Intellectuelle   Ilona

I am privileged to be among this group of Christian women bloggers. I feel that deeply. I am also privileged to present things on my mind to those who visit here, and desire to keep that trust in mind.

I have to say, before I give any other introduction of myself, that I am not an intellectual. I wish I was, and I appreciate those - and those on this blog are among them - who truly qualify. This is not false modesty and would simply become apparent soon enough. What I am, to define myself, is a Thinking Woman, and that is why I am excited to be here. To join in the interchange of ideas and opinions on the big things of life, to be part of the joy of learning and growing with others.

I'm older than many of the women here... and perhaps than many readers, although my demographic is growing in online participation- I'm a fifty-something. I've been blogging since I started on upsaid in 2003. I have ten children, half of that number grown and making their own lives, we homeschool, I've been married for thirty-something years, and have been a born-again Christian since 1973. Quick summary of over thirty years!

I'm a little more rough and ready in discussions than the average, and my own blog TrueGrit has examples of that trait; it is one that is under examination. I think life, and certainly the Christian walk is something that is regularly under examination. That is part of what I bring to the table: questions and probing for the truth. I get a little too excited when I find myself in the company of others who like to hash things out this way. Bear with me.

I will be extending the about-me section on my own blog in the future and you can pursue that route to satisfy any further curiousity ( hey-people like to kill time in any number of ways ).

I look forward to our conversations here: disagree, refute, applaud, correct, elaborate, but please join in as much as possible... it is so much better with you involved.

Part 1, in the Church

I don't know of a more hot-button topic for both the churched and unchurched than this one. For that reason, we should probably try to take a fresh new look at threading out the various views on just what a woman's place in society consists of.

It seems as if there are more presumptions on what the Christian scriptures say than there are authoritative doctrines. And of the authoritative doctrines, few are widely agreed upon as to how they work in the modern world. I'd like to look at that. In fact, I'd like to look at that with one of the more curious variations of recent memory: that blogging is a questionably womanly pursuit.

But first, what are some of the controversies? Women themselves are not agreed on what woman's freedom, rights, and dignities are or ought to be. And this has lead to some confusion about what the reaction of re-instituting traditional roles should look like. An example: Feminists of today would eschew the mid-twentieth century persona of "June Cleaver", TV mother. Neo-traditionalists seem to view those scenes with scentimental nostalgia. But what are we really looking at when we review mid-twentieth century female roles and lifestyle? Aren't we seeing the Feminine Mystique generation? The women who oftentimes threw off the homemaker's mantle and went into the workplace in hordes, who sometimes left home to " find themselves"? Or had to make new lives for themselves as divorce rates skyrocketed? I know my mother had 'Feminine Mystique' on her bookshelf, had to become a breadwinner, and lived a very different life from the Donna Reed Show, et al. This is why I don't think it is in looking backward culturally that we may find the defining roles of women.

And where has the Church been in all this? Pretty much where the rest of the culture has been: experimenting and floundering around to define women and understand how society should work. The Church hasn't had a voice of consensus. And I think it is out of laziness and self-protection that it hasn't yet produced clarity for even women in the Church, let alone a view of women in the Culture.

Further, the responsibility for this has lain with the Protestants. The ones who lay claim to Sola Scriptura, and studying to show oneself approved. But instead we are tangled up with reiterations of traditions and slipshod adoption of the culture's lead on this. The Worldly culture. We are the ones who ought to be able to work at rightly applying how the Bible's directives appear in our culture.

We Are Not Asking To "Remake" Christianity

Something that parts of Christianity has borrowed from the surrounding relativistic society is an idea that we are creating the expression of Christ in the world in an evolutionary way. I cannot emphasize enough that if one tweaks and twists the Christian faith to accomodate the culture's views, or individual's preferences, at some point what results is a set of beliefs that are something, but no longer Christianity. That is why I am not suggesting that we brainstorm a new view.

What is suggested here is the fresh look at the original truths, and that we stop trying to elaborate on those with our own traditions and teachings.

This would result in changes in the Churches... and possibly our world.

We Do Want To Define

Because of the comments, I wanted to view the choices for women in the Church against the historical background and present circumstance.

Atlantic, commenting on the stance of the Catholic Church said this,"the issue of women priests: for the Church�s faithful, the case is completely closed," and "the Church is the only body that has been given the authority to determine who may be ordained a bishop at all." Logically, this is the correct stance to take when one considers themselves Catholic, in my view. I'll tell you why I think that Atlantic has articulated the proper stance for a Roman Catholic woman. The Church has already gone through one Reformation time, on points much more essential than whether women should hold particular positions of leadership. Bloody wars have been fought because at that time the temporal powers and the determination of the Church were united. It was similar to Shari'a law in my estimation. The theology could rule whether you lived or died in this earthly existance. This is no longer the case in Christian-majority countries.

I find myself distanced from some of the dispute because in my Church milieu women are given full access and free rein to participate in Church life and leadership. Officially. The de facto situation is that none of us are truly separate from one another in the body of Christ, and prevailing attitude will ripple against the shores of our own situation.

Yet, in the Protestant experience, there is a wide range of choices in bodies that have already worked through the questions on whether women may preach and teach or have input in the decision process.

So in our convictions, if we have settled that our specific Church policy is scripturally mistaken, what is the right pathway to take? Do we stay and protest, seeking change, or do we move to a congregation that has already settled on this issue? Our motivations will have to undergo critical review if we decide we take issue with our Church's conviction.

- summing up my own view
...touching on woman pastors, parachurch alternatives, and double standard choices.

Figuring out a cogent, working viewpoint on women and their roles, that is.
I've come upon a couple of additions to the discussion.

First, from Susan Wise Bauer's blog:

I have a great affection for Westminster and a great respect for its (mostly male) faculty. I find it discouraging, though, that Westminster is still going in circles over the same issues that were troubling the (overwhelmingly male) faculty when I was there fifteen years ago. To wit, What Should Women Be Doing in the Church?

