Intellectuelle

My official alma mater is Boilermaker country in the midwest (Purdue), but I do adopt Arizona State University as a kind of "aunt" when it comes to schools I've attended and have a particular soft spot for (aside from the fact that I'm from AZ and ASU is the alma mater to my husband and sister and other members of my extended family and in-laws and great crowd of friends). Thus, when I ran across Steve Wagner's latest newsletter about his recent open air time at ASU, partnered with Justice For All, I was genuinely interested in the outcome of his encounter with students concerning the issue of abortion. I invite you to read it and think about the dialogue that took place between himself and one particular student.

I am convinced that this student's views are consistent with the vast majority of Americans on the issue of abortion. Most people (even former liberal Presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry) are "personally against abortion," but cannot deny that the unborn are living humans that we can legally kill for reasons unrelated to medical necessity whatsoever.

We have come a long way to valuing the visible lives of women in human civilization. Isn't it about time we also valued them at the time when they are the most vulnerable and invisible--in the womb of their mothers?

(Steve Wagner is on staff with Stand to Reason, a Christian ministry that I would better term hard-hitting Christian thinktank or thinkarmory than anything else.)

Posted by Letitia at 2:08 AM | Permalink | Bioethics Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Today I was listening to Alistair Begg talk about women and their adornments. (1 Timothy 2:9) While its one thing to dress "nice" for church, he suggested it is no place to "dress to the nines." Of course there is a bit of relativity in this, but he was trying to make the principled point that worship is about attending ourselves to God and not doing or wearing anything that would be a distraction. He spoke primarily of over dressing for the occasion or dressing in a way that only our husbands should see and appreciate.

I frequent many websites and blogs of womens speakers and one in particular grabbed my attention recently, Begg's sermon bringing it back to my mind. Her focus in the particular post I was reading was advice on how to buy expensive label clothing without the cost. These would be the labels that are sewn in to the clothing and sold in Saks Fifth Avenue and elite boutiques, where a pair of sandals cost as much as my car payment.

At first, I thought it was cool advice...scour Goodwill, look for damaged items in the stores (to repair yourself) and shop the outlets. How exciting it is to look and feel as if you spent a million dollars on yourself! Think again.

What is the testimony of the million-dollar-look? While it may have literally cost you only pennies to own, it can cost you a lot more. The motive in obtaining expensive labels at discount prices is to give the impression that you spent a lot of money and that your outward appearance is worth such an expenditure. Is that really the impression we want to give? Granted, there are casual items that can be purchased, even at Saks, but today's image-driven culture knows exactly how much was on the original price tag.

Posted by Sarah at 8:29 PM | Permalink | Sarah Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

for today's woman. It won the title of Britain's oddest book title of 2007 (and I would add most clever).

If You Want Closure in Your Relationship, Start With Your Legs

This might be the best piece of advice I've found so far.

Posted by Letitia at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Posted by Sarah at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Blogosphere Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

I mentioned in a recent post that fragmented thinking "has taught people to believe that certain matters are to be addressed by their doctors and certain matters are to be addressed by their pastors." In other words, an error often made within the Christian community is the split between the "spiritual" and everything else. Obviously, Christians aren't alone in this regard, perhaps they are taking cues from NARAL?

On NARAL, it states: "If you are facing an unintended pregnancy, it is important that you talk about your feelings and emotions with someone you trust, be that a family member, a close friend or a member of the clergy. It is also important that you consult a health care professional to discuss your options."

Did you catch that? You can talk about your feelings and emotions with your clergy--not the truth, but your feelings and emotions. The role of clergy in this circumstance is purely therapeutic where the role of the health care professional is about the facts, the "options." This fact/feeling divide is grounded in assumptions about the nature of religion, that it has nothing to contribute to the decision at hand. By relegating religious leaders to the domain of emotions, it deems them irrelevant to any discussion related to the fate of the pregnant woman and the unborn child. As well, it assumes that abortion is primarily a medical decision and that there are no spiritual dimensions to the situation. They have determined, as an organization focused on "health care," that philosophical/theological reflection has no place in discussing "the options."

It also needs to be pointed out that they believe in the myth of the purely secular, that they and abortion providers have no worldview commitments.

