know that it matters little what I think amidst the nationwide media frenzy, but I would like to state and explain my position for the record: I don't want them to say, "Merry Christmas."

I am aware that we live in a culture that is not only increasingly non-Christian, but also anti-Christian. Although many of our founding mothers and fathers ascribed to some form of Christian faith, America is no longer a Christian nation. The US is a pluralist society, a reality that is exceedingly uncomfortable for Christians who are used to being in the majority and in positions of civic authority and power.

The rising pluralism has led to a rising push to accomodate the various faiths represented among us. There are both good and bad points in this accommodation, too many to spell out here. But, the important fact is that most Christians don't like it. We don't like it at all.

And so, among other things, we have the "battle for Christmas." It seems that the many proponents of the "war" to bring back Christmas view themselves as grass-roots saviors of the season. With enough phone calls and boycotts, they can pressure American corporations into not accommodating the pluralism of our society, supposedly symbolized by instructing their employees to say, "Merry Christmas," rather than the undeniably mundane, "Happy Holidays," or, even worse, "Season's Greetings."

I won't deny that I prefer to wish my fellow Americans, "Merry Christmas." And, I prefer to hear the same from others. The phrases "Happy Holidays," and "Season's Greetings," are silly and meaningless--poor replacements for a greeting that reminds our neighbors of the reason for our happy merry-making. Even so, I find the whole controversy both tremendously ironic and sadly pitiful. Allow me to explain.

The Christmas celebration is a commemoration and thanksgiving to God for the birth of the Savior, Jesus Christ. According to the accounts of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born to an unwed, teenage girl in the backwoods of Palestine. He was birthed in a dirty hovel, with a feeding trough for a bassinet and strips of rags for a delivery blanket. His first visitors were shepherds, some of the filthiest workers of the ancient world, who carried the stench of sheep feces, dampness, and dirt everywhere they went.

Our king, the Lord of lords, was brought into the world in the humblest of ways, to the commonest of people, for the sake of the lowly. Corporations like Wal-Mart, Target, and Sears are led by powerful men and women who profit from the greed and materialism of the masses. They pay millions, maybe even billions, in order to put commercials on TV, radio, and billboards seeking to convince you that your life is meaningless without their product. They associate happiness and fulfillment with buying, having, and hoarding. Moreover, these corporations work very hard to be sure they offer the least amount of insurance and protection to the least amount of their employees. When their stock dips too low, they fire hardworking Americans and ship jobs overseas where they can get cheaper labor.

These people are not necessarily malicious themselves, but they are a part of a system working great evil among us, a conspiracy of materialism deceiving millions and leading them away from the kingdom of God that belongs to the poor. And yet, in an irony of ironies, Christians of America are demanding that these same major corporations parrot the announcement of Jesus' birth.

To me, this is both ironic and pitiful. Are we really so desperate for the American culture to acknowledge us and make us comfortable that we want corporate America heralding the arrival of the Savior? Are we really so void of fervor for true Gospel living and authentic Gospel preaching that we need Target and Wal-Mart to pick up the slack? Are we really so ignorant of the revolutionary nature of the Good News that we want to employ Caesar and his minions to prop-up the Kingdom of God in America? I hope not.

So, in the "battle for Christmas," please count me out. I would be happy to celebrate Jesus' birth with the person himself or herself after their shift. But, I don't need or want a representative of powerful corporations wishing me a "Merry Christmas." I am seeking to figure out exactly what my Savior's birth has to say to me as his follower, but I definitely don't need the aid of Macy's in discerning such truths.

I am a Christian increasingly uncomfortable in our non-Christian/anti-Christian society and that's just fine with me. I should be uncomfortable. I should feel at odds with my culture. That's the way its supposed to be. So, the next time someone wishes me, "Happy Holidays," I'm not going to scowl. I'm going to thank God that the Kingdom is coming to turn everything upside down, and that it all started in a filthy stable in the backwoods of Bethlehem, and that God doesn't need corporate America to bring it all to pass.

"Evil People Do Evil Things": A Friend's Reflection on the Shooting at Fort Hood

2009-11-06T17:09:00.006-05:00

Regarding the tragic shooting in Fort Hood, Texas, a friend and young writer, blogger, and Christian thinker, David Sessions, offers a short but pointed perspective on his blog for Patrol Magazine. David is the Editor of Patrol, a self-described "independent daily magazine where young post-evangelical writers explore their interactions with art, culture, politics, and technology." I find his post refreshing in a time of shrillness and fear-mongering. Check it out here. Come to think of it, I always enjoy checking in on what David and his other contributors have to say at Patrol, even if I don't always agree. I recommend it to you, as well.