.....Evangelicals generally are very resistant to the idea that their ideas about masculinity and feminity are in any way shaped by their culture; a certain division of gender roles has become, for many American evangelicals, the center of their orthodoxy. (Not the Apostles’ Creed, say, or the Nicene Creed, but, “Do we ordain women?”) Far too many evangelical groups identify themselves, not by their understanding of the resurrection, but by the restrictions they place on women.

There are tremendous fears that lie behind this attitude
....Sometimes discussions about “women in the church” are actually discussions about the reliability of the Bible, and sometimes discussions about the reliability of the Bible are actually discussions about men’s fears of women, and it’s exceedingly difficult to figure out WHICH conversation you’re having at any given time.

She further quotes from John Stackhouse, "“When society was patriarchal, as it was in the New Testament context and as it has been everywhere in the world except in modern society in our day,...." which made me question, "Is modern society not patriarchal?

This is a very pertinent topic for women today, for Christians today. Let's wrestle some of this out.

Secondly, a detour I happened upon was inspired by a comment to Hannah Im's "Submission" post, which led me to Katharine Bushnell . She is described thus, "Katherine began to realize “that woman’s plight was rooted in the fact that the Bible was seen to support the degradation and suppression of women."

This was a woman missionary whose life spanned 1855 – 1946. "She ... added the dimension of educating all women in Biblical languages so that the original intent of controversial passages could be clearly understood."

::UPDATED:: to include Rebecca Groothuis' article, " The Bible and Gender Equality". Illustrates the egalitarian view in a very balanced way.

I'm ready to hear some of your thoughts. Writing on your own blog? Want to comment here? And why are the scholars still going in circles?

I have been reading a book in the continuation of my quest to get a handle on what is the proper role of gender, especially my gender. It was lent to me by my Pastor when I asked him his view and the general view of the church I now attend ( Vineyard ), on a woman's role in the Church. This particular book has reading that is heavier than what my practical and busy life generally allows time for. At first I thought I would finish it in a week, then...two weeks. I am now half way through and I have found it is creating some new thinking for me. I don't know if it is reading that book or pursuing the topic, but at this time of my life I have to say it is a most welcome avenue.

What had been an uneasy resignation for me is now coalescing into a more cohesive understanding of how much of my little bits of truth fit together in a larger whole. For me, that translates into peace, peace with who I am, with what God is doing, with my fellow believers.

The book is The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate by Kevin Giles. My latest post @ truegrit introduces some of the premises and explains my way of approaching the scriptures. But the book itself brings up not only big questions, but undergirds many of the things built into me from an early age. Being brought up Presbyterian, the Nicene Creed was like the singing of the doxology, almost welded to my DNA . But as Giles brings up in his book, the concept of the Trinity, or Trinitarianism, as theology was largely neglected from that flurry of debate in those early centuries until only recently. Except for witnessing to cult members- who have twisted ideas of Jesus, I hadn't given lots of thought, nor heard much teaching, on the Godhead.

There are reasons in the culture that we need to look at some of this doctrine, including many of the points that Giles raises in his book. Among these is that
the emphasis upon ideas of the subordination of women resurrects the Arian heresy. The problems involved in ideas of permanent subordination, not only in the view of slavery, but in the view of the Trinity, and specifically of Christ.

So, what is trinitarianism?

"the Christian doctrine that God, although one being, exists in three distinct persons (hypostases) known collectively as the Holy Trinity. Trinitarianism was formally defined in fourth-century Christian ecumenical councils." ~wikipedia

What is the opposing doctrine discussed as 'subordinationism'?

From the International Catholic University:
b) Subordinationism: those holding this position deny implicitly or explicitly the true divinity of the Second and Third Persons, who are creatures and are subordinated to the first person who alone is really God.

"All Subordinationism," he says, "rests on the intention of making the One who reveals Himself there the kind of subject we ourselves are, a creature whose Thouness has limits we can survey, grasp and master, which can be objectified, in the face of which the I can assert itself. Note well that according to Subordinationist teaching even the Father, who is supposedly thought of as the Creator, is in fact dragged into the creaturely sphere. According to this view His relation to the Son and Spirit is that of idea to manifestation. Standing in this comprehensible relation, he shows Himself to be an entity that can be projected and dominated by the I. Subordinationism finally means the denial of revelation, the drawing of divine subjectivity into human subjectivity, and by way of polytheism and the isolation of man with himself in his own world in which there is finally no Thou and therefore no Lord. It was against this possibility that the Church was striking when it rejected Arianism and ever form of subordinationism."

One emphasis Giles makes in his book, as he works across the historical development of theological thinking, is the imperative point that we must work from God, and His revelation of Who He Is, rather than from the creation to try to figure Him out. This is something that I am in complete agreement with, it saves so much circling and dead end thinking.

I hope to continue our conversations on A Woman's Place with highlights from this book by Kevin Giles. Read it? Join me? I perceive that one of the places we will go with this is our idea of freedom. How does the concept of freedom, as it is given in the Bible, direct us? And direct the history of a society?

I think that is where we are ultimately going with our conversations, and who knows? Get ready to dig into egalitarianism along the way, and whether Evangelicals are getting the theology on the Trinity correct in their desire to reiterate hierarchal views ( a topic given much attention in Giles book).
There is much to discuss.

The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate
by Kevin Giles

Upon discussion with my pastor about where our church stands on the gender debate, I was lent this book, 'The Trinity & Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate' by Kevin Giles. Not as representative, necessarily, but as something that digs into the theology of the debate. And that, friends, is definitely what this book attempts to do.

I would categorize the book's framework as tri-partite in format covering three related issues: (1) Theology of the Trinity, (2) Women, subordinate or equal?, and (3) Slavery, as Church theology has dealt with it and how it relates to gender theology. It uses a two-pronged approach to the arguments, one based within the Athanasian formula of "overview" exegesis and the second based upon the idea of cultural change requiring scriptural interpretation change, or what I term an "evolutionary" view of interpreting scripture. This two-pronged approach was submitted early on, in the introduction, but it wasn't until the final chapters which dealt with Slavery, that I understood better how Giles explains his application of the evolutionary, or cultural, form of argument. I still felt it was the much weaker manner of arguing the issues, especially for someone like me. And I basically disagreed with the premise, but additionally, I felt Giles took a facile manner of dealing with this form, as if it was self-evident truth. I would debate that, but in the further development of his ideas I could see a platform of agreement in the argument that as time progresses more of God's intent is unfolded, and gives greater understanding. Rather than an unvarnished promotion of "things are different now, and that forces us to re-interpret scripture" which is how I tended to read his line of thinking earlier in his formation of the presentation.