So you're wondering why this is news. It isn't to me, but for some, it needs to be clarified that the worldview being expressed here has a view of religion as fiction, or something created by culture. For them, life begins only at birth because that is when a person begins to be enculturated. The meaning of life isn't found in anything metaphysical, but in the influence of culture who has created meaning for itself. Until birth, there is no meaning, rendering preborn life meaningless.

Posted by Bonnie at 6:58 PM | Permalink | Sarah Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Housewives we all are not, but according to Stephen Arterburn, well-know Christian counselor and founder of the Women of Faith conference movement, we are a desperate, needy bunch.

In an interview posted by Michael Paulson of the Boston Globe (July 25, 2008) in the Articles of Faith blog, Arterburn was asked if the Women of Faith conferences serve as method of evangelism. He replied, "I call it an inspirational conference. We're trying to inspire women that are in big trouble to hang on. We try to inspire them to live the life that God intended them to live."

Does the fact that around 400,000 women each year attend these conferences provide validity to his assertion that these women are in "big trouble?" Or perhaps this is one of the most dominant movements within the evangelical community that vasts amounts of women have access to.

Whatever motivates women to attend, it is clear that within the subculture of women's ministry, women have been convinced that they are in "big trouble." Motivational and self-help books dominate the women's section in Christian bookstores, women's ministries focus in on her need for encouragement and support, and if I were to take a survey, I'm confident that counseling programs would represent the bulk of advanced degrees held by women's ministry leaders.

It might be that women are in constant need of these self-help resources (books, conferences, etc.) because they are actually in need of something deeper will take them through the difficult times. The therapeutic culture of the church functions such that a solid theology is secondary to addressing the day to day issues we face. In other words, knowing God becomes a response to our "big trouble" instead of preparation for loving God and living in general. When relationships are pursued primarily for what one can get out of it, the relationship suffers.

Though well intentioned, I am concerned that Arterburn's comment and this therapeutic culture of women's ministry perpetuates an attitude of helplessness among Christian women. We ought to envision a ministry that develops women in such a way that their spiritual maturity, their relationship with God, is her ultimate resource in times of need. An anemic women's ministry will always need to be therapeutic. A theologically healthy ministry will produce disciples who naturally replicate and find their needs met at the feet of Jesus, and naturally among one another as Titus 2 models. This isn't to devalue counseling as I know how important it is, but the ministry to women in the church must first be Cross-centered. Knowing God makes it possible for women to help themselves.

Posted by Sarah at 3:01 PM | Permalink | Blogosphere Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Although I don't watch The View at all, apparently I can't avoid the show, since it produces news-capturing controversy on a regular basis. This time, it is riding the coattails of Jesse Jackson's curious "accidental" (?) negative remarks about Barack Obama, using the n-word. On The View, hostesses Whoopi Goldberg and Sherri Shepherd defend the use of the n-word, but only among blacks and only those blacks that supposedly know what they're doing with that word. In other words, dirty rappers may or may not fall into that category. Hm. Conversely, no white folk (or any other color) should ever find themselves uttering such a word, because then it becomes an blatant racial slur. The condemnation that follows such an utterance then should be swift and severe. I see. Now you see:

(Credit: YouTube user speakmymind01 for the video post)

What if I should behave the same with racial words used for Asians by more blacks than whites that have ever run across my path? In my lifetime, it was a black child older than I that ever harassed me physically. Should I hold that against all blacks? Should I say then that no black person can use certain words but make an exception for myself and others of my own racial grouping? That isn't just ridiculous, it is repugnant.

There indeed are two worlds. Apparently, Elisabeth Hasselbeck (and I) live in the one that wants to bring unity and compassion to our existence. Whoopi lives in the world that doesn't. Whoopi doesn't just bring attention to racial disparity, she wallows in it. In a society that is sincerely trying to move beyond skin color as a measure of one's personhood and value, Whoopi and Jesse Jackson mean to drag as many as they can to the depths of their anger and refuse to let the nation heal. We cannot have a dawn of a new day if civil rights activists insist on shooting out the sun.

I summon the spirit of Rodney King that begs you to let us all get along. Clean up your mouth. Let go of the nastiness.

Posted by Letitia at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Race Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Apologies to all for glitches and losses of content at our blog over the past several days -- not sure whether comments are going through at present or not, so apologies if they're not! Will hopefully get things cleared up soon. (Technology -- gotta love it.) Thanks for your patience!