Stranger in a Foreign Land: A Baptist Studying in a Catholic University

2009-10-27T22:12:00.009-04:00

This semester I am in a fantastic seminar on the Christian ethics of peace and war, led by Dr. Michael Baxter, a visiting professor from the University of Notre Dame. Of course, we're focusing on U.S. Catholic social teaching, particularly in the 20th Century, with readings from a few Protestants mixed in.

Even as I'm thoroughly enjoying this deep foray into an important ethical issue, I'm being constantly reminded that I am a stranger in a foreign land--a Baptist in a Catholic institution. I'm certainly not the only Baptist or the only Protestant in the program--there are, in fact, many non-Catholics in the M.A. and Ph.D. programs--but I do seem to be the one least acquainted with Catholic theology and moral teaching. So... this makes for fun (and humbling) times. I'd like to share one such humorous incident from this past week.

We've been covering the Cold War period in class and part of our reading on the debate over nuclear policy in the 1980s involved the 1983 pastoral letter from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, titled "The Challenge of Peace." In this work, the Bishops attempt to apply just war principles to the issue of nuclear deterrence. When this reading was assigned to us in class, Dr. Baxter also recommended verbally that we look at another work, which he called "Gaudy and Mitspez."

I assumed that this was a book on a similar issue, co-authored by guys with the last names "Gaudy" and "Mitspez," with which most people in the class were acquainted. So, like any insecure first-year Ph.D. student, I didn't ask what it was--I would find out for myself.

And so, I diligently searched for the volume so as to acquaint myself with the contents. Searching the UD library, however, turned up nothing. I tried a number of variations on the spelling: "Goudy" and "Mitzpez"; "Gaudi" and "Metspez"; "Gowdy" and "Mitspes." Still nothing. So, I took a crack at Amazon.com. (You can find lots of obscure books on there, for sale by used book sellers.) But, once again, my search turned up nothing.

And so, when all else fails, turn to Google! I googled all the various spellings of "Gaudy and Mitspez" I could think of and still came up with absolutely nothing. Seemingly defeated, I resigned myself to arriving at class without having acquainted myself with the work of "Gaudy and Mitspez," something I was now certain had to be a "Catholic thing," that an unschooled Baptist like me wouldn't be able to find without help.

In class tonight, however, I had a bit of a revelation--an unveiling of my ignorance, you might say. I was looking at one of the articles we were discussing, when I noticed a text referenced in the footnotes. It was called, in Latin, "Gaudium et Spes." That's when the clouds parted and the sun came out. I may have heard Dr. Baxter reference two English authors, "Gaudy and Mitspez," but what he really said was Latin: Gaudium et Spes. Doh!

With the help of Wikipedia, I now know that this phrase means "Joy and Hope," and it is the official title of the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," which came out of the Second Vatican Council. This document is an overview of the Catholic Church's teachings about humanity's relationship to society. (You can read other documents from Vatican II here.)

Now that I've had a good laugh at myself, I've filed away this little experience in my mind for safe keeping. Next time a professor or student references a work that I can barely understand or cannot locate with the almighty Google, I can be 99.9% certain he or she was speaking Latin. First-year Baptist doctoral student, welcome to the Roman Catholic university!

We've Moved!

2009-10-22T10:56:00.003-04:00

Personal Update: Ronnie, William, and I, along with our two boxers and three cats, have (miraculously) sold our home in Hamilton and purchased a 1920s bungalow in Dayton, very close to the University. The move brings me closer to the school, where I'm studying and working, and hopefully, opens up new doors for us in terms of finding a community of faith and making friends. We will miss being close to my mom, Will's Mimi, and a good friend of mine, but we think its the right move overall. We'll spend the next few weeks in relative chaos trying to unpack and acclimate to our new city environment. Feel free to say a few prayers for all of us!

More on Feminism and Abortion

2009-09-25T13:00:00.002-04:00

For more information about an organized movement of feminists against abortion, please explore the Feminists For Life website. This movement is not explicitly Christian, or any other religious persuasion, but many of their members come out of a Judeo-Christian tradition.

Also, Amy Laura Hall (Duke University) and Jana Bennett (University of Dayton) are two present-day Christian feminist scholars (Hall is a Protestant and Bennett a Catholic) who are writing about issues of women, children, abortion, and reproduction. Look for their works on Amazon and other book-sellers.

I'd especially recommend Hall's volume, Conceiving Parenthood: American Protestantism and the Spirit of Reproduction.

Also, my readers might be interested to know that I have the privilege of serving as Jana Bennett's Graduate Assistant this year at the University of Dayton.