But in commenting further upon these two ways of arguing hermeneutics, I believe Athanasius' formula of "overview" is best for dealing with application of scripture to society's dilemmas. If following the watershed path of theological outcomes in society, strict protocols constraining women leads to a society in variance with Bible principles of freedom and equality. Handling those principles will be key in unlocking the correct approach to understanding God's Word on women.

Giles view on "cultural" evolution and force is very weak, not usable 'as is', since it depends on relativism.The idea that Christian principle once accepted within general society results in a juggernaut which cracks open wrong thinking and exposes injustice is plausible, but believing that society moves along as a force in itself, self-propelled without a cause for the ideas source? I believe in cause and effect, and so cannot embrace this culture evolution, as stated. It is framed as a theory that culture so changes that old ideas don't fit or hold up to present understanding, and thus "forces" a change in the Church and its hermeneutics.

I think that cultural acceptance of a high view of equality and of women requires an "overview" -principle approach to theology which then is caught by other streams of thought in the culture. To see culture as a power in itself, ie the Enlightenment, giving rise to our freedoms and forcing scripture interpretation to change is basically faulty. I immediately thought of Rousseau's ideas as expressed in the Unibomber's thinking. In his manifesto his view that man is a "beautiful savage" who only needs to be set free from the corruption of society's constructs to return to his primitive paradise. This holds a premise of man's basic goodness, that evil is imposed upon him. An idea wrecking havoc in our present society. The scriptures view of depravity posits another scenario: that if you destroy the institutions of society with its constructs of civility and law, you leave man helpless and exposed to the worst criminal elements, and vulnerable to the vicissitudes of nature. This all argues that culture is the cart that the horse of philosophy carries to its destiny. The question will remain, what is the basic driving nature of philosophy upon which our carriage of society is riding? What is in control of the basic ideas of the philosophy? Essentially that will boil down to our ideas of God.

There are those who don't see the pertinance of how the Trinity question of subordination versus equality relates to the gender questions. I think the idea that ones understanding of God influences ones understanding of the formation and direction of society is set forth in that previous paragraph. Additionally, the nature of the Trinity is used as an argument within the reasonings of the theological debate itself.

The subject matter is weighty when a books emphasis is theology, as might be expected. It isn't light summer reading on the beach. Since the first part of the book, the concept of the Trinity, dealt primarily with theological terms, history, and study, it took much attention and concentration from a reader, such as I am, who does not ordinarily study uncut theology. Besides the fact that the Trinity is a difficult topic for the best of theologians! Giles handled it well, and thoroughly. Of course, I am biased towards the Athanusian "overview", which I call "principle", exegesis for the truly thorny doctrinal arguments, which Giles submitted with overwhelming rationale. This portion was just my cup of tea, well laced with historical references and well written in almost a story form. Not at all dry.

As the book,'The Trinity & Subordinationism', progresses it becomes clear that Giles is arguing the egalitarian side of the gender debate, although I wasn't sure until he expressed it more clearly half way through the book. This is probably due to the careful submission of the two sides, egalitarian and hierarchal views. (Although he does use a rebuttal style, which tips his hand, whenever dealing with the hierarchal-subordination based books such as Piper's 'Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism'.) By the end of the book Giles is quite forthright in his conviction of the egalitarian stance.

I will admit that I have been moving more strongly in that direction, not particularly from reading this book so much as examining the questions, but Giles weak 'culture arguments' did the egalitarian stance no favors in my estimation. I think that is just the bias of those who hold to primarily egalitarian theological views holding sway. They think it wipes away the oppositional view of hierarchal subordination. I don't agree, and hope to submit my own ideas on where hierarchy fits with a strongly egalitarian view of women. But this book introduced a side of the issue which many of us categorize separately: slavery, which sheds some light on how blindsided the Church can become from its saturation with the presuppostions of the society.

Giles doesn't spend alot of time on this, but what time there is is well spent making the case for how deluded even the best theologians often were on this issue. I think the history on this and the woman issues was the most enlightening for me. To pay attention to the actual theology of past times when there were still serious arguments about the humanity of people upon the basis of their gender and race. We shouldn't forget, and should appreciate how far we have come on some of these social issues. It is both discouraging and encouraging. That the church could promote some of the ideas it has- discouraging.... that it was instrumental in getting on the right side of the issues- encouraging.

I want to further discuss some of the points made in the sections of the debate, so some of my posts may seem like an extension of this review. I think the book is an important one, and lifts the gender discussion to the higher level it needs, outside the emotional mudpit it is often found in.

(Crossposted @ TrueGrit)

A Small Faith � Our View of the Bible

A new blog has a conversation going on about theological concerns and women. Touching on some of the same topics that have come up here. I think there is a lot more rumination going on within our Churches on this subject then what we see on the surface, and further, I think God is behind it. We could feel that this is just aroused by the activity of feminists in our society, but I don't think it is that alone. Women are the key to unlocking the Islamic countries for the gospel I believe, from within. Women are the sanctuary for many broken souls who need nurture and healing in this post-modern Western society.

I think God is working on women... and our view of a woman's destiny.

Coming from the other side....

Catez has brought the gauntlet to Intellectuelle. And I pick it up; sometimes you don't go looking for trouble - it finds you.

This is an old issue for me, and a personal one. For me, it dates back to my conversion experience and the Church that God decided to lead me into. I don't think the Lord had in mind, specifically, to hone my warrior instincts.... I don't think it was His intention that I immediately enter the fray of cessationism versus continuation. No, I rather think He took me along that path to introduce me to the importance of baptism at conversion rather than infant baptism. Although, that, too, is a contentious topic of debate. But God isn't interested so much in our carnal contentions as He is in the growth of the soul in Christ.