Posted by Bonnie at 9:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

In the "things that happen" category the former post, "Continued Conversation on Authority and Freedom", was lost, but thanks to Google I can repost it with the comments section inside the post. Sorry for the inconvenience.

It is probably one of the longer conversations I've had online in awhile.
Sue of Suzanne's Bookshelf gets the old gray matter working overtime in the discussion of women in the church, authority and freedom, gender issues, etc,

Sue was saying:

I was brought up in the Brethren, no clergy, no elders, no other hierarchy except that women were silent. There was no teaching on either leadership or authority, since the leading of the Spirit was all sufficient. I won't say that it worked well, but ALMOST as well as any other authority structure that I see in a church.

I must come across as rather dense, but clearly we don't share a common view on authority. I believe we need governance, but if the governors are dependent on the populace for keeping them in place, there is a form of mutuality, and hierarchy is rotating and contains the notion of responsible government, so responsiveness and responsibility. We need responsible government and not authoritarian government.

There is a great deal said about those in authority in the NT and the authorities seem to be worldly or earthly authorities. We are told to submit to these authorities, but, historically they have been vastly transformed by Christians. As marriage should be also.

Must we shame and lambaste men, denying them any say over their families or in the Church?

Why should fathers have more say over their families than mothers? I am not following this. Why should men have more say in church than women? Should men have more votes than women, or more civil rights? I am missing something.

I do not understand exactly what position you are arguing for. Clearly there is some kind of cultural gap. Whether because I am "post modern" or reared in an antiquated church and family structure, or because I live in another country, I don't really know.

My answer:

Ilona:

I'm not saying you are post modern, I 'm saying that post modern philosophy characteristically reduces everything to semantics, and that antithetical analysis is more in keeping with the manner of thinking displayed in the pages of scripture. Meaning is attached to the words, but there is more in our doctrines than mere words (and no empty context placeholders as is found in plenty of modern thinking). When we Christians say "God" we mean someone by it, when we say "authority" we have a whole body of context in the scriptures that forms the meaning of the concept.

"I believe we need governance"
To begin answering some of your own questions there is a "why" underneath this statement. Why do we need governance, Sue?

I do think we need to differentiate between the structure and form of God's Kingdom, as outlined in the New Testament, and the secular form of Representative democracy. They aren't interchangeable. Just because our US Government is of one form does not translate into that form being the one instituted by God in His Kingdom. The very fact we use a word like "Kingdom" is problematical if you try to equate the two.

I believe we borrowed many important principles from the bible in the formation of our Democratic system... but it isn't a theocracy, and the Kingdom of God most certainly is. God doesn't rule by majority vote, and to imply that this is the way of the Church is simply baseless . Mutuality is not the same as majority rule or democracy. There is form and there is function. Mutuality is a type of functioning... Representative democracy is a type of form.

If we abide by earthly authorities, how much more spiritually invested ones? The question is which ones and how do they function, and how are we to relate together? If you look at it a different way.... isn't it the importation of earthly forms of dominance the trouble with the traditionist/complementarian teachings and practice? Isn't that wrong? Why should we import another earthly system and then smack a "spiritual" imprimatur upon it? Just as wrong- because it is not true to the institution of Christ at the head of the Church. this ought to be discussed in detail, but I'm moving on...

"Why should fathers have more say over their families than mothers?"
Turn that around. Why should mothers have more say than fathers? Now, when there has to be a deciding vote, who gets it, and why? Do you have a system for that? One that creates order and reflects submission to God?

I was in the "Church of Christ" instrumentalist for awhile. They, too, claim no hierarchy, but let's face the truth: there was hierarchy. There has to be... or things don't function. Just because it is de facto rather than de jure just makes it more arbitrary.

"the leading of the Spirit"

You are talking to a "Charismatic" here. I know the claims of "the leading of the Spirit" and how that needs to be firmly anchored to the rule of scripture. The solas work in understanding this....
If you don't, you have a disorderly environment with very off the wall things....

So we end up back to the form that the NT scriptures are outlining for us.

"Should men have more votes than women, or more civil rights?"
This is a different system and a different topic. Are you going to appeal to God for your civil rights? Or are you going to appeal to His grace and mercy? And which has been the source of your gifts and callings in the first place?