I haven't had to deal with these debates for a long time -except in internet venues, and indeed shied away from them as debate in real life, placing the conversation purely in witness form: "This is what the Lord has done for me" . But there are times to stand ground... and this is one of those times.

First, I dislike this placed in the black and white form: "is tongues of God or not?" Like it or not, that is exactly how it often articulated for people. Any time the topic comes up, I think Christians should be aware of that... it is an old argument and carries alot of baggage with it. Implied within, "is it for today, or has it ceased" is the conclusion that if it is not given by God today then the manifestation today must come from another source. You-know-who. And I don't have to outline where that thinking leads concerning the state of fellow Christians who claim to have the experience. 'Delusion' is the kindest term. So I think we need to consider our judgments on the matter. Just what are we saying?

Hidden away in our comments is a link to Apologia Christi's The Grace Series: "Romans 5:1 - The Grace of Salvation" Part I and Part II. Check out these doctrinal posts and see what you think.

Interestingly enough I also found a post pertinent to some topics and discussions we have had here on Intellectuelle @ A Reasoned Faith The Weblog of C.L. Wynn. He discusses the issue of complementarianism and Women in the Church from the perspective of the act of discussion itself. That has made it a widely applicable viewpoint. In some ways the message is similar to Bonnies post on Evangelicalism. Another one to see what you think on the matter.

Along with Bonnies post, I am going to toss a few things out that I would like to talk about within the Christian community... mostly because it is prioritizing and changing my own life.

This week instead of blogging, instead of my own obligations of raising my family, instead of everything else, I am moving my mother into my home. I will be honest and say I have been disappointed in my less than helpful extended family. Yet, I can't seem to escape the commandment "Honor Thy Mother and Father". I don't want to escape it, I want to fulfill the Lord's Will in my life. Now, regardless of how I personally interpret this, how does today's Church interpret the care of one's elderly parents? I would like thoughts from others on this, and perhaps some dialog on this blog about the larger picture of how we view the elderly in our culture, where are we going as a society and how are we molding the future for our own senior years ( which I might say I am approaching faster than I like). ????? If you have a post-size thought , you could contact Bonnie and see about a guest post. When I get back from this stressful and busy week end I will look over whatever conversation, if any, and put more of my own thoughts out there.

Personally, for the last decade I have found myself squeezed as a mother and a person between the needs of still dependent children and increasingly dependent parents. I have gone through the demise of one and all the mistakes of that time and I am facing the caregiving of another.... if you wonder aobut why I blog- part of it is to stay sane ( although I know as a Christian that confession is frowned upon) . I am finding some reality checks in what is considered spiritaul and what is required practically.... and many more things than I can put into this tossed-off post, but I wanted to get the thinking out into the public forum and invite bloggers and commenters to give me their wisdom.

=====
I also want to remind you of Brians blog "a small faith" which is forming up into quite an interesting blog. He has posts on "free stuff", looking around the Christian blogosphere with stops like "Kyle examines how �community� is missed when we view the church as an enabler towards personal holiness ", and "A Little Taste of Tozer. Good stuff from a blogger that could be better known.

Another new and fine group blog is Natalie Jost's "Godly Creatives", a thinktank, meeting place for all sorts of Christian artistically inclined people, those producing, those seeking to produce, and those interested in the topic of Christian Art . To be found are insights like this:

""Do not despise these small beginnings, for the Lord rejoices to see the work begin." (Zech. 4:10 NLT)

All great artists were once beginners. Michelangelo did not begin by painting the Sistine Chapel. C.S. Lewis did not write the The Chronicles of Narnia in English 101 nor did J.R.R. Tolkien pen The Lord of the Rings trilogy as a novice.

In an interview with Mary Yerkes, Natalie made a fascinating statement, which I posted in my 'miniblog' category. "Interview with Natalie Jost
How do you define Christian art?

I don�t know if there is such a thing as Christian art really. I believe God created us all originally to be �Christian� in essence, even before Christ, so art in itself would be Christian by default because we would all be in that mindset already. The problem is that the world, through sin, has come to produce art from a worldview which deviates from God�s standard. In that way, you could define Christian art as anything created from a heart of godly worship, where the artist has a personal connection to God the Father, and Christ the Son, and who is led by the Holy Spirit to that end. It is reasonable to say that everything that person creates is Christian art."

Rusty Lopez, who is contributor @ Red Blue Christian thought "Kind of a broad-based pronouncement there, wouldn�t you say?" I can see both sides... and throwing out here to see what you thinking people have to say; in one sense isn't all we do and produce to be "Christian" in essence?

"discuss among yourselves"...as they say

Since I left you readers with two rather large topics and then flew off, it seemed a good idea to post the ideas given in the comments and spin off the topics properly into their prospective threads.

Christian Art

Part of Natalie Jost's original comment: I believe God created us all originally to be �Christian� in essence, even before Christ, so art in itself would be Christian by default because we would all be in that mindset already.

Bonnie's reaction:

Not sure I follow this... I'm interested in how we might define "Christian essence," though. Is it always recognizable, and can it only be exhibited by a true Christian? Is it possible for a Christian to make art that is not Christian? (I think it is.) There are so many factors involved, craft not being the least of them. Craft itself could be viewed as secular or as universally Christian, being given by God. Very interesting to me as a musician, etc.

Dana's reaction:

"As far as "Christian art" or "Christian essence" I think it goes both ways. I think that when someone who has a sincere love for God and the Christian faith produces a work while focused on that faith, the work will end up showing it.

Likewise, when someone who has professed faith in Christ produces a work of art, that work will (rightly or wrongly) be used to interpret and measure the artist's faith.

But I don't think that you can call all art from a Christian "Christian art," because I don't think we ARE in "that mindset" all the time."

All these views have their points... so let me add mine to shake it down a bit and start to think about what we define when we use the term "Christian Art".

I wrote my take on what is the root cause of such events as the latest "Amish school" killings. Basically, it all amounts to the hard-boiled moral bankruptcy of our society, or what the Bible names as "the hardened heart". Now, I find this article in 'First Things', which explores the aspect of what postmodern art says to us ... and how it says it. I find this as simply an underline or emphasis in my general view that what we have is not a "failure to communicate" to our society, but a communication which is steadily eroding it.