The gap is between where our culture is going and where the body of Christ is going... there is a great divide between the two. If we belong to the body we are flowing to a different destination and with a different landscape than that of the culture- no matter how close they seem at some junctures.
I prefer the freedom in Christ.
It is the promised freedom of this world's systems...even the best of them that is unsecured and dependent on the whims of men. That is why we have to be vigilant in the political system of this country. We have to think the worst and understand that those freedoms are fragile.
The freedom given by the Spirit of God operates through the revelation of truth. So no matter how high sounding our rationales may be, if not grounded in the proper way they should be formed and functioning... we won't experience true freedom.

I support your stance for understanding the importance of honoring and treating each other with respect and dignity: this is foundational to the gospel. But your views on the forms that best serve it I can't agree with. Not at this point in the conversation, in how I understand you.

"because I live in another country"

This part I don't know... which country do you live in? UK?

========
to which Sue replied:

I live in Canada. Somehow, our very notions of authority are vastly different but I can't pin down why. I am trying to figure it out. Turn that around. Why should mothers have more say than fathers? Now, when there has to be a deciding vote, who gets it, and why? Do you have a system for that? One that creates order and reflects submission to God? My parents had 8 children, they were traditional and my mother was at home with the children. I remember one occasion only in 50 years where my dad cast a "deciding" vote, but this was an issue relating only to the church and not to the home. I still don't agree that he should have had a vote at church while my mother had no say. However, in the home, I do not recall any time ever where he outvoted her or where that was needed. They simply made decisions in a civilized way through discussion. The "man needs the deciding vote" argument is, to me, a complete red herring. On issues of authority, I see you as defending an authoritarian governance structure in the church, but I don't know what you are basing this on. (1 reply)

good questions... which we can continue in the comments in this post- Anyone : feel free to chime in at any time.
Posted by Ilona at July 20, 2008 5:01 PM Theology

The former comments follow:

Continue reading "Continuing to Continue : authority and freedom"

Posted by Ilona at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Gender issues Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

Alright. I confess. When I first heard about Jonalyn Grace Fincher's recent release, Ruby Slippers (Zondervan, 2007), it was with a twinge of something between ugh! and egad! This reaction morphed into a full-blown wince when I caught the sub-title: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home.

"Please tell me this isn't yet another worn-out rehash of `the Proverbs 31 woman' or a trip down the `yellow brick road' equating Christian femininity with Suzy Homemaker, June Cleaver, and married with children." It isn't. Carefully integrating philosophy, psychology, theology, history, women's studies and "my own walk with Christ into a primer on the woman's soul" (p. 193), Ruby Slippers is a much-needed and long overdue look at God's ideas about womanhood.

Intelligent and incisive, Ruby Slippers is alert, agile, and penetrating without being pompous or trite. It avoids strait-jacketed "Christian stereotypes" and clears the way of narrow definitions, presumptions and prejudices to find out what makes women different and precious. Through careful biblical exegesis, meticulous research, thoughtful analysis and a well-rounded philosophical approach, Fincher shows us the real soul of a woman and its inestimable worth as a unique reflection of God's nature.

Fincher issues "one important caveat: I am not claiming to have the final words on women" or "an exhaustive index on femininity or the only biblical model for Christian womanhood," leaving the door open for further discussion. She also provides "Soul Care" questions at the end of each chapter for further thought.

In terms of writing style, Fincher's is generally tight, crisp, and lean. She shares personal anecdotes and experiences and analyzes vast quantities of data through a biblical grid. The author also brings an essential that's often lacking in many "women's ministry" paradigms and "women's Bible study" authors: demonstrable expertise and impeccable educational credentials. She's done her homework and has the background and qualifications to give this book gravitas. (Fincher holds a double Bachelor's degree in English and history from the University of Virginia and a master's degree in philosophy of religion and ethics from Talbot School of Theology)

Sumptuously sprinkled throughout the main text are relevant observations from such Christian luminaries as C.S. Lewis, Henri Nouwen, G.K. Chesterton and Dorothy Sayers, to name a few. The material bogs down momentarily in Chapter 2, Uncorking the Soul, with a somewhat overlong discussion of soul and spirit, but it picks up steam thereafter. The discussion on The Same Planet in Chapter 3 regarding "gender roles", "equal without being identical" and "similar though not the same" is delicious.