Robert T. Miller puts forth this idea at the beginning of the essay:

Characteristic of postmodernist art is transgression, the idea that the artist ought to produce works that violate traditional moral and aesthetic norms. The theory is that such norms are ultimately baseless, and thus violating them will liberate us from their tyranny and (the theory suddenly gets vague here) open up for us a new form of life that will somehow be better than that we have enjoyed in the past.

The actual point of the First Things essay is to point up the hypocrisy of the Left in its capitulation to the demands of fanatical Islam, but for me this illuminated force within our culture, that freedom is transgression, speaks also to the phenomenom of moral implosion inside the walls of our civitas, our Republic as the philosopher would define it.

We adulate transgression and insulate transgressors with our society's wordplay with the idea of "toleration". We have hardened our hearts, and teach tenets to perpetuate that, while wondering at the symptoms of senseless violence that repels all efforts to rally on issues seen to exacerbate or give rise to it. The hardened heart is teflon-coated to the call to a moral cause, and that is why we go nowhere on many of the most pressing moral issues of our day.

Such an example was on the news the other day. A reviewer asking questions of Bumfights creator, Ryan McPherson, repeatedly showed evidence of the impact of the videos on those who were convicted of the criminal acts of killing homeless victims, but was answered with denial of responsibility. The disconnect between the depiction of transgression without any real moral context mirrors the observations that Miller makes on the postmodern artists. As he says,"transgression remains popular with artists themselves because it allows them to pretend to speak truth to power, to pose as courageous intellectuals exposing the pretensions and predations of the bourgeois power structure." and "Postmodern art can exist only in a tolerant, liberal society of the kind postmodernists affect to criticize but are actually parasitic upon."

But the further conclusion is that we as a society actually coddle the violent by stripping away moral parameters in our quest to be "tolerant" in all that our contemporary definition would paint it: a heart hardened against all that is given the valuation of "good" while perversely finding pleasure in the depiction of evil in the interest of "This is what is going on".

Are we part of this, with our own hardened hearts, or are we weeping and speaking out a message that counteracts the headlong plunge into moral confusion? It is a question to ask yourself.

I leave the debate over what constitutes civilities to others... I have no real comments on the Ted Haggard issue, primarily because I believe we are not over the worst of such yet. I think lots more exposure of the church, its leaders and methods, is awaiting us. There will plenty to blog about -especially as we go into the next presidential campaign in earnest. So, in this time, and for this purpose, I want to resume looking at fundamental ideas and views we have which tend to articulate our direction in the culture,and as a culture. Our views of women, our ideals of egalitarianism.

What we think will determine how we act, and the degree of clarity we have will impact our ability to fend off manipulation that is a part of moving large groups to go in specific directions. In other words, the better handle we have on what and how we think the more likely that we act, as individuals and citizens, and saints, in concordance with our core beliefs.

So, in the service of that goal, a look at and discussion of some points in an article that was published 3/29/2006:
"Culture wars: Beware of presuming sameness" by Jonathan Zimmerman.

If you want a well- thought and researched essay, this isn't it, but I wanted to provoke some thinking.

In Resuming the Conversation I brought up the point that Islamic society and religion illustrates the structure of raw hierarchy in our world systems, especially as it concerns the place of women. The reason it is better for this than the example of Western cultures is because -whether it is recognized or not- Christianity so permeated the basic ideas of how we should relate to one another that it skews our view of the raw idea of hierarchical authority being God >man >woman. We give lots of nods to equality even though what we are advocating may not be aligned with that ideal of equality. In Islamic culture you get to see the raw reality. Women can do what men allow them to do. Men have the dominance in the decision making and ruling structure. Women operate within that, and to the degree that men are convinced that women are capable or have rights... to that degree the society gives women a place. Islamic-ruled societies illustrate what happens to women when men decide to take away that support for their rights, dignity of life, and significance.

Further, this serves as a warning to all Christian Traditionalists, who ought to see that much of what they are saying sends them on the same path. Islam, too, gives a lip service to ideas of equality, but the de facto actions make women terribly vulnerable to the whims of humanity. Now there is thought that ought to strike a warning bell in every Christian heart. If we know the sin nature and its outcomes...we want to -at every juncture- avoid being subject to the fickle whim of our fellow human beings; particularly as to whether we have rights or significance...or are able even to exist. It isn't mere hierarchy or structure that we need to commit to as a standard. And those who advocate "nature" as a standard rule are also on a fools errand. What ape form, or any animal, has a religion? Riddle me that one.

But back to illustrations from Islam....

In my last post, in the process of submitting ideas that we cannot use arguments of the "natural order" to definitively outline the role of women in the Church, or even all of women's roles in the culture, I was directed to Right Reason's posts,1 and 2, on 'natural law', as that is articulated in philosophical discussions. I would not argue with his statements in their context... and have not, in my own discussions. What I have done, and continue now, is discuss the limitations of such in the context of the New Testament revelation of a new creation which is being instituted through Christ Jesus.

I think we have to be careful not to conflate. Natural law theory as defined in his post argues the validity of "whether anything like the teleological conception of nature that the traditional natural law theory rested on is plausible".

Obviously when one reads the epistles of Paul we find that this is one way we have of determining truth in that area, because Paul uses it. But unlike St. Paul's careful use, I am saying that it is wrested in such a way by those arguing for their forms of traditional "hierarchial " or “complementarian” view that it is not only not useful, but it is dangerously close to - if not in fact- contradicting the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In ways, that I am arguing here, it can be found to make us subject again to "weak and beggarly elements". Natural Law outlines natural things... and does not always outline spiritual things, although there are things to be found answerable in each.

The most vulnerable place for conflation between the spiritual truth and the theory of natural law is in the ideas we have of authority. This is exactly the place where we are most at war in the church on the roles of women. The many times Paul is brought forth in chastising women is in this area of taking authority over men. I can find many reasons to uphold the wisdom of this, and it is a good place for the natural law theory to be applied, but we are in dire trouble when we start to apply that in our restriction of women's roles. We are invariably restricting them beyond the place that scripture does.