Further on, Fincher masterfully deconstructs John Gray's "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" mythology, and the inadequate, incomplete "helper" rendering of Genesis 2, among others: "... contrary to popular pagan myths, contrary to Goddess Earth myths, and contrary to much Churchianity, God makes Woman to provide and offer the hope, the ezer for Man."

Other myths put to rest include: "East of Eden" femininity, "godly submission," "the weaker vessel" and "boutique form(s) of gnosticism and neo-paganism" which glories "fertile, female bodies over female souls."

More stand-out sections include Prescription Lists, Corsets and Slippers that Don't Fit (pp. 14 - 18), Why the Trinity Dignifies Women (pp. 156 -158), Natural Femininity (pp. 102 -140), Learning from Women (pp. 159 - 164) and Jesus in Female Form (pp. 185 -186).

As beautifully and as nimbly crafted as the Emerald City, Ruby Slippers is a ground-breaking work with much to offer in the on-going discussion of gender theory, cultural stereotypes and authentic Christian femininity. This fine work is perhaps best summarized in Fincher's own words: "I am becoming more free. Not free to live out my dominations or check off my lists or squeeze into a corset. But free to be more like the triune God, the way he has redeemed me: fully female, fully human."

While showing readers how women are unique bearers of the imago dei , Ruby Slippers celebrates the soul of a woman within a thoroughly sound context of biblical truth. These Slippers are as welcome as Glinda's "Toto, too." Five stars.

Ruby Slippers: How the Soul of a Woman Brings Her Home
By Jonalyn Grace Fincher
Zondervan, 2007
ISBN:-10: 0-310-27243-2

For more, visit: www.soulation.com

Posted by Kristine at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Books Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

In his Breakpoint commentary of June 26, Chuck Colson writes:

We can trace our debased definition of "tolerance" back to French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau who rejected any distinction between "civil" and "theological intolerance." Rousseau did not believe that people can "live at peace with those [they] regard as damned." He saw Christian truth claims as being intolerant and a prelude to civil strife. Specifically, he wrote, anyone who dared to say "no salvation outside the church" should be driven out of society--precisely what is happening.

I agree that the intolerant ones are the ones who "drive out," yet it is hard to have peace internally when there are folks around who appear to be damned. We must hold out a hope and a prayer that they be saved, then, and do whatever we can towards that end, and leave the rest up to God. In this way we live at peace with them as much as we are able, for it is hard to live at peace with those whom one has damned oneself. It can also be hard to live at peace with our own sin.

I am seeing articles here and there which speak of sin as the "forgotten" notion. Yet sin is only truly forgotten by those who forget it. (Duh!) Were Rousseau alive today, he would have, not only secularists/atheists, but the church itself to help him drive out -- it appears that many within the church have forgotten that Christ alone takes away the sins of the world.

There seems to be a whole lot more than that required these days, and condemnation is quick for those who sin, whether in actuality or in imagination according to certain "pet" doctrines. Sin always seems to be something that "they" do, not "us," or that none of us will do if we just follow the right program. Whatever happened to shaking off the dust and leaving vengeance to God? Leaving salvation to God?

Why allow the sin or hard-heartedness of another to rob us of joy (Acts 13:51-52)? Why look for joy in the agreement of others (although this can be encouraging)? Ultimately, joy can only be found in His righteousness. May our intolerance, then, be truly "theological," and not civil. May we be intolerant of evil, not of each other, and forgiving of both sin and each other.

Posted by Bonnie at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Christian living Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Galatians 5:1-18, NASB

In a bit of serendipity, I found myself reading Galatians while considering issues of gender in both marriage and the church. Then my pastor preached from the epistle in a sermon titled, "Celebrate Freedom," tying in the freedom we celebrate on July 4th with the concept of spiritual freedom. Now, Internet Monk links to a post by Ray Ortlund on the Judaizers of Galatia, and I highly commend this post to you. It says what I've been thinking, only so very much better:

The tricky thing about our hearts is that they can turn even a good thing into an engine of oppression. It happens when our theological distinctives make us aloof from other Christians...The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive - the rite of circumcision - as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself... no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness. (emphasis added)

Continue reading "On modern-day Judaizers"

Posted by Bonnie at 7:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Stumble It!