I found Sherry's post fascinating... along with the linked blog. As I was reading some of Franky's blog entries, there were a number of reactions. One, I wondered how much of his struggle was due to being the child of zealots, and how much was just plain old celebrity status syndrome. There are more than a few parallels.

What that doesn't explain is this phenomenon of equally fanatical rejection of a parents zealotry; because if you read carefully, Franky S. reports hearing from children of many types of "believers" who identify with his public confessions. Come to think of it, remember the son of Madelyn Murray O'Hare a number of years ago? That played big on the evangelical circuit for awhile.... and it was the same tortured resentment of the person as a parent and the demands of a cause. Many of us work through our childhoods...just not everyone is so well publicized in the effort.

I witnessed some of this during my time on the forums, and I wondered at it: the angry, angry, hostilities that are fermenting against dedicated Christianity. As dedicated Christians, this bears some closer examination from us.

I have a personal interest, also.

I haven't had time for very much recreational reading in this part of my life, so I seek to spend time with the essentials, as I decide them. The issue of women roles as viewed by the Church is one I wouldn't have judged as essential in earlier times in my life...but I have lived a little, and it now seems a matter that has a good deal of prominance in my thinking. I don't seem to be able to avoid examining the arguments on it any more. I believe because it touches on many of the essential parts of living our lives with purpose and meaning. The apostle Paul speaks of engaging lifes actions as a fighter in the ring- to lay punches purposefully and for full impact, not like some wimp flailing the air, doomed to a knockout.

1 Corinthians 9:
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. 25 And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. 26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

So, for many women who want to sincerely follow Christ, and hear "Well done, thou good and faithful servant" as much as the men do... it is vital that we get a handle on what the Bible says concerning us and our roles. Related to that, is our witness to a desperate world. We have to be able to properly articulate our faith- not simply in words, but in the way we live, our choices and realities. In that spirit, I present you this:
Adrian Warnock's blog has one the more important series of thoughts on this. He does an interview with Wayne Grudem, in four parts, which covers most of the important points on the issues at hand in the gender discussion.

I hope you will read it all. It isn't a series of posts that one can give slap-dash analysis on, and Christmas season does not lend itself to long periods of time on the computer, but I hope to relay some some thoughts on points that were made in the egalitaian vs. the hierarchal sides of the discussion. Wayne Grudem appears to be firmly in the hierarchal complementarian camp, and I hope to read through the online pdf files found @ Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth Online..

Interested in joining me in this?

Up to this time I mostly have dealt with ideas of women, their roles, etc. in terms of the Church. But I read this post tonight,and I wanted to bring it here for discussion. What about the new double standard described by Cassandra? Read the entire article for much more to talk about. I'm sure we will make our way back to the issues of women in the Church along the way. This is an extremely interesting view of gender and its crisis in the culture, IMHO.

Villainous Company: A Question Of Balance

The Greeks used the term thumos to denote the bristling, spirited element shared by human beings and animals that makes them fight back when threatened. It causes dogs to defend their turf; it makes human beings stand up for their kin, their religion, their country, their principles. "Just as a dog defends its master," writes Mansfield, "so the doggish part of the human soul defends human ends higher than itself."

Every human being possesses thumos. But those who are manly possess it in abundance, and sometimes in excess. The manly man is not satisfied to let things be as they are, and he makes sure everyone knows it. He invests his perception of injustice with cosmic importance.

Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic; but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Achilles, Brutus, and Sir Lancelot exemplify the glory of manliness, but also its darker sides. Theodore Roosevelt was manly; so was Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman. Manly men are confident in risky situations. Manliness can be pathological, as in gangsters and terrorists.

Manliness, says Mansfield, thrives on drama, conflict, risk, and exploits: "War is hell but men like it." Manliness is often aggressive, but when the aggression is tied to the concept of honor, it transcends mere animal spiritedness. Allied with reason, as in Socrates, manliness finds its highest expression.

Marine Corps training doesn't crush thumos. It finds a proper outlet for that energy and aggression and channels them. And it's no accident that a warrior culture is a highly structured and disciplined one beset with rules and regulations. Only in such a well regulated environment can so many highly charged individuals get along without killing each other. They co-exist peacefully because they willingly submit to authority and yet few, looking at a base full of Marines, would describe them as wimpy or feminized. This is why society bids men shave, wear neckties, and follow seemingly meaningless social conventions. These things are symbols; tokens of conformity - a voluntary willingness to submit to the often capricious dictates of the social contract; to harness that boundless energy and aggression in service to something larger than themselves. Yet, in just the last few decades a fairly remarkable thing has happened.

Women, whose similarly bridled femininity had been tightly constrained by a stifling set of societal mores, discovered feminism. And suddenly all bets were off.

Now, in the workplace and in the home both men and women are getting mixed messages. In many offices men are still being told they must wear ties and watch their language for signs of sexist thoughts or pronouns. Yet when I open up a fashion magazine, I see women who are definitely not typing pool material wearing low cut tops and extremely short or revealing skirts to the office. Years ago, such attire would have violated any number of office dress codes, not to mention torpedoing ones chances of promotion. Now such unbridled feminine sexuality in the workplace is considered "sophisticated". What kind of message is that sending to men: "Here I am, but don't you dare notice me as a sexual being because if you do, you're objectifying me?" O-kay.

Duo
1972
Julian Stanczak

An article introducing an exhibit of 'op art' gives an interesting interview with one of the artists represented, Julian Stanczak. Op art was one of those interesting phenomenons of the sixities, when it went mainstream into everything from posters and ads to ladies scarves. In some ways, it followed abstract's emphasis to the extreme with a reduction into the effects of color and pattern, quite apart fom representation life's objects.

When Christians, especially the more conservative, discuss art it is often to bemoan the flight from realistic representation. As a group we tend to elevate the type of art that speaks more didactically to us, and attribute the abstractions of the modern art age to the general chaos which attends the breakdown of a society. After reading some of Stanczak's comments... I took another look at this worldview idea.

I'm a great fan of Francis Schaeffer and he uses concepts of modern art to illustrate the decline of modern man in his quest for a universal in life, at once losing the idea of universals while becoming more disjointed in ability to communicate. In this, I think we ought to see the works of modern artists, who are pushing boundaries and really trying to say something with their art, as manifestations of philosophical problems we all face. It has its parallel in religion, too (the universals of the Eastern religions end up swallowing the individual details, the West's determined individualism fractures the sense of there being any whole). We seek a universal- the cohesion of the whole and how we, and all of the creation we see, holds together in meaning and relationship. But we are constantly finding ourselves fragmented and our attempts at universal truths laying shattered upon the foundations where we start. I think this explains the swing of the pendelum to minimalism and extremes of simplification. It is a tension that seeks relief in spurts of complexity and focus on detail, only to try again in the discovery of the universals. Each time this desire for wholeness on the part of man demands more ascetism of reduction. I think we see that in such types of art as "Op Art"... and Julian Stanczak gave what I thought was an important piece of the explanation of this process not only in the artist, but in all of us.

The Carpetbagger reports on the removal of a brass cross from the College of William and Mary's chapel. He rants about the "religious right" who "In order to practice their religion, the argument goes, Christian conservatives need special treatment and endorsement from a secular government" Supposedly. This accusation is connected to the lawsuit filed asking that an 18-inch brass cross that had been displayed on the altar of an on-campus chapel be returned to its place.

The Carpetbagger then launches into a general diatribe against the "religious right".

Well, how about this? How about looking at the systematic wiping away of historical artifacts and edifices be seen for what it is? A Maoist-like Red Guard "Cultural Revolution" that seeks to obliterate and subdue everything of the former culture that speaks of, symbolizes, or otherwise gives evidence of, what its own cultural agenda wishes to replace?

...and then disingenuously bringing accusation that the "religious right", euphemistically referring to Christians and their Christianity, is a dangerous force which is so onerous that it must be dealt with through nothing less than complete excision from the public venue by that vaguely mysterious man behind the curtain, "Secular" ( whoever or whatever that is in this context) government.

Somehow, "secular government" got along just fine for a very long time with the College of William and Mary's chapel cross intact... with references to Mosaic law in courtrooms... with "In God We Trust" imprinted upon the money.

But now, according to this new incarnation of a Red Guard...Guardians of the People, of course... everything with a reference to "God" somehow threatens the very fabric of freedom and democracy.

I say "Bah Humbug" to that. It is time to expose this so-called so-called "secular" agenda for what it is: a new religion.

I continued the conversation, at my own blog, on art that was begun here in "Seeking Perfect Art". Matt Harmless of "Harmless Thoughts" left a comment with a delightful link to some of NASA's pictures. In his entry,"NASA image of the day", he has the picture that I found most striking: The Eskimo Nebula. I wanted to share it with all of you.
Fabulous, isn't it!

Blasphemy- What is it? Who commits it? How can it be avoided?

We talk much of "scandal" but not much about its outcome, which, oftentimes, is blasphemy.

Following on the "love theme", and Bonnie's post with the example of William Wilberforce, I thought you all might be interested in the news item of renaming certain streets in Liverpool. It seems that the famous "Penny Lane" was named after a wealthy, locally well-known slaver, as are several other streets in the city. There is a good deal of background information in the article," 'Penny Lane' Revives Memories of Slavery"

It appears that

"Liverpool council member Barbara Mace last year proposed renaming streets associated with slavery, and was surprised to learn that Penny Lane was among them. After a lively controversy the proposal was withdrawn. "

The city council, which formally apologized in 1999, wants to recognize that part of its history in light of today's convictions regarding slavery and its tragic human toll, though the idea of changing street names does not seem to be the route they will follow.

There are reasons to revisit the history and think upon the struggle against slavery, however:

Anti-Slavery International, founded by the leaders of Britain's abolition movement, estimates that 12 million people are in some form of slavery today, as bonded laborers or in the sex trade.

Slavery is now illegal everywhere, said Beth Herzfeld of Anti-Slavery International, but "laws today are not being implemented."

"We have to not just reflect on the reality and horrors of the slave trade but to see that people power had a very important role in overthrowing the trade, and that people today still have a role to play," she said.

Another fact mentioned in the article is the role that the rising Quaker movement played:"abolitionists - a mass movement built on networks of Quakers, with Sharp, Wilberforce and Clarkson in prominent leadership roles. "

This underlines the importance of people allowing their faith to act out in the public forum as a force for good. The Quakers of that time were never primarily a social gospel movement, but one of sincere personal faith. It just isn't likely that a lively faith will be safely bottled up in "private religion" as it is "wished for" today. In quotes, because that is how I would personally express it.

It is not just a token or superficial effort to give attention to this, not just some PC hoop to jump through. The history and destiny of slavery, freedom, and our dual ideals of equality and the dignity of man are intertwined. The struggle is not yet over, and proper recognition of history helps to remind us.

Right Reason: Get with the program...or else

"Get with the program...or else" is how the present situation for a homeschooling family has become in Germany.

16-year-old homeschooled Melissa Busekros is unfortunate enough to have been "diagnosed" with it. Result: Melissa was dragged off by fifteen policemen to a psychiatric ward and now has been placed in foster care. ...the "resolution" in question would just mean Mr. and Mrs. Busekros could go their childless way without being further harassed. As things stand, they refused to give up all their children and are now themselves going to be "psychologically evaluated."

Of course, this is an amazing twist of events in increasingly Muslim Europe. Not too different from our own reaction that the more fear the fanatical Islamists engender the more the conservative Christian communities pay for it- in freedoms, in prejudice, and now it seems, in persecution. Fear of fanatical Islam increases, and Christians who wish to homeschool find their daughter dragged to psych wards and their family attacked with the full force of the Social Services aligned with the State police force. Explain to me the logic of that conclusion, please.

Here is a matter for protest from all who value freedom, and who care about human rights.
The story of Melissa Busekros' plight.
Girl's plea to the international communitiy.
Related:

Michael Farris, cofounder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, has called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of parents to educate their children at home, in light of such developments in Europe.

Are the concepts of understanding God’s will through the study of scripture and the revelatory sensing of His voice and direction truly oppositional? Do they not coincide throughout the scriptural account? I believe both are necessary to avoid error in discerning the Father’s will and following the Lord.

One of the first things encountered in the Christian walk is this desire to know and follow God’s will coupled with a disconcerting inability to do it with the tools of our former flesh-based methods. We become faced with the fact that spiritual things are spiritually discerned. That is why study alone, even of the Holy Scriptures is not, in itself, sufficient. If it were, we would not have the Pharisee. Likewise, though, if we were not to start there, either by hearing or reading of God’s Word, we would have no ability to recognize the genuine Person and character of God. We would instead just play futile guessing games hoping to come up lucky in knowing and understanding the Inexpressible, Immutable, Immortal God. If it weren’t so common an occupation you would laugh at the very thought of attempting it.

When God’s Word says of itself that “it is a light unto my feet”, it shows the initiating and illuminating quality of what God has already revealed through historical example and special revelation to specific chosen men. This brings up the reason written Scripture, as contained in the canon of the Bible, is so invaluable: it immediately outlines the path and eliminates a huge amount of trial and error in the understanding of God’s will. What fool rejects that tremendous advantage?

In that way, and in the importance of continued available guidance, as well as trusted standard of measure, the written scripture remains primary in importance. Yet, primary does not preclude things of importance in conjunction with it. In fact, I would submit that the open conversation between our spirit and God’s in a living organic relationship is taught within those scriptures by which we get our standard of spiritual measure. Since this is the point of contention between ideas of how to discern God’s will for our lives and make decisions in line with His nature, this is where we will begin the discussion.

I tossed around a few titles in my head:

Risking It All

Risky Business

One of the right risks to take in life are the ones that come with money.

In sharing some things here I realize, and I would like you to realize, that not everyone has the same internal makeup in tolerance for risk, or ways of dealing with the choices of life. I know there are some who fear taking on the responsibility of making decisions and others who arrogantly forge ahead with their own and others lives at stake. But most of us, most, just handle the unknowns of life balancing out the pros and cons in the best manner we deem appropriate.

One of the right risks to take in life are the ones that come with money. We risk when we decide to buy a home, or have a child, or change jobs. We risk financially when we decide to invest, or make a big expenditure. There are right times and places for all these things, and if we are too fearful, we sometimes miss out. If we are too foolhardy we lose opportunities we wished we had waited and been ready for. So, what makes us wise about the "right risks"? For all of us some of it is knowing ourselves, or at least enough about ourselves.

I know some of you wanted me to say "Find out what God says" first, but I think it actually takes place first in our own hearts. I think that is why so much is said in the scriptures about preparing the field, breaking up the fallow ground of the inner life, etc. The Words of God are like seeds and the single most important requisite for lively seed is the state of the soil bed it falls into. For real wisdom we need to know what God has to say about it, but wisdom needs to be received and honored to be followed. Maybe that is why the commandment to honor parents has a place in the top ten with God, we need to receive the wisdom of our predecessors. This is why it is so tragic when selfish parents choose rather to live lives of folly and not attain wisdom to pass on to their children. Still, you can't live very long without some sort of wisdom accruing, even if it is the "hard knocks" variety. That is worth paying attention to, and collecting. That is part of preparing the ground of our hearts for wisdom.

I have risked by taking responsibility for my own reproductive choices as much as possible. That has meant home birth and welcoming the children given me. Economically (and some would say in mental sanity) I risked by taking on a large size family. Certainly almost all my friends were opting for two or three children at the time. I have lived a long enough time to hear many say, " I wish, now.... I had had more children", etc. But we all take our risks and make our choices. Although few would likely take it as far as I have! LOL!

At this time of life I am risking investing in the stock market. Many probably think that is a crazier and worse choice than having a large investment in children, but there are only so many ways to prepare for old age. I have a high tolerance for risk, and a faith that personally translates into some of these pathways for me. God may lead you differently, but I think He wants for all of us to calculate (count the costs) and then take the risk of faith in many areas of life. That is what the ten stewards were given to do- go and put what what was given them to work. Sure we can lose, but this risk, if we have good faith in the way we approach it, tends to multiplication. When speaking of money, one of the ways of risking is by giving, although money is the easiest risk to take in giving to others, personal time and service are also things which we spend in life. All has a tendency to come back multiplied, but not all has the promise. Still.... Give Anyway. If you are a person who does so with faith in God, the calculated return is likely to be great. It is not always in the expected currency, or from the expected source, but God gives return with a full and running over measure.

I have missed some, and badly, in some of these calculated risks. I have a blind spot, typical for intp behavior types, of perceiving the actual motivations and needs of other persons -in contrast to seeing general patterns of people. I don't gauge that well, and my personal life -especially with trying to be a giving person to my family of origin, has burnt me badly and drained my resources. It cost me in other relationships,as well, but I chose that risk. Sometimes we do that(make poor choices) until we learn important lessons. And in that case, perhaps they gave us a better return for our expenditure than we imagined. Not all of life is amassing tangible things, or even having good experiences. Some of life is the golden hard currency of learned and banked wisdom, about ourselves, about God, about our fellow human beings.

Faith is taking a calculated risk on God's ability to come through for us. It isn't hope, but a direction of choice and reliance that is firmly embedded in the substance of who God is and what we understand He has done in the past. It is a foundation that can be built, through attending to hearing what He says, and buttressed, by the outcomes of what we have trusted Him for. We often think of faith as a commodity: "Give us more faith" when it is actually a life force that creates the commodities of spiritual life, "If you had the faith of a mustard seed". All life derives from a God who gives it liberally and willingly. He has placed the seeds of faith within us, and we take the action, the risk, of putting it into the ground of our lives.

That is why reading the scriptures is - in the sense of an analogy- like reading stock reports, analyses, and advice experts. We understand the stability and security of what we are putting our trust in, we look at the returns of the past from others who have faced these same situations. We rely on what has been proven, in times past, and for others, and what the future prospect